The Authoritarian Personality

STUDIES IN PREJUDICE

THE

EDITED BY M A X

HORKHEIMER

AND SAMUEL H.

FLOWERMAN

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

By T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunsivik, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford DYNAMICS OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL

AND

PREJUDICE

SOCIOLOGICAL

STUDY

OF

VETERANS

by Bruno Bettelheim and Morris Janoivitz ANTI-SEMITISM AND ECONOMICAL A PSYCHOANALYTIC

DISORDER

INTERPRETATION

by Nathan W. Ackerman and Marie Jahoda R E H E A R S A L FOR

DESTRUCTION

A STUDY OF POLITICAL ANTI-SEMITISM IN IMPERIAL GERMANY

by Paul W. Massing PROPHETS OF

DECEIT

A STUDY OF THE TECHNIQUES OF THE AMERICAN AGITATOR

by Leo Loiventhal and Norbert Guterman Other Volumes in Preparation

SPONSORED

BY

THE AMERICAN J E W I S H C O M M I T T E E SOCIAL STUDIES SERIES: PUBLICATION NO. Ill

FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE At this moment in world history anti-Semitism is not manifesting itself with the full and violent destructiveness of which we know it to be capable. Even a social disease has its periods of quiescence during which the social scientists, like the biologist or the physician, can study it in the search for more effective ways to prevent or reduce the virulence of the next outbreak. Today the world scarcely remembers the mechanized persecution and extermination of millions of human beings only a short span of years away in what was once regarded as the citadel of Western civilization. Yet the con­ science of many men was aroused. H o w could it be, they asked each other, that in a culture of law, order, and reason, there should have survived the irrational remnants of ancient racial and religious hatreds? How could they explain the willingness of great masses of people to tolerate the mass ex­ termination of their fellow citizens? W h a t tissues in the life of our modern society remain cancerous, and despite our assumed enlightenment show the incongruous atavism of ancient peoples? And what within the individual organism responds to certain stimuli in our culture with attitudes and acts of destructive aggression? But an aroused conscience is not enough if it does not stimulate a systematic search for an answer. Mankind has paid too dearly for its naive faith in the automatic effect of the mere passage of time; incantations have really never dispelled storms, disaster, pestilence, disease or other evils; nor does he who torments another cease his torture out of sheer boredom with his victim. Prejudice is one of the problems of our times for which everyone has a theory but no one an answer. Every man, in a sense, believes that he is his own social scientist, for social science is the stuff of everyday living. The progress of science can perhaps be charted by the advances that scientists have made over commonsense notions of phenomena. In an effort to advance beyond mere commonsense approaches to problems of intergroup conflict, the American Jewish Committee in May, 1 9 4 4 , invited a group of American scholars of various backgrounds and disciplines to a two-day conference on religious and racial prejudice. At this meeting, a research program was out­ lined which would enlist scientific method in the cause of seeking solutions to this crucial problem. T w o levels of research were recommended. One was more limited in scope and geared to the recurring problems faced by edu­ cational agencies; e.g., the study of public reaction to selected current

vi

FOREWORD

TO STUDIES IN

PREJUDICE

events, and the evaluation of various techniques and methods such as those involved in mass media of communication as they impinge upon intergroup relationships. The other level suggested was one of basic research, basic in that it should result eventually in additions to organized knowledge in this field. The first level frequently consists of a large number of small studies, limited in scope and focused sharply on a given issue. In practice, w e have found that the "goodness" of our smaller studies was proportional to our ingenuity in so devising them that they, too, could contribute basically to knowledge. The chief difference between the two levels of research-some­ times loosely called "short-range" and "long-range" research-seems largely to be due to the immediacy of implementation of findings as program-related or unrelated, rather than to differences in methodology, skills and tech­ niques. On both levels, it is necessary to pursue an interdisciplinary approach to research problems. T o further research on both levels, the American Jewish Committee estab­ lished a Department of Scientific Research, headed in turn b y each of us. The department saw its responsibility not only in itself initiating fundamental studies in the phenomenon of prejudice, but also in helping to stimulate new studies. The present series of volumes represents the first fruits of this effort. In a sense, the initial five volumes constitute one unit, an integrated whole, each part of which illuminates one or another facet of the phenomenon we call prejudice. Three of the books deal with those elements in the personal­ ity of modern man that predispose him to reactions of hostility to racial and religious groups. T h e y attempt answers to the question: W h a t is there in the psychology of the individual that renders him "prejudiced" or "un­ prejudiced," that makes him more or less likely to respond favorably to the agitation of a Goebbels or a Gerald K. Smith? The volume on The Au­ thoritarian Personality b y Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford, based upon a combination of research techniques, suggests one answer. It demonstrates that there is a close correlation between a number of deeprooted personality traits, and overt prejudice. The study has also succeeded in producing an instrument for measuring these traits among various strata of the population. Within a more limited range of inquiry, the same question was asked with respect to two specific groups. The study on Dynamics of Prejudice by Bettelheim and Janowitz, considers the connection between personality traits and prejudice among war veterans. Here the investigators were able to examine the impact of the war experience, with its complex anxieties and tensions, as an added factor of major significance affecting tens of millions of people. Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder by Ackerman and Jahoda, is based upon case histories of a numbe-r of individuals, from different walks of life, who have received intensive psychotherapy. The special sig-

FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE

vii

nificance of this study lies precisely in the analytical source of the material, in the availability of a body of evidence dealing with phenomena beneath the realm of the conscious and the rational, and illuminating the correlation established in more general terms in the basic investigation of the authori­ tarian personality. The other important factor in prejudice is of course the social situation itself, i.e., the external stimuli to which the predispositions within the indi­ vidual have reacted and continue to react. Nazi Germany is the vivid example of the effect of the social situation, and it is to the understanding of the roots of Nazi anti-Semitism and thence to the present task of democratic reorienta­ tion in Germany that Rehearsal for Destruction by Massing is directed. As mediator between the world and the individual psyche, the agitator molds already existing prejudices and tendencies into overt doctrines and ultimately into overt action. In the Prophets of Deceit by Lowenthal and Guterman the role of the agitator is studied. The agitator's technique of persuasion, the mechanism of mediation that translates inchoate feeling into specific belief and action make up the theme of that volume. It may strike the reader that we have placed undue stress upon the per­ sonal and the psychological rather than upon the social aspect of prejudice. This is not due to a personal preference for psychological analysis nor to a failure to see that the cause of irrational hostility is in the last instance to be found in social frustration and injustice. Our aim is not merely to describe prejudice but to explain it in order to help in its eradication. That is the challenge we would meet. Eradication means re-education, scientifically planned on the basis of understanding scientifically arrived at. And education in a strict sense is by its nature personal and psychological. Once we under­ stand, for example, how the war experience may in some cases have strength­ ened personality traits predisposed to group hatred, the educational remedies may follow logically. Similarly, to expose the psychological tricks in the arsenal of the agitator may help to immunize his prospective victims against them. Since the completion of these studies the Department of Scientific Re­ search of the American Jewish Committee has moved ahead into areas of research in which the unit of study is the group, the institution, the com­ munity rather than the individual. Fortified by a better knowledge of indi­ vidual dynamics, we are now concerned with achieving a better understand­ ing of group dynamics. For we recognize that the individual in vacuo is but an artifact; even in the present series of studies, although essentially psycho­ logical in nature, it has been necessary to explain individual behavior in terms of social antecedents and concomitants. The second stage of our research is thus focused upon problems of group pressures and the sociological de­ terminants of roles in given social situations. W e seek answers to such ques-

v

iii

FOREWORD

TO STUDIES IN

PREJUDICE

tions as: W h y does an individual behave in a "tolerant" manner in one situation and in a "bigoted" manner in another situation? T o what extent may certain forms of intergroup conflict, which appear on the surface to be based upon ethnic difference, be based upon other factors, using ethnic difference as content? The authors of the volumes and the many colleagues upon whose experi­ ence and assistance they have been able to draw have widely differing pro­ fessional interests. This is immediately reflected in the various techniques they have used, even in the w a y they write. Some of the books are more technical, others more "readable." W e have not sought uniformity. A search for the truth conducted in accordance with the best techniques of the contemporary social sciences was our sole aim. Yet through all this diversity of method and technique a significant measure of agreement has been achieved. The problem requires a much more extensive and much more sustained effort than any single institution, or any small group such as ours, could hope to put forth. It was our hope that whatever projects we could undertake would not only be contributions in themselves, but would also serve to stimulate active interest in continued study by other scholars. W i t h deep satisfaction we have watched the steady increase in scientific publications in this field in the past few years. W e believe that any study that bears upon this central theme, if carried out in a truly scientific spirit, cannot help but bring us closer to the theoretical, and ultimately to the practical, solution of the problem of reducing intergroup prejudice and hatred. This foreword to Studies in Prejudice would not be complete without a tribute to the vision and leadership of Dr. John Slawson^Executive VicePresident of the American Jewish Committee, who was responsible for call­ ing the conference of scholars and for establishing the Department of Scientific Research. Both editors owe Dr. Slawson a debt of gratitude for the inspiration, guidance, and stimulation which he gave them. MAX HORKHEIMER SAMUEL H .

FLOWERMAN

PREFACE This is a book about social discrimination. But its purpose is not simply to add a few more empirical findings to an already extensive body of in­ formation. The central theme of the work is a relatively new concept— the rise of an "anthropological" species we call the authoritarian type of man. In contrast to the bigot of the older style he seems to combine the ideas and skills which are typical of a highly industrialized society with irrational or anti-rational beliefs. He is at the same time enlightened and superstitious, proud to be an individualist and in constant fear of not being like all the others, jealous of his independence and inclined to submit blindly to power and authority. The character structure which comprises these conflicting trends has already attracted the attention of modern philosophers and political thinkers. This book approaches the problem with the means of sociopsychological research. The implications and values of the study are practical as well as theo­ retical. The authors do not believe that there is a short cut to education which will eliminate the long and often circuitous road of painstaking re­ search and theoretical analysis. Nor do they think that such a problem as the position of minorities in modern society, and more specifically the prob­ lem of religious and racial hatreds, can be tackled successfully either by the propaganda of tolerance or by apologetic refutation of errors and lies. On the other hand, theoretical activity and practical application are not separated by an unbridgeable gulf. Quite the contrary: the authors are imbued with the conviction that the sincere and systematic scientific elucidation of a phenomenon of such great historical meaning can contribute directly to an amelioration of the cultural atmosphere in which hatred breeds. This conviction must not be brushed aside as an optimistic illusion. In the history of civilization there have been not a few instances when mass de­ lusions were healed not by focused propaganda but, in the final analysis, because scholars, with their unobtrusive yet insistent work habits, studied what lay at the root of the delusion. Their intellectual contribution, operat­ ing within the framework of the development of society as a whole, was decisively effective. I should like to cite two examples. The superstitious belief in witchcraft was overcome in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries after men had come more and more under the influence of the results of modern science. The impact of Cartesian rationalism was decisive. This school of philosophers ix

X

PREFACE

demonstrated—and the natural scientists following them made practical use of their great insight—that the previously accepted belief in the immediate effect of spiritual factors on the realm of the corporal is an illusion. Once this scientifically untenable dogma was eliminated, the foundations of the belief in magic were destroyed. As a more recent example, we have only to think of the impact of Sigmund Freud's work on modern culture. Its primary importance does not lie in the fact that psychological research and knowledge have been enriched by new findings but in the fact that for some fifty years the intellectual world, and especially the educational, has been made more and more aware of the con­ nection between the suppression of children (both within the home and out­ side) and society's usually naive ignorance of the psychological dynamics of the life of the child and the adult alike. The permeation of the social conscious­ ness at large with the scientifically acquired experience that the events of early childhood are of prime importance for the happiness and work-po­ tential of the adult has brought about a revolution in the relation between parents and children which would have been deemed impossible a hundred years ago. The present work, we hope, will find a place in this history of the inter­ dependence between science and the cultural climate. Its ultimate goal is to open new avenues in a research area which can become of immediate prac­ tical significance. It seeks to develop and promote an understanding of social-psychological factors which have made it possible for the authoritarian type of man to threaten to replace the individualistic and democratic type prevalent in the past century and a half of our civilization, and of the factors b y which this threat may be contained. Progressive analysis of this new "anthropological" type and of its growth conditions, with an ever-increas­ ing scientific differentiation, will enhance the chances of a genuinely educa­ tional counterattack. Confidence in the possibility of a more systematic study of the mecha­ nisms of discrimination and especially of a characterological discriminationtype is not based on the historical experience of the last fifteen years alone, but also on developments within the social sciences themselves during recent decades. Considerable and successful efforts have been made in this country as well as in Europe to raise the various disciplines dealing with man as a social phenomenon to the organizational level of cooperation that has been a tradition in the natural sciences. W h a t I am thinking of are not merely mechanical arrangements for bringing together work done in various fields of study, as in symposia or textbooks, but the mobilization of different methods and skills, developed in distinct fields of theory and empirical in­ vestigation, for one common research program. Such cross-fertilization of different branches of the social sciences and psychology is exactly what has taken place in the present volume. Experts

PREFACE

XI

in the fields of social theory and depth psychology, content analysis, clinical psychology, political sociology, and projective testing pooled their experi­ ences and findings. Having worked together in the closest cooperation, they now present as the result of their joint efforts the elements of a theory of the authoritarian type of man in modern society. T h e y are not unmindful that they were not the first to have studied this phenomenon. T h e y gratefully acknowledge their debt to the remarkable psychological profiles of the prejudiced individual projected by Sigmund Freud, Maurice Samuel, Otto Fenichel, and others. Such brilliant insights were in a sense the indispensable prerequisites for the methodological in­ tegration and research organization which the present study has attempted, and we think achieved to a certain degree, on a scale previously unapproached. Institutionally, this book represents a joint undertaking of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and the Institute of Social Research. Both organiza­ tions had already made their mark in efforts to integrate various sciences and different research methods. The Berkeley Public Opinion Study had de­ voted itself to the examination of prejudice in terms of social psychology and had hit upon the close correlation between overt prejudice and certain personality traits of a destructive nihilistic nature, suggested by an ir­ rationally pessimistic ideology of the intolerant. The Institute of Social Research was dedicated to the principle of theoretical and methodological integration from its earliest days at the University of Frankfurt, and pub­ lished several studies growing out of this basic approach. In one volume, on authority and the family, the concept of the "authoritarian personality" was put forward as a link between psychological dispositions and political lean­ ings. Pursuing this line of thought further, the Institute formulated and published in 1 9 3 9 a comprehensive research project on anti-Semitism. Some five years later, a series of discussions with the late Dr. Ernst Simmel and Professor R. Nevitt Sanford of the University of California laid the basis for the present project. As finally organized, the research staff was headed b y four senior mem­ bers, Dr. R. N . Sanford of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and Dr. T. W . Adorno of the Institute of Social Research, who were the directors, and Dr. Else Frenkel-Brunswik and Dr. Daniel Levinson. Their collaboration was so close, perhaps I should say democratic, and the work so evenly di­ vided among them that it became clear at an early stage that they ought to share equally in the responsibility and the credit for the present publica­ tion. The main concepts of the study were evolved b y the team as a whole. This is true above all of the idea of the indirect measurement of antidemo­ cratic trends, the F scale. Some division of labor could not be avoided, however, and it proved advisable to have the various chapters signed b y individual staff members, The actual writing process necessarily involves

Xii

PREFACE

a more intimate occupation with the materials under consideration and thus a measure of more specific responsibility. Nevertheless, the fact remains that each of the four senior members contributed to every chapter and hence that the work as a whole is thoroughly collective. It may be of interest to note the primary assignments of each of the senior staff members during the actual research process. Dr. Sanford con­ ceived the w a y the various techniques should be combined and planned the research procedures. Much of his time was devoted to detailed case studies, with special reference to the dynamic etiology of the prejudiced personality. Dr. Adorno introduced sociological dimensions related to personality factors and characterological concepts concomitant with authoritarianism. He also analyzed the ideological sections of the interviews b y means of categories of social theory. Dr. Brunswik formulated some of the first personality variables of the research. On the basis of her earlier work, she carried through the systematic, dynamically oriented categorization and quantification of the interview material. Dr. Levinson had primary responsibility for the AS, E, and PEC scales, for the analysis of ideology in psychological terms, for the Projective Question analysis, and for the statistical design and procedure. Three monographic chapters, one an over-all presentation of the meth­ odology and results of one of the main techniques, the Thematic A p ­ perception Test, and two dealing with "critical" groups were written by Betty Aron, Maria Levinson, and William Morrow. All three were perma­ nently on the staff of the study and completely familiar with its progress. The project could not have been realized without the generous and intel­ ligent support of the American Jewish Committee. In 1 9 4 4 the Committee, feeling the need for a sound research basis for the financial and organizational support it planned to give to cooperative studies, of a type which this book exemplifies, decided to create a Department of Scientific Research. From the first the Department was conceived as a scientific center to stimulate and co-ordinate the work of leading scientists in the sociology and psychology of prejudice and, at the same time, as a laboratory for evaluating action pro­ grams. Though the members of the Department's research staff are con­ stantly under pressure to solve problems set up for them b y the day-to-day work of an extensive organization fighting for democratic rights on several broad fronts, they have never shirked the responsibility of furthering basic research programs. This volume symbolizes that link between democratic education and fundamental research. MAX HORKHEIMER,

Director, Institute of Social Research

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their indebtedness to the American Jewish Committee for the grants which sustained their research during a period of two and one-half years. T h e y owe a special debt of gratitude to Dr. Max Horkheimer, Director of the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee at the time the present study was undertaken. Dr. Horkheimer played the crucial role in the initiation of the study, and he remained closely identified with it until the end; he contributed ideas, guidance, encouragement and untiring activity in support of our aims. W e wish to thank him, further, for contributing the preface to this volume. T o Dr. Samuel Flowerman, who succeeded Dr. Horkheimer as Director of the Department of Scientific Research of the American Jewish Committee, the authors are likewise heavily indebted. Dr. Flowerman's interest, advice, and tangible help in practical matters were invaluable in bringing about the publication of this volume. Our collaborators, Betty Aron, Maria Levinson, and Dr. William Morrow, are to be thanked not only for their special studies which contribute so substantially to the content of this volume but for their participation in all phases of the study as a whole. For extended periods during the course of the study each of them contributed to the development of theory and to the collection, analysis and interpretation of data in areas other than those covered by their special studies. Dr. Suzanne Reichard, who conducted a special investigation of the Rorschach records of some of our subjects, like­ wise participated in the various phases of the study; she devoted most of her time to administering the Thematic Apperception Test, interviewing sub­ jects and assisting in the analysis and interpretation of the interview material. In conducting interviews with our subjects in the San Francisco Bay Area we had the able assistance of Dr. Merle Elliott, Virginia Ives, Dr. Mary Cover Jones, Sheila Moon and Rose Segure. Rose Segure also assisted, as did Jack Danielson, in making the arrangements whereby certain groups of subjects filled out our questionnaires. Dr. Winfield Wickham generously cooperated by administering the Thematic Apperception Test to a large group of our subjects, and Roger Bardsley assisted in the analysis of Thematic Appercep­ tion Test records. Numerous colleagues and friends read all or parts of the manuscript, took the time to discuss it with us, and made many corrections, suggestions, and helpful criticisms. W e wish to express our appreciation to Dr. Egon Brunsxiii

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

wik, Frederick Carpenter, Dr. William R. Dennes, Dr. Ernst Kris, Dr. Calvin Hall, Dr. David Krech, Dr. Boyd McCandless, Dr. Robert Merton, Dr. Donald MacKinnon, Dr. Gardner Murphy, Dr. Lois B. Murphy, Dr. Milton Rokeach, Richard Seymour, and Dr. Edward Tolman. Dr. Rheem Jarrett and Dr. George Kuznets deserve special thanks for their valuable advice in statistical matters. Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII and XIX, were prepared in continuous col­ laboration with members of the Institute of Social Research. Particular thanks are due Dr. Leo Lowenthal and Dr. Frederick Pollock. The latter also participated in organizing a small staff to carry on our research in Los Angeles. The gathering of data was here supervised by Dr. J . F. Brown, who also contributed important theoretical concepts. The distribution and collection of questionnaires and the interviewing of subjects in Los Angeles was in the hands of Emily Gruen and Carol Creedon, assisted by Ida Malcolm and James Mower. Grace Berg and Margaret W e i l served ably as secretaries, and Margot von Mendelssohn, permanent secretary of the Institute of Social Research, devoted a large part of her time to this project. Dr. Fred­ erick Hacker, Dr. Ernest L e w y , and Dr. Marcel Frym participated in the seminars which were held regularly in Los Angeles while the research was in progress there; their devotion to the study is particularly appreciated. The mountainous task of scoring, tabulating and performing innumerable statistical operations upon the material gathered by means of some 2 0 0 0 questionnaires was performed with patience and care by Elian Ulery and Anne Batchelder Morrow. T h e y were assisted in no small w a y by Lionel Whitnah, Jack Danielson, Frank Vanasek, and Nannette Heiman. Elian Ulery and Anne Batchelder Morrow also deserve much credit for their scoring of the material elicited b y the "projective questions" described in Chapter XV. Dr. Alfred Glixman is to be thanked for performing a special correlational analysis of our attitude scales—work which is described in Chapters IV and VII. At different periods during the course of the study, Marjorie Castagnetto, Anne Vollmar and Zelma Seidner had charge of the secretarial work in Berkeley. Each in turn, with complete loyalty and superior competence, assumed the enormous burden of typing records and manuscripts and, in addition, took responsibility for the innumerable small but crucially im­ portant tasks incident to keeping in motion a research involving numerous workers and subjects. Our most heartfelt thanks go to Anne Vollmar who, in addition to performing the secretarial work described above, labored with endless patience and devotion to make something relatively uniform and presentable out of the manuscripts of all shapes and sizes which we handed her—an editorial job of enormous proportion—and whose serenity and wisdom in practical matters were relied upon and deeply appreciated by all members of our staff. Alice Wilson, Alice Davis, Ruth Gay, Betty

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

XV

Cummings, and Edna Sexias also helped with the typing of records and manuscript; we greatly appreciate their willingness to be called upon when needed. If we were to mention here all the people who cooperated by making arrangements for us to administer our questionnaires to the groups with which they were associated, and other people who assisted in particular aspects of the study, the list would be very long indeed. Acknowledgments are made at appropriate places in the chapters that follow. T o complete a special project lying within the scope of our study and to meet unexpected expenses connected with preparation of the manuscript for publication it was necessary to seek financial aid in addition to that described above. W e are indebted to the Social Science Research Council for the Grant-in-Aid which made possible the correlational analysis de­ scribed in Chapters IV and VII, and to the Rosenberg Foundation, the Re­ search Board of the University of California, the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of California and the Graduate Division of Western Reserve University for their support in time of special need. Finally, we are grateful to Dr. Felix J . W e i l of the Institute of Social R e ­ search. He contributed many helpful criticisms of the manuscript, under­ took the arduous task of coordinating all the proof reading, and performed invaluable services of an editorial nature. THE

AUTHORS

CONTENTS

/.

FOREWORD TO STUDIES IN PREJUDICE

V

PREFACE BY MAX HORKHEIMER

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

XUi

INTRODUCTION

' 1

A.

THE PROBLEM

B.

METHODOLOGY

I 11

1. General Characteristics of the Method, 11; 2. T h e Techniques, 13 C.

PROCEDURES IN THE COLLECTION OF DATA

19

1. The Groups Studied, 19; 2. The Distribution and Collection of Questionnaires, 23; 3. The Selection of Subjects for Intensive Clinical Study, 25 PART I

T H E M E A S U R E M E N T OF IDEOLOGICAL TRENDS

//.

THE CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COL­ LEGE MEN: A PRELIMINARY VIEW-R. Nevitt Sanford 3 1 A.

INTRODUCTION

31

B.

MACK: A MAN HIGH ON ETHNOCENTRISM

32

C.

LARRY: A MAN LOW ON ETHNOCENTRISM

37

D.

ANALYSIS OF THE TWO CASES

39

1. Ideology Concerning the Jews, 4 1 ; 2. General Ethnocentrism, 43; 3. Politics, 45; 4. Religion, 52; 5. V o ­ cation and Income, 54

///.

THE STUDY Levinson

OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY-Daniel

J. 57

A.

INTRODUCTION

57

B.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM ( A - S ) SCALE

58

1. General Rules in Item Formulation, 59; 2. Major Sub­ divisions or Areas: The Subscales, 62; 3. T h e Total AntiSemitism ( A - S ) Scale, 68 xvii

XV111

CONTENTS c.

RESULTS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCALE

71

1. Reliability, 72; 2. Inter correlations of the Subscales, 74; 3. Internal Consistency: Statistical Analysis of the Individual Items, 76

IV.

D.

THE SHORT FORM OF THE A-S SCALE

E.

VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE

89

F.

DISCUSSION: THE STRUCTURE OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

92

THE STUDY J. Levinson

OF ETHNOCENTRIC

83

IDEOLOGY-Daniel i°

A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM

2

102 ( E ) SCALE

IO4

1. Major Subdivisions or Areas: T h e Subscales, 105; 2. T h e Total Ethnocentrism (E) Scale, 109 C.

RESULTS: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SCALE

109

1. Reliability, 112; 2. Intercorrelations Among the Subscales, 113; 3. Internal Consistency: Statistical Analysis of the Individual Items, 114; 4. Second Form of the E Scale (Form 7 8 ) , 116 D.

THE INCLUSION OF ANTI-SEMITISM WITHIN

GENERAL

ETH­ 1

NOCENTRISM

2

2

1. The Third Form of the E Scale (Form 6 0 ) , 123; 2. The Fourth Form of the E Scale (Forms 45 and 4 0 ) , 127; 3. A Suggested Final E Scale, 141 E.

VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND

F.

CONCLUSIONS: THE STRUCTURE OF ETHNOCENTRIC

LARRY ON THE E SCALE

143 IDEOLOGY

145

V. POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEM­ BERSHIPS IN RELATION TO ETHNOCENTRISM— Daniel J. Levinson 151 A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

CONSTRUCTION

15 OF

THE

POLITICO-ECONOMIC

1

CONSERVATISM

( P E C ) SCALE

153

1. Some Major Trends in Contemporary Liberalism and Conservatism, 153; 2. The Initial PEC Scale (Form 7 8 ) , 157; 3. The Second PEC Scale (Form 6 0 ) , 163; 4. The Third PEC Scale (Forms 45 and 4 0 ) , 168; 5. Discussion: Some Patterns of Contemporary Liberalism and Conserva­ tism, 175 C.

THE RELATION RETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM AND CONSERVATISM 1 7 8

D.

VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE PEC SCALE

183

CONTENTS

xix

E.

THE RELATION BETWEEN ETHNOCENTRISM AND MEMBERSHIP IN VARIOUS POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GROUPINGS

I 85

F.

CONCLUSIONS

207

VI. ETHNOCENTRISM GIOUS ATTITUDES ford

IN RELATION TO SOME RELI­ AND PRACTICES-R. Nevitt San208

A.

INTRODUCTION

208

B.

RESULTS

208

1. Religious Group Memberships, 208; 2. "Importance" of Religion and the Church, 215; 3. 'Scale Items, 218

VII.

c.

DISCUSSION

219

D.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

2 20

THE MEASUREMENT OF IMPLICIT ANTIDEMO­ CRATIC TRENDS-R. Nevitt Sanford, T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunsivik, and Daniel J. Levinson 222 A.

INTRODUCTION

22 2

B.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE FASCISM ( F ) SCALE

224

1. The Underlying Theory, 224; Scale Items, 241 C.

2. The Formulation of

RESULTS WITH SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE F SCALE

242

1. Statistical Properties of the Preliminary Scale (Form 78), 242; 2. Item Analysis and Revision of the Prelimi­ nary Scale, 244; 3. The Second F Scale: Form 60, 247; 4. The Third F Scale: Forms 45 and 40, 252 D.

CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE WITH E AND WITH PEC

E.

DIFFERENCES IN MEAN F-SCALE SCORE AMONG VARIOUS GROUPS 2 6 5

F.

VALIDATION BY CASE STUDIES: THE

G.

VIII.

262

F-SCALE RESPONSES OF

MACK AND LARRY

269

CONCLUSION

279

ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELATION TO INTELLI­ GENCE AND EDUCATION-Daniel J. Levinson 280 PART II

PERSONALITY A S REVEALED T H R O U G H CLINICAL INTERVIEWS

/X.

THE INTERVIEWS AS AN APPROACH TO THE PREJ­ UDICED PERSONALITY-Else Frenkel-Brunswik 291 A.

INTRODUCTION:

B.

SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR THE INTERVIEWS

COMPARISON OF GROUPS

1. Basis of Selection, 294;

2. Representativeness of the

291 294

CONTENTS

Interviewees, 295;

3. Approaching the Interviewees, 300

C.

THE INTERVIEWERS

D.

SCOPE AND TECHNIQUE OF THE INTERVIEW

3

o t

302

1. General Plan for the Interview, 302; 2. "Underlying" and "Manifest" Questions, 303; 3. General Instructions to the Interviewers, 303 E.

THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

304

1. Vocation, 304; 2. Income, 307; 3. Religion, 310; 4. Clinical Data, 312; 5. Politics, 320; 6. Minorities and "Race," 322 F.

THE SCORING OF THE INTERVIEWS

325

1. Quantification of Interview Data, 325; 2. Broad Out­ line of Categories in the Interview Scoring Manual, 326; 3. The Interview Rating Procedure and the Raters, 327; 4. Reliability of the Interview Ratings, 328; 5. Minimiz­ ing Halo-Effects in Rating the Interviews, 333; 6. Tabu­ lation of Interview Ratings b y Categories: Statistical Sig­ nificance, 334

PARENTS AND CHILDHOOD AS SEEN THE INTERVIEWS-Else Frenkel-Brunswik

THROUGH 337

A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPTION OF THE FAMILY 3 3 8

337

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re­ sults, 338; 2. Idealization vs. Objective Appraisal of Par­ ents, 340; 3. Genuineness of Affect, 346; 4. Feelings of Victimization, 347; 5. Submission vs. Principled Inde­ pendence, 350; 6. Dependence for Things vs. Depend­ ence for Love, 353; 7. Ingroup Orientation to the Family, 356 C.

CONCEPTIONS OF CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT

358

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative R e ­ sults, 358; 2. Image of the Father in Men: Distant and Stern vs. Relaxed and Mild, 359; 3. Image of the Father in Women: T h e Role of Provider, 365; 4. Image of the Mother: Sacrifice, Moralism, Restrictiveness, 366; 5. Parental Conflict, 368; 6. Father-Dominated vs. MotherOriented Home, 370; 7. Discipline: Harsh Application of Rules vs. Assimilation of Principles, 371 D.

CHILDHOOD EVENTS AND ATTITUDES TOWARD SIBLINGS

376

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re­ sults, 376; 2. Attitudes Toward Siblings, 377; 3. Child­ hood Events, 382; 4. Status Concern, 382 E.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ON FAMILY PATTERNS 3 8 4

CONTENTS

X/.

XXI

SEX, PEOPLE, AND SELF AS SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS—Else Frenkel-Brunsivik A.

THE

ATTITUDE TOWARD SEX

390 3 00

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re­ sults, 390; 2. Status via Sex, 393; 3. Moralistic Rejec­ tion of Instinctual Tendencies, 395; 4. "Pure" vs. "Bad" Women, 397; 5. Ego-Alien Ambivalence vs. "Fondness," 399; 6. Exploitive Manipulation for Power, 400; 7. Conventionality vs. Individualism, 402; 8. Summary, 404 B.

ATTITUDE TOWARD PEOPLE

405

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re­ sults, 405; 2. Moralistic Condemnation vs. Permissive­ ness, 406; 3. Extrapunitiveness, 409; 4. W o r l d as Jun­ gle, 411; 5. Hierarchical vs. Equalitarian Conception of Human Relations, 413; 6. Dependence for Things, 414; 7. Manipulation vs. Libidinization of People and Genuine W o r k Adjustment, 415; 8. Social Status vs. Intrinsic W o r t h in Friendship, 418; 9. Summary, 420 C.

ATTITUDE TOWARD PRESENT SELF

421

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re­ sults, 421; 2. Self-Glorification vs. Objective Appraisal, 423; 3. Masculinity and Femininity, 428; 4. Conven­ tionalism and Moralism, 429; 5. Conformity of Self and Ideal, 430; 6. Denial of Sociopsychological Causation, 432; 7. Property as Extension of Self, 433 . D.

CONCEPTION OF CHILDHOOD SELF

1. Definition of Rating Categories and sults, 434; 2. "Difficult" Child, 437; Adult-Orientation, 438; 4. Contrasting hood and Present, 440; 5. Summary of Present Self and Childhood Self, 440

X//.

434

Quantitative Re­ 3. Blandness vs. Picture of Child­ Attitude Toward

DYNAMIC AND COGNITIVE PERSONALITY OR­ GANIZATION AS SEEN THROUGH THE INTER­ VIEWS—Else Frenkel-Brunsivik

442

A.

442

DYNAMIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative Re­ sults, 442; 2. Orality and Anality, 445; 3. Dependence, 449; 4. Aggression, 450; 5. Ambivalence, 451; 6. Iden­ tification, 452; 7. Superego, 454; 8. Strength of the Ego, 456; 9. Distortion of Reality, 457; 10. Physical Symptoms, 459 B.

COGNITIVE PERSONALITY

ORGANIZATION

1. Definition of Rating Categories and Quantitative R e -

461

CONTENTS

suits, 461; 2. Rigidity, 461; 3. Negative Attitude T o ­ ward Science. Superstition, 464; 4. Anti-Intraceptiveness and Autism, 465; 5 . Suggestibility, 467

COMPREHENSIVE SCORES AND SUMMARY TERVIEW RESULTS—Else Frenkel-Brunswik A.

OF IN­ 468

THE DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE MAJOR AREAS STUDIED

468

1. Verification of Anticipated Trend b y Categories, 468; 2. Composite Ratings for Seven Major Areas, 470 B.

VALITITY OF OVER-ALL SCORES AND RATINGS OF THE INTER­ VIEWS

47

1

1. Individual Composite Score Based on All Areas of Rat­ ing, 471; 2. Over-all Intuitive Rating and Its Agree­ ment with the Composite Score, 472; 3. Agreement with the Questionnaire Results, 472 C.

SUMMARY OF THE

PERSONALITY

PATTERNS DERIVED FROM

THE INTERVIEWS

473

1. Introduction, 473; 2. Repression vs. Awareness, 474; 3. Externalization vs. Internalization, 474; 4. Conven­ tionalism vs. Genuineness, 476; 5 . Power vs. Love-Orien­ tation, 478; 6. Rigidity vs. Flexibility. Problems of Ad­ justment, 479; 7. Some Genetic Aspects, 482; 8. Cul­ tural Outlook, 484 PART

III

PERSONALITY A S REVEALED T H R O U G H MATERIAL

IV.

PROJECTIVE

THE THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST IN STUDY OF PREJUDICED AND UNPREJUDICED DIVIDU"ALS-Betty Aron A.

THE IN-

TESTING PROCEDURE

8

4 9 49°

1. The Sample Tested, 490; 2. Technique of Adminis­ tration, 493; 3. The Pictures Used, 493 B.

METHOD OF ANALYSIS OF THE STORY PROTOCOLS

1. The Murray-Sanford Scheme, 496;

496

2. Thematic Anal­

ysis, 506 C.

2

THE T.A.T.S OF MACK AND LARRY

1. Larry's Stories, 530;

2. Mack's Stories, 534;

5 9

3. Anal­

ysis of the Stories, 537 D.

SUMMARY

543

XX111

CONTENTS

XV.

PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS IN THE STUDY OF PER­ SONALITY AND IDEOLOGY-Daniel J. Levinson 545 A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

QUANTIFICATION BY MEANS OF SCORING CATEGORIES

C.

SCORING RESPONSE

550

D.

RESULTS

579

MANUAL:

545 CATEGORIES

OF

PROJECTIVE

548

QUESTION

1. Reliability of Scoring, 581; 2. Projective Question Scores in Relation to Standing on the E Scale, 584; 3. Validation by Means of Case Studies: Mack and Larry, 592 E.

CONCLUSIONS

595

1. General Ego Functioning, 595; 2. Specific Properties of the Ego, 596; 3. Achievement Values vs. Conven­ tional Values, 597; 4. The Handling of Dependency as an Underlying Trend, 599; 5. The Handling of Other Trends, 600 PART

IV

Q U A L I T A T I V E STUDIES OF IDEOLOGY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

XVI.

XVII.

PREJUDICE Adorno

603

IN THE INTERVIEW

MATERIAL-T.

W. 605

A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

THE "FUNCTIONAL" CHARACTER OF ANTI-SEMITISM

605 609

C.

THE IMAGINARY FOE

6l2

D.

ANTI-SEMITISM FOR WHAT?

617

E.

TWO KINDS OF J E W S

622

F.

THE ANTI-SEMITE'S DILEMMA

627

G.

PROSECUTOR AS JUDGE

629

H.

THE MISFIT BOURGEOIS

637

I.

OBSERVATIONS ON LOW-SCORING SUBJECTS

644

J.

CONCLUSION

653

POLITICS AND ECONOMICS MATERIAL-T. W. Adorno

IN THE

INTERVIEW 654

A.

INTRODUCTION

654

B.

FORMAL CONSTITUENTS OF POLITICAL THINKING

658

1. Ignorance and Confusion, 658; 2. Ticket Thinking and Personalization in Politics, 663; 3. Surface Ideology and Real Opinion, 671; 4. Pseudoconservatism, 675; 5. The Usurpation Complex, 685; 6. F.D.R., 689; 7. Bu-

CONTENTS

XXIV

reaucrats and Politicians, 693; 8. There W i l l Be No Utopia, 695; 9. No Pity for the Poor, 699; 10. Educa­ tion Instead of Social Change, 700 C.

SOME POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TOPICS

702

1. Unions, 702; 2. Business and Government, 711; 3. Political Issues Close to the Subjects, 714; 4. Foreign Policy and Russia, 718; 5. Communism, 723

XVIII.

SOME ASPECTS OF RELIGIOUS VEALED IN THE INTERVIEW Adorno

IDEOLOGY AS RE­ MATERIAL-T. W. 727

A.

INTRODUCTION

B.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

727 730

C.

SPECIFIC ISSUES

733

1. The Function of Religion in High and Low Scorers, 733; 2. Belief in God, Disbelief in Immortality, 736; 3. The Irreligious Low Scorer, 738; 4. Religious Low Scorers, 742

XIX.

TYPES AND SYNDROMES-T.

W. Adorno

744

A.

THE APPROACH

744

B.

SYNDROMES FOUND AMONG HIGH SCORERS

753

1. Surface Resentment, 753; 2. The "Conventional" Syn­ drome, 756; 3. The "Authoritarian" Syndrome, 759; 4. The Rebel and the Psychopath, 763; 5. The Crank, 765; 6. The "Manipulative" T y p e , 767 C.

SYNDROMES FOUND AMONG LOW SCORERS

771

1. The "Rigid" Low Scorer, 771; 2. The "Protesting" Low Scorer, 774; 3. The "Impulsive" Low Scorer, 776; 4. The "Easy-Going" Low Scorer, 778; 5. The Genuine Liberal, 781

PART V

APPLICATIONS T O INDIVIDUALS AND T O SPECIAL GROUPS

XX.

GENETIC ASPECTS OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PER­ SONALITY: CASE STUDIES OF TWO CONTRASTING INDIVIDUALS-R. Nevitt Sanford 787 A.

INTRODUCTION

787

B.

THE CASE OF MACK

788

1. Environmental Forces and Events, 789; 2. Deeper Per-

CONTENTS

sonality Needs, 794; and Attitudes, 800 C.

XX/.

XXV

3. Dynamics of Surface Behavior

THE CONTRASTING CASE OF LARRY

809

CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS: STUDY OF PRISON IN MA TES—William R. Morrow A.

A 817

INTRODUCTION

817

1. The Problem, 817; 2. Sampling and Administration, 818; 3. Plan of Discussion, 822 B.

ETHNOCENTRISM

823

1. General Questionnaire Statistics and Their Significance, 823; 2. Ideology Concerning Negroes: A Submerged Outgroup, 824; 3. Ideology Concerning Jews: A Sup­ posed "Dominant" Outgroup, 830 C.

POLITICO-ECONOMIC

D.

MORALS AND RELIGION

844

E.

DEFENSES AGAINST WEAKNESS

856

F.

HETEROSEXUALITY

G.

ANTI-INTRACEPTIVENESS AND CHILDHOOD

873

ATTITUDES TO PARENTS

875

"CRIMINALITY" IN HIGH AND LOW SCORERS

887

H. I.

XX//.

ATTITUDES

835

866

PSYCHOLOGICAL ILL HEALTH IN RELATION TO POTENTIAL FASCISM: A STUDY OF PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PA TIENTS—Maria Hertz Levinson 891 A.

INTRODUCTION

891

B.

THE NATURE OF THE SAMPLE

892

C.

STATISTICAL RESULTS FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE

D.

RELATIONSHIP OF ETHNOCENTRISM

896

TO VARIOUS PSYCHIATRIC

CLASSIFICATIONS

897

1. Ethnocentrism in Relation to Neurosis and Psychosis, 904; 2. Ethnocentrism in Relation to Specific Diagnostic Categories, 906 E.

ETHNOCENTRISM

IN RELATION TO THE MINNESOTA

MULTI­

PHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY F.

PERSONALITY

TRENDS

AS REVEALED

9IO BY PATIENTS'

"STATE­

MENT OF PROBLEM" IN THE FIRST PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW

917

1. Selection of Material, 918; 2. The Scoring Manual: Description of Variables, 919; 3. The Method of Quan­ tification, 924; 4. The Reliability of the Measures, 926; 5. Relationship Between Ratings and Ethnocentrism Score, 932; 6. Summary, 941 G.

CLINICAL PICTURES AND PERSONALITIES OF HIGH AND LOW SCORERS

942

x

x

v

CONTENTS

l

1. The High Scorers, 942; 3. The "Middles," 959 H.

XXIII.

2. The Low Scorers, 951;

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

97

1

977

INDEX 983

TABLES AND FIGURES

1 (I) 1 2 3 4 5 6

(III) (III) (III) (III) (III) (III)

Groups from W h o m Questionnaires W e r e Collected Anti-Semitism Subscale "Offensive" Anti-Semitism Subscale "Threatening" Anti-Semitism Subscale "Attitudes" Anti-Semitism Subscales "Seclusive vs. Intrusive" "Neutral" Items in the Anti-Semitism Scale The Total Anti-Semitism Scale

21 63 64 65 66 67 68

Public Opinion Questionnaire A The Total Anti-Semitism Scale

69

Public Opinion Questionnaire S 7 (III) 8 (III) 9 (III) 10 (III) 11(111) 12 (III) 13 (III) 1 (IV)

Reliability of the Anti-Semitism Scale and Its Subscales Intercorrelations of the A-S Subscales Anti-Semitism Scale: Item Means and Discriminatory Powers University of California Women The Ten-Item A-S Scale (Form 78) Reliability of the A - S Scale (Form 78) Item Means and Discriminatory Powers. A-S Scale—Form 78 Responses of Mack and Larry on the A-S Scale Ethnocentrism Scale

73 75 78 84 86 87 90 105

Negro Subscale (N) 2 (IV)

Ethnocentrism Scale

106

Minority Subscale (M) 3 (IV)

Ethnocentrism Scale

108

Patriotism Subscale ( P ) 4 (IV)

The Total Ethnocentrism Scale

110

Public Opinion Questionnaire E 5 (IV) 6 (IV) 7 (IV) 8 (IV) 9 (IV)

Reliability of the Ethnocentrism (E) Scale and Its Subscales 1 1 2 Correlations of the E Subscales with Each Other and with the Total E Scale 113 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items 115 The Second Form of the E Scale (Form 78) 117 Reliability of the E Scale (Form 78) 119 xxvii

xxviii

10 (IV)

TABLES AND FIGURES

Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items (Form 7 8 ) Correlations Between the A-S and E Scales (Initial Forms) 1 2 2 Correlations Between the A - S and E Scales (Form 7 8 ) 123 The Third Form of the E Scale (Form 6 0 ) 124 Reliability of the E Scale (Form 6 0 ) 125 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items (Form 6 0 ) 126 The Fourth Form of the E Scale (Forms 4 5 and 4 0 ) 128 Reliability of the E Scale (Forms 4 5 and 4 0 ) A. Groups Taking Form 4 5 ( E A + B ) 34 B. Groups Taking Form 4 0 ( E ) 135 C. Groups Taking Both Forms 4 5 and 4 0 136 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the E-Scale Items (Forms 4 5 and 4 0 ) 139 Ethnocentrism Scale: Suggested Final Form 142 Responses of Mack and Larry on the E Scale 143 1

11 12 13 14 15

(IV) (IV) (IV) (IV) (IV)

16 (IV) 17 (IV)

2

0

J

A

18 ( I V ) 19 (IV) 20 (IV) 1 (V)

The Initial Politico-Economic Conservatism Scale (Form 7 8 )

2 (V) 3 (V)

Reliability of the PEC Scale (Form 7 8 ) 159 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the PEC-Scale Items (Form 7 8 ) 160 The Second Form of the Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) Scale (Form 6 0 ) 163 Reliability of the PEC Scale (Form 6 0 ) 165 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the PEC-Scale Items (Form 6 0 ) " . i 7 The Third Form of the Politico-Economic Conservatism

4 (V) 5 (V) 6 (V)

158

6

7 (V)

9 (V)

(PEC) Scale (Forms 4 5 - 4 0 ) 169 Means and Standard Deviations of PEC-Scale Scores for Groups Taking Forms 4 5 and 4 0 17° Means and Discriminatory Powers of the PEC-Scale Items

10 ( V )

(Forms 4 0 and 4 5 ) 174 Correlations of the A-S and E Scales with the PEC Scale (All

8 (V)

l

11 ( V ) 12 ( V ) 13 ( V )

Forms) 79 Responses of Mack and Larry on the PEC Scale 183 Mean A - S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Over­ all Political Party Preferences 188 Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Whose Fathers Have Vari­ 1

14 ( V )

ous Political Party Preferences 19 Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Relations Between Subject's and Father's Political Preference 193

TABLES AND FIGURES

15 ( V ) 16 ( V ) 17 ( V )

XXIX

Mean E Score for Various Organizations in the Form 40 Sample 194 Mean E Score for Groups Having Various Maritime Union Affiliations (Maritime School Sample) 197 Mean E Scores for Groups W h o Have Various Present Yearly Incomes 9 Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Having Various Levels of Expected Yearly Income Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Whose Fathers Had Vari­ ous Incomes Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Whose Fathers Have Vari­ ous Occupations °5 J

18 ( V )

8

2

19 ( V )

0

0

2 0 2

20 ( V )

2

1 (VI) 2 (VI)

Mean A-S or E Scores of Various Religious Groups 210 Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Fre­ quencies of Church Attendance 1 Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Rela­ tions Between Father's Religion and Mother's Religion 214 Mean A-S or E Scores for Groups Showing Various Rela­ tions Between Subject's Religion and Mother's Religion 216 Mean A-S Scores of Groups Giving Different Categories of Response to the Question: "How Important Are Religion and the Church?" 7 2

3 (VI) 4 (VI) 5 (VI)

2

2

1 (VII) 2 (VII) 3 (VII)

2

I

2

The F Scale: Form 78 6 Reliability of the F Scale (Form 78) 243 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the F-Scale Items (Form 78) 45 The F Scale: Form 60 4 Reliability of the F Scale (Form 60) 25 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the F-Scale Items (Form 60) 253 F-Scale Clusters: Forms 4 5 and 40 255 Reliability of the F Scale (Forms 40 and 4 5 ) 258 Means and Discriminatory Powers of the F-Scale Items (Forms 40 and 4 5 ) 260 Correlations of the F Scale with the A-S, E, and PEC Scales in the Several Forms of the Questionnaire 263 Correlations of the F Scale with Each Half and with the Whole of the E Scale 264 Mean F-Scale Scores of Groups Taking the Several Forms of the Questionnaire 266 Responses of Mack and Larry on the F Scale (Form 78) 270 2

4 (VII) 5 (VII) 6 (VII) 7 (VII) 8 (VII) 9 (VII) 10 (VII) 11 (VII) 12 (VII) 13 (VII)

2

8

1

X

X

X

1 (VIII) 2 (VIII)

3 (VIII)

4 (VIII)

5 (VIII)

TABLES AND FIGURES

Correlations of the E and F Scales with Various Ability Tests (Maritime School Men) Correlations of the E, F, and PEC Scales with the Otis Higher Form A Intelligence Test (Employment Service Veteran Men) Mean Wechsler-Bellevue IQ Score for Each Quartile of the Ethnocentrism Scale (Psychiatric Clinic Men and Women) Mean Number of Years of Education for Each Quartile of the Ethnocentrism Scale (Psychiatric Clinic Men and Women) Mean E Score for Groups Having Various Years of Edu­ cation (Maritime School Men)

2 8 2

z 8

3

z 8

3

z 8

5

2

8

6

1 (IX)

Survey of 20 Prejudiced and 20 Unprejudiced Men Inter­ viewed

2 (IX)

Survey of 25 Prejudiced and 15 Unprejudiced Women Inter­ viewed 97 Representativeness of Interviewees in Terms of Scores on the Ethnocentrism Scale 9 Age Distribution in Total Extreme Quartiles and Interviewees 2 9 9 Religious Affiliation in Total Extreme Quartiles and Inter­ viewees 99 Political Outlook in Total Extreme Quartiles and Inter­ viewees 3°° Reliability of Interview Ratings: Interrater Agreement on Nine Subjects 33° Interrater Agreement on Interview Ratings for Six Major Areas 33

296 2

3 (IX)

2

4 (IX) 5 (IX)

8

2

6 (IX) 7 (IX) 8 (IX)

2

1 (X)

2 (X)

Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Parents and Concept of Family for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 341 Interview Ratings on Concept of Childhood Environment for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 3^ Interview Ratings on Childhood Events and Attitude Toward Siblings for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or " L o w " on the Ethnic Prejudice "Questionnaire Scale 379 2

3 (X)

1 (XI)

Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Sex for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Preju­ dice Questionnaire Scale 39

2

TABLES AND FIGURES

2 (XI)

3 (XI)

4 (XI)

1 (XII)

2 (XII)

1 (XIII)

XXXI

Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward People for 80 Sub­ jects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 407 Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Present Self for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 424 Interview Ratings on Attitude Toward Childhood Self for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 436 Interview Ratings on Dynamic Character Structure for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 446 Interview Ratings on Cognitive Personality Organization for 80 Subjects Scoring Extremely "High" or "Low" on the Ethnic Prejudice Questionnaire Scale 462 Composite Ratings (Means) for Major Areas of Study for "High" and "Low" Scoring Groups of Interviewees 469

1 (XIV) 2 3 4 5 5 6

Distribution of Thematic Apperception Test Sample Among the Several Groups Participating in the Study 491 ( X I V ) Age Distribution of Subjects Receiving the Thematic A p ­ perception Test 492 ( X I V ) Distribution of Thematic Apperception Test Subjects with Respect to the Sex of the Examiners 492 ( X I V ) Stimulus Values of the Ten Thematic Apperception Test Pictures 494 ( X I V ) A Intensities of Need and Press Variables as Expressed in Stories Told by Men 500 ( X I V ) B Intensities of Need and Press Variables as Expressed in Stories Told b y Women 502 ( X I V ) Comparison of the Scores of Mack and Larry on the Thematic Apperception Test with the Mean Scores of Prejudiced and Unprejudiced Men 539

1 (XV) 2 (XV)

Scoring Reliability (Percentage Interrater Agreement) for the Eight Projective Questions 583 Percentage Agreement Between Projective Question Scores and E-Scale Scores 586

FIGURE 1 ( X X ) The Genetic Aspects of Mack's Personality

801

TABLES AND FIGURES

xxxu 1 (XXI) 2 (XXI) 3 (XXI) 4 (XXI) 5 (XXI)

Identifying Data for Interviewees in the Prison Inmates Group Results on the E Scale from the Group of Prison Inmates 8 2 3 Results on the PEC Scale from the Group of Prison Inmates 8 3 6 Results on the F Scale from the Group of Prison Inmates 8 4 6 Mean E- and F-Scale Scores of the Prison Inmates, Grouped According to Offense 9 8 8

1 (XXII)

Reliability Data on the E Scale for Psychiatric Clinic Men and W o m e n

2 (XXII)

897

Incidence of Various Psychiatic Diagnoses in the Sample 899 of Psychiatric Clinic Patients

3 (XXII)

Percentage of Each E-Scale Quartile Falling Into Various 9 0 1 Psychiatric Categories 4 (XXII) Percentage of the Upper and of the Lower Halves of the E-Scale Distribution Falling Into Various Psychiatric 9 0 2 Categories 5 (XXII) Percentage of Neurotic Patients in Each E-Scale Quartile 9 0 3 6 (XXII) Showing Various Neurotic Features Percentage of Neurotic Patients in the Upper and Lower Halves of the E-Scale Distribution Showing Various Neu­ 9 0 4 rotic Features Average MMPI Profile for Non-Psychotic Psychi­ FIGURE 1 (XXII) atric Patients Falling Into Each Half of the E-Scale Distribution Mean Scores on the Several Scales of the MMPI for Sub­ 7 (XXII) jects Falling into Each Quartile and Into Each Half of the 914 E-Scale Distribution. Nonpsychotic Male Patients Mean Scores on the Several Scales of the MMPI for Sub­ 8 (XXII) jects Falling Into Each Quartile and Into Each Half of the E-Scale Distribution. Nonpsychotic Female Patients 9*5 9 (XXII) The Amount of Agreement Between T w o Raters in Esti­ mating a Subject's Standing on the E Scale from an Analyof His Intake Interview. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: sis Men and W o m e n Combined 9 7 The Amount of Agreement Between a Single Rater ( A ) 10 (XXII) and Seven Other Raters in Estimating Variables in Intake Interviews. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and W o m e n Combined 93° The Amount of Agreement Between Rater A's Estimate 11 (XXII) of High or Low Ethnocentrism, Based on Analysis of In­ take Interviews, and Ethnocentrism as Measured b y the 2

TABLES AND FIGURES

XXXI11

E Scale. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women Combined 933 The Amount of Agreement Between Estimates of Ethnocentrism, Based on Ratings of Single Variables from In­ take Interviews, and Ethnocentrism as Measured by the E Scale. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women Combined 934 Summary of Data from the Rating of Intake Interviews. A. Reliability: Percentage Agreement Among Raters for Seven Variables. B. Validity: Percentage Agreement Be­ tween Ratings and Score on the E Scale. Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women Combined 936

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

I

INTRODUCTION

A. T H E PROBLEM The research to be reported in this volume was guided b y the following major hypothesis: that the political, economic, and social convictions of an individual often form a broad and coherent pattern, as if bound together by a "mentality" or "spirit," and that this pattern is an expression of deeplying trends in his personality. The major concern was with the potentially fascistic individual, one whose structure is such as to render him particularly susceptible to anti­ democratic propaganda. W e say "potential" because we have not studied individuals who were avowedly fascistic or who belonged to known fascist organizations. At the time when most of our data were collected fascism had just been defeated in war and, hence, w e could not expect to find sub­ jects who would openly identify themselves with it; y e t there was no difficulty in finding subjects whose outlook was such as to indicate that they would readily accept fascism if it should become a strong or respectable social movement. In concentrating upon the potential fascist w e do not wish to imply that other patterns of personality and ideology might not profitably be studied in the same w a y . It is our opinion, however, that no politico-social trend imposes a graver threat to our traditional values and institutions than does fascism, and that knowledge of the personality forces that favor its accept­ ance may ultimately prove useful in combating it. A question may be raised as to w h y , if w e wish to explore new resources for combating fascism, w e do not give as much attention to the "potential antifascist." T h e answer is that we do study trends that stand in opposition to fascism, but w e do not conceive that they constitute any single pattern. It is one of the major findings of the present study that individuals who show extreme susceptibil­ ity to fascist propaganda have a great deal in common. ( T h e y exhibit numerous characteristics that go together to form a "syndrome" although typical variations within this major pattern can be distinguished.) Indi­ viduals who are extreme in the opposite direction are much more diverse. The task of diagnosing potential fascism and studying its determinants required techniques especially designed for these purposes; it could not be

2

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

asked of them that they serve as well for various other patterns. Neverthe­ less, it was possible to distinguish several types of personality structure that seemed particularly resistant to antidemocratic ideas, and these are given due attention in later chapters. If a potentially fascistic individual exists, what, precisely, is he like? What goes to make up antidemocratic thought? W h a t are the organizing forces within the person? If such a person exists, how commonly does he exist in our society? And if such a person exists, what have been the determinants and what the course of his development? These are questions upon which the present research was designed to throw some light. Though the notion that the potentially antidemocratic individual is a totality may be accepted as a plausible hypothesis, some analysis is called for at the start. In most approaches to the problem of polit­ ical types two essential conceptions may be distinguished: the conception of ideology and the conception of underlying needs in the person. Though the two may be thought of as forming an organized whole within the individual, they may nonetheless be studied separately. The same ideological trends may in different individuals have different sources, and the same personal needs may express themselves in different ideological trends. The term ideology is used in this book, in the w a y that is common in current literature, to stand for an organization of opinions, attitudes, and values-a w a y of thinking about man and society. W e may speak of an indi­ vidual's total ideology or of his ideology with respect to different areas of social life: politics, economics, religion, minority groups, and so forth. Ideol­ ogies have an existence independent of any single individual; and those which exist at a particular time are results both of historical processes and of contemporary social events. These ideologies have for different individ­ uals different degrees of appeal, a matter that depends upon the individual s needs and the degree to which these needs are being satisfied or frustrated. There are, to be sure, individuals who take unto themselves ideas from more than one existing ideological system and weave them into patterns that are more or less uniquely their own. It can be assumed, however, that when the opinions, attitudes, and values of numerous individuals are examined, common patterns will be discovered. These patterns may not in all cases correspond to the familiar, current ideologies,, but they will fulfill the defi­ nition of ideology given above and in each case be found to have a function within the over-all adjustment of the individual. The present inquiry into the nature of the potentially fascistic individual began with anti-Semitism in the focus of attention. The authors, in common with most social scientists, hold the view that anti-Semitism is based more largely upon factors in the subject and in his total situation than upon actual characteristics of Jews, and that one place to look for determinants of antiSemitic opinions and attitudes is within the persons who express them. Since

INTRODUCTION

3

this emphasis on personality required a focusing of attention on psychology rather than on sociology or history—though in the last analysis the three can be separated only artificially—there could be no attempt to account for the existence of anti-Semitic ideas in our society. The question was, rather, w h y is it that certain individuals accept these ideas while others do not? And since from the start the research was guided by the hypotheses stated above, it was supposed ( i ) that anti-Semitism probably is not a specific or isolated phe­ nomenon but a part of a broader ideological framework, and ( 2 ) that an individual's susceptibility to this ideology depends primarily upon his psy­ chological needs. The insights and hypotheses concerning the antidemocratic individual, which are present in our general cultural climate, must be supported by a great deal of painstaking observation, and in many instances by quantifica­ tion, before they can be regarded as conclusive. H o w can one say with assurance that the numerous opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by an individual actually constitute a consistent pattern or organized totality? The most intensive investigation of that individual would seem to be neces­ sary. H o w can one say that opinions, attitudes, and values found in groups of people go together to form patterns, some of which are more common than others? There is no adequate w a y to proceed other than by actually measuring, in populations, a wide variety of thought contents and determin­ ing by means of standard statistical methods which ones go together. To many social psychologists the scientific study of ideology, as it has been defined, seems a hopeless task. T o measure with suitable accuracy a single, specific, isolated attitude is a long and arduous proceeding for both subject and experimenter. (It is frequently argued that unless the attitude is specific and isolated, it cannot properly be measured at all.) H o w then can we hope to survey within a reasonable period of time the numerous attitudes and ideas that go to make up an ideology? Obviously, some kind of selec­ tion is necessary. The investigator must limit himself to what is most significant, and judgments of significance can only be made on the basis of theory. The theories that have guided the present research will be presented in suitable contexts later. Though theoretical considerations had a role at every stage of the work, a beginning had to be made with the objective study of the most observable and relatively specific opinions, attitudes, and values. Opinions, attitudes, and values, as we conceive of them, are expressed more or less openly in words. Psychologically they are "on the surface." It must be recognized, however, that when it comes to such affect-laden questions as those concerning minority groups and current political issues, the degree 1 of openness with which a person speaks will depend upon the situation in j which he finds himself. There may be a discrepancy between what he says on a particular occasion and what he "really thinks." Let us say that what

•

4

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

he really thinks he can express in confidential discussion with his intimates. This much, which is still relatively superficial psychologically, may still be observed directly b y the psychologist if he uses appropriate techniquesand this w e have attempted to do. It is to be recognized, however, that the individual may have secret thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it; he may have thoughts which he cannot admit to himself, and he may have thoughts which he does not express because they are so vague and ill-formed that he cannot put them into words. T o gain access to these deeper trends is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the indi­ vidual's potential for democratic or antidemocratic thought and action in crucial situations. . W h a t people say and, to a lesser degree, what they really-think depends very largely upon the climate of opinion in which they are living; but when that climate changes, some individuals adapt themselves much more quickly than others. If there should be a marked increase in antidemocratic propa­ ganda, w e should expect some people to accept and repeat it at once, others when it seemed that "everybody believed it," and still others not at all. In other words, individuals differ in their susceptibility to antidemocratic propa­ ganda in their readiness to exhibit antidemocratic tendencies. It seems neces­ sary to study ideology at this "readiness level" in order to gauge the potential for fascism in this country. Observers have noted that the amount of out­ spoken anti-Semitism in pre-Hitler Germany was less than that in this coun­ t r y at the present time; one might hope that the potentiality is less in this country, but this can be known only through intensive investigation, through the detailed survey of what is on the surface and the thorough probing of what lies beneath it. . A question may be raised as to what is the degree of relationship between ideology and action. If an individual is making antidemocratic propaganda or engaging in overt attacks upon minority group members, it is usually assumed that his opinions, attitudes, and values are congruent with his action- but comfort is sometimes found in the thought that though another individual expresses antidemocratic ideas verbally, he does not, and perhaps will not, put them into overt action. Here, once again, there is a question of potentialities. Overt action, like open verbal expression, depends very largely upon the situation of the moment-something that is best described in socio­ economic and political terms-but individuals differ very widely with respect to their readiness to be provoked into action. T h e study of this potential is a part of the study of the individual's over-all ideology; to know what kinds and what intensities of belief, attitude, and value are likely to lead to action, and to know what forces within the individual serve as inhibitions upon. action are matters of the greatest practical importance. There seems little reason to doubt that ideology-in-readiness (ideological

INTRODUCTION

5

receptivity) and ideology-in-words and in action are essentially the same stuff. The description of an individual's total ideology must portray not only the organization on each level but organization among levels. W h a t the indi­ vidual consistently says in public, what he says when he feels safe from criticism, what he thinks but will not say at all, what he thinks but will not admit to himself, what he is disposed to think or to do when various kinds of appeal are made to him—all these phenomena may be conceived of as constituting a single structure. The structure may not be integrated, it may contain contradictions as well as consistencies, but it is organized in the sense that the constituent parts are related in psychologically meaningful ways. In order to understand such a structure, a theory of the total personality is necessary. According to the theory that has guided the present research, personality is a more or less enduring organization of forces within the indi­ vidual. These persisting forces of personality help to determine response in various situations, and it is thus largely to them that consistency of behavior —whether verbal or physical—is attributable. But behavior, however con­ sistent, is not the same thing as personality; personality lies behind behavior and within the individual. The forces of personality are not responses but readinesses for response; whether or not a readiness will issue in overt expres­ sion depends not only upon the situation of the moment but upon what other readinesses stand in opposition to it. Personality forces which are in­ hibited are on a deeper level than those which immediately and consistently express themselves in overt behavior. W h a t are the forces of personality and what are the processes b y which they are organized? For theory as to the structure of personality we Jiave leaned most heavily upon Freud, while for a more or less systematic formu­ lation of the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality we have been guided primarily b y academic psychology. T h e forces of personality are primarily needs (drives, wishes, emotional impulses) which vary from one individual to another in their quality, their intensity, their mode of gratification, and the objects of their attachment, and which interact with other needs in harmonious or conflicting patterns. There are primitive emotional needs, there are needs to avoid punishment and to keep the good will of the social group, there are needs to maintain harmony and integration within the self. Since it will be granted that opinions, attitudes, and values depend upon human needs, and since personality is essentially an organization of needs, then personality may be regarded as a determinant of ideological preferences. Personality is not, however, to be hypostatized as an ultimate determinant. Far from being something which is given in the beginning, which remains . fixed and acts upon the surrounding world, personality evolves under the impact of the social environment and can never be isolated from the social totality within which it occurs. According to the present theory, the effects

6

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

of environmental forces in moulding the personality are, in general, the more profound the earlier in the life history of the individual they are brought to bear. The major influences upon personality development arise in the course of child training as carried forward in a setting of family life. W h a t happens here is profoundly influenced by economic and social factors. It is not only that each family in trying to rear its children proceeds according to the ways of the social, ethnic, and religious groups in which it has mem­ bership, but crude economic factors affect directly the parents' behavior toward the child. This means that broad changes in social conditions and / institutions will have a direct bearing upon the kinds of personalities that ; L develop within a society. The present research seeks to discover correlations between ideology and sociological factors operating in the individual's past-whether or not they continue to operate in his present. In attempting to explain these correlations the relationships between personality and ideology are brought into the , picture, the general approach being to consider personality as an agency I through which sociological influences upon ideology are mediated. If the / role of personality can be made clear, it should be possible better to under1 stand which sociological factors are the most crucial ones and in what ways I they achieve their effects. Although personality is a product of the social environment of the past, it is not, once it has developed, a mere object of the contemporary environ­ m e n t . W h a t has developed is a structure within the individual, something ' which is capable of self-initiated action upon the social environment and of selection with respect to varied impinging stimuli, something which though always modifiable is frequently very resistant to fundamental change. This conception is necessary to explain consistency of behavior in widely varying situations, to explain the persistence of ideological trends in the face of contradicting facts and radically altered social conditions, to explain w h y people in the same sociological situation have different or even conflicting views on social issues, and w h y it is that people whose behavior has been changed through psychological manipulation lapse into their old ways as soon as the agencies of manipulation are removed. The conception of personality structure is the best safeguard against the inclination to attribute persistent trends in the individual to something "innate" or "basic" or "racial" within him. The Nazi allegation that natural, biological traits decide the total being of a person would not have been such a successful political device had it not been possible to point to numerous instances of relative fixity in human behavior and to challenge those who thought to explain them on any basis other than a biological one. Without the conception of personality structure, writers whose approach rests upon the assumption of infinite human flexibility and responsiveness to the social situation of the moment have not helped matters by referring persistent

INTRODUCTION

7

trends which they could not approve to "confusion" or "psychosis" or evil under one name or another. There is, of course, some basis for describing as "pathological" patterns of behavior which do not conform with the most common, and seemingly most lawful, responses to momentary stimuli. But this is to use the term pathological in the very narrow sense of deviation from the average found in a particular context and, what is worse, to suggest that everything in the personality structure is to be put under this heading. Actually, personality embraces variables which exist widely in the popula­ tion and have lawful relations one to another. Personality patterns that have been dismissed as "pathological" because they were not in keeping with the most common manifest trends or the most dominant ideals within a society, have on closer investigation turned out to be but exaggerations of what was almost universal below the surface in that society. W h a t is "pathological" today may with changing social conditions become the dominant trend of tomorrow. It seems clear then that an adequate approach to the problems before us must take into account both fixity and flexibility; it must regard the two not as mutually exclusive categories but as the extremes of a single continuum along which human characteristics may be placed, and it must provide a basis for understanding the conditions which favor the one extreme or the other. Personality is a concept to account for relative permanence. But it may be emphasized again that personality is mainly a potential; it is a readi­ ness for behavior rather than behavior itself; although it consists in disposi­ tions to behave in certain ways, the behavior that actually occurs will always depend upon the objective situation. W h e r e the concern is with antidemo­ cratic trends, a delineation of the conditions for individual expression re­ quires an understanding of the total organization of society. It has been stated that the personality structure may be such as to render the individual susceptible to antidemocratic propaganda. It may now be asked what are the conditions under which such propaganda would increase in pitch and volume and come to dominate in press and radio to the exclusion of contrary ideological stimuli, so that what is now potential would become actively manifest. The answer must be sought not in any single personality nor in personality factors found in the mass of people, but in processes at work in society itself. It seems well understood today that whether or not antidemocratic propaganda is to become a dominant force in this country depends primarily upon the situation of the most powerful economic inter­ ests, upon whether they, by conscious design or not, make use of this device for maintaining their dominant status. This is a matter about which the great majority of people would have little to say. The present research, limited as it is to the hitherto largely neglected psychological aspects of fascism, does not concern itself with the production of propaganda. It focuses attention, rather, upon the consumer, the indi-

8

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

vidual for whom the propaganda is designed. In so doing it attempts to take into account not only the psychological structure of the individual but the total objective situation in which he lives. It makes the assumption that people in general tend to accept political and social programs which they believe will serve their economic interests. W h a t these interests are depends in each case upon the individual's position in society as defined in economic and sociological terms. A n important part of the present research, therefore, was the attempt to discover what patterns of socioeconomic factors are asso­ ciated with receptivity, and with resistance, to antidemocratic propaganda. At the same time, however, it was considered that economic motives in the individual may not have the dominant and crucial role that is often ascribed to them. If economic self-interest were the only determinant of opinion, w e should expect people of the same socioeconomic status to have very similar opinions, and w e should expect opinion to vary in a meaningful w a y from one socioeconomic grouping to another. Research has not given very sound support for these expectations. There is only the most general f similarity of opinion among people of the same socioeconomic status, and the exceptions are glaring; while variations from one socioeconomic group to another are rarely simple or clear-cut. T o explain w h y it is that people of the same socioeconomic status so frequently have different ideologies, while people of a different status often have very similar ideologies, w e must take account of other than purely economic needs. More than this, it is becoming increasingly plain that people very fre­ quently do not behave in such a w a y as to further their material interests, even when it is clear to them what these interests are. The resistance of white-collar workers to organization is not due to a belief that the union will not help them economically; the tendency of the small businessman to side with big business in most economic and political matters cannot be due entirely to a belief that this is the w a y to guarantee his economic indepen­ dence. In instances such as these the individual seems not only not to con­ sider his material interests, but even to go against them. It is as if he were thinking in terms of a larger group identification, as if his point of view were determined more b y his need to support this group and to suppress opposite ones than b y rational consideration of his own interests. Indeed, it is with a sense of relief today that one is assured that a group conflict is merely a clash of economic interests-that each side is merely out to "do" the o t h e r and not a struggle in which deep-lying emotional drives have been let loose. W h e n it comes to the w a y s in which people appraise the social world, irra­ tional trends stand out glaringly. One may conceive of a professional man who opposes the immigration of Jewish refugees on the ground that this will increase the competition with which he has to deal and so decrease his income. However undemocratic this may be, it is at least rational in a limited sense. But for this man to go on, as do most people who oppose Jews on

INTRODUCTION

9

occupational grounds, and accept a wide variety of opinions, many of which are contradictory, about Jews in general, and to attribute various ills of the world to them, is plainly illogical. And it is just as illogical to praise all Jews in accordance with a "good" stereotype of them. Hostility against groups that is based upon real frustration, brought about b y members of that group, undoubtedly exists, but such frustrating experiences can hardly account for the fact that prejudice is apt to be generalized. Evidence from the present study confirms what has often been indicated: that a man who is hostile toward one minority group is very likely to be hostile against a wide variety of others. There is no conceivable rational basis for such generalization; and, what is more striking, prejudice against, or totally uncritical acceptance of, a particular group often exists in the absence of any experience with mem­ bers of that group. The objective situation of the individual seems an unlikely source of such irrationality; rather w e should seek where psychology has already found the sources of dreams, fantasies, and misinterpretations of the world—that is, in the deep-lying needs of the personality. Another aspect of the individual's situation which w e should expect to affect his ideological receptivity is his membership in social groups—occu­ pational, fraternal, religious, and the like. For historical and sociological reasons, such groups favor and promulgate, whether officially or unofficially, different patterns of ideas. There is reason to believe that individuals, out of their needs to conform and to belong and to believe and through such devices as imitation and conditioning, often take over more or less ready-made the opinions, attitudes, and values that are characteristic of the groups in which they have membership. T o the extent that the ideas which prevail in such a group are implicitly or explicitly antidemocratic, the individual group mem­ ber might be expected to be receptive to propaganda having the same general direction. Accordingly, the present research investigates a variety of group memberships with a view to what general trends of thought—and how much variability—might be found in each. It is recognized, however, that a correlation between group membership and ideology may be due to different kinds of determination in different individuals. In some cases it might be that the individual merely repeats opinions which are taken for granted in his social milieu and which he has no reason to question; in other cases it might be that the individual has chosen to join a particular group because it stood for ideals with which he was already in sympathy. In modern society, despite enormous communality in basic culture, it is rare for a person to be subjected to only one pattern of ideas, after he is old enough for ideas to mean something to him. Some selec­ tion is usually made, according, it may be supposed, to the needs of his personality. Even when individuals are exposed during their formative years almost exclusively to a single, closely knit pattern of political, economic, social, and religious ideas, it is found that some conform while others rebel,

I

O

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

and it seems proper to inquire whether personality factors do not make the difference. The soundest approach, it would seem, is to consider that in the determination of ideology, as in the determination of any behavior, there is a situational factor and a personality factor, and that a careful weighing of the role of each'will yield the most accurate prediction. Situational factors, chiefly economic condition and social group member­ ships, have been studied intensively in recent researches on opinion and atti­ tude, while the more inward, more individualistic factors have not received the attention they deserve. Beyond this, there is still another reason w h y the present study places particular emphasis upon the personality. Fascism, in order to be successful as a political movement, must have a mass basis. It must secure not only the frightened submission but the active cooperation of the great majority of the people. Since by its very nature it favors the few at the expense of the many, it cannot possibly demonstrate that it will so improve the situation of most people that their real interests will be served. It must therefore make its major appeal, not to rational self-interest, but to emotional needs-often to the most primitive and irrational wishes and fears. If it be argued that fascist propaganda fools people into believing that their lot will be improved, then the question arises: W h y are they so easily fooled? Because, it may be supposed, of their personality structure; because of longestablished patterns of hopes and aspirations, fears and anxieties that dispose them to certain beliefs and make them resistant to others. The task of fascist propaganda, in other words, is rendered easier to the degree that antidemo­ cratic potentials already exist in the great mass of people. It may be granted that in Germany economic conflicts and dislocations within the society were such that for this reason alone the triumph of fascism was sooner or later inevitable; but the Nazi leaders did not act as if they believed this to be so; instead they acted as if it were necessary at every moment to take into account the psychology of the people-to activate every ounce of their anti­ democratic potential, to compromise with them, to stamp out the slightest spark of rebellion. It seems apparent that any attempt to appraise the chances of a fascist triumph in America must reckon with the potential existing in the character of the people. Here lies not only the susceptibility to antidemo­ cratic propaganda but the most dependable sources of resistance to it. The present writers believe that it is up to the people to decide whether or not this country goes fascist. It is assumed that knowledge of the nature and extent of antidemocratic potentials will indicate programs for demo­ cratic action. These programs should not be limited to devices for manipu­ lating people in such a w a y that they will behave more democratically, but they should be devoted to increasing the kind of self-awareness and selfdetermination that makes any kind of manipulation impossible. There is one explanation for the existence of an individual's ideology that has not so far been considered; that it is the view of the world which a reasonable man,

INTRODUCTION

{£

with some understanding of the role of such determinants as those discussed above, and with complete access to the necessary facts, will organize for himself. This conception, though it has been left to the last, is of crucial importance for a sound approach to ideology. Without it we should have to share the destructive view, which has gained some acceptance in the modern world, that since all ideologies, all philosophies, derive from nonrational sources there is no basis for saying that one has more merit than another. But the rational system of an objective and thoughtful man is not a thing apart from personality. Such a system is still motivated. W h a t is distinguish­ ing in its sources is mainly the kind of personality organization from which it springs. It might be said that a mature personality (if we may for the moment use this term without defining it) will come closer to achieving a rational system of thought than will an immature one; but a personality is no less dynamic and no less organized for being mature, and the task of describing the structure of this personality is not different in kind from the task of describing any other personality. According to theory, the person­ ality variables which have most to do with determining the objectivity and rationality of an ideology are those which belong to the ego, that part of the personality which appreciates reality, integrates the other parts, and operates with the most conscious awareness. It is the ego that becomes aware of and takes responsibility for nonrational forces operating within the personality. This is the basis for our belief that the object of knowing what are the psychological determinants of ideology is that men can become more reasonable. It is not supposed, of course, that this will eliminate differences of opinion. The world is suffi­ ciently complex and difficult to know, men have enough real interests that are in conflict with the real interests of other men, there are enough egoaccepted differences in personality to insure that arguments about politics, economics, and religion will never grow dull. Knowledge of the psycholog­ ical determinants of ideology cannot tell us what is the truest ideology; it can only remove some of the barriers in the w a y of its pursuit.

B. 1.

METHODOLOGY

G E N E R A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF T H E M E T H O D

To attack the problems conceptualized above required methods for de­ scribing and measuring ideological trends and methods for exposing person­ ality, the contemporary situation, and the social background. A particular methodological" challenge was imposed by the conception of levels in the /, person; this made it necessary to devise techniques for surveying opinions, attitudes, and values that were on the surface, for revealing ideological

V

I

2

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

trends that were more or less inhibited and reached the surface only in indirect manifestations, and for bringing to light personality forces that lay in the subject's unconscious. And since the major concern was with patterns of dynamically related factors-something that requires study of the total individual-it seemed that the proper approach was through intensive clinical studies. The significance and practical importance of such studies could not be gauged, however, until there was knowledge of how far it was possible to generalize from them. Thus it was necessary to perform group studies as well as individual studies, and to find w a y s and means for integrating the two. Individuals were studied by means of interviews and special clinical tech­ niques for revealing underlying wishes, fears, and defenses; groups were studied by means of questionnaires. It was not expected that the clinical studies would be as complete or profound as some which have already been performed, primarily by psychoanalysts, nor that the questionnaires would be more accurate than any now employed b y social psychologists. It was hoped, however-indeed it was necessary to our purpose-that the clinical material could be conceptualized in such a w a y as to permit its being quan­ tified and carried over into group studies, and that the questionnaires could be brought to bear upon areas of response ordinarily left to clinical study. The attempt was made, in other words, to bring methods of traditional social psychology into the service of theories and concepts from the newer d y ­ namic theory of personality and in so doing to make "depth psychological" phenomena more amenable to mass-statistical treatment, and to make quan­ titative surveys of attitudes and opinions more meaningful psychologically. In the attempt to integrate clinical and group studies, the two were car­ ried on in close conjunction. W h e n the individual was in the focus of atten­ tion, the aim was to describe in detail his pattern of opinions, attitudes, and values and to understand the dynamic factors underlying it, and on this basis to design significant questions for use with groups of subjects. W h e n the group was in the focus of attention, the aim was to discover what opinions, attitudes, and values commonly go together and what patterns of factors in the life histories and in the contemporary situations of the subjects were commonly associated with each ideological constellation; this afforded a basis on which to select individuals for more intensive study: commanding first attention were those who exemplified the common patterns and in whom it could be supposed that the correlated factors were dynamically related. In order to study potentially antidemocratic individuals it was necessary first to identify them. Hence a start was made b y constructing a question­ naire and having it filled out anonymously by a large group of people. This questionnaire contained, in addition to numerous questions of fact about the subject's past and present life, a variety of antidemocratic statements with which the subjects were invited to agree or disagree. A number of individuals who showed the greatest amount of agreement with these state-

INTRODUCTION

13

merits—and, by w a y of contrast, some who showed the most disagreement or, in some instances, were most neutral—were then studied by means of interviews and other clinical techniques. On the basis of these individual studies the questionnaire was revised, and the whole procedure repeated. The interview was used in part as a check upon the validity of the ques­ tionnaire, that is to say, it provided a basis for judging whether people who obtained the highest antidemocratic scores on the questionnaire were usually those who, in a confidential relationship with another person, expressed anti­ democratic sentiments with the most intensity. W h a t was more important, however, the clinical studies gave access to the deeper personality factors behind antidemocratic ideology and suggested the means for their investi­ gation on a mass scale. W i t h increasing knowledge of the underlying trends of which prejudice was an expression, there was increasing familiarity with various other signs or manifestations by which these trends could be recog­ nized. The task then was to translate these manifestations into questionnaire items for use in the next group study. Progress lay in finding more and more reliable indications of the central personality forces and in showing with increasing clarity the relations of these forces to antidemocratic ideological expression. 2.

T H E TECHNIQUES

The questionnaires and clinical techniques employed in the study may be described briefly as follows: a. T H E QUESTIONNAIRE METHOD. The questionnaires were always pre­ sented in mimeographed form and filled out anonymously by subjects in groups. Each questionnaire included ( 1 ) factual questions, ( 2 ) opinionattitude scales, and ( 3 ) "projective" (open answer) questions. 1. The factual questions had to do mainly with past and present group memberships: church preference and attendance, political party, vocation, income, and so on. It was assumed that the answers could be taken at their face value. In selecting the questions, we were guided at the start by hypoth­ eses concerning the sociological correlates of ideology; as the study pro­ gressed we depended more and more upon experience with interviewees. 2. Opinion-attitude scales were used from the start in order to obtain quan­ titative estimates of certain surface ideological trends: anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, politico-economic conservatism. Later, a scale was developed for the measurement of antidemocratic tendencies in the personality itself. Each scale was a collection of statements, with each of which the subject was asked to express the degree of his agreement or disagreement. Each statement concerned some relatively specific opinion, attitude, or value, and the basis for grouping them within a particular scale was the conception that taken together they expressed a single general trend.

14

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

The general trends to which the scales pertained were conceived very broadly, as complex systems of thought about wide areas of social living. T o define these trends empirically it was necessary to obtain responses to many specific issues—enough to "cover" the area mapped out conceptually— and to show that each of them bore some relation to the whole. This approach stands in contrast to the public opinion poll: whereas the poll is interested primarily in the distribution of opinion with respect to a particular issue, the present interest was to inquire, concerning a particular opinion, with what other opinions and attitudes it was related. The plan was to determine the existence of broad ideological trends, to develop instruments for their measurement, and then to inquire about their distribution within larger populations. The approach to an ideological area was to appraise its grosser features first and its finer or more specific features later. The aim was to gain a view of the "over-all picture" into which smaller features might later be fitted, rather than to obtain highly precise measures of small details in the hope that these might eventually add up to something significant. Although this emphasis upon breadth and inclusiveness prevented the attainment of the highest degree of precision in measurement, it was nevertheless possible to develop each scale to a point where it met the currently accepted statistical standards. Since each scale had to cover a broad area, without growing so long as to t r y the patience of the subjects, it was necessary to achieve a high degree of efficiency. The task was to formulate items which would cover as much as possible of the many-sided phenomenon in question. Since each of the trends to be measured was conceived as having numerous components or aspects, there could be no duplication of items; instead it was required that each item express a different feature-and where possible, several featuresof the total system. The degree to which items within a scale will "hang together" statistically, and thus give evidence that a single, unified trait is being measured, depends primarily upon the surface similarity of the items— the degree to which they all say the same thing. The present items, obviously, could not be expected to cohere in this fashion; all that could be required statistically of them was that they correlate to a reasonable degree with the total scale. Conceivably, a single component of one of the present systems could be regarded as itself a relatively general trend, the precise measure­ ment of which would require the use of numerous more specific items. As indicated above, however, such concern with highly specific, statistically "pure" factors was put aside, in favor of an attempt to gain a dependable estimate of an over-all system, one which could then be related to other over-all systems in an approach to the totality of major trends within the individual. One might inquire why, if we wish to know the intensity of some ideolog-

INTRODUCTION

15

ical pattern—such as anti-Semitism—within the individual, w e do not ask him directly, after defining what w e mean. The answer, in part, is that the phe­ nomenon to be measured is so complex that a single response would not go very far toward revealing the important differences among individuals. Moreover, anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, and politico-economic reactionism or radicalism are topics about which many people are not prepared to speak with complete frankness. Thus, even at this surface ideological level it was necessary to employ a certain amount of indirectness. Subjects were never told what was the particular concern of the questionnaire, but only that they were taking part in a "survey of opinions about various issues of the day." T o support this view of the proceedings, items belonging to a partic­ ular scale were interspersed with items from other scales in the questionnaire. It was not possible, of course, to avoid statements prejudicial to minority groups, but care was taken in each case to allow the subject "a w a y out," that is to say, to make it possible for him to agree with such a statement while maintaining the belief that he was not "prejudiced" or "undemocratic." Whereas the scales for measuring surface ideological trends conform, in general, with common practice in sociopsychological research, the scale for measuring potentially antidemocratic trends in the personality represents a new departure. The procedure was to bring together in a scale items which, by hypothesis and by clinical experience, could be regarded as "giveaways" of trends which l a y relatively deep within the personality, and which con­ stituted a disposition to express spontaneously (on a suitable occasion), or to be influenced by, fascist ideas. The statements in this scale were not different in form from those which made up the surface ideology scales; they were direct expressions of opinion, of attitudes, or of value with respect to various areas of social living—but areas not usually touched upon in systematic presentations of a politicosocioeconomic point of view. Always interspersed with statements from other scales, they conveyed little or nothing to the subject as to the nature of the real question being pursued. T h e y were, in the main, statements so designed as to serve as rationalizations for irrational tendencies. T w o state­ ments included in this scale were the following: ( a ) "Nowadays with so many different kinds of people moving around so much and mixing together so freely, one has to be especially careful to protect himself against infection and disease" and ( b ) "Homosexuality is an especially rotten form of delin­ quency and ought to be severely punished." That people who agree with one of these statements show a tendency to agree with the other, and that people who agree with these two statements tend to agree with open anti­ democratic statements, e.g., that members of some minority group are basic­ ally inferior, is hardly to be explained on the basis of any obvious logical relation among the statements. It seems necessary, rather, to conceive of some underlying central trend which expresses itself in these different ways.

i6

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

Different people might, of course, give the same response to a statement such as the above for different reasons; since it was necessary to give the statements at least a veneer of rationality, it was natural to expect that the responses of some people would be determined almost entirely by the rational aspect rather than by some underlying emotional disposition. For this reason it was necessary to include a large number of scale items and to be guided b y the general trend of response rather than b y the response to a single statement; for a person to be considered potentially antidemocratic in his underlying dynamic structure, he had to agree with a majority of these scale items. The development of the present scale proceeded in two w a y s : first, by finding or formulating items which, though they had no manifest connec­ tion with open antidemocratic expressions, were nevertheless highly cor­ related with them; and second, by demonstrating that these "indirect" items were actually expressions of antidemocratic potential within the personality as known from intensive clinical study. 3. Projective Questions, like most other projective techniques, present the subject with ambiguous and emotionally toned stimulus material. This ma­ terial is designed to allow a maximum of variation in response from one subject to another and to provide channels through which relatively deep personality processes may be expressed. The questions are not ambiguous in their formal structure, but in the sense that the answers are at the level of emotional expression rather than at the level of fact and the subject is not aware of their implications. The responses always have to be interpreted, and their significance is known when their meaningful relations to other psychological facts about the subject have been demonstrated. One projec­ tive question was, " W h a t would you do if you had only six months to live, and could do anything you wanted?" An answer to this question was not regarded as a statement of what the subject would probably do in actuality, but rather an expression having to do with his values, conflicts, and the like. W e asked ourselves if this expression was not in keeping with those elicited by other projective questions and b y statements in the personality scale. Numerous projective questions were tried in the early stages of the study, and from among them eight were selected for use with most of the larger groups of subjects: they were the questions which taken together gave the broadest view of the subject's personality trends and correlated most highly with surface ideological patterns. b. CLINICAL TECHNIQUES, I. The interview was divided roughly ideological section and a clinical-genetic section. In the first section was to induce the subject to talk as spontaneously and as freely as about various broad ideological topics: politics, religion, minority

into an the aim possible groups,

INTRODUCTION

17

income, and vocation. Whereas in the questionnaire the subject was limited to the topics there presented and could express himself only b y means of the rating scheme offered, here it was important to know what topics he would bring up of his own accord and with what intensity of feeling he would spontaneously express himself. As indicated above, this material af­ forded a means for insuring that the questionnaire, in its revised forms, more or less faithfully represented "what people were saying"—the topics that were on their minds and the forms of expression that came spontaneously to them—and provided a valid index of antidemocratic trends. The interview covered, of course, a much wider variety of topics, and permitted the ex­ pression of more elaborated and differentiated opinions, attitudes, and values, than did the questionnaire. Whereas the attempt was made to distill from the interview material what seemed to be of the most general significance and to arrange it for inclusion in the questionnaire, there was material left over to be exploited b y means of individual case studies, qualitative analyses, and crudely quantitative studies of the interview material b y itself. The clinical-genetic section of the interview sought to obtain, first, more factual material about the subject's contemporary situation and about his past than could be got from the questionnaire; second, the freest possible expressions of personal feelings, of beliefs, wishes, and fears concerning him­ self and his situation and concerning such topics as parents, siblings, friends, and sexual relationships; and third, the subject's conceptions of his childhood environment and of his childhood self. The interview was conducted in such a w a y that the material gained from it would permit inferences about the deeper layers of the subject's person­ ality. The technique of the interview will be described in detail later. Suffice it to say here that it followed the general pattern of a psychiatric interview that is inspired b y a dynamic theory of personality. The interviewer was aided b y a comprehensive interview schedule which underwent several revisions during the course of the study, as experience taught what were the most significant underlying questions and what were the most efficient means for evoking material bearing upon them. The interview material was used for estimation of certain common vari­ ables lying within the theoretical framework of the study but not accessible to the other techniques. Interview material also provided the main basis for individual case studies, bearing upon the interrelationships among all the significant factors operating within the antidemocratic individual. 2. The Thematic Apperception Test is a well-known projective technique in which the subject is presented with a series of dramatic pictures and asked to tell a story about each of them. The material he produces can, when inter­ preted, reveal a great deal about his underlying wishes, conflicts, and mech­ anisms of defense. The technique was modified slightly to suit the present

18

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

purposes. The material was analyzed quantitatively in terms of psychological variables which are found widely in the population and which were readily brought into relation with other variables of the study. As a part of the case study of an individual an analysis in terms of more unique personality vari­ ables was made, the material here being considered in close conjunction with findings from the interview. Though designed to approach different aspects of the person, the several techniques actually were closely related conceptually one to another. All of them permitted quantification and interpretation in terms of variables which fall within a unified theoretical system. Sometimes two techniques yielded measures of the same variables, and sometimes different techniques were focused upon different variables. In the former case the one technique gave some indication of the validity of the other; in the latter case the adequacy of a technique could be gauged b y its ability to produce measures that were meaningfully related to all the others. Whereas a certain amount of repeti­ tion was necessary to insure validation, the main aim was to fill out a broad framework and achieve a maximum of scope. The theoretical approach required in each case either that a new technique be designed from the ground up or that an existing one be modified to suit the particular purpose. At the start, there was a theoretical conception of what was to be measured and certain sources—to be described later—which could be drawn upon in devising the original questionnaire form and the preliminary interview schedule. Each technique then evolved as the study progressed. Since each was designed specifically for this study, they could be changed at will as understanding increased, and since an important pur­ pose of the study was the development and testing of effective instruments for diagnosing potential fascism, there was no compulsion to repeat without modification a procedure just in order to accumulate comparable data. So closely interrelated were the techniques that what was learned from any one of them could be applied to the improvement of any other. Just as the clinical techniques provided a basis for enriching the several parts of the questionnaire, so did the accumulating quantitative results indicate what ought to be concentrated upon in the interview; and just as the analysis of scale data suggested the existence of underlying variables which might be approached b y means of projective techniques, so did the responses on projective techniques suggest items for inclusion in the scales. The evolution of techniques was expressed both in expansion and in con­ traction. Expansion was exemplified in the attempt to bring more and more aspects of antidemocratic ideology into the developing picture and in the attempt to explore enough aspects of the potentially antidemocratic per­ sonality so that there was some grasp of the totality. Contraction took place continuously in the quantitative procedures as increasing theoretical clarity

INTRODUCTION

19

permitted a boiling down so that the same crucial relationships could be demonstrated with briefer techniques. C.

PROCEDURES IN T H E COLLECTION OF D A T A 1.

a.

T H E GROUPS STUDIED

T H E BEGINNING WITH COLLEGE STUDENTS.

There were enough prac­

tical reasons alone to determine that the present study, which at the begin­ ning had limited resources and limited objectives, should start with college students as research subjects: they were available for the asking, whether singly or in groups, they would cooperate willingly, and they could be reached for retesting without much difficulty. At the same time, other con­ siderations favored the use of college students in a study of ideology. In the first place, the intellectual and educational level is high enough so that there needed to be relatively little restriction with respect to the number and nature of issues that might be raised—a very important matter in a study that emphasized breadth and inclusiveness. One could be fairly certain that col­ lege students had opinions about most of the various topics to be considered. In the second place, there could be relative certainty that all the subjects understood the terms of the questions in the same w a y and that the same responses had uniform significance. In the third place, however large a population one might be able to sample he would probably find that most of his generalizations had in any case to be limited to various relatively homogeneous subclassifications of the total group studied; college students form one group that is relatively quite homogeneous with respect to factors that might be expected to influence ideology. And they represent an im­ portant sector of the population, both through their family connections and through their prospective leadership in the community. It is obvious, however, that a study which used only college students as subjects would be seriously limited in its general significance. Of what larger population could a group of students at a state university be regarded as an adequate sample? W o u l d findings on this sample hold for all the stu­ dents at this university? For college students generally? For young people of the middle class? It depends upon what kind of generalization is to be made. Generalizations about the distribution of particular opinions or about the average amount of agreement with this or that statement—the kind of in­ formation sought in poll studies—could hardly go beyond the students at the university where the survey was made. Results from an Eastern uni­ versity or from a privately endowed institution might be quite different. The present concern, however, was not so much with questions of dis­ tribution as with questions of relationship. For example, there was less

20

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

interest in what per cent of the general population would agree that "labor unions have grown too powerful" and that "there are too many Jews in government agencies" than in whether or not there was a general relation­ ship between these two opinions. For the study of how opinions, attitudes, and values are organized within the individual, college students had a great deal to offer, particularly in the early stages of the work where the emphasis was upon improving techniques and obtaining first approximations of gen­ eral relationships. This work could proceed without hindrance so long as the factors to be studied were present, and varied sufficiently widely from one individual to another. In this regard, the limitations of the college sample were that the relatively high intellectual and educational level de­ creased the number of extremely prejudiced individuals, and that some of the factors which were presumed to influence prejudice were rarely or never present. These considerations made it necessary to study various other groups of subjects. As it turned out, the strength of the various ideological trends was found to vary widely from one group to another, while the relationships found in the college group were very similar to those found elsewhere. b.

T H E GENERAL NONCOLLEGE POPULATION FROM W H I C H O U R SUBJECTS

W E R E DRAWN. W h e n it became possible through increased resources to expand the scope of the study, there began an attempt to obtain as subjects a wide variety of adult Americans. T h e aim was to examine people who pos­ sessed in different degrees as many as possible of the sociological variables presumed to be relevant to the study—political, religious, occupational, in­ come, and social group memberships. A list of all the groups (college and noncollege) from whom questionnaires were collected is given in Table i(I)-

The group within which a subject was functioning at the time he filled out the questionnaire was, of course, not necessarily the most important or representative of the various groups to which he belonged. T h e questionnaire itself was relied upon to give information about the group memberships deemed most relevant to the study, and subjects could be categorized on this basis regardless of the group through which the questionnaires were collected. The emphasis throughout was upon obtaining different kinds of subjects, enough to insure wide variability of opinion and attitude and adequate coverage of the factors supposed to influence ideology. T h e subjects are in no sense a random sample of the noncollege population nor, since there was no attempt to make a sociological analysis of the community in which they lived, can they be regarded as a representative sample. T h e progress of the study was not in the direction of broadening the basis for generalization about larger populations, but rather toward the more intensive investigation

INTRODUCTION T A B L E i (I) GROUPS FROM W H O M QUESTIONNAIRES WERE COLLECTED"

No. of Cases I.

Form 78 ( J a n u a r y

to M a y , 1 9 4 5 ) U n i v e r s i t y of California P u b l i c Speaking Class W o m e n U n i v e r s i t y of California P u b l i c Speaking Class M e n U n i v e r s i t y of California E x t e n s i o n P s y c h o l o g y Class (adult w o m e n ) . ' Professional W o m e n ( p u b l i c school teachers, social w o r k e r s , public health nurses) ( S a n F r a n c i s c o area)

Total II.

63

295

Form 60

(Summer, 1 9 4 5 ) U n i v e r s i t y of O r e g o n Student W o m e n U n i v e r s i t y of O r e g o n and U n i v e r s i t y of California Student W o m e n . U n i v e r s i t y of O r e g o n and U n i v e r s i t y of California Student M e n . . . . Oregon Service Club M e n (Kiwanis, Lions, R o t a r y Clubs) (Total questionnaire) Oregon Service Club M e n ( F o r m A o n l y ) 6

Total III.

140 52 40

Forms 4$ and 40 A . Form 4$

47 54 57 68 60

286

( N o v e m b e r , 1 9 4 5 , to J u n e , 1 9 4 6 )

U n i v e r s i t y of California E x t e n s i o n T e s t i n g Class (adult w o m e n ) . . P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Patients ( m e n and w o m e n ) ( L a n g l e y P o r t e r C l i n i c of the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a ) San Q u e n t i n State Prison Inmates ( m e n )

Total

59 121 no

243

B. Both Forms 4 ; and 40 A l a m e d a S c h o o l f o r M e r c h a n t M a r i n e Officers ( m e n ) U . S . Employment Service Veterans (men)

343 106

Total

449

C . Form 40 Working-Class Women: California L a b o r S c h o o l United Electrical W o r k e r s Union ( C . I . O . ) Office W o r k e r s L o n g s h o r e m e n and W a r e h o u s e m e n ( I . L . W . U . ) ( n e w members) Federal H o u s i n g P r o j e c t W o r k e r s

19 8 n 10 5 53

" In most cases each group taking the questionnaire was treated separately for statistical purposes, e.g., San Quentin Prison Inmates, Psychiatric Clinic Men. However, some groups were too small for this purpose and were therefore combined with other sociologically similar groups. W h e n such combinations occurred, the composition of the overall group is indicated in the table. Form A included the scale for measuring potentially antidemocratic trends in the per­ sonality and half of the scale for measuring politico-economic conservatism. 6

THE

22

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

Working-Class Men: United Electrical W o r k e r s Union ( C . I . O . ) California L a b o r S c h o o l L o n g s h o r e m e n and W a r e h o u s e m e n ( I . L . W . U . ) ( n e w members) U n i t e d Seamen's S e r v i c e

12 15 26 8 61

Middle-Class Women:

y

P a r e n t - T e a c h e r s ' Association California L a b o r S c h o o l (middle-class m e m b e r s ) . . . Suburban C h u r c h G r o u p Unitarian C h u r c h G r o u p L e a g u e of W o m e n V o t e r s U p p e r Middle-Class W o m e n ' s Club

46 11 29 15 17 36 154

Middle-Class Men: P a r e n t - T e a c h e r s ' Association Suburban C h u r c h G r o u p California L a b o r S c h o o l (middle-class m e m b e r s ) . . .

29 31 9 69

California Service Club Men: Kiwanis Club Rotary Club

4° 23

G e o r g e W a s h i n g t o n U n i v e r s i t y W o m e n Students L o s A n g e l e s M e n (classes at U n i v e r s i t y of California and U n i v e r ­ sity of Southern California, fraternity g r o u p , adult evening class, parents of students, radio w r i t e r s g r o u p ) L o s A n g e l e s W o m e n (same groupings as a b o v e )

63 132

117 130

Total 779 Total Forms 45 and 40 1,518 Overall Total of All Forms 2,099 of "key groups," that is, groups having the characteristics that were most crucial to the problem at hand. Some groups were chosen because their sociological status was such that they could be expected to play a vital role in a struggle centering around social discrimination, e.g., veterans, service clubs, women's clubs. Other groups were chosen for intensive study because they presented extreme manifestations of the personality variables deemed most crucial for the potentially antidemocratic individual, e.g., prison in­ mates, psychiatric patients. Save for a few key groups, the subjects were drawn almost exclusively from the middle socioeconomic class. It was discovered fairly early in the study that the investigation of lower classes would require different instru-

INTRODUCTION

23

merits and different procedures from those developed through the use of college students and, hence, this was a task that had best be postponed. Groups in which there was a preponderance of minority group members were avoided, and when minority group members happened to belong to an organization which cooperated in the study, their questionnaires were ex­ cluded from the calculations. It was not that the ideological trends in mi­ nority groups were considered unimportant; it was rather that their investigation involved special problems which lay outside the scope of the present study. The great majority of the subjects of the study lived within the San Francisco Bay area. Concerning this community it may be said that the population increased rapidly during the decade preceding the outbreak of W o r l d W a r II, so that a large proportion were newcomers from all parts of the nation. During the war, when the area took on the aspect of a boom town, the influx was greatly intensified and, hence, it is probable that a large number of the present subjects were people who had recently come from other states. T w o large groups were obtained in the Los Angeles area, several smaller groups in Oregon, and one group in Washington, D. C. Unless a person had at least a grammar school education, it was very dif­ ficult, if not impossible, for him to fill out the questionnaire properly—to understand the issues set forth in the scales and the instructions for marking the forms. The average educational level of the subjects in the study is about the twelfth grade, there being roughly as many college graduates as there were subjects who had not completed high school. It is important to note that the present samples are heavily weighted with younger people, the bulk of them falling between the ages of twenty and thirty-five. It will be apparent that the subjects of the study taken all together would provide a rather inadequate basis for generalizing about the total population of this country. The findings of the study may be expected to hold fairly well for non-Jewish, white, native-born, middle-class Americans. Where the same relationships appeared repeatedly as different groups—e.g., college students, women's clubs, prison inmates—came under scrutiny, generaliza­ tions may be made with the most certainty. W h e n sections of the popula­ tion not sampled in the present study are made the subjects of research, it is to be expected that most of the relationships reported in the following chapters will still hold—and that additional ones will be found. 2.

T H E D I S T R I B U T I O N A N D C O L L E C T I O N OF Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S

In approaching a group from whom questionnaires were to be collected, the first step was to secure the cooperation of the group leadership. This was never difficult when the leader was liberal in his outlook, e.g., the in­ structor of a class in public speaking, the psychologist at a Maritime School,

24

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

a minister in the inner councils of a men's service club. T h e purposes and procedures of the study were explained to him fully, and he then presented the project of filling out the questionnaires to his group. W h e n the group leadership was conservative, the procedure was more difficult. If it were made known that the study had something to do with social discrimination, it was not unusual for great interest in this "important problem" to be ex­ pressed at first and then for one delay to follow another until hope of ob­ taining responses from the group in question had to be abandoned. Among people of this type there appeared to be a conviction that it was best to let sleeping dogs lie, that the best approach to the "race problem" was not to "stir up anything." A more successful approach to conservative leaders was to present the whole project as a survey of general public opinion, "like a Gallup poll," being carried forward b y a group of scientists at the Uni­ versity, and to count upon the variety and relative mildness of the scale items to prevent undue alarm. In collecting questionnaires from classes of students, whether in regular sessions of the University, in summer school, or in university extension, it was usual for the instructor of the class to handle the whole proceeding himself. In other instances it was usually necessary to combine the adminis­ tration of the questionnaire with a talk to the group b y a member of the Study staff. He gave the instructions for filling out the questionnaires, aided in their collection, and then gave a talk on "Gauging Public Opinion," com­ ing only as close to the real issues of the study as he judged possible without arousing the resistances of his audience. Whether the group was judged to be liberal or not, the questionnaire was always presented to it as a public opinion inventory—not as a study of prejudice. T h e instructions given to the groups follow: SURVEY OF GENERAL PUBLIC OPINION: INSTRUCTIONS

W e are trying to find out what the general public feels and thinks about a number of important social questions. W e are sure you will find the enclosed survey interesting. You will find in it many questions and social issues which you have thought about, read about in newspapers and magazines, and heard about on the radio. This is not an intelligence test nor an information test. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. The best answer is your personal opinion. You can be sure that, whatever your opinion may be on a certain issue, there will be many people who agree, many who disagree. And this is what we want to find out: how is public opinion really divided on each of these socially important topics? It must be emphasized that the sponsors of this survey do not necessarily agree or disagree with the statements in it. We have tried to cover a great many points of

view. W e agree with some of the statements, and disagree with others. Similarly, you will probably find yourself agreeing strongly with some statements, disagree­ ing just as strongly with others, and being perhaps more neutral about still others. W e realize that people are very busy nowadays, and we don't want to take too much of your time. All that we ask is that you:

INTRODUCTION

25

(a) Read each statement carefully and mark it according to your first reac­ tion. It isn't necessary to take a lot of time for any one question. (b)

Answer

every

question.

( c ) Give your personal point of view. Don't talk the questions over with any­ one until you have finished. (d) Be as sincere, accurate,

and complete as possible in the limited time and

space. This survey works just like a Gallup Poll or an election. As in any other secret ballot, the "voters" who fill it out do not have to give their names. The cooperation of the groups, once they were presented with the ques­ tionnaire, was excellent, at least 9 0 per cent of those present usually handing in completed questionnaires. Some members of each group were, of course, absent on the day the questionnaire was administered, but since there was never any advance notice about this part of the program, there is no reason to believe that the responses of these absentees would have been generally different from those of the rest of the group. Subjects who were present but failed to hand in completed questionnaires fall almost entirely into two classes: those who made no attempt to cooperate and those who handed in incomplete questionnaires. It is to be suspected that the former were more antidemocratic than the average of their group, while the slowness or care­ lessness of the latter is probably of no significance for ideology. There was one attempt to collect questionnaires by mail. Over 2 0 0 ques­ tionnaires with complete instructions were mailed to teachers and nurses, together with a letter soliciting their cooperation and covering letters from their superintendents. The return was a disappointing 2 0 per cent, and this sample was strongly biased in the direction of low scores on the scales for measuring antidemocratic trends. 3.

T H E SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR INTENSIVE CLINICAL S T U D Y

W i t h a few exceptions, the subjects from a given group who were inter­ viewed and given the Thematic Apperception Test were chosen from among the 2 5 per cent obtaining the highest and the 2 5 per cent obtaining the low­ est scores (high and low quartiles) on the Ethnocentrism scale. This scale, it seemed, would give the best initial measure of antidemocratic tendencies. If the group from which subjects were to be selected was one which held regular meetings, as was usually the case, the procedure was to collect the questionnaires at one meeting, to obtain the scale scores and decide upon suitable interviewees, and then to solicit further cooperation at the next meeting. In the few cases where the use of a second meeting was impossible, the request for interviewees was made at the time of administering the questionnaire, those willing to be interviewed being asked to indicate how they might be reached. In order to disguise the basis of selection and the purpose of the clinical study, the groups were told that the attempt was being made to carry on a more detailed discussion of opinions and ideas

26

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

with a few of their number—about 1 0 per cent—and that people representing the various kinds and degrees of response found in the group were being asked to come for interviews. Anonymity was to be insured for the interviews as well as for the group survey, if the subject so desired. In order to arrange this, subjects desired for individual study were referred to by the birth date which they had en­ tered on their questionnaires. This could not be done, however, in those cases where subjects were asked to signify at the time of filling out the ques­ tionnaire whether or not they were willing to be interviewed. This may have been one reason w h y the response in these instances was poor. But there were other reasons w h y subjects of these groups were difficult to interview, and it is to be noted that the great majority of those secured under the birth date arrangement showed no concern about anonymity once their appoint­ ments had been made. Subjects were paid $ 3 . 0 0 for the two to three hours they spent in the clinical sessions. In offering this inducement at the time of the request for interviewees, it was pointed out that this was the only w a y to insure that the staff of the Study would not be conscience-stricken for taking so much valuable time. The arrangement did indeed have this effect, but what was more important, it was a considerable aid to securing suitable subjects: most of those who scored low on the Ethnocentrism scale would have co­ operated anyway, being somewhat attracted to psychology and willing to give their time in a "good cause," but many of the high scorers made it plain that the money was the determining consideration. In selecting subjects for clinical study the aim was to examine a variety of high and low scorers. Considerable variety was assured by the device of taking a few from most of the different groups studied. Within a given group it was possible to achieve further variety with respect to group member­ ships and scores on the other scales. There was no attempt, however, to arrange that the percentage of the interviewed subjects having each of various group memberships was the same as that which held for the group from which they were drawn. The question of how well the high and low scorers who were interviewed represent all those who scored high or low on the Ethnocentrism scale is taken up in Chapter IX. V e r y few "middle" subjects—the 5 0 per cent whose scores fall between the high and the low quartiles—were interviewed. It was believed that for the understanding of antidemocratic trends the most important first step was to determine the factors which most clearly distinguished one extreme from the other. In order properly to compare two groups it is necessary to have a minimum of thirty to forty subjects in each group, and since men and women, as it turned out, presented somewhat different problems and had to be treated separately, the study of high- vs. low-scoring men and the study of high- vs. low-scoring women involved four statistical groupings totaling

INTRODUCTION

1"]

1 5 0 . T o conduct more interviews than this was for practical reasons impos­ sible. The intensive study of representative middle scorers should form a central part of any future research along the lines of the present study. Since they are more numerous than either extreme, it is especially important to know their democratic or antidemocratic potentialities. The impression gained from a few interviews with middle scorers, and from the examina­ tion of many of their questionnaires, is that they are not indifferent or ignorant with respect to the issues of the scales, or lacking in the kinds of motivation or personality traits found in the extremes. In short, they are in no sense categorically different; they are, as it were, made of the same stuff but in different combinations.

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

I I

T H E CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN:

A PRELIMINARY VIEW

R. Nevitt Sanford

A.

INTRODUCTION

Although the present research is concerned primarily with the organiza­ tion of ideological trends within the individual, the reader will soon note that the bulk of this volume is concerned not with individuals as such but with variables and their general relationships. This is unavoidable, for al­ though each variable is but an abstraction when lifted out of the total con­ text in which it operates, the study of individuals can proceed only by analysis into components, and the relations of these components can be regarded as significant only if they can be, to some extent at least, generalized. Never­ theless, every effort will be made to keep the individual constantly in mind as the analysis of components proceeds. The verbatim interview protocols of two extreme scorers—one high (prejudiced) and one low (against prejudice)—on the Ethnocentrism scale will, in the present chapter, picture these subjects as they might appear to the casual observer during, let us say, an evening's discussion, among friends, of current social issues. Only the interview discussions of minorities, politics, religion, vocation, and income are given, the more personal clinical-genetic material being left for later sections. That the distinction between "ideo­ logical" and "personal" is artificial—though often useful—is indicated b y the fact that in the subject's spontaneous discussion of ideology some references to personal matters such as family and childhood repeatedly crop up. The aim is to set forth in a preliminary w a y that which is to be studied, to give a general impression of the totality which is to be analyzed and, in so far as possible, generalized. As the various components are taken up in turn in the following chapters, each is related to what has gone before, until a point is reached where each can be related to the whole. The value of the analysis can be measured in terms of how much the formulations arrived at in the end contribute to an understanding of the individuals whose protocols are pre­ sented here. 3i

j2

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

A special advantage of having actual cases in view at the start is that it becomes possible to state research problems in concrete terms. The reader will probably find that the kinds of discussion presented below are familiar; he may even have asked himself after listening to such a discussion, " W h y does he talk that w a y ? " This is one w a y of putting the major question of the present research. In order to approach an answer it is necessary first to describe as precisely as possible how the subject talks, to have terms in which the manner and content of his thought may be compared with that of others. In the present chapter, therefore, the interviews are used to il­ lustrate the derivation of the descriptive concepts of the study. These concepts are then employed in framing research questions and formulating explanatory hypotheses. The protocols which follow do not represent the most extreme cases found in the study (if the total population were sampled they probably would not be extreme at a l l ) ; nor can they be said to be typical, in any strict sense of the word, of subjects falling into the high or the low quartiles on the Ethnocentrism scale. There are other types of extremes than these, but at the least they belong to the types found most commonly among the high and low scorers. Lack of space makes it impossible to consider in this chapter examples of women with extreme scores; studies of individual women are, however, presented in later sections. Much of the interview material given below may, at first glance, impress the reader as rather unimportant, and quite unrelated to prejudice. The analysis to follow, however, will show that nearly everything these sub­ jects say makes some contribution to the general picture and has meaning when viewed in relation to it. B.

MACK: A M A N HIGH ON ETHNOCENTRISM

This subject is a twenty-four year old college freshman who intends to study law and hopes eventually to become a corporation lawyer or a criminal lawyer : His grades are B— on the average. After graduating from high school and attending business school for a year, he worked in the Civil Service in Wash­ ington, D. C. His brief sojourn in the Army was terminated b y a medical discharge-because of a stomach condition-when he was attending Officer Candidate School. He is a Methodist, as was his mother, but he does not attend services and he thinks religion is not important to him. His political party affiliation 1

1

Most of the material of this brief introduction to the subject was contained in his questionnaire, though a few pertinent facts are from his interview. In later sections all of his responses on the questionnaire will be considered in relation to the clinical material, but here the aim is merely to identify him, as it were, before proceeding with the discus­ sion of his ideology.

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE

MEN

33

is, like his f a t h e r ' s , D e m o c r a t i c . H e " a g r e e s " w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l t r e n d s e x ­ pressed b y the A n t i - N e w D e a l D e m o c r a t s and "disagrees" w i t h the

New

D e a l D e m o c r a t s ; he " d i s a g r e e s " w i t h t h e t r a d i t i o n a l R e p u b l i c a n s b u t " a g r e e s " w i t h the W i l l k i e - t y p e Republicans. T h e s u b j e c t is o f " I r i s h " e x t r a c t i o n a n d w a s b o r n in S a n F r a n c i s c o . B o t h o f his p a r e n t s w e r e b o r n in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . H e states in his q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t his f a t h e r is a r e t i r e d l u m b e r m a n w h o o w n s his o w n h o m e a n d has a r e t i r e d i n c o m e o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 . I t is l e a r n e d in t h e i n t e r v i e w t h a t t h e f a t h e r w a s a w o r k e r in t h e w o o d s a n d in t h e mills a n d it is t o b e i n f e r r e d t h a t his i n c o m e d e r i v e s m a i n l y f r o m a p e n s i o n . T h e m o t h e r d i e d w h e n t h e s u b j e c t w a s six. H e has a sister f o u r y e a r s his senior. T h e p r o t o c o l o f his i n t e r v i e w

follows:

2

Vocation: T h i s student has decided to make l a w his vocation. H e says he has been out of school three y e a r s and is n o w a freshman at the U n i v e r s i t y . H o w e v e r , he w e n t f o r t w o years to business school and in addition has attended night school; but he has to start at the beginning here. H e had a C i v i l S e r v i c e j o b in W a s h i n g t o n , being f o r a time principal clerk in one of the sections of the W a r D e p a r t m e n t . ( W h a t m a d e y o u decide to be a l a w y e r ? ) "I decided w h e n I w a s in W a s h i n g t o n . O f course, I w a s half decided w h e n I w a s at business school, w h e r e business l a w w a s emphasized. W h e n I w a s in high school, m y financial means w e r e such that I figured I had better get a general business education and then g o to w o r k . ( I n w h a t w a y s does l a w appeal to y o u ? ) W e l l , it seems to m e to u n l o c k an a w f u l lot of doors. In a n y profession, y o u g o so far and then y o u b u m p up against it. It is the fundamental basis of o u r g o v e r n m e n t . It is really the foundation of o u r enterprise. S o m e t i m e I have hopes of m a k i n g it available to people w i t h o u t funds, so that t h e y can h a v e equal sittings in the c o u r t . I w a n t to g o in f o r a general p r a c t i c e at the start and then m a y b e c o r p o r a t e l a w and then m a y b e criminal l a w . L a w w i l l be m o r e important in the future than e v e r before. T h e r e is a trend t o w a r d m o r e stringent l a w s , m o r e regimentation. T h i s w i l l be true w h e t h e r the f o r m of g o v e r n ­ ment alters o r not. E c o n o m i s t s h a v e determined that f o r the g o o d of e v e r y b o d y there has to be central control. ( W h a t does y o u r father think of the l a w ? ) M y father is quite interested in it. O f course, he w a n t e d business f o r me. H e has busi­ ness ability but he is a v e r y retiring fellow. H e w o u l d n ' t meet people. H e o w n e d some l u m b e r land, but m o s t l y he p r e f e r r e d w o r k i n g f o r other people. H e is v e r y unassuming; he w o r k e d in the w o o d s and in the mills. H i s $ 1 , 0 0 0 i n c o m e n o w is f r o m investments, stocks and bonds. H e hasn't w o r k e d f o r t h i r t y years. A t the time he w o r k e d , the w a g e w a s a r o u n d $ 7 5 a month. H e had stomach trouble. Y e s , he o w n s his o w n h o m e in a little t o w n . W e have o u r o w n cistern and an electric p u m p that I helped install. H e built the old house himself and he has all the m o d e r n conveniences. H e can get b y all right on f 1,000 a y e a r . " Income: ( Y o u w a n t to earn $5,000 p e r y e a r ? ) " W e l l , $5,000 sounds like a lot of m o n e y right n o w . It depends on w h e r e y o u live and h o w . In o r d i n a r y c i r c u m ­ stances y o u c o u l d live c o m f o r t a b l y on it. T h e opportunities f o r a l a w y e r in a small t o w n are limited, but I do like the small t o w n . E s p e c i a l l y those that are adjacent 2

T h e interviewer wrote as rapidly as he could, in a "shorthand" of his own, throughout the interview and then immediately used a dictaphone to record all that he had written. In this w a y it was possible to approach a verbatim recording of what the subject had said. Throughout the book, the interviewer's report of the interview is given in small type. Quotation marks within this material indicate a verbatim record of the subject's statements.

34

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

to the mountains. I e n j o y hunting, fishing, and camping. B u t I like the conveniences of the c i t y . In the c i t y y o u h a v e finer houses and the theaters. I haven't found any­ place I like better than California, and I h a v e traveled quite a lot. I'm g o i n g to travel to A l a s k a . M y father's brother died there in the Y u k o n . T h e r e are great possibilities there in the future. If a person studies it c a r e f u l l y and locates p r o p e r l y , he goes u p w i t h a t o w n . I w o r k e d w i t h some men lumbering last s u m m e r w h o w o r k e d on the A l a s k a h i g h w a y . T h e y found it p r e t t y t o u g h going. B u t these difficulties can be o v e r c o m e if big capitalists get interested. T h e r e is a huge pool of oil u p there, y o u k n o w , and that o u g h t to be developed." Politics: "I voted for D e w e y . In previous times I w o u l d h a v e v o t e d f o r F D R , but I w o r k e d there in W a s h i n g t o n and saw things I w o u l d put a stop to. T h e r e is a concentration of p o w e r in the bureaus. People w h o w o r k there have different attitudes. In the Civil S e r v i c e y o u are paid a c c o r d i n g to h o w m a n y people are u n d e r y o u , so t h e y w a n t people to c o m e in. T h e y think of themselves only. I'm not m e r c e n a r y enough to understand it. I w o u l d simplify things b y a competent administration. T h e r e is too m u c h overlapping and bungling. I w a s the right-hand man of the G e n e r a l there w h e n the O W I w a s introduced. T h e y put up this build­ ing for $600,000 w i t h little purpose in mind. T h e y did the same thing that the A r m y monitoring service w a s already doing. T h e O W I w a n t e d to take it o v e r . E v e n after the O W I took it o v e r , the W a r D e p a r t m e n t still helped prepare the c o m m u n i q u e s ; but the O W I w a n t e d credit. A l l that duplication at a tremendous outlay of m o n e y for no purpose. A n d all the time our department w a s c r y i n g f o r personnel. I w o r k e d m a n y hours overtime f o r no p a y because I w a s in the Civil S e r v i c e . I w a s there f r o m S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 4 0 , to S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 4 2 . I w a s there w h e n w a r w a s declared. I w o r k e d then f o r thirty-seven hours straight. It w a s quite a d a y in W a s h i n g t o n . I liked living in W a s h i n g t o n v e r y m u c h . I like being close to the center of things. Y o u can learn a lot about h o w the g o v e r n m e n t functions. T h e r e are daily events at y o u r fingertips that b y the time it gets here have c h a n g e d some­ h o w . It w a s fun k n o w i n g about the b a c k g r o u n d , k n o w i n g about the secret c o m ­ mittees. M y salary w a s $2,000 a y e a r . L i v i n g conditions, of course, w e r e terrible. ( W h a t did y o u like about D e w e y especially? ) I liked D e w e y ' s b a c k g r o u n d , his frankness, honesty, his c l e a r - c u t w a y of presenting his case. I think that at heart he is a v e r y honest man, interested in maintaining the old g o v e r n m e n t traditions. ( H o w do y o u see things shaping up f o r the f u t u r e ? ) If w e maintain our present system of g o v e r n m e n t , and I think w e w i l l f o r a time, some things w i l l h a v e to be altered. T h e system in W a s h i n g t o n has o u t g r o w n the limits of one man to control. W e h a v e g o t to eliminate confusion. T h e man w h o runs it must p i c k his lieutenants carefully. T h e w a y it is n o w , there is no clear authority. Y o u have to consult a half a dozen agencies to get a n y w h e r e . T h i s w i l l recede v e r y little after the w a r . E v e n t u a l l y the President will have to appoint a strong Cabinet to run things f o r him. T h e r e is no doubt that the system is b e c o m i n g m o r e centralized. I doubt that President R o o s e v e l t w i l l be reelected. It depends on the w a y the w a r goes. F r o m his speeches, one seems to see that he feels he is necessary to the U n i t e d States. H e has control of the P a r t y and will run as long as he is p h y s i c a l l y able. T h e popular v o t e in the last election w a s v e r y close. It w a s skilful politics that enabled the old g u a r d to w i n . Considering his obstacles, D e w e y did v e r y w e l l . In o r d i n a r y times, he w o u l d h a v e had a landslide. P e o p l e w h o had sons in the w a r effort felt that taking the President out might p r o l o n g the w a r . T h a t w a s w r o n g . T h e A r m y and the N a v y w e r e prepared f o r the w a r ten y e a r s in a d v a n c e . G e n e r a l Marshall w o u l d have had a lot to say, w h o e v e r w a s elected. I h a v e sat beside him and heard him talk. N o b o d y c o u l d alter his position. A change of presidents might have altered

CONTRASTING

IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE

MEN

35

our relations to E n g l a n d , but riot to Russia. R e c e n t l y there has been a lot of o p p o ­ sition to C h u r c h i l l . H e has been O K in w a r , but h o w he w i l l be in peace is a ques­ tion. T h e r e is, of course, close feeling b e t w e e n R o o s e v e l t and C h u r c h i l l . B u t R o o s e v e l t w o u l d c o m e out second-best in a contest w i t h W i n n i e . O f course, a lot of Roosevelt's ideas c a m e f r o m H o o v e r . ( W o u l d there be a difference in o u r rela­ tions w i t h Russia? ) N o , there w o u l d be no difference in our relations w i t h Russia. I think J o e Stalin w o u l d p l a y p r e t t y fair w i t h us. A n d D e w e y is honest to the death. H e has a g o o d b a c k g r o u n d , t h o u g h not of the w e a l t h y class, and he w o u l d think of the average people. H i s honesty and straightforwardness appeal to m e greatly. B u t a man has to use some underhandedness to get across the highest ideals." Religion: " O n m y father's side, m y folks w e r e C a t h o l i c . M y father and his brothers and sisters w e r e C a t h o l i c . F a t h e r w a s never deeply religious, but he w a s a g o o d man. H e drank but little, and he never smoked. H e w a s v e r y honest and strict in his dealings. H e f o l l o w e d the c h u r c h rules w i t h o u t g o i n g to c h u r c h . It stems b a c k to his not w a n t i n g to meet people. H e w a s v e r y retiring, and I can't understand it. T h e other m e m b e r s of his family w e r e not that w a y . H i s sisters are v e r y average. M y mother w a s a Methodist and quite strict u p until her death. I w a s sick m u c h of the time. S h e b r o u g h t us up v e r y strictly under this guidance. H e r aunt took us in hand w h e n M o t h e r died and saw that w e attended S u n d a y S c h o o l w i t h her children. T h a t w a s up until I w a s t w e l v e or thirteen. T h e n I got out of the habit. 1 like c h u r c h O K , though I disagree w i t h some of its doctrines. I like the music and singing in c h u r c h . I w a s so b u s y since high school that 1 stopped going. 1 have gone in for social things in spite of a great dread of them. B u t 1 looked at m y father and saw that 1 had to do differently. Y e s , the teachings of S u n d a y S c h o o l did mean something. B u t the arbitrary beliefs w e r e too m u c h . 1 g r e w up q u i c k l y . M y father has a l l o w e d m e to do as I pleased, although he f o r c e d some de­ cisions upon me. A b o u t smoking, he said I must do it in front of him, if I must. H e also p r o v i d e d wines and liquors in the ice chest. 1 soon tired of smoking and never took m u c h to drinking. I have a stubborn nature, and if he had tried to stop me, 1 p r o b a b l y w o u l d have taken it up. ( U n d e r w h a t conditions might y o u turn to re­ ligion? ) Y e s , under some conditions 1 might. 1 have had a lot of sickness, stomach trouble ever since 1 w a s t w e l v e . 1 w a s in the hospital once f o r three months. D u r i n g those periods, 1 like to turn to the Bible. I like the history and sayings of Christ, principally. I like to consider them and analyze them and figure out h o w t h e y affect me. I'm not so interested in the apostles' s a y i n g s - t h a t ' s not first-hand, so I don't a c c e p t it entirely. I have to be assured of it factually. I have a l w a y s tried to live a c c o r d i n g to H i s T e n C o m m a n d m e n t s . I like to receive just treatment and to give it to others. ( W h a t about y o u r conception of G o d ? ) W e l l , I have none especially. T h e closest conception I g o t w a s w h e n I w a s in the service, that is, G o d as strictly man, greater than a n y on this earth, one that w o u l d treat us as a father w o u l d his son. I don't think G o d is terrible in H i s justice. If one lives justly, his laxness will be overlooked. T h e thing is to m a k e things happier and juster on the earth."

Minorities: " M y mother comes f r o m an I r i s h - E n g l i s h - G e r m a n b a c k g r o u n d . I think of myself as I r i s h - p e r h a p s because m y father is definitely so, and p r o u d of it. H e likes the t h o u g h t of S t . Patrick's D a y . I have a q u i c k temper like the Irish. If there is a lot of Irish in people, t h e y are v e r y enjoyable. T h e y are easy spenders, even t h o u g h t h e y never have m u c h . T h e y h a v e the ability to m a k e other people h a p p y . T h e y are often w i t t y . I w i s h I w e r e m o r e like that. B u t there is too m u c h of the lackadaisical and laziness in some classes of Irish. ( W h i c h g r o u p s w o u l d y o u contrast w i t h the Irish? ) T h e Irish are most different f r o m the G e r m a n s or D u t c h

36

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

o r m a y b e the Scandinavians—perhaps Polish o r W h i t e Russians, w h e r e y o u find a m o r e stolid person in t h o u g h t and action. T h e types that I have encountered have a solid build and are not v e r y excitable. ( Q u e s t i o n about Irish assimilating.) I like to think of an Irish strain; it is enjoyable. Y e t in some people the Irish seems to predominate. It depends on the individual. I don't have a n y desire to be Irish, but I like people w h o are. I n e v e r met an Irishman I didn't like. M y b r o t h e r - i n - l a w is v e r y definitely Irish. ( W h a t about g r o u p s of people y o u dislike?) P r i n c i p a l l y those I don't understand v e r y well. A u s t r i a n s , the Japanese I n e v e r c a r e d f o r ; Filipinos—I don't know—I'd just as soon leave them as have them. U p h o m e there w e r e A u s t r i a n s and Poles, t h o u g h 1 find the Polish people interesting. I have a little dislike f o r J e w i s h people. I don't think t h e y are as courteous o r as interested in h u m a n i t y as t h e y o u g h t to be. A n d I resent that, t h o u g h I have had f e w dealings w i t h them. T h e y accent the clannish and the material. It m a y be m y imagination, b u t it seems to m e y o u c a n see their eyes light u p w h e n y o u hand them a coin. I a v o i d the J e w i s h clothiers because t h e y have second-rate stuff. I have to be c a r e ­ ful about h o w I dress. I mean, I b u y things so seldom I have to be careful I get g o o d things. ( C a n y o u tell that a person is a J e w ? ) Sometimes; usually o n l y after I get their ideas. L i k e one of the girls in P u b l i c Speaking. S h e had all the c h a r a c ­ teristics, b u t she left a f a v o r a b l e impression on me, even t h o u g h her ideas I dis­ agree w i t h . ( Y o u mean there are certain ideas w h i c h characterize the J e w s ? ) Y e s , to stick together, no matter w h a t ; to a l w a y s be in a g r o u p ; to h a v e J e w i s h sororities and J e w i s h organizations. If a J e w fails in his business, he's helped to get started again. T h e i r attention is directed v e r y g r e a t l y t o w a r d w e a l t h . G i r l s at the J e w i s h sorority house all have f u r coats, expensive but no taste. A l m o s t a superiority idea. I resent a n y s h o w of superiority in people, and I t r y to keep it d o w n myself. I like to talk w i t h w o r k i n g people. ( D o y o u think the dislike of J e w s is i n c r e a s i n g ? ) N o , I think this w a r has m a d e people closer together in this c o u n t r y . I've c o m e across J e w i s h soldiers and sailors; t h e y w o u l d be liked and a c c e p t e d if t h e y w o u l d be w i l l i n g to mix, but t h e y w o u l d rather be alone, t h o u g h I w o u l d have accepted them the same as a n y b o d y . I think t h e y h a v e interesting ideas, but t h e y have t o h a v e something in return. ( D o y o u think the J e w s have done their part in the w a r effort? ) Perhaps t h e y have, but t h e y are businessmen, and t h e y have been f u l l y repaid. ( D o y o u think the J e w s are a political f o r c e in this c o u n t r y ? ) Y e s , in N e w Y o r k there is an organization f o r J e w i s h i m m i g r a t i o n and c o m f o r t of J e w s . T h e y are v e r y w e l l organized. T h i s should not be a l l o w e d . ( W h a t do y o u think is the d a n g e r ? ) I don't believe it is a danger except in a concentration of w e a l t h in a certain class. I hate to see people in this c o u n t r y take on the burdens of people w h o have been misfits in other countries. W e have enough problems at h o m e w i t h o u t helping the oppressed of other countries. T h e J e w s w o n ' t intermingle. S o t h e y are not a g r e a t contribution to o u r country—though J e w i s h scientists and doctors have contributed a g r e a t deal. I c h e c k e d on the immigration. T h r e e - q u a r t e r s of those leaving E u r o p e arrive here. T h e y are v e r y t h o r o u g h in it. T h e y are businessmen and t h e y w i l l b r i n g pressure to bear on C o n g r e s s . W e o u g h t to p r e v e n t f u r t h e r immigration and concentrate o n t r y i n g to get them to mingle and b e c o m e a part of o u r people. ( D o y o u think t h e y w o u l d mingle m o r e if t h e y felt there w a s no p r e j u d i c e against them? ) If t h e y w o u l d mingle m o r e , there w o u l d be m o r e w i l l ­ ingness to break d o w n the barriers on the part of other people. O f course, t h e y have a l w a y s been d o w n t r o d d e n , but that's no reason f o r resentment. ( I notice y o u stated y o u w o u l d n ' t m a r r y a J e w . ) I certainly w o u l d n ' t . I w o u l d date that girl in P u b l i c Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. S h e w a s accepted b y

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

37

the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class." C.

L A R R Y : A M A N L O W ON E T H N O C E N T R I S M

This subject is a twenty-eight year old college sophomore, a student of Business Administration, with a B - average. Like Mack, his choice of a career was made after he had been out of school for a number of years—working part of the time and spending part of the time in a tuberculosis sanitarium. He is of "American" extraction and was born in Chicago. Both parents were born in the United States. His father is a cafe and bar owner (a small businessman, working in his own business), whose income is now $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 as compared with a prewar $ 3 , 0 0 0 . The father owns his own home and some other real estate. The subject, like his parents, is a Methodist, though he attends church seldom. He is a Republican—again like his parents. He "agrees" with the Willkie-type Republicans and "disagrees" with the traditional Republicans; he "disagrees" with the N e w Deal Democrats, while "agreeing" with the Anti-New Deal Democrats. This pattern of response, on the questionnaire, is the same as that of Mack, the high-scoring man. It will be especially inter­ esting therefore to note the contrast in the political ideologies of these two men as given in the interview. It will show how great, sometimes, is the discrepancy between the political party or the "official" ideology of a subject and his actual political tendencies. Vocation: "I have definite plans; I want to go into real estate and finance. I want to own my own business as an executive. I want to combine real estate and finance, that is lending money, and if successful, I would go into a brokerage business, buying and selling stocks and bonds. (Money?) Several of my relatives and my father have money, and will support me. I worked for them, as assistant manager for my father who is in a cafe and bar business, and he is also in real estate. Then I worked for CPA accounting firms, for several, and I have taken courses where I could pick things up, in accounting and business. I had one year of junior college, but I didn't take my work seriously. I got fairly good grades, but not as good as I should have gotten. I got a disease; I was in the hospital for four years. (It took several questions to learn that the subject had tuberculosis and was in a sanitarium.) But I never lost hope. I always planned to return to college. I took correspondence courses during my last two years in the hospital. (Larry always calls it a hospital, never a sanitarium.) In accounting, business management, etc., I did reading to improve my mind. I almost memorized Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends ... because I thought it would help me in business contacts. I planned my whole life, even where I'd settle down, in Los Angeles. That was all I had to do, lying there in bed, was plan my whole future, what I would do, and how I would do it. (What do you like about your planned business? ) M y grandmother had a rather successful restaurant; she was a very efficient businesswoman, and I admired her. My whole environment was about business; it glorified it, and I

3§

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

learned the same attitude. B e i n g in business f o r yourself gives independence, m o r e m o n e y , vacations w h e n e v e r y o u w a n t , the f r e e d o m y o u don't get in a 3 6 5 - d a y s - a y e a r j o b . I n e v e r c a r e d f o r sciences like chemistry, z o o l o g y , dentistry, and stuff like that. ( M e d i c i n e ? ) T h a t w o u l d be all right if I t h o u g h t I c o u l d g o to the top; but the a v e r a g e one is holed u p in a top-floor office, not m a k i n g m o r e than $ 2 0 0 a m o n t h v e r y often. T h a t ' s nothing c o m p a r e d to a businessman w h o hasn't had any education o r w o r k e d to p r e p a r e himself as a d o c t o r has. It's not o n l y the m o n e y , but also the general w a y of living. ( H o w e v e r , the m o n e y seems to be c l e a r l y and f o c a l l y i m p o r t a n t . ) I returned to school f o r three reasons: ( 1 ) knowledge—to be able to philosophize and understand things; ( 2 ) security—to get an adequate liv­ ing; ( 3 ) social prestige." ( T h i s is a g o o d example of L a r r y ' s t e n d e n c y to m a k e e v e r y t h i n g organized and explicit. H e k n o w s just w h a t he w a n t s to do and w h y he w a n t s to do it, and has even tried to make p s y c h o l o g i c a l explanations f o r this t e n d e n c y . H e enumerated 1, 2, 3 on his fingertips.) Income: "I'd like to earn at least $ 2 5 , 0 0 0 a y e a r and h a v e a personal capital of $100,000, that is to say, m y o w n m o n e y apart f r o m the business, So I c o u l d travel, do w h a t e v e r I w a n t , w h a t e v e r I see other people do, g o to E u r o p e , attend the K e n t u c k y D e r b y , o r w h a t e v e r . I w o u l d travel first class, g o b y air, see S o u t h A m e r i c a , g o n e a r l y a n y place. I've traveled o n l y a little so far. O r , g o to a c o n ­ vention in the East if I w a n t to. N o t a millionaire, just enough to do these things w i t h full security f o r the future. ( H o w optimistic o r pessimistic are y o u ? ) I'm v e r y optimistic. I don't k n o w e x a c t l y h o w m u c h , but I'll be at least f a i r l y success­ ful, p r o b a b l y as I said before. I've a l r e a d y had a little success. L a s t y e a r in C h i c a g o I had an o p p o r t u n i t y to g o into business w i t h some m e n in the cabaret and b o w l i n g alley business, along that line. B u t t h e y didn't offer enough m o n e y , and I didn't like the b o w l i n g business a n y w a y . Besides, I w a n t e d to c o m e b a c k to school, lay a basis f o r m y final plans, and h a v i n g m y o w n business. ( W h a t if y o u f a i l ? ) I w o u l d n ' t c o m m i t suicide o r get t e r r i b l y depressed. T h a t sickness ( h e n e v e r calls it b y n a m e ) taught m e to philosophize, to take things as t h e y c o m e w i t h a smile, to start again fresh after e v e r y difficulty. ( W h a t about y o u r f a m i l y ? ) D u r i n g the depression m y father had a g o o d job, as a l w a y s ; not w e a l t h y , but better than average, about $ 3 , 0 0 0 a year, I guess; but w e had a large f a m i l y , six children; I'm in the middle. T h e n he w e n t into business and did v e r y w e l l ; he n o w has a g o l d - m i n e bar. H e makes m o r e in a y e a r than he e v e r expected to make in a lifetime. H e has also b o u g h t some p r o p e r t y on the side and is making a lot at that. H e is like his mother, m y g r a n d m o t h e r . S h e and he just love their business. H e doesn't w a n t vacations, o r social prestige, o r w e a l t h as such. H e just w a n t s to be an efficient, successful businessman, and all his pleasure comes f r o m that. I guess it's w a n t i n g t o h a v e satisfied customers, h a v i n g them c o m e in f o r years and be satisfied and to have w e l l - c o o r d i n a t e d employees. ( W h a t kind of a boss is h e ? ) H e is kind but firm. H e b o u g h t homes f o r t w o employees; he lets them p a y it off to him g r a d u ­ ally. H e gives them a Christmas bonus, stuff like that, but he also demands effi­ c i e n c y and output. H e is an ideal e m p l o y e r . In fact, I don't think I'd be as g o o d to m y employees as he is, like risking m o n e y on their homes and not k n o w i n g w h e t h e r t h e y m i g h t run out on m e o r not." Politics: " M y father and m o t h e r are Republicans. T h e y n e v e r v o t e d f o r Roosevelt. I have v o t e d in t w o elections, and I v o t e d R e p u b l i c a n . B u t o u r rela­ tives are D e m o c r a t s and o u r friends too. T h e w h o l e f a m i l y has been R e p u b l i c a n f o r years and I guess that's w h y I am, and that's w h y m y father is too. A l s o because businessmen generally don't like the taxes, restrictions, and bureaus, the red tape. R o o s e v e l t is too m u c h of a politician; he hasn't enough principles. L i k e the w a y

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE

MEN

39

he threw over Wallace in the last election. I prefer Jones to Wallace as Secretary of Commerce, because Jones is a better businessman and would be more efficient; in general I like Wallace and Willkie, though I don't like Wallace's farm program. (Who is the best Republican?) Willkie. I voted for Dewey mostly as a protest against Roosevelt. But Dewey is too young and not experienced enough. (Dewey vs. Wallace?) Wallace is the better man, and I usually vote for the better man, but I guess I put politics ahead of the man this time, to get the Republicans back. I think it's time for a change of party." Minorities: (What do you think about the minority problem in this country?) "I can say that I haven't any prejudices; I try not to. (Negroes?) They should be given social equality, any job they are qualified for; should be able to live in any neighborhood, and so on. When I was young, I may have had prejudices, but since the war I've been reading about the whole world, and our minority problems seem so petty compared with the way other countries have worked things out. (Ex­ ample?) Like Russia; I don't like their share-the-wealth economics, but I think they are unified and fighting so wonderfully because everyone is equal. (He then gives a discourse on France, England, the Dutch, etc., and shows good knowledge of imperialism, exploitation of colonies, and so on, in the minorities aspect. He is less clear about the economics.) I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi­ ness for all. W e aren't unified and we don't know what we're fighting for, and the discrimination is at the root of it. Racial and economic questions are at the root of war. I don't believe in the suppression of anyone. I think the Japs are taken off the coast for undemocratic reasons. It's just that a lot of people wanted their farms and businesses. There was no real democratic reason for it. The segregation of one nationality just leads to more segregation, and it gets worse. The discrimination toward Negroes is because they aren't understood and because they are physically different. Towards Jews it's because of their business ability—the fear that they'll take over business control of the country. There should be education in Negro history, for instance, the part Negroes have played in the development of the country; and education in the history of other minorities, too. How the Jews came to be persecuted, and why some of them are successful." Religion: "I'm Methodist, and my family is Methodist, except for one brother who is going to be a Catholic priest. He's fifteen. He just likes it—he got into it by himself. Well, my mother was Catholic as a girl, but she became a Methodist when she married, and she didn't try to make any of us Catholics. (Value of religion?) It teaches the morals of right and wrong; that's the main value. But I question lots of religious teachings, after studying science and philosophy—like Darwin's evolu­ tion theory and the fact that man's history goes back to before the Bible. I go to church, I try to believe in religion, but I sometimes question much of it. I enjoy church, a good sermon on morals and good living, and how to progress. That's what's most important about religion (Parents?) They were church attenders, fairly religious; they sent us to Sunday School; they still say blessing before each meai. But they don't discuss religion or think much about it outside of church."

D.

A N A L Y S I S OF T H E

T W O

CASES

Before we turn to the analysis of these two interviews, a few words con­ cerning their significance for our major research problem may be injected. It will probably be granted that each of these protocols gives a total im-

4-0

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

pression. Though each contains some contradictions, each appears to be relatively organized and relatively self-consistent psychologically. W h a t is the importance for prejudice or potential fascism of such overall patterns? It may be argued that overt behavior in specific situations forms the crux of social discrimination, and that the most pressing need is for information concerning how many people today will, under given conditions, engage in this or that discriminatory practice. This kind of information is important, but it is not the particular concern of the present research. The major con­ cern here is with the potential for fascism in this country. Since we do not have fascism, and since overt antidemocratic actions are officially frowned upon, surveys of what people actually do at the present time are likely to underestimate the danger. The question asked here is what is the degree of readiness to behave antidemocratically should social conditions change in such a w a y as to remove or reduce the restraint upon this kind of behavior? This readiness, according to the present theory, is integral with the total mental organization here being considered. Though each ideological pattern may be regarded as a whole, it is a com­ plex whole, one that embraces numerous features with respect to which individuals may differ significantly. It is not enough to say that the one man is "prejudiced" and the other "unprejudiced," and on this basis to make value judgments and to plan for action. W h a t are the distinguishing fea­ tures? H o w is their presence within the individual to be accounted for? W h a t is their role within his over-all adjustment? H o w do they interact with other features to form an organized totality? In order to arrive at answers to these questions, the first task, it appears, is one of description. It is necessary to inquire, first, what are the trends or themes which run through an individual's discussion of each ideological area and through his discussion of ideology in general and, second, in what respect are these contents (variables) similar to and how do they differ from those found in another subject. The following examination of the interview protocols just presented is designed to illustrate the kinds of descriptive concepts used in the present study, and to show the manner of their derivation. The analysis was guided b y a theoretical approach, and it is to be recognized that another approach might draw attention to other aspects of the cases; there seems little reason to doubt, however, that the features here distinguished are among the most important ones. As the descriptive concepts are brought forward, it will be possible to raise concrete questions for research. These questions concern ( a ) the de­ terminants of consistent trends within the individual and of differences from one individual to another, and (b) the generality in larger populations of the variables and the explanatory relationships formulated on the basis of a few case studies. The order of topics in the interview protocols was determined by consid-

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

41

erations of interviewing technique: one should start with what the subject finds it easiest to talk about and leave the more affect-laden questions, such as those concerning minorities, until the end. It is convenient here, however, to take up the topics in an order which is more in keeping with the develop­ ment of the study and the general plan of the present volume: anti-Semitism, then ethnocentrism, and then ideology in general. 1.

IDEOLOGY CONCERNING T H E JEWS

Mack's accusations against the Jews may be grouped under three main headings: ( a ) violations of conventional values, ( b ) ingroup characteristics (clannish and power-seeking), and ( c ) burdens and misfits. The Jews are said to violate conventional values in that they are "not courteous or inter­ ested in humanity" but, instead, are materialistic and money-minded. As businessmen they have "second-class stuff" and are given to cheating; in social contacts the accent is on what is expensive but lacking in taste. The Jews as a whole are conceived of as constituting a closely knit group, the members of which are blindly loyal and stick together for mutual com­ fort and help. T h e y have their own organizations because they are unwill­ ing to mix with Gentiles. B y sticking together they accumulate wealth and power which will be used to benefit no one but themselves. But if there is Jewish power there is also Jewish weakness, for among them are burdens and misfits, and as a group, they have always been down­ trodden. W h y this should be true, in view of their capacity to stick together and accumulate wealth, remains unexplained b y the subject. He seems to feel that it is their own fault, for they "should not resent" what has befallen them. W e a k Jews are left in a particularly hopeless position; it is not only that non-Jews cannot be expected to help them but strong Jews should use their wealth and power, not to support weak members of their group, but to help non-Jews. Strong Jews could thus escape the accusation of clannishness and lack of interest in humanity. In general, Jews should throw off their Jewishness and mix with the rest of the population; then the social dis­ tance between the subject and them may be diminished. (It may be sug­ gested, however, that there is probably nothing the girl in the public speaking class could do to bring complete acceptance by the subject. Her Jewishness would probably remain as something to intrigue as well as to repel him.) Whereas Mack spent most of his time talking about "what's wrong with the J e w s " and "what the Jews should do about it," Larry spent most of his time talking about "what's wrong with non-Jews" and "what non-Jews should do about it." Larry opposes the idea that Jews want power and control; he wants to educate people about what Jews are really like. One of the most important differences between the two subjects is that L a r r y focuses on why these problems exist, while Mack does not seriously consider this question. Larry says he believes in completely open interaction with every-

42

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

body equal. Discrimination is at the root of war; it is a threat for all groups and a problem they must all attack. These discussions afford suitable examples of what is meant by ideology concerning Jews. It seems plain that what one has to deal with here is not a single specific attitude but a system that has content, scope, and structure. It may be noted at once that Mack expresses negative opinions concerning what the Jews are like (they are clannish, materialistic, etc.), hostile attitudes toward them (it is up to them to do the changing), and definite values (for courtesy, honesty, good taste, etc.) which shape the opinions and justify the attitudes. In contrast, Larry reveals no negative opinions about Jews, expresses attitudes that are favorable to them (nondiscrimination, understand­ i n g ) , and speaks of different values (freedom from prejudice, social equal­ ity, etc.). Questions for research immediately come to mind. How common in larger populations are the kinds of accusations made by Mack? W h a t other kinds of accusations may be found and with what frequency? What, within our society, are the most characteristic features of imagery concerning Jews? H o w general is the readiness to accept negative opinions, that is to say, to what extent would an individual who, like Mack, expresses spontaneously a set of negative opinions, agree with others that were proposed to him? In what sense, and to what extent, is anti-Semitic ideology irrational? (For example, are there other irrational features similar to those exhibited by our prejudiced subject: to speak of Jews as if they were all alike and then to ascribe to them traits which could not possibly coexist in the same person, to insist that the thing for them to do is to assimilate and then to make it clear that he cannot accept them if they do? Are these irrational trends typical of high scorers?) Are the attitudes toward Jews expressed by the present subjects typical of prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals? W h a t are the main attitudes to be found in our society? Do people with negative opinions usually have hostile attitudes as well? Is there a general readiness to accept or oppose a broad pattern of anti-Semitic attitudes and opinions? All of the above questions concern the content of anti-Semitic ideology; questions may likewise be directed to its intensity. If there is in each in­ dividual a general readiness to accept or oppose anti-Semitic opinions and attitudes, is it not possible roughly to rank individuals on a dimension rang­ ing from extreme to mild anti-Semitism, to a middle point representing in­ difference, ignorance or mixed feelings, to mild and then to extreme ^raft-anti-Semitism? The belief that this was possible led to the construction of a scale for measuring anti-Semitism, a scale that was at the same time broad enough to include most of the main content of anti-Semitic ideology. And the success of this scale made it possible to investigate quantitative rela-

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN.

43

tions of anti-Semitism and numerous other variables, including factors con­ ceived to have a determining role. Various explanations for such talk against the Jews as that found in iVIack's interview have been suggested: that this is largely a true appraisal of the Jews, that he has had specific unpleasant experiences from which he has overgeneralized, that he is merely repeating what is common talk among his associates, particularly those who have prestige for him, that he feels more or less frustrated in his economic, social, and professional aspirations and takes it out on the Jews, that he seeks to rationalize his own failures and weaknesses by placing responsibility on a suitable outgroup, and so on. While giving due attention to these hypotheses, the procedure in the present study was to postpone questions of determination and, instead of asking w h y he talks this w a y about Jews, to discover first how he talks about other people. The aim was to understand as fully as possible the nature of the readiness in the subject before inquiring into its sources. If the features found in his discussion of anti-Semitism are not found in his discussion of other groups, then his anti-Semitism has to be explained in and of itself. If, on the other hand, trends found in his thinking about Jews are found also in his thinking about other groups, then it is these trends which have to be ac­ counted for, and any theory which explained only the anti-Semitism would be inadequate. 2.

GENERAL

ETHNOCENTRISM

It was noted in Mack's discussion of Jews that he tends to think in ingroupoutgroup terms: he seems to think of the Jews as constituting a relatively homogeneous group that is categorically different from the group to which he feels that he belongs. A logical next step was to explore further his con­ ception of his own group, and to inquire into his opinions and attitudes con­ cerning various other groups. In the interview with this man the general topic of imagery and attitudes concerning minority groups was introduced b y inviting him to discuss his own ingroup belongingness. Most striking in this discussion Is the stereo­ typed w a y in which he speaks of the Irish and of the groups with which they are contrasted. Each ethnic group is regarded as a homogeneous entity, and little mention is made of exceptions. There is no attempt to explain how the groups came to be as they are, beyond the assumption of different "blood strains." W h a t a person is like depends on how much "Irish" or other "strain" he has in him. The Irish have certain approved traits—quick temper, easy spending, ability to make people laugh and be happy—and certain traits which he regards as faults—lackadaisicalness and laziness. It is interesting to compare this ingroup appraisal with his appraisal of the Jews, who are described in the same terms but who are conceived of as

44

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

lacking the good traits of the Irish. Also noteworthy is the contradiction in his attitude toward ambition and power: whereas he criticizes it in the outgroup, he regrets its lack in the ingroup. The problem for him is not how to eliminate an unequal distribution of power, but how to make sure that the bulk of power is in the right (ingroup) hands. Whereas a major fault of the Jews as noted above is their "clannishness" and their failure to assimilate, the existence of an unassimilated Irish strain is "enjoyable." Once again, some­ thing for which J e w s are blamed is seen as a virtue in the ingroup. Both ingroups and outgroups are thought of in the same general terms; the same evaluative criteria are applied to groups generally, and a given characteristic, such as clannishness or power, is good or bad depending on what group has it. Unfortunately, there was not time to explore the subject's ideas concern­ ing the other groups which he mentions among his dislikes—Austrians, J a p ­ anese, Filipinos—nor to inquire how far this list might have been expanded. Even by itself, however, the fact that the subject rejects other groups just as he rejects the J e w s is important. Larry's first remark calls attention to the fact that views about people and groups may be distorted or at least influenced by personal factors. Mack, on the other hand, shows little such self-orientation or self-awareness; he does not suggest that his confident generalizations might have any of the possible inaccuracies of personal opinions, nor does he feel obliged to account for them on the basis of real experience. One might ask whether such differences in the degree of intraception, i.e., the inclination to adopt a subjective, psychological, human approach to personal and social problems, do not as a general rule distinguish nonethnocentric from ethnocentric individuals. Characteristics notable in Mack's ideology concerning minorities but rela­ tively lacking in that of Larry might be described as follows: (a) Stereo­ typy—the tendency mechanically to subsume things under rigid categories, (b) The idea that groups are homogeneous units which more or less totally determine the nature of their numbers. This places the responsibility for intergroup tensions entirely on outgroups as independent entities. The only question asked is how outgroups can change in order to make themselves acceptable to the ingroup; there is no suggestion that the ingroup might need to modify its behavior and attitudes. Larry, in contrast, places the re­ sponsibilities primarily on the ingroup and urges understanding and educa­ tion within the ingroup as the basis for solving the problem, ( c ) The tendency to explain group differences in terms of "blood strain"—how quick a temper a man has depends on how much Irish he has in him. This is in contrast to Larry's attempt at explanation in social, psychological, and his­ torical terms, ( d ) Mack favors total assimilation, by outgroups, as well as total segregation of those outgroup members who refuse to assimilate. Larry, for his part, seems neither to threaten segregation nor demand assimilation.

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

45

He says he wants full "social equality" and interaction, rather than dominance by the ingroup and submission by outgroups. ( e ) Since he is relatively free of the stereotypes about ingroups and outgroups, and since groups are not his units of social description, Larry stands in opposition to Mack's tendency to think of groups in terms of their coherence and in terms of a hierarchical arrangement with powerful ingroups at the top and weak outgroups at the bottom. The question, raised earlier, of whether an individual who is against Jews tends to be hostile to other minority groups as well is answered in the case of one man at least. Mack rejects a variety of ethnic groups. And Larry, for his part, is opposed to all such "prejudice." The first question for research, then, would be: Is it generally true that a person who rejects one minority group tends to reject all or most of them? Or, is it to be found more frequently that there is a tendency to have a special group against which most of the individual's hostility is directed? How broad is the ethno­ centric rejection, that is to say, how many different groups are brought within the conception of outgroup? Are they extranational as well as intra­ national? W h a t are the main objective characteristics of these groups? W h a t traits are most commonly assigned to them by ethnocentric individuals? W h a t imagery, if any, applies to all outgroups, and what is reserved for par­ ticular outgroups? Is the tendency, found in Mack but not in Larry, to make a rigid distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup, common in the population at large? Are Mack's ways of thinking about groups—rigid categories, always placing blame on the outgroup, and so forth—typical of ethnocentric individuals? If ethnocentrism is conceived of as the tendency to express opinions and attitudes that are hostile toward a variety of ethnic groups and uncritically favorable to the group with which the individual is identified, then is it pos­ sible to rank individuals according to the degree of their ethnocentrism, as was proposed in the case of anti-Semitism? This would make it possible to determine the quantitative relations of ethnocentrism to numerous other factors—in the contemporary social situation of the individual, in his history, and in his personality. But, to pursue the general approach outlined above, it seems best first to explore further the outlook of the ethnocentric individual before raising fundamental questions of determination. W h a t of his opinions and attitudes concerning other groups than ethnic or national ones? How does he approach social problems generally? 3.

In his discussion of politics attributes of what for him is of the outgroup are conceived seeking. Power is sought as an

POLITICS

Mack deals at considerable length with the the outgroup. The structure and dynamics as follows. It is closely cohesive and powerend in itself, and to attain it any means may

4-6

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

be employed, no matter how wasteful or harmful to others. Selfishness and money-mindedness are important aspects of this power drive. At the same time, however, he ascribes to the outgroup characteristics which are the opposite of powerful: it is inefficient (shows bungling and confusion), waste­ ful and poorly organized; this inadequacy is attributed to the "fact" that the power arrangements within it are inadequate, with no clear authority and with lieutenants who are both too few and too carelessly selected. In addition to organizational weakness there is also physical weakness. (The reference to Roosevelt's physical ability brings to mind the argument of his political opposition that he was physically too weak to carry the burdens of a wartime president.) A further attribution of weakness to the New Deal is the idea of Roosevelt's submissiveness toward more powerful leaders—"he would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie," his ideas came from Hoover, and it is implied that he would lose out with Stalin if the latter did not play fair with us. Parenthetically, it may be noted that there is an apparent inconsistency between Mack's general ethnocentrism and his acceptance of Stalin. This apparent discrepancy may possibly be explained in terms of our subject's attitude toward power: his admiration for power is great enough so that he can accept and momentarily ally himself with a distant outgroup when that group is not seen as a direct threat to himself. It is probably a safe guess that like many who supported cooperation with Russia during the war, this man's attitude has now changed, and Russia is regarded as a threat to the ingroup. Mack's conception of the relations between the outgroup and the ingroup is simple: the outgroup with its selfish, materialistic, power-seeking drives, on the one hand, and its inefficiency and weakness on the other, is out to control and exploit the ingroup—to take power from it, to take over its functions, to grab all the credit, to seduce people into its fold by skillful manipulation, in short, to weaken the ingroup and run everything itself, for its own narrow, selfish ends. W h e n he comes to the political ingroup, Mack speaks only of admired characteristics, and the only political agencies discussed are the man, Dewey, and the army. The ingroup characteristics fall in exactly the same dimensions as do those ascribed to the outgroup, sometimes being identical and some­ times the exact opposite. Whether there is identity or reversal seems to follow a simple rule: those outgroup characteristics which have an aspect of power are kept intact in the ingroup, only now they are regarded as good, whereas for each outgroup characteristic signifying weakness or immorality there is an ingroup characteristic signifying the opposite. T o consider the reversals first, the inefficiency of the New Deal is in direct contrast to Dewey's clear-cut, straightforward approach. Roosevelt's "skillful politics" is the opposite of Dewey's frankness and honesty-to-the-

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

47

death. Roosevelt's submission to stronger leaders is in contrast to Dewey's determined overcoming of obstacles and to General Marshall's indomitable firmness. The organizational confusion of the outgroup is to be corrected by the concentration of power in a small, closely knit organization having clearly defined levels of authority with a strong leader at the top and a cabinet of carefully chosen lieutenants. It becomes clear, then, that the only real difference between the ingroup and the outgroup is the greater weakness of the latter. Leaving aside the weaknesses of the outgroup, we find that in all other respects the concep­ tions of outgroup and ingroup are identical: both seek to concentrate power in a small, cohesive organization the only purpose of which is to maintain itself. W h i l e the outgroup is accused of selfishness and materialism, the only virtues of the ingroup are the honesty and efficiency of its methods; there is no reference to its ends. Whatever the ingroup aims might be, however, they will presumably benefit the ingroup, for Mack tells us that one of the reasons for supporting Dewey is that "he would think of the average people," with whom the sub­ ject seems to be identified. W e know from Mack's discussion of ethnic groups that "average" is not an all-inclusive conception, but rather an ingroup from which he excludes a large proportion of the population. W e see also that wealthy people are excluded from his concept of average. That this latter is not typical equalitarianism, however, is shown by his desire to become a corporation lawyer, and b y his favoring a form of stratified social organization which in the economic sphere would—far from averaging things out—perpetuate the present distribution of wealth. This would seem to place the subject on the conservative side. Certainly, he quotes with ap­ proval many of the slogans of contemporary American conservatism, and he tells us that Dewey is to be supported because he is "interested in main­ taining the old government traditions." Yet there is reason to believe that his conservatism is not of the traditional kind. The type of centralized control which he favors is certainly out of keeping with traditional conservative principles of free competition and restriction of government's functions. Indeed, there is a suggestion that his apparent conservatism is in reality a kind of anticonservatism. W e may note his remark "if we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered." W h y should he suggest that our system of govern­ ment might not be maintained, and w h y does he think that at best it will be maintained only for a time} He seems to give us the answer himself, for the changes which he suggests as a means of maintaining the conservative tradi­ tion are actually changes which would overthrow it entirely. The main points considered so far are Mack's attribution of both power and weakness to the outgroup and of only power to the ingroup. It must be noted, however, that weakness, too, is thought of as existing in the ingroup,

48

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

though in a different form. Thus, when Mack describes the O W I as a powerseeking behemoth, the W a r Department is pictured in a situation of distress: "And all the time our department was crying for personnel." Again, Dewey's campaign is seen as a sort of struggle between David and Goliath, in which the clean-cut, straightforward younger man loses only because of the over­ whelming power and lack of scruple which opposes him: "It was skilful politics that enabled the old guard to win. Considering his obstacles, Dewey did very well. In ordinary times he would have had a landslide." This im­ agery of persecution is expressed not only in Mack's political thinking but also in his discussion of himself and his life in Washington. There is a clear note of self-pity in his remarks that he "worked many hours overtime for no pay," that when war was declared he "worked for thirty-seven hours straight," and that "living conditions were terrible." It is important to note that weakness in Mack and his group is only implied in these statements. W h a t he seems to be trying to tell us is that in so far as the ingroup might appear to be weak at a n y t i m e , this is due only to persecu­ tion by an outgroup that is momentarily—and unfairly—stronger. It is im­ portant to note further that his feelings of being persecuted do not lead to sympathy for other persecuted people nor to any inclination to eliminate persecution generally, but only to the thought that justice would consist in his group becoming the powerful one. Here, as is typical of people with persecution fantasies, Mack believes that he (his group) is essentially strong but is at the same time in a weak position; he can solve this dilemma only by attributing evil (dishonesty, unfairness, and so on) and undeserved power to his opponent. His desire to be attached to the same kind of power which he decries in the outgroup is expressed in his wanting to be "close to the center of things," and "know about the background" of important daily events, to be in on "the secret committees." Turning now to Larry, it may be noted that perhaps the most striking aspect of his remarks about politics is their lack of organization and of con­ viction. This is in contrast to his ideas in other ideological areas, such as minority questions, which show a relatively high degree of organization and firmness. However, even in his brief, casual utterances about politics we can see a different orientation from that found in Mack. True, there is here, as in their preferences for political labels, a certain amount of surface similarity—both men show general conservatism and the usual conservative accusations against the N e w Deal. But it is precisely this superficial similarity that makes the differences stand out. The main over-all difference lies in the absence from Larry's thinking of those features which led us to question Mack's conservatism. Thus, Larry's thinking does not revolve around the ingroup-outgroup distinction: there is no conception of the ingroup as a static homogeneous entity which is

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

49

beyond any criticism; nor is the outgroup conceived of as an aggregation of weak and evil people who through plotting and conniving are able to use their undeserved power in persecuting the ingroup. Indeed, he can even identify himself with a man, Wallace, who not only belongs to the outgroup but is, according to the prevalent propaganda, "inefficient" to boot. As the second main difference between the two men, there is more posi­ tive evidence that Larry's conservatism is genuine, in the sense that it is a means for furthering his admitted material motives. Since he intends to become a businessman, he supports the political party which seems to offer the most help to business. This is in contrast to Mack, who stresses the con­ ventional ideal of unselfishness in order, we may suppose, to disavow his underlying interest in power. Larry finds difficulty, to be sure, in reconciling this "realism" with the idealism which he expresses in other areas. But he is aware of this difficulty— and here again he differs from Mack. The latter speaks as if his utterances were sufficiently objective, so that there need be no reference to himself or to the possibility of personal determinants of opinion. Larry, on the other hand, is aware that his views reflect things within himself as well as external reality, and that consequently they are tentative, approximate, and possibly self-contradictory. He feels it necessary to explain the origins of his views, he can admit some inner conflict, and consider the possibility that he may not have acquired his views in the most intelligent w a y . W h i l e these features may prevent this subject from being very militant about anything, they would seem to insure him against reactionism. If two men whose ideas about politics are as different as those of Mack and Larry nevertheless have the same political alignment (they both agree with the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Democrats), and if they understand what these party labels mean, then it might be in­ quired whether political alignment bears any relationship to ethnocentrism. Or, if the two are related, what ideology concerning minority groups is more typical of the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Demo­ crats, that of Mack or that of Larry? And what of those who favor the New Deal Democrats or the traditional Republicans? According to theory, we should expect political liberalism to go with relative freedom from prejudice, and political conservatism, at least the extreme form of it, i.e., reaction, to go with ethnocentrism. Indeed, con­ siderable evidence that this is true already exists. A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum. This would permit the determination of the quantitative relations of conservatism to anti-Semitism and to general ethnocentrism. It is apparent from consideration of what Mack and Larry

50

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

have to say, however, that (a) conservatism is not a simple, unidimensional attitude but a complex ideological pattern, and ( b ) that the relations of conservatism to ethnocentrism are by no means one to one. It cannot be supposed, of course, that all the aspects of conservatismliberalism have been touched upon in the spontaneous remarks of these two subjects. It will be the task of research not only to determine whether the features expressed here—conservative values, pro-business attitudes, and the like—commonly go together, but to inquire what other opinions, attitudes, and values might belong to an over-all conservative or liberal pattern. What, in other words, is the composition of conservative (or liberal) politicoeconomic ideology? Is there a coherent pattern that is broad enough to include what Mack and Larry have in common and at the same time to permit a delineation of such differences as exist between them? And which is more important for the problem of potential fascism, conservatism in general, or the special kind of conservatism seen in Mack but not in Larry? It could well be argued that Mack's position is not conservative at all but rather pseudoconservative. Although, as noted above, he professes belief in the tenets of traditional conservatism, it is clear that he considers it "time for a change," and there is a strong implication that the kind of change he desires is one which would abolish the very institutions with which he appears to identify himself. It has frequently been remarked that should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. Thus, the slogan "rugged individual­ ism" which apparently expresses the liberal concept of free competition among independent and daring entrepreneurs, actually refers more often to the uncontrolled and arbitrary politics of the strongest powers in business— those huge combines which as a matter of historical necessity have lowered the number of independent entrepreneurs. It is clear that an investigation of antidemocratic trends must take this phenomenon into account. Is it pos­ sible to define pseudoconservatism in objective terms, to diagnose it in the individual and to estimate its Strength within a population? Is it true that pseudoconservatism is generally to be found, as in the case of Mack, asso­ ciated with ethnocentrism and other antidemocratic trends? On any ordinary scale for measuring conservatism, the pseudoconserva­ tive would probably obtain a high score; he would agree with the usual statements of conservative opinions, attitudes, and values. How to frame scale items that will reflect the conservative facade and at the same time induce the subject to reveal his underlying readiness for radical change is a particularly challenging technical problem. W e are confronted here with a clear instance of those different levels of expression which were discussed earlier. The only recourse, it would appear, is to employ clinical techniques that go more or less directly to the deeper tendencies, and give sufficient understanding of them, so that it becomes possible to formulate scale items

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

51

which permit the indirect expression, on the surface, of these deeper ten­ dencies. The Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) scale described in Chapter V is designed to give an estimate of the individual's general readiness to express conservative ideology and at the same time to distinguish the pseudoconservative from the others. For a fuller description of the different pat­ terns of conservative ideology, however, other scales and other techniques have in addition to be relied upon. W i t h this approach it becomes possible to investigate the relations of pseudoconservatism to "genuine conservatism" —if, indeed, the distinction can be maintained. T h e question m a y be raised as to whether there is any deeply ingrained conservatism, within the indi­ vidual, that does not derive its energy in large part from the personal need to curb one's own rebellious tendencies. In any case, it is clear that Mack's political ideology is different from Larry's. T h e differences stand out with particular clarity when Mack's dis­ cussion of politics is considered in relation to what he has to say about Jews and other ethnic groups. Just as his anti-Semitism could not be understood or evaluated until his ideas about other groups had been examined, so did his politics come into focus when seen against the background of his ethno­ centrism. It seems particularly significant that he talks about the N e w Deal, the Civil Service, and the O W I in the same w a y that he talks about Jews. This seems strongly to suggest that w e are faced here not with a particular set of political convictions and a particular set of opinions about a specific ethnic group but with a ivay of thinking about groups and group relations generally. Is the manner of this thinking—in rigid categories of unalterable blacks and whites—usually to be found in people who are prejudiced against minority groups? Is there any group, save those with which the subject is identified, that is safe from the kind of total rejection and potential hostility that is found here? Is there a general relationship between the manner of thinking and the content of thinking about groups and group relations? In Mack the stereotyped thinking is accompanied b y imagery of power versus weakness, moral purity versus moral lowness, and hierarchical organization. Are these trends commonly associated in the general population? If so, is the relationship a dynamic one, and what might be its nature? It would appear that the more a person's thinking is dominated b y such general tendencies as those found in Mack, the less will his attitude toward a particular group depend upon any objective characteristics of that group, or upon any real experience in which members of that group were involved. It is this observation that draws attention to the importance of personality as a determinant of ideology. And if personality has this crucial role in the broad areas of attitude and opinion that have been considered, might we not expect it to influence a subject's thinking in all areas that are important

52

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

to him? It would be impossible to know what Mack thinks about everything, but w e may examine his ideas about religion, income, and vocation and see if something approaching a total view emerges. 4. R E L I G I O N

The interviewer, in questioning Mack about religion, took into considera­ tion the following statement which he had made on his questionnaire. In response to the question, "How important, in your opinion, are religion and the church?" Mack wrote, "Especially important for people who need sustenance or who are highly erratic. I have had to rely too much on m y own ability for the necessities of life to devote a great deal of time to the spiritual." Larry, for his part, wrote, " V e r y important as the center of moral teachings." The question may be raised at once whether rejection of religion is usually associated with an antidemocratic outlook as is the case with Mack, while acceptance of religion, as in Larry, usually goes with relative freedom from prejudice. There would appear to be some reason to expect that the general trend would be the other w a y around, that freedom from religious dogmas would go with political "liberalism" and hence with freedom from prejudice, while acceptance of religion would go with conservatism and authoritarian­ ism and, hence, probably with ethnocentrism. In all likelihood the problem is not so simple. It may be that the mere acceptance or rejection of religion is not so important as hoiv the individual accepts or rejects it, that is to say, the pattern of his ideas about religion. This is a matter upon which the interviews ought to throw some light. It may be noted in the interviews of Mack and Larry that both men were subjected to a rather usual type of conventional pressure, that in both cases the application of this pressure was mainly a maternal function, and that in the background of both cases there is a mixture of Methodist and Catholic influences. Mack makes more of a distinction between father and mother roles than does Larry, and it seems important to Mack that his father was good without going to church. In the mind of the latter subject, church and mother seem to be rather closely identified and to stand for that which weak or dependent people turn to when they need sustenance. But it may be asked whether, in turning a w a y from the church, Mack has not had to sub­ stitute something else in its stead; and that is authority, as represented first by the father and later b y a "God who is strictly a man." It can be supposed that the kind of religious feeling which this "great man" arouses in the subject is like that he experienced when he sat next to General Marshall and heard him talk. Similar deference toward sufficiently high authority can be noted in Mack's respect for the sayings of Christ, which are con­ trasted with the "not first hand" words of the apostles. But Mack's respect for authority comes into conflict with his explicit

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

53

value of independence. How to reconcile the two is the problem with which his religious ideology is mainly concerned. Apparently he can get some feeling of independence b y asserting that he is stubborn and hard-headed, and by rejecting people who "need sustenance." And if the authority is suf­ ficiently powerful, it becomes possible to submit without losing altogether the sense of independence. If dependence and passivity are to be accepted, it must be in circumstances that are beyond his control, e.g., when he is sick. It is strongly suggested that as much as Mack would like to be inde­ pendent he would also like to be dependent. He does admit to liking the music and singing in church; he seems to make a point of telling us how much sickness he has had, and when he emphasizes that he has had to rely upon himself since an early age, we may detect not only a note of pride but a note of self-pity. An underlying need for dependence (passivity, sym­ pathy, comfort), in conflict with the desire to maintain masculine pride and self-respect, could give rise to an exaggerated value for independence; and it could at the same time receive a measure of gratification, in a somewhat disguised form, through submission to a powerful authority. This would seem to be a fairly clear instance in which a deeper-level need operates to affect manifest strivings, openly expressed values, and ideas about God and man. Since Mack does not belong to any organized religious sect, he does not speak of his group versus various religious outgroups. It is to be noted, how­ ever, that he seems to regard all religious people as constituting an outgroup, ascribing to them some of the same features—weakness, dependence—which he sees in Jews and in the N e w Deal. Larry, for his part, regards religion as a valued part of everyday living rather than something that is called for in a particular situation. For him it has the general function of promoting high ethical standards, good living, and progress rather than the limited function of offering relief in times of acute distress. Moreover, in contrast with Mack, who identifies morals with "the man," Larry conceives that the moral values of religion reside in the church as an institution. A further contrast between the two men lies in the fact that Larry accepts religion in general yet is able to criticize it, while Mack generally rejects it without offering specific criticisms. In criticizing the content of religion on intellectual grounds, Larry shows that he will not be likely to use it for reactionary aims. Mack exhibits his characteristic all-ornothing approach to ideological matters, and without any analysis of content concentrates on people—Christ, the apostles, God the man—who are to be totally accepted or totally rejected. Regardless of whether or not the general acceptance or the general rejec­ tion of religion should be found in a larger population to be associated with antidemocratic trends, it will be necessary to inquire whether the distin­ guishing features in the thought of Mack and Larry are generally significant.

54

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

No attempt was made in the present research to measure any variables in the area of religious ideology (although, as noted above, subjects did state in their questionnaires how important they considered religion and the Church); instead, effort was directed to the discovery of patterns of religious thought in the interview discussions of the subjects. H o w common in our society are the patterns found in Mack and Larry? Do these patterns gener­ ally bear the same kinds of relations to thought in other areas as they do in these two cases? W h a t other patterns of religious thought may be discovered and what is their significance for democracy or its opposite? Do the differ­ ent religious sects represent systems of belief that are related to prejudice? Do "racial" and "religious prejudice" go together and have the same sig­ nificances, as has been so frequently supposed? In the case of Mack, a deep-lying personality need, dependence, comes into prominence when religion is under discussion. Is it possible to demonstrate dynamic relationships between such needs and ideological systems? In other areas as well as in the area of religion? Also in the case of Mack, there appears to be a close connection between religious ideology and the pattern of family relations. Is this generally the case? It may be that the pattern of family relations is an important determinant not only of religious thought but of ideology in general. 5.

VOCATION A N D INCOME

The previous discussion has shown that Mack tends to think of the struc­ ture of any group as a hierarchy of power. It is not surprising therefore to find that he thinks of our total society as being organized along the same lines. In government he sees increasing centralization and regimentation, i.e., more and more control vested in fewer and fewer people, and in eco­ nomics, important developments will continue to be in the hands of the big capitalists. However much objective truth there may be in this view, the significant point is that Mack considers the state of affairs he describes as, if not desirable, inevitable. Given this kind of social organization, then the thing to do is to "go up," "to open doors," to be "on the inside," and this is the main trend in his vocation-income ideology. He wants to belong to or be "in with" the ruling group. It is not so much that he himself wants to dominate, but rather that he wants to serve powerful interests and so partici­ pate in their power. It was seen in his discussion of politics that the power attributes of the ingroup and of the outgroup were, in his mind, the same; it is not too much to hypothesize now that the reason he accuses the Jews, the Civil Service, the OWI, the New Deal of wishing to establish a closely cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup is that he wishes to do the same thing himself. It is necessary to add, of course, that he cannot fully justify to himself such an antidemocratic wish and so, under its sway but unable to admit it, he sees it as existing not in himself but in the world around him.

CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN

55

Larry, it appears, is also identified with business and would like to go up in the world, but there the similarity between the two subjects ends. Whereas for Larry, going up means improving his lot in the ordinary sociological sense, for Mack it means changing his status in a hierarchy; in other words, Larry thinks of climbing primarily in its individual sense, while Mack thinks of it more in its class sense. Larry does not seem to mind competing, once he has been given support at the start, while Mack would get there b y sub­ mitting to those who are going to win. Larry is frankly interested in money and a lot of it while Mack is moralistically temperate in this regard; Larry wants pleasure, Mack seems more interested in power; Larry feels that the main object of work and efficiency is that one might the sooner take a vaca­ tion and enjoy life; Mack appears to regard these things as ends in them­ selves. In general, both subjects express ideas that are closely in accord with their political ideologies. Another difference between the two men, which may be of considerable importance, lies in Larry's greater awareness of his motivation: he is entirely open about his desire for money and pleasure, his willingness to accept sup­ port, his susceptibility to influence b y his family, his interest in social prestige. There is little reason to doubt that these motives are just as strong, if not considerably stronger, in Mack, but it is plain that he does not fully accept them as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist. In the present area of vocation-income, perhaps more than in any of the others, the subjects' discussion of what they believe is closely bound up with discussion of what, more or less explicitly, they want. Personality needs, in other words, have a central place in the whole picture. T o climb socially, to be independent, to have pleasure and security, to attain a sense of power by submitting to those who have it—these are personality needs. The moral­ istic depreciation of money, the oversolicitous but unrealistic attitude toward poor people—these may be regarded as defense mechanisms, devices whereby needs which conflict with the stronger need to maintain self-respect are held in check. It is plain that with respect to a number of these variables Mack and Larry are widely different; and it was one of the main hypotheses of the present research that there are numerous such variables with respect to which prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ generally and which in individuals at either extreme go together to form a psychologically mean­ ingful pattern. In proceeding to test this hypothesis the interview protocols of numerous ethnocentric and anti-ethnocentric subjects—as well as other sources—were combed for just such distinguishing features, and these were then put into the form of questionnaire scale-items for testing with groups of subjects. A liking for "nice equipment," a fondness for hunting and fishing, a preference for living in a small town—numerous such small but

56

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

suggestive items were given consideration. On the assumption that potential antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend with respect to which individuals differ quantitatively, a scale for the measurement of this trend was constructed in the manner of those described above. This supplied the means for demonstrating on a mass basis some of the relationships which appear to exist in the two individuals under discussion. Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at par­ ticular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of personality would be forced upon us b y observation of the consistency with which the same ideas and the same modes of thought recur as the discussion turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various areas. The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations. For ex­ ample, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any area of social relations. It may be suggested, in this connection, that where social psychologists have not so far given a great deal of attention to person­ ality it is because they have not studied total ideology. Specific social atti­ tudes if adequately measured will undoubtedly be found to correlate with a variety of external and contemporary factors, and if one studies only spe­ cific attitudes he may easily be led to the belief that this is all there is to it. Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed b y subjecting him to a variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then, according to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i.e., personality, will always be revealed. The varied stimuli to which subjects of the present study were subjected were not limited to questions of attitude, opinion, and value; there were the clinical techniques designed especially for bringing the factors of personal­ ity to light. The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter—on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood. This led to an attempt to learn some­ thing about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through investigation of the early social environment. But this is a subject which can­ not be considered until much later; not until the several areas of ideology have been analyzed in detail.

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

I I I

T H E STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY Daniel J. Levinson

A.

INTRODUCTION

One of the most clearly antidemocratic forms of social ideology is preju­ dice, and within this context anti-Semitism provides a fruitful starting point for a social psychological study. As a social movement, organized antiSemitism presents a major threat to democracy: it is one of the most powerful psychological vehicles for antidemocratic political movements and it pro­ vides, for reasons which are largely politico-economic and beyond the scope of this discussion, perhaps the most effective spearhead for a frontal attack on our entire social structure. From a psychological viewpoint as well, anti-Semitism is particularly important and revealing. Much that psychologically oriented writers have already said about anti-Semitism and about fascism suggests that the deeper psychological sources of these ideologies are very similar. The irrational quality in anti-Semitism stands out even in casual everyday discussions. The fact that people make general statements about "the J e w , " when the Jews are actually so heterogeneous—belong to every socioeconomic class and represent every degree of assimilation—is vivid evidence of this irrationality. This striking contrast between the Jews' actual complexity and their sup­ posed homogeneity has suggested the hypothesis that what people say against Jews depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual charac­ teristics of Jews. For example, when the belief that Jews possess financial power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of over­ whelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he sup­ poses Jews to have. It is clear that research into the emotional sources of ideology is required for the understanding of such phenomena as these. These considerations, which suggest the advantage of making antiSemitism a point of departure for research, were also some of the hypotheses that guided the research as a whole. The study of anti-Semitism may well 57

58

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

be, then, the first step in a search for antidemocratic trends in ideology, in personality, and in social movements. Anti-Semitism is conceived here as an ideology, that is, as a relatively organized, relatively stable system of opinions, values, and attitudes concern­ ing Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. More specifically, it involves negative opinions regarding Jews (that they are unscrupulous, clannish, powerseeking, and so o n ) ; hostile attitudes toward them (that they should be ex­ cluded, restricted, kept subordinate to Gentiles, and so o n ) ; and moral values which permeate the opinions and justify the attitudes. Numerous questions concerning the structure and content of antiSemitism were raised in Chapter II. These and other questions guided the construction of an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of antiSemitic ideology. The source material for the scale included: the writings of virulent anti-Semites; technical, literary, and reportorial writings on antiSemitism and fascism; and, most important, everyday American anti-Semitism as revealed in parlor discussion, in the discriminatory practices of many businesses and institutions, and in the literature of various organizations which are trying, with small success, to counter numerous anti-Semitic accusations by means of rational argument. This scale, like the others used in the present research, had several func­ tions. It yielded a quantitative measure which could be correlated with measures of other, theoretically related, variables. It provided a basis for the selection of criterion groups of extreme high and low scorers, who could then be subjected to intensive clinical study. It permitted, as part of a larger questionnaire, a relatively detailed, quantifiable study of large groups of subjects. Finally, it was constructed in such a w a y that statistical analysis of its properties might reveal much of the structure, scope, and content of antiSemitic ideology.

B.

C O N S T R U C T I O N OF T H E ANTI-SEMITISM

( A - S ) SCALE

An opinion-attitude scale is a series of statements dealing with a given topic, in this case anti-Semitic ideology. The subject is asked to respond to each item by agreeing or disagreeing. His responses are converted into scores in such a w a y that a high score indicates a great amount of what is being measured—for this scale, anti-Semitism—a low score the opposite. The scor­ ing procedure is discussed below (Section C ) . The Likert method of scaling ( 7 3 , 8 4 ) was used. It is easier to apply and requires fewer items than the Thurstone method ( 1 1 8 ) , but yields equally high reliabilities and generally comparable results ( 2 2 , 8 4 ) . It was desired to avoid the assumptions and difficulties in the use of judges which the latter method entails. Also, since it was anticipated that in further stages of the research the items might be modified in wording, it was highly desirable to

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

59

avoid the repeated use of judges. A measure of intensity of opinion and attitudes is obtained, in the Likert method, b y having the subject indicate the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each item; this makes possible a more adequate determination of subtle group and individual dif­ ferences, and facilitates the qualitative analysis of individual response pat­ terns. This method also permits the covering of a wider area of opinions and attitudes. Finally, the Likert technique of item analysis (see below) was particularly suited to the general theoretical approach of this research. 1.

G E N E R A L RULES IN ITEM

FORMULATION

The procedure used for selecting and formulating items, in contrast to a frequent practice, did not involve the testing of several hundred items as a basis for selection of a final short scale. Rather, fifty-two items were formu­ lated and all of these were used throughout the statistical analysis of the preliminary form of the scale. ( T o anticipate a result presented below, only a few items were statistically inadequate, and this inadequacy is interesting in its own right.) In successive stages of the research there were, however, no qualms about modifying, deleting, or adding items. The present scale differs from most opinion-attitude scales in that it con­ tains only negative items, that is, they all state the anti-Semitic position regarding the issue in question. The reasons for the use of negative items only and an answer to some possible criticisms, presented in detail in a previ­ ous publication ( 7 1 ) , may be summarized here. One advantage of negative items is that they tend to be more discriminating. Also, negative items can be so phrased that they express subtle hostility without seeming to offend the democratic values which most prejudiced people feel they must main­ tain. Since the scale attempts to measure receptivity to anti-Semitic ideology, it seemed reasonable to use only anti-Semitic statements in the scale. The main argument against the present procedure is that it might produce a "set" or mechanical tendency consistently to agree or to disagree. This argument is answered on the ground that ( a ) most individuals show variability of response, as indicated by item intercorrelations averaging . 3 - 4 ; (b) there is a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme position; ( c ) very similar results have been obtained in later stages of the present research when an all-negative scale is inserted randomly into a longer series containing positive items; and, most important, ( d ) since the "set" argument implies that high scorers are not necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final test is the validity of the scale, that is, the demonstration that high scorers are significantly different from low scorers in a variety of meaningful charac­ teristics. The scale does, as will be shown later, have considerable validity. Since the A-S scale, like the others, was intended not only to provide a measure of an ideology but also to aid in the qualitative descrip­ tion of that ideology (and of individual ideological patterns), its construe-

quantitative

6o

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

tion followed certain general rules. These rules had to do with ( a ) the formulation of individual items, and (b) the division of the total scale into subscales. Since the scale should not, for practical reasons, include more than about fifty items (preferably fewer in later forms), each item should be maximally rich in ideas and there should be a minimum of duplication in wording or essential content of items. W h i l e the items are therefore often more complex than those of many other scales, this is not considered a fault. At the same time, they should be clear and unambiguous in meaning, so that agreement is ordinarily an expression of anti-Semitism, disagreement an expression of its opposite. It is important to avoid "double-barreled" items, that is, items with two parts such that a subject might agree with one part and disagree with the other, and thus not know how to respond. Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class. Since the present scale is intended to measure everyday, "garden variety" antiSemitism, the items were formulated in such a w a y as to reflect the prevalent forms in which anti-Semitism now appears. Most prejudice as one finds it in business, housing, and general social inter­ action is pseudodemocratic rather than openly antidemocratic; this distinc­ tion plays an important role in the analysis of anti-Semitic ideology which guided the construction of the scale and the formulation of items. A n idea may be considered openly antidemocratic when it refers to active hatred, or to violence which has the direct aim of wiping out a minority group or of putting it in a permanently subordinate position. A pseudodemocratic idea, on the other hand, is one in which hostility toward a group is somewhat tempered and disguised by means of a compromise with democratic ideals. Pseudodemocratic statements about Jews are often introduced by qualifying phrases which deny hostility or which attempt to demonstrate the demo­ cratic attitude of the speaker, e.g., "It's not that I'm prejudiced, but. . . ."; " J e w s have their rights, but. . . ." This pseudodemocratic facade is probably relatively untouched b y most of the current literature attacking prejudice as "race hatred," "un-Ameri­ can," "un-Christian intolerance," and the like. There is no hatred in the surface content of these attitudes and they have been squared with certain democratic values in such a w a y that the individual holding them apparently feels little if any sense of antidemocracy. And, of course, merely to label this w a y of thinking as un-American will not change it, first, because labeling is not enough, and second, because such thinking falls within one of the main streams of American social history and can be found to some extent in most sections of American life. It is necessary, rather, to understand its 1

1

This is shown by various public opinion polls and reportorial studies although compre­ hensive and rigorously obtained data are lacking. It is also indicated b y results from the present study.

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

61

external sources in American culture and tradition as well as the inner sources which make certain individuals particularly receptive to these cultural pressures. It is probably an error to regard the pseudodemocratic compromise as a mere surface disguise used deliberately and skillfully by prejudiced people to camouflage their actual, conscious antidemocracy. The person whose approach to social problems is pseudodemocratic is actually different now from one whose approach is now openly antidemocratic. For various reasons —perhaps because he has internalized democratic values, perhaps out of conformity to present social standards—the pseudodemocrat does not now accept ideas of overt violence and active suppression. The concern with democratic values, and the resistance to antidemocratic ones, must be con­ sidered as psychologically and socially important facts in any attempt to understand prejudice, American variety. Undoubtedly very many people who are now pseudodemocratic are potentially antidemocratic, that is, are capable in a social crisis of supporting or committing acts of violence against minority groups. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the attempted compromise with democratic values: because it may reveal a democratic potential which might, if supported and strengthened, ultimately gain the upper hand; because it colors the whole fabric of pseudodemocratic social thinking; and, since this compromise reflects the prevalent forms of overt discrimination in this country—quotas, segregation, exclusion, denial of op­ portunities—to understand the former may help to combat the latter. If patterns of ideology are conceived as falling on a dimension ranging from democratic to antidemocratic, then the pseudodemocratic ones prob­ ably stand somewhere between the center and the antidemocratic extreme. This is, of course, not a simple dimension: there are diverse approaches falling into each of these broad categories, and the dimension is not a simple quantitative one like length or weight. A change of certain trends in an indi­ vidual may produce a qualitative reorganization and ideological change from one extreme of this dimension to the other. The task is to understand the total individual and, especially in the case of the pseudodemocrat, to gauge the psychological potential for both democracy and open antidemocracy. Most of the items of the A-S scale have been formulated as pseudodemocratically as possible. This consideration was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the use of negative items only. The following rules have been followed in general: Each item should be made appealing and "easy to fall for" b y avoiding or soft-pedaling or morally justifying ideas of violence and obvious antidemocracy. Much use is made of qualifying phrases such as "One trouble with Jewish . . . " ; "There are a few exceptions, b u t . . . " ; "It would be to the best interests of all if . . . ," in order to avoid a categorical, aggressive con­ demnation. Items are worded so that the person can add at the end: "but I am not anti-Semitic." Seeming tentativeness is introduced b y qualifications such as "it seems that," "probably," "in most cases." Finally, an attempt is made to

6

2

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

give each statement a familiar ring, to formulate it as it has been heard many times in everyday discussions. T o the extent that the above rules have been followed, pseudodemocratic subjects are likely to make scores on this scale as high, or nearly as high, as those of the antidemocratic ones. It will be the task of later techniques,' both questionnaire-style and clinical, to provide further information con­ cerning the distinctions between these two groups of subjects. 2.

M A J O R SUBDIVISIONS OR A R E A S : T H E S U B S C A L E S

The general rules of item formulation just described refer primarily to the formal structure of items and can be applied to each item irrespective of the content of the ideas expressed in it. The content of the items was largely determined by the general conception of anti-Semitic ideology and the specific hypotheses discussed above. Several subscales were formed in order to insure systematic coverage of the various aspects conceived and in order to test certain hypotheses. The subscales cannot be thought of as dealing with components of anti-Semitism in any statistical sense; they are not based on statistical treatment of prior results, nor was any intensive correlational analysis of the present items made. The subscales are, rather, convenient ways of conceiving and grouping items. The anti-Semitism scale contains five subscales dealing respectively with imagery (opinions) of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threaten­ ing; with attitudes concerning what should be done to or against Jews; and with the opposing views that Jews are too seclusive or too intrusive (as­ similative). These subscales are probably not entirely independent either in a statistical sense or with respect to the actual content of the items; indeed, there is some question as to whether certain items may not equally well have been placed in a different subscale than the one to which they were assigned. Nevertheless, each subscale as a whole seems to deal with a fairly definite and definable phase of anti-Semitism. The subscales will now be discussed in order. a. SUBSCALE "OFFENSIVE" ( S ) . This subscale is presented in Table i ( I I I ) . (The items are numbered as they appeared in the total scale, which was given in two parts, I and II, with twenty-six items in each part; thus, I - is Item 4, part I.) The items describe various "Jewish traits" which are offensive, unpleasant, and disturbing. Stereotypy is implicit in items ascribing faults to " J e w s " - i m p l i c i t l y , "all" or "most" J e w s - w i t h o u t recognition of individual differences. It is explicit in item I - 1 3 , which specifically states that "Jews are pretty much alike" and which indicates an image of "the J e w s " as a stereo­ typed model of the entire group. 0

4

W h a t are the characteristics of this stereotyped image? If the other items offer an adequate description, "the J e w " is extravagant, sensual, conceited and overaggressive; but he is also "smelly," shabby, and unconcerned with his personal appearance. Jews are accused of being excessively Jewish, so to

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

63

T A B L E 1 (III) ANTI-SEMITISM SUBSCALE "OFFENSIVE"

I-I.

Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living. I-4. A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race. I-7. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always some­ thing basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is never totally changed. I-10. Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive. I - 1 3 . There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. I-16. The Jews shoud not pry so much into Christian activities and organizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians. II-1. The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they really want to stop being persecuted. II-4. There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick. II-7. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradu­ ally give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. II-10. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. II-13. One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding. II-16. Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt. speak, but their attempts to assimilate into "Christian" activities are re­ garded as prying. Jewish faults are considered the main cause of antiSemitism (Item II—1), which would be eliminated if the Jews made sincere efforts to improve. However, there is some doubt that Jews can ever quite manage to be fully Americanized (Item 1 - 7 ) . Item I I - 1 0 , "I can hardly imagine myself marrying a J e w , " is included here because it seems to refer more to an unpleasant image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude. It represents a pseudodemocratic equivalent to Item I - 1 5 in the "Attitude" subscale (see below). Are people consistent in their general agreement (or disagreement) with these items? This will be seen in the results presented below, b. SUBSCALE "THREATENING" ( S ) . These items, presented in Table 2 ( 1 1 1 ) , describe the Jews as a dangerous, dominating, corrupting social group. T h e y are asserted to have great power economically and politically, and to be unscrupulous and conniving in their dealings with Gentiles. T h e y do not like hard work (Item I l - n ) but at the same time they lower the general standard of living by doing menial work and by living under low standards (Item I—14). In addition to being simultaneously rich and poor, powerful and parasitic, they are also at once capitalists and revolutionaries. In their lack of patriotism they are a threat to the nation, and in general they are a threat to civilization. t

Apart from the enormous complexity of "the J e w " so described, there is something fantastic in the idea that a group so small numerically can be so

6

THE

4

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

TABLE 2 (III) ANTI-SEMITISM SUBSCALE "THREATENING"

1-2. I-5. 1-8. I-u. I-14. II-2. II-5. II-8. II-11. II-14.

The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civili­ zation. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con­ nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition. Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. W a r shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country. Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. The Jew's first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country. Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs. There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators.

powerful and so basic a social threat. This imagery in extreme cases seems to be an ideological expression of underlying paranoid trends; in Mein Kampf, for example, the Jews are regarded not only as "base and inferior" but also as having "germicidal potency" and "devilish cunning." However, most American anti-Semites are undoubtedly not psychotic or paranoid in the usual psychiatric sense. The personality trends related to this kind of imagery in Americans will be dealt with in later chapters. c. SUBSCALE "ATTITUDES" ( S ) . All the attitudes contained in this subscale (see Table 3 ( 1 1 1 ) ) are regarded as negative or hostile to the Jews as a group, and this hypothesis is generally borne out by the statistical re­ sults. These attitudes were intended to represent varying degrees of dis­ crimination ranging from simple avoidance to suppression and attack, with intermediate actions of exclusion, quotas (partial exclusion), and segregation. In order to cover many forms of discrimination, a list of the major social areas in which it occurs was used in the formulation of items. These areas are: employment, residence (neighborhoods, apartment houses, hotels), educa­ tion and professions, marriage, social organizations, politics, the nation. Item I I - 2 1 is a good example of pseudodemocracy: it assumes that the J e w s are actually a threat (imagery: powerful, offensive, etc.) and suggests that the Jews solve "their own problem"—implicitly, that if they do not limit them­ selves voluntarily, the Gentiles may be forced to more drastic action. A per­ son can agree to this, and many have, in the name of tolerance and democracy. It is, nevertheless, essentially an anti-Semitic idea: first, because as a matter of fact, it correlates well with the scale as a whole, and second, because it is based on hostile imagery, suppressive attitudes, and the assumption that antiA

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY

65

TABLE 3 (III) ANTI-SEMITISM SUBSCALE "ATTITUDES"

I-3. 1-6. I-9. I-12. I-15. I-18.

I-21. I-24. II-3. II-6. II-9. II-12. II-15. II-18. II-21. II-24.

In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to prevent Jews from living in it. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now. A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from getting into superior, profitable positions in society, for a while at least. The Jewish problem is so general and deep that one often doubts that demo­ cratic methods can ever solve it. It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry. It is best that Jews should have their own fraternities and sororities, since they have their own particular interests and activities which they can best engage in together, just as Christians get along best in all-Christian fraterni­ ties. It is sometimes all right to ban Jews from certain apartment houses. Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large per­ centage of Jews. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish em­ ployees. The best way to eliminate the Communist menace in this country is to con­ trol the Jewish element which guides it. In order to handle the Jewish problem, Gentiles must meet fire with fire and use the same ruthless tactics with the Jews that the Jews use with the Gen­ tiles. It is not wise for a Christian to be seen too much with Jews, as he might be taken for a Jew, or be looked down upon by his Christian friends. One of the first steps to be taken in cleaning up the movies and generally improving the situation in Hollywood is to put an end to Jewish domination there. Most hotels should deny admittance to Jews, as a general rule. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to keep out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews, and to keep out of the public notice. It would be to the best interests of all if the Jews would form their own na­ tion and keep more to themselves.

Semitism is merely a rational reaction of Gentiles to the intrinsic badness of Jews. d and

e.

SUBSCALES "SECLUSIVE" ( S ) AND "INTRUSIVE" ( S ^ . S

It is often

stated that the cause of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that "Jews are different," and it has often been suggested that assimilation is the only solution to "the Jewish problem." Indeed, many Jews have taken the same point of view, attempting in every w a y possible to take over the prevalent culture of their local American community, and becoming anxious over all signs of "foreign Jewishness" in their family and friends. This is not the place to discuss the problem of the adjustment of Jews and other minorities to American cul­ ture. The question raised here concerns instead the psychology of antiSemites: Is Jewish assimilation what they really want? If J e w s behaved in a thoroughly conforming manner, would this satisfy the anti-Semites? One

66

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

indication that these questions will receive negative answers lies in the fact that highly assimilated Jews usually meet the same sort of discrimination that others do. Another sign in the same direction is the stereotypy so com­ mon in anti-Semitism. T o the extent that a person is reacting to his selfcreated label or image of "the J e w " rather than to the particular Jewish individual with whom he is dealing, it matters but little what the J e w in question is like. The sign "no Jews wanted" is entirely insensitive to the virtues or faults of the specific individual applying for a job. T A B L E 4 (III) ANTI-SEMITISM SUBSCALES "SECLUSIVE VS. INTRUSIVE"

A . "Seclusive" I-5. I-17. I-20.

I-23. II-13. II-17. II-20. II-23.

O n e trouble w i t h J e w i s h businessmen is that t h e y stick together and c o n ­ nive, so that a G e n t i l e doesn't have a fair c h a n c e in competition. M u c h resentment against J e w s stems f r o m their tending to k e e p apart a n d to exclude Gentiles f r o m J e w i s h social life. T h e J e w s should g i v e u p their un-Christian religion w i t h all its strange cus­ toms (kosher diet, special holidays, etc.) and participate a c t i v e l y and sin­ c e r e l y in the Christian religion. J e w s tend to remain a foreign element in A m e r i c a n society, to preserve their old social standards and to resist the A m e r i c a n w a y of life. O n e general fault of J e w s is their overaggressiveness, a strong t e n d e n c y a l w a y s to display their J e w i s h looks, manners, and breeding. T h e J e w i s h districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and sticktogetherness of J e w s . J e w i s h millionaires m a y do a certain a m o u n t to help their o w n people, but little of their m o n e y goes into w o r t h w h i l e A m e r i c a n causes. T h e J e w s keep too m u c h to themselves, instead of taking the p r o p e r inter­ est in c o m m u n i t y problems and g o o d g o v e r n m e n t .

B. "Intrusive" I-n. I-16. I-19.

I-25.

II-3. II-7. II-19. II-25.

T h e r e are too m a n y J e w s in the various federal agencies and bureaus in W a s h i n g t o n , and t h e y have too m u c h control o v e r o u r national policies. T h e J e w s should not p r y so m u c h into Christian activities and organiza­ tions n o r seek so m u c h recognition and prestige f r o m Christians. O n e thing that has hindered the J e w s in establishing their o w n nation is the fact that t h e y really have no culture of their o w n ; instead, t h e y tend to c o p y the things that are important to the native citizens of w h a t e v e r c o u n t r y t h e y are in. J e w s g o too far in hiding their Jewishness, especially such extremes as c h a n g i n g their names, straightening noses, and imitating Christian manners and customs. It w o u l d hurt the business of a large c o n c e r n if it had too m a n y J e w i s h employees. T h e trouble w i t h letting J e w s into a nice n e i g h b o r h o o d is that t h e y g r a d ­ ually g i v e it a t y p i c a l J e w i s h atmosphere. T h e true Christian can n e v e r f o r g i v e the J e w s f o r their crucifixion of Christ. W h e n J e w s create large funds f o r educational o r scientific research ( R o s e n w a l d , H e l l e r , e t c . ) , it is m a i n l y due to a desire f o r fame and p u b l i c notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest.

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

6J

In an attempt to quantify attitudes regarding assimilation, two subscales representing opposing sides on this issue were included in the A-S scale (Table 4(111)). Subscale "Seclusive" ( S ) takes the stand that Jews are too foreign and unassimilated; it accuses them of being clannish, of keeping apart, and of not being sufficiently concerned with other groups and other ways. The implication of these items is that Jews ought to assimilate more, that they could solve the problem of anti-Semitism themselves by entering more actively into American life and by conforming more closely with American conventions and standards. ( T w o of these items were also included in other subscales, Item I - 5 being also in S , and II—13 in S ) . Subscale "Intrusive" ( S i ) , on the other hand, accuses the Jews of overassimilation and overparticipation. W h e n Jews seem to be conforming in social behavior they are actually just "imitating" and "hiding their Jewishness" (Item I - 2 5 ) . Their attempts to join organizations are based on prestigeseeking and the desire to pry (Item I—16). Their admission into the govern­ ment or into neighborhoods only leads to attempts by them at control and domination of non-Jews (Items I - 1 1 , II—7). Their seeming philanthropy is based on selfish motives (Item II—25). And finally, they lack a culture of their own and must therefore copy or "sponge on" the culture of the country in which they live (Item I - 1 9 ) . The implication of these items, in direct contrast to those in the "Seclusive" subscale, is that Jews ought to keep more to themselves and to develop a culture, preferably even a nation, of their own. (Four of these items were also included in other subscales, Item I—11 being also in S , I—16 and II—7 in S , and II—3 in S . ) f. "NEUTRAL" ITEMS NOT IN A SUBSCALE ( T A B L E 5 ( H I ) ) . Four items in the A-S scale were not included in any of the five subscales. This illustrates s

T

T

0

0

A

TABLE 5 (III) "NEUTRAL" ITEMS IN THE ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE

I-22.

One big trouble with Jews is that they are never contented, but always try for the best jobs and the most money. I-26. There is little doubt that Jewish pressure is largely responsible for the U. S. getting into the war with Germany. II-22. There is little hope of correcting the racial defects of the Jews, since these defects are simply in their blood. II-26. On the whole, the Jews have probably contributed less to American life than any other group. the fact that the subscales represent "components" of anti-Semitism only in a general prestatistical sense. A correlational analysis of the scale would very probably indicate components containing these four items, since they deal with significant aspects of anti-Semitic ideology and since they correlate well with the total scale. Item I I - 2 2 is worth noting in particular; it takes a hereditarian-racist stand concerning the "defects" of the Jews and, like all hereditarian approaches, is pessimistic regarding improvement of group relations along democratic

68

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

lines. T o the person who feels that J e w s have special and basic faults which cannot be changed, all talk about ending discrimination, about improving Jewish-Gentile relations, and about "what Jews can do to help themselves" is meaningless and irrelevant. The fact that many people who take this "Jewish immutability" viewpoint also tend to tell the J e w s how they must change is another sign of the illogicality of anti-Semitism. This idea of the insolubility of the problem is also expressed in Items I - 7 and I - 1 2 . 3. THE TOTAL A N T I - S E M I T I S M ( A - S ) S C A L E The total anti-Semitism scale consists of fifty-two items and comprises all the items in the five subscales as well as the four neutral items discussed above. Both parts of the scale are present in Table 6 ( 1 1 1 ) , with instructions to sub­ jects, just as it was administered. TABLE 6 (III) THE TOTAL ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE

Public Opinion Questionnaire A This is an investigation of general public opinion concerning Jewish people. The following are statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please mark each one in the left margin, according to the amount of your agree­ ment or disagreement, by using the following scale: + 1: slight support, agreement — 1: slight opposition, disagreement + 2 : moderate support, " — 2 : moderate opposition, + 3 : strong support, " — 3 : strong opposition, 1. Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living. . 2. The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civilization. 3. In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to pre­ vent Jews from living in it. 4. A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race. 5. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and connive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition. 6. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now. 7. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always something basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a man­ ner that is never totally changed. 8. Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population. 9. A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from getting into superior, profitable positions in society, for a while at least. 10. Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive. 1 1 . There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national pol­ icies.

THE

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26.

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

69

The Jewish problem is so general and deep that one often doubts that democratic methods can ever solve it. There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry. The Jews should not pry so much into Christian activities and or­ ganizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians. Much resentment against Jews stems from their tending to keep apart and to exclude Gentiles from Jewish social life. It is best that Jews should have their own fraternities and sororities, since they have their own particular interests and activities which they can best engage in together, just as Christians get along best in allChristian fraternities. One thing that has hindered the Jews from establishing their own nation is the fact that they really have no culture of their own; instead, they tend to copy the things that are important to the native citizens of whatever country they are in. The Jews should give up their un-Christian religion with all its strange customs (kosher diet, special holidays, etc.) and participate actively and sincerely in the Christian religion. It is sometimes all right to ban Jews from certain apartment houses. One big trouble with Jews is that they are never contented, but always try for the best jobs and the most money. Jews tend to remain a foreign element in American society, to preserve their old social standards and to resist the American way of life. Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large percentage of Jews. Jews go too far in hiding their Jewishness, especially such extremes as changing their names, straightening noses, and imitating Christian manners and customs. There is little doubt that Jewish pressure is largely responsible for the U. S . getting into the war with Germany. THE TOTAL ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE

Public Opinion Questionnaire S This is an investigation of general public opinion concerning Jewish people. The following are statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please mark each one in the left margin, according to the amount of your agreement or disagreement, by using the following scale: + 1: slight support, agreement — 1: slight opposition, disagreement + 2 : moderate support, " — 2 : moderate opposition, " + 3: strong support, " — 3 . strong opposition, " 1. The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their con­ spicuous and irritating faults, if they really want to stop being per­ secuted. 2. W a r shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country. 3. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish employees.

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick. Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. The best way to eliminate the Communist menace in this country is to control the Jewish element which guides it. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. The Jew's first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country. In order to handle the Jewish problem, Gentiles must meet fire with fire and use the same ruthless tactics with the Jews that the Jews use with the Gentiles. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs. It is not wise for a Christian to be seen too much with Jews, as he might be taken for a Jew, or be looked down upon by his Christian friends. One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding. There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators. One of the first steps to be taken in cleaning up the movies and gen­ erally improving the situation in Hollywood is to put an end to Jewish domination there. Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt. The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and stick-togetherness of Jews. Most hotels should deny admittance to Jews, as a general rule. The true Christian can never forgive the Jews for their crucifixion of Christ. Jewish millionaires may do a certain amount to help their own peo­ ple, but little of their money goes into worthwhile American causes. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to keep out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews, and to keep out of the public notice. There is little hope of correcting the racial defects of the Jews, since these defects are simply in their blood. The Jews keep too much to themselves, instead of taking the proper interest in community problems and good government. It would be to the best interests of all if the Jews would form their own nation and keep more to themselves. When Jews create large funds for educational or scientific research (Rosenwald, Heller, etc.) it is mainly due to a desire for fame and public notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest. On the whole, the Jews have probably contributed less to American life than any other group.

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

71

The scale is intended to measure the individual's readiness to support or oppose anti-Semitic ideology as a whole. This ideology consists, according to the conception on which the scale was based, of stereotyped negative

opinions describing the Jews as threatening, immoral, and categorically dif­ ferent from non-Jews, and of hostile attitudes urging various forms of re­ striction, exclusion, and suppression as a means of solving "the Jewish prob­ lem? Anti-Semitism is conceived, then, as a general w a y of thinking about Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. Can one legitimately speak of a readiness in the individual to accept antiSemitic ideology as a whole? More concretely, can it be expected that people will respond relatively consistently to such varied scale items? These are questions which must be answered empirically. The content and generality of anti-Semitic ideology, and the adequacy with which it is measured by the present scale are indicated below b y a statistical analysis of scale results. The validity of the scale will be indicated by correlations of the scale with measures of other, theoretically related, variables, and by analysis of the responses of the two subjects discussed in Chapter II. C.

R E S U L T S : S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSIS OF T H E

SCALE

The procedure used for all scales in the present research was to allow six choices of response for each item: slight, moderate, or strong agreement, and the same degrees of disagreement, with no middle or neutral category. Each subject indicated the degree of his agreement b y marking -f-i, + 2 , or + 3, disagreement by — 1 , — 2 , or — 3 . It seemed likely that three degrees of agreement or disagreement could easily be distinguished by the subjects, and that three degrees gave them the best chance to record clearly felt differences in strength of agreement or disagreement. Certainly the data indicate that all six response categories were used. The "don't know" category has been a source of difficulty and con­ troversy in many fields of psychological research ( 1 2 1 ) . In techniques which permit its use, it tends to be the most frequent choice. Without it, the subject must take a stand one w a y or the other, although the categories of slight agreement and slight disagreement permit him to be nearly neutral. If a subject is unable to decide, he can, of course, omit the item; but there were never more than 2 to 3 per cent omissions among subjects taking the questionnaire, and never more than 1 per cent of the group to which it was administered failed to fill it out adequately. Furthermore, the fre­ quency with which the "moderate" and "strong" categories were used indi­ cates that the items were relatively unambiguous. The responses were converted into scores by a uniform scoring system. Since higher scores were intended to express increasing anti-Semitism, all responses were scored as follows:

72

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

-f-i = 5 points — 3 = 1 point -f-2 = 6 points — 2 = 2 points + 3 = 7 points — 1 = 3 points It will be noted that the scoring skips from 3 to 5 points between — 1 and + 1. Four points represented the hypothetical neutral response, and was assigned when the item was omitted. It probably makes little difference statistically that this scheme was used rather than a six-point one in which + 1 would receive 4 points. This scheme was used mainly because there seemed to be a greater psychological gap between — 1 and + 1 responses than between any other two adjacent responses. It was also convenient in marking the omissions. A person's scale score is simply the sum of his scores on the single items. For the 5 2 items the scores can range between 5 2 points ( 1 point on each item, indicating strong opposition to anti-Semitism) and 3 6 4 points ( 7 points on each item, strong anti-Semitism). W h e n the scale score is divided by 5 2 we obtain the mean score per item; thus, a total score of 7 8 can also be stated as a score per item of 1 . 5 . The initial results obtained with the A-S scale have been published else­ where ( 7 1 ) . The present discussion will deal with the second administration of the scale; on this occasion the questionnaire administered contained, in addition to the A-S scale, most of the other techniques which were used in subsequent stages of the research. The questionnaire was administered in April, 1 9 4 4 , to a class in Introductory Psychology at the University of Cali­ fornia. It was given as a routine class activity in two parts, separated by an interval of one week; Part I (Questionnaire A ) of the A - S scale was given in the first session, Part II (Questionnaire S ) in the second. The class was de­ signed for nonmajors in psychology and was rather heterogeneous with re­ spect to major subject and year in school. In view of a possible sex difference, the questionnaires of men and women were separated for statistical purposes. Due to wartime conditions, however, there were fewer than thirty men in the group, so that no statistics on men were computed. The data presented here are based on the questionnaires of the 1 4 4 women subjects, including nineteen members of major minorities: Jews, Negroes, Chinese, and foreign-born. In all subsequent groups the sta­ tistical analysis was limited to the questionnaires of native-born, white, nonJewish Americans. 1.

RELIABILITY

The reliability and related statistical properties of the A-S scale and its subscales are presented in Table 7 ( 1 1 1 ) . The total-scale reliability of .92 meets rigorous statistical standards, especially in view of the fact that Part II was administered a week after Part I. (The reliability of the scale on the

TABLE RELIABILITY

Reliability

1 3

OP T H E ANTI-SEMITISM

Part

Total Scale

Property

SCALE

AND ITS SUBSCALES

Subscale

Part II

.94

. 92

7 (III)

SIJI

fa .84

.91

S

.89

a

S

A .71

. 89

I

. 84

a m VI

Number of items Mean ( t o t a l ) Mean (odd h a l f ) Mean (even h a l f )

52

0

S.D. S.D. S.D.

26

10

16

8

8

2.66

3.08

2. 5 9

2.47

3. 2 8

2.55

2.94

2. 8 6

3.52

2.84

2.48

3.00

2.60

2.66

2.54

2.46

2.65

2.34

2.46

3.55

2. 5 0

1. 1 1

1.21

1.12

1.33

1.23

1.18

1.26

1.24

1.21

1.31

1.19

1.55

1.34

1.21

1.35

1.30

1. 1 2

1.15

1.15

1.30

1.32

1. 2 5

1.45

1.35

2.74

0

12

2.74

2. 7 0

(total) (odd h a l f ) (even h a l f )

26

,

d

O

>
. Q

T

A

g

b

c

T h e reliability of the total scale was obtained by correlating scores on Part I (the half administered first) with scores on Part II (in second half of questionnaire). All other reliabilities are based on correlations between the odd items and the even items. The correlations were corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula to ' give the reliability values in the table. T h e values of the means. S.D.'s and ranges are given in terms of mean score per item. If multiplied by the number of items in the scale or subscale in question, they are converted into values representing mean per total scale or subscale.

O H O

c o

9

74

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

first group studied, as previously published, was . 9 8 . ) The two parts were equated in terms of the subscales, so that an equal number of items from each subscale appeared in each part. Parts I and II are also roughly equivalent in terms of mean and standard deviation. In view of the high correlation be­ tween Parts I and II, as well as their equivalence and their high reliabilities (.94 and . 9 1 ) , it would appear that either of them alone provides as good a quantitative measure as does the total scale. It will be noted that the over-all mean is relatively low ( 1 4 0 . 2 as compared with a theoretical neutral point of 2 0 8 ) and that the obtained range includes extremely low scores but does not include the highest possible scores. The item analysis, as will be seen below, suggests the reason for this: despite our attempt to limit the scale to pseudodemocratic statements numerous items were still too openly or crudely prejudiced and had extremely low means (below 3 . 0 ) . The present group of students was, however, less anti-Semitic on the average than the one studied earlier, the latter having a mean of 1 5 8 and a range of 5 2 - 3 0 3 . The distribution of scores in both cases was fairly symmetrical but platykurtic, with very little clustering of scores around the mean. The reliabilities of the total scale and of the two parts are almost matched by the high reliabilities of the subscales. Reliabilities of .8 to .9 are very satisfactory even for scales three or four times their length. W i t h regard to reliability, equivalence of halves, and form of distribution, then, it seems safe to conclude that the A-S scale (as well as the subscales) provides an adequate measuring instrument. It ranks the subjects with a rela­ tively small error of measurement along a continuum or dimension. That this dimension may be called general anti-Semitism must still be demonstrated by the data on item analysis and validity which follow. No claim is made that the dimension is "pure" or homogeneous. To the extent that the scale is valid, it provides a measure of anti-Semitism in most of its generality and complexity. More specifically, it may be claimed that the higher an indi­ vidual's score, the greater his acceptance of anti-Semitic propaganda and the greater his disposition to engage in anti-Semitic accusations and programs of one form or another. 2.

I N T E R C O R R E L A T I O N S OF T H E SUBSCALES

The above reliability data indicate that people are relatively consistent in their responses to the A-S scale and to the individual subscales dealing with relatively specific kinds of imagery and attitudes. Correlations among the subscales are shown in Table 8 ( 1 1 1 ) . Intercorrelations of . 7 4 to . 8 5 are of considerable significance. The fact that they involve subscales dealing with so great a variety of opinions and attitudes is an important source of support for the hypothesis that anti-

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY TABLE 8

75

(III)

INTERCORRELATIONS OP THE A-S SIBSCALES a

Subscale "Offensive" "Threatening"

"Threatening" .85

"Attitudes"

"Seclusive"

.83

. 75

92 .93

.84

"Attitudes"

.74

" I n t r u s ive"

.74

a

T o t a l A-S

.94

T h e s e are the raw correlation coefficients. If they were corrected for attenuation to give the maximal value theoretically obtainable (with perfectly reliable instruments), they would all be well over .90.

Semitism is a general frame of mind, a w a y of viewing Jews and JewishGentile interaction. Imagery of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threatening, attitudes of restriction, exclusion and the like, the view that Jews are too assimilative and yet too clannish—these seem to be various facets of a broad ideological pattern. An individual's stand with regard to one of these issues tends to be very similar in direction and degree to his stand with regard to the others*. The correlations of . 9 2 to . 9 4 between each of the three major subscales and the total anti-Semitism scale are high enough so that knowing an indi­ vidual's score on any one subscale permits one to predict with considerable accuracy his score on the total A - S scale. In short, while almost every sub­ ject varies somewhat in his responses to the individual items (as will be shown below), almost every subject demonstrates a general degree of support or rejection of anti-Semitism which is relatively consistent from one type of accusation or attitude to another. This is not to say that all the ideas con­ tained in the scale are of equal importance emotionally to each anti-Semite. It is more probable—and this view is supported by the interviews—that for each high scorer there are a few central opinions (imagery of J e w s as cun­ ning, power-seeking, sensual, etc.) and attitudes of primary importance; but these "pet" ideas seem to provide a basis or general readiness for the ac­ ceptance of almost any anti-Semitic idea. The fact that this generality is not complete suggests that various patterns of anti-Semitic ideology may exist and might profitably be studied (as variations within the general framework described here). The correlation of . 7 4 between subscales "Seclusive" and "Intrusive" reveals a deep contradiction in anti-Semitic ideology. As a matter of simple logic, it is impossible for most Jews to be both extremely seclusive and aloof and at the same time too intrusive and prying. This categorical, self-con­ tradictory rejection of an entire group is, however, more than a matter of

j6

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

faulty logic. Viewed psychologically, these results suggest a deep-lying ir­ rational hostility directed against a stereotyped image to which individual Jews correspond only partially if at all. The illogical manner in which the hostility operates is illustrated b y a comparison of related items from these two subscales. Thus, "Seclusive" Item I I - 2 0 states that rich J e w s help "their own people" but not "American causes." However, "Intrusive" Item I I - 2 5 takes care of any exceptions: J e w s donate money not out of generosity but rather out of desire for prestige and fame. Similarly, either Jews do not take enough interest in community and government (Seclusive), or when they do, they have too much control over national politics (Intrusive). Anti-Semitic hostility leads, then, either to a denial of demonstrable facts (Jewish philanthropy, smallness of number, etc.) or to an interpretation of them which finds the J e w s at fault. The same self-contradictions and the same implications are evident in the high correlation ( . 7 4 ) between subscales "Seclusive" and "Attitudes." It is indeed paradoxical to accuse the J e w s of being clannish and aloof, and at the same time to urge that they be segregated and restricted. It would seem, then, that a general hostility and readiness to accept negative imagery are an essential part of the psychological functioning of anti-Semitic individ­ uals, who can regard a great variety of specific accusations, often mutually contradictory, as valid. The reliabilities and subscale intercbrrelations, taken together, permit several conclusions regarding the nature and inner sources of anti-Semitism. It is a general w a y of thinking in which hostile attitudes and negative opinions toward J e w s predominate. Several patterns of imagery brought out by the subscales seem to be partial facets of a single broad ideological framework. While these ideas are relatively common today, it would appear that those individuals (the high scorers) who take them over most easily are different in their psychological functioning from those who do not. One major char­ acteristic of anti-Semites is a relatively blind hostility which is reflected in the stereotypy, self-contradiction, and destructiveness of their thinking about Jews. 3.

INTERNAL CONSISTENCY: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF T H E I N D I V I D U A L I T E M S

A critical reader of the A-S scale may feel that certain items are unsatis­ factory in one w a y or another: that they do not measure what the others measure, that everyone agrees with the ideas expressed, that certain items are too ridiculous to be supported by anyone, and so on. He may like a few items particularly and wonder how successful they were. Or he may be con­ cerned with shortening and improving the scale and want a statistical basis for item selection and improvement. For these and other reasons a statistical analysis of the items has considerable value.

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

77

The problem can be posed in statistical terms as follows. If an item is good, in terms of the total scale, then item scores ought to correlate well with total scale scores. Since few high scorers agree with all items, and since some low scorers agree with several items, a statistical technique is necessary to determine the closeness of the relationship between item score and scale score. The most extensive technique for item analysis is the computing of correlations between item scores and scale scores, especially if some sort of factor analysis is planned. The Likert "Discriminatory Power" technique, al­ though statistically more limited, has a great time-saving advantage. Further­ more, Murphy and Likert ( 8 4 ) , obtaining both Discriminatory Powers and item-total scale correlations for a single scale, found a correlation of . 9 1 between these two measures of item value. In other words, the order of goodness of the items, as determined by the Discriminatory Power tech­ nique, is practically the same as the order determined by the correlation technique. The Likert technique was therefore used in the present study. The Discriminatory Power (D. P.) of each item is obtained by the follow­ ing procedure. Subjects whose total scores fall in the highest 2 5 per cent of the distribution are considered high scorers, while those whose scores fall in the lowest 2 5 per cent of the distribution are considered the low scorers. The means of the high scorers is obtained for each item and found to vary from item to item. Similarly for the low scorers. If an item measures antiSemitism well, then anti-Semites (high scorers), as determined by the total scale score, will make higher scores on it than will those who are opposed to anti-Semitism (low scorers). The greater the difference between the item mean for the high scorers and that for the low scorers, the greater the Discriminatory Power of that item, and the better the measure of antiSemitism it gives. A positive D. P. indicates that the item is anti-Semitic, in the sense that anti-Semites as determined by the total scale agree with the item to a greater degree than do unprejudiced subjects. If an item has a negative D. P., it has apparently been scored in reverse, since low scorers agree with it more than high scorers do. All items in the present scale have positive D. P.'s. The data on the item analysis of the A-S scale are presented in Table 9 (III). Each item is identified by a key phrase, and the letters O, T, A, S, and I refer to the subscales Offensive, Threatening, Attitudes, Seclusive, and In­ trusive respectively. The most important data on each item are the group mean and the D. P. The group mean reflects the general group tendency toward agree­ ment or disagreement. A mean near 4 . 0 indicates that the group was pretty evenly divided pro and con on the issue. Group means between 3 . 0 and 5 . 0 are likely to involve scores covering well the entire range from 1 to 7 . Means below 3 . 0 indicate a strong group tendency toward disagreement,

78

THE AUTHORITARIAN TABLE 9

PERSONALITY

(III)

ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE: ITEM MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN Part I

H.Q.

L. Q.

IL _P.

Mean f o r T o t a l Group

Mean No.

Item

1.

(0:

4.44

2. 03

2. 41

3.11

2.

(T: bad

influence)

2.75

1. 11

1. 64

1. 85

3.

(A: keep Jews out)

4.25

1. 03

3. 22

2.30

4.

(0: c o n c e i t )

4.50

1. 30

3. 20

2.71

5.

(S,T:

5.86

1. 38

4. 48

3.45

6.

(A: quota)

2.89

1. 00

1. 89

1.67

7.

(0: b a s i c a l l y J e w i s h )

5.78

1. 99

3. 79

3.59

8.

(T: power and c o n t r o l )

5.33

2. 30

3. 03

3. 80

9.

(A: suppress Jews)

3.61

1. 05

2. 56

1. 84

2.94

1. 24

1. 70

1.98

4.55

1. 24

3 . 31

2.56

4.75

1. 13

3. 62

2.76

5.50

1. 67

3. ,83

3.64

luxurious)

businessmen)

10.

(0: d i r t y

11.

(I,T:

districts)

Washington)

12.

(A: democratic

13.

(0: a l l

14.

(T: low l i v i n g s t a n d a r d s )

3.00

1. 24

1. 76

2.05

15.

(A: wrong t o i n t e r m a r r y )

4.19

1. , 1 9

3. 00

2.57

16.

(1,0:

3.89

1,.03

2.,86

2.24

17.

(S: Jews exclude

4.22

2., 11

2. 11

3.53

18.

(A: f r a t e r n i t i e s )

5.89

2., 1 3

3., 7 6

3.84

19.

( I : no c u l t u r e )

4.86

1,.73

3., 1 3

3.19

20.

(S: g i v e up r e l i g i o n )

3.03

1,. 3 0

1.,73

2.66

21.

(A: apartment houses)

4.47

1. 30

3., 1 7

2.52

22.

(N: never

methods)

alike)

prying) Gentiles)

5.42

1,. 2 2

4., 2 0

3.17

23.

(S:

element)

4.28

1.. 3 8

2., 9 0

2.88

24.

(A: d o n ' t h i r e Jews)

5.30

1., 1 9

4,. 11

2.84

25.

( I : hide

4.33

1 .62

2,. 7 1

2. 87

26.

(N: war w i t h Germany)

2.86

1,. 0 5

1., 8 1

1.69

Mean:

4.34

1,. 4 2

2,. 9 2

2.74

contented)

foreign

Jewishness)

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY

79

ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE: ITEM MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA WOMEN Part

Item

No.

II

H.Q.

Mean L.Q.

P.P.

Mean f o r T o t a l Group

1.

(0: own f a u l t )

5.89

2. 51

3.38

4.31

2.

(T: u n p a t r i o t i c )

2.97

1 . 05

1.92

1.75

3.

(I,A: t o o many employees)

4.89

1 . 30

3.59

2.95

4.

(0: d i f f e r e n t and s t r a n g e )

4.17

1 . 19

2.98

2.23

5.

(T: unscrupulous)

4.47

1 . 16

3.31

2.45

6.

(A: Communists)

3.39

1 . 05

2.34

2.08

7.

(1,0:

5.28

1. 32

3.96

3.23

8.

(T: f i r s t

5.05

1 . 81

3.24

3.10

t y p i c a l atmosphere) loyalty)

3.22

1. 00

2.22

1.84

(0: marry a Jew)

6.58

2. 3 0

4.28

4.22

11.

(T: p a r a s i t i c )

4.36

1 . 27

3.09

2.19

12.

(A: avoid Jews)

3.89

1 . 13

2.76

2.09

13.

(S,0:

4.97

1. 73

3.24

3.44

14.

(T: r e v o l u t i o n a r y )

4.28

1. 35

2.93

2.69

15.

(A: Hollywood)

3.94

1 . 13

2.81

2.47

16.

(0: d i r t y )

3.78

1 . 24

2.54

2.30

17.

(S: c l a n n i s h )

5.78

2. 32

3.46

4.57

18.

(A: h o t e l s )

2.22

1. 0 5

1.17

1.46

19.

(I: c r u c i f i x i o n )

2.69

1. 08

1.61

1.66

20.

(S: m i l l i o n n a i r e s )

3.97

1. 3 2

2.65

2.44

21.

(A: J e w i s h l e a d e r s )

4.64

1. . 6 2

3.02

3.07

22.

(N: r a c i a l

3.86

1 . 08

2.78

2.40

23.

(S: Jews keep a p a r t )

4.03

1. . 9 4

2.09

3.21

24.

(A: form own n a t i o n )

4.78

1. 70

3.08

3.23

25.

( I : Rosenwald)

2.89

1.. 1 6

1.73

1.74

26.

(N: c o n t r i b u t e d

2.89

1. , 1 9

1.70

1.97

4.19

1.,42

2.77

2.66

4.27

1 .42

2.85

2.70

9. 10.

(A: G e n t i l e s

ruthless)

overaggression)

defects)

least)

Mean: Means f o r t o t a l

scale:

Number: T o t a l group = 1 4 4 ; H.Q. = 3 6 ; L.Q. - 3 7 . Range of t o t a l s c o r e s : Total group: 5 2 - 2 8 6 ; H. Q. : 1 8 3 - 2 8 6 ;

L.Q.:

52-89.

8o

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

with few scores of 6 or 7 ( + 2 and + 3 responses). And group means of over 5.0, conversely, indicate relatively uniform agreement. The Discriminatory Power, on the other hand, is a measure of the variabil­ ity of the high and low scorers around the group mean, and of their average difference in response. H o w large must a D. P. be in order to indicate almost no overlap between highs and lows? This depends on the form of the dis­ tribution and the size of the group mean. An item with a group mean of 2.0, a low quartile mean of 1.0, a high quartile mean of 3.0, and a D. P. of 2.0, is undoubtedly very discriminating; the low scorers responded unanimously with — 3 , and the high scorers probably varied but little around the — 1 re­ sponse. In general, the more extreme the group mean (especially below 3 . 0 or above 5 . 0 ) the lower the D. P. can be and still adequately separate the low from the high scorers. From a broader point of view, however, the best items should have means nearer to 4.0; when the item mean is above 5 . 0 or below 3.0, the item should be reworded so that fewer people or more people, re­ spectively, will agree. For items with group means in the approximate range 3 . 0 to 5 . 0 , Dis­ criminatory Powers may be evaluated according to the following general standards: a D. P. of over 4.0 is very high and indicates almost uniform agree­ ment by the high scorers, disagreement b y the low scorers, with almost no overlap. D. P.'s of 3 . 0 - 4 . 0 are very satisfactory and indicate a clear-cut dif­ ference between high and low scorers. D. P.'s of 2 . 0 - 3 . 0 , while statistically significant, indicate greater variability in the responses of low and high scorers and a fair amount of overlap. A D. P. between 1.0 and 2 . 0 involves considerable agreement by the low scorers and disagreement by the high scorers, but it still indicates a statistically significant difference between the low mean and the high mean. As the D. P. decreases below 1.0, the possi­ bility of significance decreases rapidly. W i t h these considerations in mind we can examine the data in Table 9. In general the Discriminatory Powers are quite satisfactory, averaging 2 . 8 5 for the entire group. For the 52 items, 5 D. P.'s are over 4.0, 2 1 are between 2

3

4

2

A minimum item mean of 2.5 ought probably to be set for this group, since various studies have shown college students to be less prejudiced than the general population. F o r other groups studied in the present research, many item means were as much as a point higher. W h i l e standard deviations have not been obtained for all items, it can be shown that (with group N = 100 to 150) the standard error of the difference between the means for low and high scorers is almost never above .50, seldom below .25. In terms of the critical ratio, then, a D.P. of over 1.0 is statistically significant, that is, the means are different though the distributions are partially overlapping. W h i l e correlations between items or between each item and the total scale have not been computed for this group, later data on similar scales suggest that the average interitem correlation is about .4, while between each item and the sum of the remaining items the average correlation is about .6. (See Chapter I V . ) 3

4

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY

81

3.0 and 3 . 9 , and 1 5 are between 2 . 0 and 2.9. Only 1 1 D. P.'s are between 1 . 0 and 1 . 9 , the lowest being 1 . 2 . All of the D. P.'s are therefore above a minimum standard of acceptability. The 2 6 items with D. P.'s of over 3.0 are statistically very satisfactory. W h y were the other items less adequate? The answer is indicated b y the group means on these items. Of the 1 1 items with D. P.'s of less than 2.0, 1 0 have means below 2 . 1 . Conversely, almost all of the items with means of over 3.0 have D. P.'s of over 3.0. The mean for the low quartile is very low (below 2 . 0 ) on almost every item. The mean of the high quartile, on the other hand, varies greatly from item to item. The items with low D. P.'s were, in almost

every case, statements with which the high quartile tended predominantly to disagree. This result seems to be due partly to a lack of pseudodemocratic coloring in these items, partly to their obvious illogicality or lack of truth, and partly to a lack of extreme anti-Semites among these subjects. Thus, the mean of the high quartile on all 5 2 items averages 4 . 3 and varies from 2 . 2 to 6.6. For the 1 0 items with the highest D. P.'s, however, the high quartile means average well over 5.0. The dependability of the item means and D. P.'s is indicated by a com­ parison of the present group with the group of college students previously tested and reported on. The latter group responded to the entire scale (and other questionnaire material) at one sitting; the reliability was . 9 8 and the subscale intercorrelations were also slightly higher than in the present group. The group mean per item was 3.0 as compared with 2.7 for the present group, and the average D. P. was 3 . 4 as compared with 2 . 8 5 here. The main differ­ ence between the two groups seems to lie in the greater number of high scorers in the first group tested. The over-all mean of the low quartile was almost identical for the two groups: 1 . 3 9 then, 1 . 4 2 now. But the high quartile averaged 4 . 8 0 then as compared to 4 . 2 7 now. In noncollege groups a larger number of high scorers, and larger D. P.'s, have been found (see pp. 7 6 , 1 4 0 ) . Despite the over-all scale differences between the two groups, however, the adequacy of the individual items was very similar. Thus, the rank-order cor­ relation between the D. P.'s was . 7 8 , while the item means correlated . 9 2 . In short, the most discriminating items for one group were also the best for the other group, and similarly for the poor items. The general conclusions about item means and discriminabilities to be drawn from the present group, then, are generally true for the previous group as well. Table 9 ( 1 1 1 ) reveals that the best items pertain to a variety of topics. in anti-Semitic imagery is shown in the tendency to overgeneralize Jewish faults, and in the fact that Item I—13 ("Jews are all alike") is one of the most discriminating, with a D. P. of 3 . 8 3 . The idea of Jews as a political threat (radicalism: Items II—6, - 1 4 ) was much less prevalent than the idea of J e w s as an economic threat (wealth and power: Items I - 5 , - 8 , - 2 2 ,

Stereotypy

82

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

moral threat (immorality: Items I - i , II—1, - 7 , - 1 3 ) . Ac­ cusations on religious grounds were seldom supported, as shown by the low group means and D. P.'s on Items I - 2 0 and II— 1 9 . A variety of discriminatory attitudes (exclusion, restriction, suppression: most items in the "Attitude" subscale) found considerable support and were very discriminating. The importance of careful formulation of items is shown by a comparison of good with poor items. The most discriminating items are usually the most pseudodemocratic ones according to criteria discussed above (Section B, 1 ) . Consider, for example, the two items dealing with intermarriage. Item I I - 1 0 ("I can hardly imagine myself marrying a J e w " ) has a group mean of 4 . 2 and a D. P. of 4 . 3 , with a high quartile mean of 6.6 (almost all + 2 and + 3 responses). On the other hand, Item I—15 ("It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry") has a group mean of only 2 . 6 , a D. P. of 3.0, and a high quartile mean of 4 . 2 . The higher mean and discriminability of the former item are probably due to its greater indirectness and distance from crude antiSemitism. By what criterion is this item anti-Semitic? The criterion is the fact that it correlates well with the total scale, that is, it differentiates very well between subjects who score high and subjects who score low on the total scale. (The fact that the correlation is not perfect indicates that re­ sponse to any single item is not a clear-cut sign of anti-Semitism nor of its opposite; the criterion must be the total scale score). Similar reasoning applies to items dealing with housing restrictions. The following items had very low group means ( 1 . 5 to 2 . 5 ) : Item I I - 1 8 (con­ sistent exclusion from hotels), I - 3 (exclusion from neighborhoods), I - 2 1 (occasional exclusion from apartment houses). Item II—7 (Jews give a neigh­ borhood a "typical Jewish atmosphere"), which is more indirect and pseudodemocratic, had a higher mean ( 3 . 2 ) and D. P. ( 4 . 0 ) . It would appear that many individuals who are not now willing actively to support anti-Semitic programs have nevertheless a negative imagery and an underlying hostility that constitute a definite potentiality for such action. Even the more open and crude items on housing had significant D. P.'s, and the high quartile means of 4 . 3 and over (except on II—18), seem to indicate only weak re­ sistance to these ideas. The same considerations hold for the items dealing with occupations. Items which urge explicit policies of suppression and restriction of Jews ( 1 - 6 , - 9 , II—9, - 1 5 ) tend to have low means. But items which emphasize genII—5, - 1 1 ) or as a

3

5

It is frequently held that Sunday School training is a major cause of anti-Semitism, which is then regarded as a form of "religious prejudice." In this group, at least, rejection on religious grounds was infrequent. From the generality and irrationality of anti-Semitic ideology, it is clear that many diverse accusations are almost always involved, and that there are many sources for the underlying hostility which makes a given individual recep­ tive to anti-Semitism. F o r a discussion of the role of religion in prejudice see Chapters V I and X V I I I .

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY

83

eralized Jewish faults and which introduce subtly discriminatory practices tend to have higher means; thus, Jewish businessmen are regarded as unfair and conniving (Item I - 5 ) , and they have too much financial power ( 1 - 8 ) . While active suppression is not so desirable (low mean on I - 9 ) , it is unwise for an employer to hire many Jews (higher mean on I - 2 4 , II—3). The simplest solution—one that eliminates the need for suppression—would be for Jews to form their own nation ( I I - 2 4 ) . The pessimism of the high scorers regarding the solution to this problem is brought out by a number of items. On the one hand, they take the view that anti-Semitism has been entirely or primarily brought by the Jews on themselves and that any solution of the problem is a matter of Jewish re­ sponsibility (Items I I - 1 , II—21). Non-Jews are simply the victims of Jewish faults; if Jews would improve, become as good as "other people," antiSemitism would be eliminated. On the other hand, the Jews seem to be in­ corrigible, and any apparent change only masks the Jewishness beneath (Items I - 7 , - 1 3 , II—4, - 8 , - 2 2 ) . The contradiction is therefore complete: anti-Semitism is due to Jewish faults, but the Jews are unable to improve; the Jews should make sincere efforts to change, but their "basic Jewishness" is unchangeable. For the antidemocratic anti-Semite the only answer is open and direct suppression; for the pseudodemocrat it is subtle exclusion and "resigned tolerance" toward a bad state of affairs. The pseudodemocrats seem to betray a sense of threat and some antidemocratic potential by their doubts that democratic methods can solve the problem (Item I - 1 2 ) .

D.

T H E S H O R T FORM OF T H E A - S SCALE

It was a regular policy of the present research to contract the proven techniques in order to introduce new ones measuring additional trends of theoretical importance. In line with this policy, and in view of the high reli­ ability and internal consistency of the original 52-item A - S scale, a short form of ten items was used in the first revision of the questionnaire. The short form is presented in Table io(III). The ten items were selected from the original fifty-two on the basis of both statistical and theoretical con­ siderations. Since statistical adequacy (Discriminatory Power) was a neces­ sary—but not sufficient—condition for inclusion, the new items were selected from the fifteen or twenty which had been most discriminating on the two administrations of the long form. Among these, selection was determined by the following qualitative considerations. Each item should be as rich in mean­ ing as possible. There should be a minimum of duplication of meaning or con­ tent among items. T h e y should cover most of the subscales and most of the areas of accusation and discrimination. These desiderata have not been realized entirely; there were other items that seemed to merit inclusion, and for certain

84

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 1 0 ( I I I ) THE TEN-ITEM A-S SCALE (Form 7 8 )

Old No. New No." I-24

11.

Anyone who employs many people should be caretul not to hire a large percentage of Jews. I-j 16. One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick to­ gether and connive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition. II-17 2 1 . The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannish­ ness and stick-togetherness of Jews. H_! 26. Persecution of the Jews would be largely eliminated if the Jews would make really sincere efforts to rid themselves of their harmful and offensive faults. II-21 3 3 . Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more incon­ spicuous, to keep out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews and to keep out of the public notice. II-10 40. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. II-7 49. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. I-7 62. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always something different and strange, something basically Jewish underneath. I-13 69. There may be a few exceptions, but, in general, Jews are pretty much alike. I-n 72. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. " "New number" refers to the numbering of the items in Form 78. "Old number" refers to numbering in the long form discussed previously. Slight revi­ sions will be noted in the wording of several items. purposes they would probably be superior. The high internal consistency of the long form indicates that several statistically adequate short forms might be constructed. Nevertheless, the present form was expected to provide an adequate tool for most purposes of measurement. The slight revisions in the wording of some items were intended to make them simpler and clearer in meaning. The manner of presentation of this form was different from that previously used. Whereas previously each scale had been presented "all of a piece," on a page or pages of its own, in this and all successive forms of the questionnaire the various scales were presented interspersed with each other, so that no single scale was particularly prominent or focal, and adjacent items dealt with widely varying topics. The new questionnaire, identified as Form 7 8 (on the basis of its having s The other scales in this form, to be discussed in the chapters that follow, deal with general prejudice (Negroes, other minorities, patriotism), with politico-economic liberal­ ism and conservatism, and with potentially antidemocratic personality trends. There were 78 items in all. This form of the questionnaire, like all the other forms, contained in addi­ tion other questions dealing with group memberships, personality, and so on. 8

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

85

7 8 scale items), was administered in the spring of 1 9 4 5 to the following groups. T w o of the groups comprise undergraduate students at the Univer­ sity of California: the full membership, save for absentees, of the introduc­ tory Public Speaking class. Here, as in all groups, men and women were separated in the statistical treatment and analysis was limited to native-born, white, non-Jewish Americans. The first two groups, then, are the Public Speaking Women ( N = 1 4 0 ) and the Public Speaking Men ( N = 5 2 ) . The third group comprised forty women, the entire feminine membership of an Extension Division class in Psychology at the University of California. Most subjects of this group were in their thirties and late twenties, and hence were somewhat older on the average than those of our college sample. The fourth group, Professional Women ( N = 6 3 ) , is actually a combination of three smaller groups: ( a ) Twenty-four public health nurses, the entire nursing staff of a nearby health department (the director of this department was generally liberal in his outlook and had tried to select younger nurses with more advanced ideas about public health); ( b ) public school teachers; and ( c ) social workers, who were reached through the mails. In the latter two cases, only about 2 0 per cent of those appealed to sent in their question­ naires, and this sampling technique was not tried again. The reliability data for the short A-S scale are presented in Table 1 1 (III). Reliabilities of . 8 9 - . 9 4 are extremely satisfactory, especially for a 10-item scale, and they are similar to those obtained on the long form. The means of 3 . 3 to 3.4 for University and Extension Class students are substantially the same as the mean of 3 . 5 5 on these ten items for the previous class taking the long form of the scale. However, the mean of 2.6 for the Professional Women is significantly lower than the others (above the 1 per cent level statistically). This difference may be due partly to sampling errors; the teachers and social workers responded voluntarily b y mail, and the tendency to cooperate in filling out a questionnaire dealing with prejudice and with personal feelings is probably correlated with lack of prejudice. The slightly greater reliability ( . 9 4 ) of the scale for this group may reflect a greater ideological consistency in older age groups. The Discriminatory Power method of item analysis was again carried out, and the results are presented in Table 1 2 ( I I I ) . The average D. P. of 3.68 is very satisfactory and indicates that on most items there were very few lowquartile members who agreed, few high-quartile members who disagreed. 7

8

7

T h e fact that these reliabilities are similar to those obtained on the long form argues against the hypothesis that the high reliability of the latter was due to a "set" for all-nega­ tive items. T h i s hypothesis is supported by questionnaire and clinical material on personality trends (opposition to "prying" and to "being analyzed" in the prejudiced subjects). Also, fewer high-scoring than low-scoring subjects in the groups tested were willing to be interviewed. 8

86

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 1 1

(III)

RELIABILITY OF THE A-S SCALE (FORM 78)

Property

0

Gr.A

a

Gr.B

a

Gr.C

a

Gr.D

a

Over-all

.89

. 93

.90

.94

.92

Mean ( t o t a l ) Mean (odd h a l f ) Mean (even h a l f )

3.33 2.98 3.66

3.36 3.30 3.42

3.40 3.20 3.63

2.57 2.34 2.83

3.16 2.96 3.38

S.D. S.D. S.D.

1.43 1.42 1.62

1.48 1.51 1.56

1.36 1.38 1.48

1.37 1.27 1.58

1.41 1.40 1.56

Reliability

Range

(total) (odd.half) (even h a l f )

1.0-7.0

1.1-6.3

1.2-6.1

1.0-6.2

1 3

1.0-7.0

a

T h e four groups on which these data are based are: Group A, U. C. Public Speaking Class Women (N = 140): Group 8, U. C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52); Group C, U. C. Adult Extension Class#Women (N = 4 0 ) ; Group D, Professional Women (nurses, teachers, social workers, N = 6 3 ) .

b

I n obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N.

c

T h e values of the means, Standard Deviations, and ranges are given in terms of mean/person/item. If multiplied by 10 (the number of items), they are translated into values representing total scale score per r person.

The best items deal with such varied topics as conniving businessmen, J e w s being all alike, intermarriage, exclusion from neighborhoods. How much influence did the form of presentation of the items have on their individual means and D. P.'s? Does it matter whether the items are presented in a solid block, as in the first form, or randomly dispersed through a "longer series of extremely varied items, as in Form 7 8 ? Evidence bearing on this question was obtained by comparing the results on these ten items for the two types of presentation. The mean for the Psychology Class women on these ten items (first form, excluding the remaining forty-two items) was 3 . 5 5 , as compared with 3 . 3 2 for the Public Speaking Class women, the most comparable group taking Form 7 8 , and the average D. P.'s were 3 . 7 6 and 3.68 respectively. The differences are not statistically significant. Furthermore, the rank-order correlations between the individual item means for these two groups was . 6 2 , while the D. P.'s correlated .90. These correlations seem even more significant when one considers that the wording of some items was changed, and that the two groups were not systematically equated. The results on the first form were also compared with the over-all averages for all four groups taking Form 7 8 . The individual item means correlated . 8 8 ,

TABLE 12

(III)

ITEM MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS* A-S SCALE - FORM 78 Group A No.

Item

Group B

Group C

Group D

Over-all"

Mean

P.P.

Mean

P.P.

Mean

P.P.

Mean

P.P.

Mean

P.P.

Rank P.P.

11.

(Hire Jews)

2. .76

4. 25

3. . 1 0

3. ,69

3. .40

4. 13

1. 71

2.36

2. 74

3.61

(6)

16.

(Businessmen)

3. 79

4. 58

3. 62

4. 10

3. 58

4. 35

2. 63

4.35

3. 40

4.34

(1)

21.

(Jewish d i s t r i c t s )

3. .46

2. ,97

3. . 8 1

3, . 1 7

3. .92

3 . 35

2. .86

2.00

3. ,51

2.87

(9)

26.

(Get r i d of

3. 41

3 . 20

3. 42

3. 96

3. .92

3 . 83

3..16

4.58

3 . 48

3.89

(5)

33.

(Jewish l e a d e r s )

2. .29

2. .28

2. .96

3, .09

2. . 1 2

1. 25

2. 10

2.86

2. 37

2.37

(10)

40.

(Marry a Jew)

4 .44

4. .60

3. ,92

4. , 6 7

4. .42

4. 09

3. 04

3.77

3. ,96

4.28

(3)

49.

(Nice neighborhood)

3 .03

3. . 5 7

3. 31

4. 35

3. 15

3 . 88

2. 29

4.70

2. 94

4.12

(4)

62.

( B a s i c a l l y Jewish)

3. .54

3. 85

3. ,31

3. , 2 9

3. .60

2. 76

2. 94

4.12

3 . 35

3.50

(7)

69.

(All

3. .44

4. 02

3. , 1 9

4. .20

3. .22

4. 24

2. .73

4.76

3 . 14

4.30

(2)

72.

(Federal

3. .07

3. 49

2. . 8 1

3. .50

2. ,60

2 . 63

2. 2 7

4.30

2. 69

3.48

(8)

3 . 32

3 . 68

3. 35

3. .80

3. 39

3 . 45

2. 57

3.78

3. 16

3.68

alike) agencies)

Mean/pe r s on/Item a

faults)

..

T h e four groups on which'these data are based, are: Group A, U.C. Public Speaking Class Women (N = 140); Group B, U.C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 5 2 ) ; Group C, U.C. Adult Extension Class Women (N 4 0 ) ; Group D, Professional Women (nurses, teachers, social workers, (N = 6 3 ) =

bin obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N.

o

THE

88

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

and the D. P.'s correlated .80. It would therefore appear that the relative discriminability (D. P.) and level of acceptability (mean) of the items is due mainly to the nature of the items themselves rather than to their form of presentation in the questionnaire. Although no correlations were computed among the four groups taking Form 7 8 , the great variability of the over-all means and D. P.'s indicates considerable consistency of item mean and D. P. from group to group. The best items for one group tend to be the best for other groups, and similarly for the worst items. This consistency in rank order of means and D. P.'s holds even for the Professional Women, despite the fact that the absolute values of the item means were considerably lower for this group than for the others. Further evidence on these issues is given b y results obtained in September, 1 9 4 5 , from a group of 1 5 3 students, preponderantly women, at George Washington University, Washington, D. C. The ten A-S items were pre­ sented in a solid block, on a sheet containing no other scales, the instructions duplicating those given for the long form of the scale. The obtained reliabil­ ity was . 9 1 , a value almost identical with those for the other groups. The group mean per item was 4 . 5 2 and the average D. P. was 4 . 0 2 . The mean is significantly different (above the 1 per cent level) from the University of California means, and suggests, as have other independent studies, that sig­ nificant sectional differences in anti-Semitism exist (the Far W e s t being, apparently, less prejudiced than the East). W h i l e the Washington students obtain consistently higher scores, the item means show a rank-order cor­ relation of . 8 4 between the Washington group and the average of the four California groups, indicating a marked similarity in the relative acceptability of the items. This group also gives evidence that extremely high scorers do exist, and that the restricted range of the groups taking Form 7 8 is due mainly to a lack of extremely anti-Semitic members. The individual scores in the Washington group covered the entire range of possible scores, 1 0 - 7 0 , with a mean per item of 6 . 2 7 for the high quartile, 2 . 2 5 for the low quartile. The Discriminatory Powers for the Washington group correlated . 5 4 with the average D. P.'s for the four California groups. The smallness of this value, in contrast to that for the item -means, is due primarily to a change in the rank of item 7 2 , which asserts that "there are too many Jews in Washington agencies." The D. P. for this item had a rank of 8 in the Cali­ fornia groups, but a rank of 2 for the Washington group (the D. P. being 4 . 5 ) . W h i l e the rank of the mean on this item was identical in the two groups ( 9 in both cases), the difference between low and high scorers was rela­ tively much greater in Washington than in California. Living in Washington should provide, one might expect, a reality basis on which to respond to this 9

9

W e wish to thank D r . G . H . Smith, then teaching at George Washington University, for his cooperation. These results were not incorporated in the main body of data because this group was not given the remaining sections of the questionnaire.

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

89

item and thus minimize the differences" between otherwise low and high scorers. This does not seem to be the case. It would seem, rather, that how an individual assimilates and interprets social reality is to a large extent deter­ mined by his pre-existing ideology. Living in Washington appears to have mainly a polarizing rather than a homogenizing effect, especially on the " J e w s in government" issue. From the above discussion the following conclusions may tentatively be drawn. a. The item means and D. P.'s are not appreciably changed by changes in the form of presentation (from 5 2 consecutive anti-Semitic items to 1 0 consecutive anti-Semitic items to ten items randomly interspersed among a series totalling 7 8 in a l l ) . b. W h i l e over-all mean and average D. P. vary considerably from group to group, relative discriminability and level of acceptability of each item (rank D. P. and mean) tend to remain fairly constant, with the exception of certain sectional differences (as in Item 7 2 , regarding Washington agencies). That is, certain items tend consistently to have relatively high D. P.'s, others to have low D. P.'s, and similarly for the item means. c. The item means and particularly the D. P.'s were statistically very satisfactory. For eight of the ten items the D. P.'s averaged 3.5 to 4 . 3 (these values would be even higher were the Washington group included), and even the lowest average D. P.'s of 2 . 4 and 2 . 9 are adequate. d. The most discriminating items deal with Jewish businessmen, stereo­ typed imagery, marriage, exclusion from neighborhoods, and Jewish respon­ sibility for anti-Semitism. It is interesting that items stating the most fre­ quently heard accusations and the more openly antagonistic attitudes usually had lower means and D. P.'s. e. In view of its high reliability and internal consistency, the short form of the A-S scale can be used for most research purposes in place of the original, longer form. E.

V A L I D A T I O N BY CASE STUDIES: T H E RESPONSES MACK AND L A R R Y ON T H E A-S SCALE

OF

One meaning of the concept of validity as applied to a psychological test is that the test, which involves only a small sample of the individual's re­ sponses, tells us something that is generally true of that individual as judged b y an intensive study of him. The A-S scale may be said to have validity of this kind to the degree that the subjects, in their responses to the scale, reveal the same tendencies which come out in their interviews. It will be worth while, therefore, to compare the responses of Mack and Larry to the A - S scale with what they have to say about Jews when they are invited to speak spontaneously.

t

QO

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

In Table 1 3 (HI) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group mean and the D. P. for each of the ten items in the short form of the A-S TABLE 13

(III)

RESPONSES OP MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE

Item

Mack

Larry

Group Mean

a

Group D.P.

11.

(Hire Jews)

3

1

2 74

3.61

16.

(Businessmen)

6

1

3 40

4.34

21.

(Jewish

26.

(Get r i d of

districts) faults)

1

3 51

2.87

1

3 48

3.89

3

1

2 37

2.37

3 96

4.28

33.

(Jewish

40.

(Marry a Jew)

7

49.

(Nice

5

1

2 94

4.12

62.

(Basically

5

1

3 35

3.50

69.

(All

3

1

3 14

4.30

72.

leaders)

5 6

neighborhood) Jewish)

alike)

(Federal

agencies)

O v e r - a l l mean

a

3

1

2 69

3.48

4.6

1.2

3 16

3.68

The group means and D.P. ' 3 a r e based on a l l

four groups

a

taking Form 7 8 .

scale (Form 7 8 ) . Mack's mean score, 4 . 6 , is definitely, but not extremely far, above the over-all group mean of 3 . 1 6 . He was just barely inside the high quartile for the group of Public Speaking Men of which he was a mem­ ber. This is in keeping with the moderation which characterized the whole ideological section of his interview, and it forms part of the basis for the statement, in Chapter II, that he is a relatively mild case. His anti-Semitism is fairly general, in that he agrees with six of the ten statements and scores above the group mean on all but one of them; but a study of the responses to individual items reveals a clear pattern, one that can be distinguished from other patterns of anti-Semitism. In disagreeing slightly, and thereby scoring close to the group mean, in the case of Items 1 1 (Hire J e w s ) , 3 3 (Jewish leaders), and 7 2 (Federal agencies), he is saying that he would have no serious objection if Jews should participate more fully in American life, that this indeed is what they ought to do. The main trouble, as seen in the positive responses to Items 1 6 (Businessmen) and 2 1 (Jewish districts), is that they would rather stick together and accumulate wealth and power for their own group. Although persecution would be largely eliminated if they should rid themselves of their faults (Item 2 6 ) , they cannot really become "Americanized" (Item 6 2 ) and would still have to be kept at some distance personally and socially (Items 4 0 and 4 9 ) . This is almost exactly what Mack tells us in his interview. It is the main

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

91

point that he tries to make. " T h e y accent the clannish and the material. . . . If a J e w fails in business, he's helped to get started again T h e y would be liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix. . . . The J e w s won't intermingle. . . . I certainly wouldn't (marry a J e w ) . . . . I would date that girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted b y the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class." It is interesting that Item 4 0 ( M a r r y a J e w ) is the one about which Mack feels most strongly and on which he deviates most markedly from the group mean. It would appear that he feels safe in saying, in the interview, that he would marry the Jewish girl "if she had thrown off her Jewishness," because he does not really believe that she ever can do this; there would always be "something basically Jewish underneath" (Item 6 2 ) . The item on which Mack obtains a score that is slightly below the group mean is 6 9 (All alike). Here there is a real discrepancy between scale and interview. The analysis of the interview seemed to show that stereotypy was an outstanding characteristic of this subject's thinking, and yet when it comes to the item which pertains most directly to this characteristic, he fails to agree. This is not because the item is a poor one, for its D. P. was next to the highest obtained with this short form of the A-S scale; nor do there appear to be any special features of Mack's stereotypy that would render Item 6 9 inapplicable. Perhaps it is too much to expect that scale and interview will agree in every particular; these instruments are not that precise, or perhaps most subjects are not that consistent. It may be noted that Mack, in the interview, where he is allowed free scope, brings into his discussion of the J e w s certain ideas, e.g., Jewish "weak­ ness," that are not touched upon in any of the ten statements which comprise the A - S scale. This outcome would have been considerably less likely, it seems, if he had responded to the 5 2 items of the original A-S scale. It is claimed for the short form of the scale that for most research purposes it can be substituted for the long form. In Mack's case there appears to be no reason for dissatisfaction with the measure of the degree of his anti-Semitism which the short form yields; concerning the content of his anti-Semitic ideology it is noteworthy that the pattern which appears in his responses to the scale corresponds to what is central and seemingly most important in his spontaneous discussion. That the ten-item scale should at the same time reveal the more incidental and individualistic features of a subject's ideology concerning Jews would be too much to ask. Larry's responses to the A-S scale are true to form. He obtains the lowest possible score on every item except 4 0 ( M a r r y a J e w ) , and even here he disagrees slightly. W h e n it was stated in Chapter II that Larry was not an extreme example of low-scoring men, the reference was to what was known of him from all the diagnostic devices employed in the research. He made it

9

2

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

clear enough in his interview that he was strongly opposed to prejudice against minority groups, and had he not come out with an extremely low score on the A-S scale we would have had cause for serious doubt of its validity. That he did not obtain the lowest possible score on Item 4 0 is evi­ dence that he did not respond to the A-S items in an automatic way. It seems that at this point his impulse toward complete social interaction with J e w s collided with his conventionalism, a trait which we have seen to be well developed in him, and he could not in honesty go beyond slight disagree­ ment with the item. In general, the responses of these two subjects on the A-S scale are con­ sistent with what they say about J e w s in their interviews. This consistency appears not only in the degree of anti-Semitism expressed but in the content of the subjects' thinking about Jews. T o the extent that these results may be generalized, the A-S scale is a valid index of ideology concerning Jews.

F.

DISCUSSION: T H E S T R U C T U R E OF IDEOLOGY

ANTI-SEMITIC

Perhaps the first conclusion to be drawn from the results presented above is that anti-Semitism is best conceived psychologically not as a specific aver­ sion but as an ideology, a general w a y of thinking about J e w s and JewishGentile interaction. This is demonstrated by the high reliability of a scale dealing with so varied a set of ideas, by the reliabilities and intercorrelations of the subscales, and by the high internal consistency of the scale as revealed by the item Discriminatory Powers. The statistical results indicate that a quantitative measure of total anti-Semitic ideology has been obtained. A n y individual can be assigned, with a relatively small margin of error, a rank along a dimension ranging from strong support of anti-Semitic ideology at one (high) extreme, to strong opposition at the other ( l o w ) extreme. The meaning of middle scores on this dimension is ambiguous, since they may represent indifference, ignorance, or an ambivalent combination of partial support and partial rejection of anti-Semitism. It is noteworthy, however, that individuals making middle scores on one subscale tend to make middle scores on the other subscales as well. Despite item-by-item variability, indi­ viduals tend to be highly consistent in their responses to the several subscales. The fact that an individual's stand on one set of items is similar to his stand on all others does not necessarily imply that all anti-Semitic ideas are of equal psychological importance to each individual. The spontaneous dis­ cussions of anti-Semites, whether in an interview or in everyday social life, suggest that for each individual there are certain "nuclear ideas"-imagery of Jews as conniving, or sexual, or radical, and the like, and corresponding primary attitudes—which have primary emotional significance. However,

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

93

these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they tend to "pull in" numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions. This conception of anti-Semitism aids in the understanding of the present results. It also offers an explanation of w h y an anti-Semitic rumor that is entirely new in its specific details (for example, the wartime accusations that only J e w s could get tires or draft exemptions or officer status) is easily believed b y anti-Semites: because of a receptivity to negative imagery gen­ erally and by means of an ideological system within which the new idea is easily assimilated. This conception of the inclusiveness of anti-Semitic ideology stands in sharp contrast to numerous theories which conceive of anti-Semitism in terms of certain specific accusations or motives. The notion of anti-Semitism as a form of "racial" prejudice, for example, seems to be based on the idea that the main accusations against J e w s involve their "racially inherited" traits (faults). Another common view, that anti-Semitism is a form of "religious" prejudice, is based on the explicit or implicit assumption that religious dif­ ferences, and thus accusations on religious grounds, are the central issues in anti-Semitism. A third "specifistic" view is that anti-Semitism is based pri­ marily on distortions of facts which some individuals have mistakenly accepted as true; for example, that J e w s are unusually rich, dishonest, radical, and so on. This last theory has led to numerous attempts to fight anti-Semitism by giving the "true facts"—attempts which are distinguished for their lack of success. W h a t this theory has overlooked is the receptivity of many indi­ viduals to any hostile imagery of Jews, and the emotional resistance of these individuals to a less hostile and less stereotyped w a y of thinking. Finally, anti-Semitism is sometimes explained in terms of financial motives and ac­ cusations: many people, it is asserted, oppose the J e w s on the simple grounds of economic competition and financial self-interest. This theory ignores the other accusations (of power seeking, immorality, and the like) which are made with equal or greater emotional intensity. It also fails to explain w h y anti-Semites so often violate their own material self-interest in maintaining their prejudices. None of these conceptions of anti-Semitism has adequately grasped its generality, its psychological complexity, and its function in the emotional life of the individual. Nor can they suggest w h y many individuals oppose anti-Semitism despite their having economic situations, religious backgrounds, sources of information, and so on, which are similar to those of anti-Semites. W h a t is required, in our opinion, is a psychological approach which seeks to grasp both anti-Semitic ideology and awft'-anti-Semitic ideol­ ogy in their full complexity and scope, and which then attempts to discover

94

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

the various sources of each viewpoint in the psychological development and social background of the individuals holding i t . Before discussing the major ideas comprising anti-Semitic ideology, a few words regarding the scale and the scale data are necessary. It is believed that most of the major facets of everyday American anti-Semitism have been represented in the scale, though no claim is made that it contains all the antiSemitic ideas currently in vogue. The scale data provide an empirical basis for the following discussion in the sense: ( a ) that each of the ideas to be discussed is supported by most anti-Semites (subjects who fall within the highest 2 5 per cent of scorers on the scale), opposed by most anti-antiSemites, the differences being statistically significant; and ( b ) that each antiSemite supports most of these ideas, while each low scorer opposes most of them. Thus, one can speak of a broad framework of anti-Semitic ideology which is held in its entirety b y relatively few individuals but which is sup­ ported in varying degrees b y many more. What, then, are the major opinions, values, and attitudes comprising antiSemitic ideology, how are they organized or systematized, and how is this system different from other, non-anti-Semitic points of view? One striking characteristic of the imagery in anti-Semitic ideology is its stereotypy, which takes several forms. There is, first, a tendency to overgeneralize single traits, to subscribe to statements beginning "Jews are . . ." or "The Jews do not . . ." Second, there is a stereotyped negative image of the group as a whole, as if "to know one is to know all," since they are all alike. Third, examination of the specific characteristics comprising the im­ agery reveals a basic contradiction in that no single individual or group as a whole could have all these characteristics. Another aspect of stereotypy which is implied by the scale items and brought out more directly in the interviews may be termed "stereotypy of interpersonal relationships and experiences." It involves an inability to expe­ rience J e w s as individuals. Rather, each J e w is seen and reacted to as a sort of sample specimen of the stereotyped, reified image of the group. This form of stereotypy is expressed very clearly in Mack's discussion of J e w s (see Chapter I I ) ; while no statistics are available, the other interviews as well as everyday conversations indicate that his approach is not uncommon. This limitation in the experience of individuals has certain implications 10

1 0

It may again be emphasized that the present approach is a psychological one. T h e sociologist, at least during this stage in the development of social science, tends-to proceed along other, perhaps parallel, lines. Thus, a psychological approach in terms of purely religious or purely economic motives is inadequate. However, a sociological approach in terms of religious or politico-economic structures and their relation to anti-Semitism as a sociocultural trend is, in our opinion, both valid and of great significance. W h a t must be opposed, as w e see it, is the tendency mechanically to subsume psychology under soci­ ology and to confuse basic economic or religious social forces with superficial economic or religious motives in the individual. Sociological forces are considered in Chapters X V I , XVII, XVIII, XIX.

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY

95

for the theory that contact with "good J e w s " lessens anti-Semitism. The effectiveness of social contact would seem to depend in large part on the individual's capacity for individuated experience. This capacity is certainly not hereditarily determined, but it may often be difficult to change in adults. W h e n it is lacking, new social experiences are likely to lead, not to new learning and development, but merely to the mechanical reinforcement of established imagery. Further analysis of stereotypy and other characteristics of anti-Semitic thinking, as well as concrete examples from the interview material, are pre­ sented in Chapter XVI. These considerations raise several questions which are dealt with in later sections of this research. Do anti-Semites express the same stereotypy of thought and experience in relation to other groups and issues, that is, are stereotypy and rigidity aspects of their general psychological functioning? W h y is it so important for anti-Semites to reject J e w s on any and all grounds? Are the contradictions and oversimplifications primarily surface signs of a deeper-lying anxiety and hostility? If so, what are the personality trends involved, and how are they different from those found in non-anti-Semites? Let us consider the deeper psychological meaning of the stereotyped nega­ tive imagery of Jews. W h i l e the specific surface opinions cover a great variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure. Perhaps most central is the idea that J e w s are threatening. Certainly this idea is present, explicitly or implicitly, in almost all the scale items. It is expressed in the subscale "Offensive," where J e w s are described as a moral threat, that is, as violators of important standards and values. These values include: cleanliness, neatness, and conformity; also opposition to sensuality, extrava­ gance, prying, social aggressiveness, exhibitionism. The imagery of J e w s as value-violators makes them not only offensive but also very disturbing. The anxiety becomes almost explicit in item II—4: "There is something different and strange about J e w s . . ." These values are, of course, not limited to anti-Semites. Indeed, many of them are among the currently prevailing conventional middle-class values— and most Americans are psychologically middle class. It may be that antiSemites and non-anti-Semites differ regarding certain values such as sensual­ ity or conformity. However, it is likely that many unprejudiced individuals have substantially the same values as the anti-Semites do. W h y , then, do these values become the basis for anti-Semitic accusations in one group but not in the other? One hypothesis would be that the non-anti-Semites are more flexible in their support of these values, less disturbed b y value-violators and less inclined to stereotypy and overgeneralization. Moreover, these values tend, as will be shown later, to be held very strongly by the high-scoring subjects, and they appear frequently in these individuals'

9

6

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

thinking about themselves, other people, and social issues generally. In view of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity with which supposed value-violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional disposi­ tions. It is possible, for example, that anti-Semites are unconsciously strug­ gling to inhibit in themselves the same tendencies that they find so unbear­ able in Jews. J e w s may be a convenient object on which they can project their unconscious desires and fears. It is difficult otherwise to explain w h y anti-Semites feel so threatened by violations of their moral values, and w h y they develop exaggerated, stereotyped imagery of the "morally impure" Jews as a threat to the "morally pure" Gentiles. It will be significant in this connection whether the categorical distinction between value-violators (egoalien, morally threatening groups) and value-supporters _(ego-syntonic, morally pure groups) appears generally in the thinking of these individuals regarding the various other ideological areas to be considered in the follow­ ing chapters. T o the extent that this and other themes underly and unify the entire social thinking of anti-Semites, their specific opinions and attitudes must be regarded in part as expressions of deeper-lying personality needs, anxieties, and conflicts. The idea of J e w s as a social threat is expressed directly in the subscale "Threatening," where they are described as having harmful effects in various areas of social life. This concern with supposed Jewish power is a recurrent theme in the sources from which our scale items were taken and in the later interviews of our subjects as well as in the A-S scale itself. In the case of the moral values mentioned above, it is implied that non-Jews are the opposite of Jews: clean, conforming, modest, and the like. It would seem that power, however, while threatening in Jews, is justified and even valued in non-Jews. For example, the attitudes of segregation and exclusion are based on the assumption that Gentiles should be more powerful than J e w s in order to enforce these policies. W h y does the concern with power recur so often and in so many forms? W h y is the Jewish group, which is actually small and relatively weak, regarded as so threatening, while the really powerful and dominating groups in the status quo are supported rather than feared? Is it actually the weakness of the J e w s which is most disturbing to the anti-Semite? If the concern with power and the fear of weakness in the high scorers represent deeper personality trends, these trends should be revealed b y the clinical techniques and they should be expressed in the other ideological areas. The issues of Jewish group loyalty and Jewish assimilation, viewed psy­ chologically, reveal several central themes in anti-Semitic ideology. At first glance the criticisms of J e w s and the demands on them seem both simple and reasonable. The J e w s are, it is asserted, too clannish: they either keep apart in a kind of snobbish seclusion, or, if they do enter community affairs 11

1 1

Cf. the "usurper complex" described in Chapter X V I I .

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

97

they stick together and take advantage of other people. Therefore, the Jews must overcome their pride and clannishness, and their attempts to control other groups. W h e n they have thoroughly assimilated, when they have lost their foreign w a y s and their clannish, conniving methods of gaining money and power at the expense of others, they can be liked and accepted. Until they change, they can hardly be surprised to find themselves excluded or limited in certain ways. The essential demand is that the Jews liquidate themselves, that they lose entirely their cultural identity and adhere instead to the prevailing cultural ways. Related to this narrowness is a punitive rather than an understanding approach to value-violators; the Jews deserve what­ ever hardships they may sometimes undergo since they have brought it on themselves. In this vindictive approach there is no room for more complex explanation, no w a y of considering discrimination as primarily a cause rather than an effect of Jewish traits. There is an aversion to the idea that the basis for resolution of Jewish-Gentile conflict lies primarily in the total social organization—and therefore in the dominant groups in the society—and only secondarily in Jews themselves. But this demand for assimilation is not as simple as it seems at first glance. Jews who attempt to assimilate are apparently even more suspect than the others. Accusations of "prying," "power-seeking," and "imitation" are made, and seemingly generous acts by Jews are attributed to hidden selfish motives (subscale "Intrusive"). There is no logical basis for urging on the one hand that Jews become like everyone else, and on the other hand, that Jews be limited and excluded in the most important areas of social life. It need not be denied b y non-anti-Semites that there are extremely clan­ nish and power-seeking individuals in the Jewish as well as in the Gentile group. But w h y do the high scorers not oppose all individuals who seek power for themselves or their narrow groups and who would take advantage of others? It is a remarkable fact that most individuals who see clannishness, prying, and power-seeking as "Jewish traits" value the same things, under other names, in Gentiles. It is accepted as "human nature" that each indi­ vidual will stand by his group, that "blood is thicker than water," and that each group is therefore unified in its material interests. As long as there is any trace of a Jewish group, therefore, it is expected that each J e w will have primary loyalty to it. W h i l e this "clannishness" is deplored, the anti-Semites tend to hold in contempt anyone who lacks "loyalty and pride" in his group, and to put great value on these traits in their own groups. The imagery described above seems to characterize the thinking of most anti-Semites. Individual differences in the pattern of attitudes (programs of action) supported depend primarily on the strength of adherence to demo­ cratic values. Openly antidemocratic individuals have a direct and clear-cut program: violent attack on the Jews leading to total liquidation or to perma­ nent suppression and restriction. W h a t to do is, however, a greater psycho-

98

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

logical problem for those who have the same imagery, but who at the same time want to support democratic values of equality, nonviolence, and the like. The negative imagery of Jews, and the accompanying sense of threat, involve two main fears which form the basis for attitudes. There is, first, the fear of contamination: the fear that Jews may, if permitted intimate or inten­ sive contact with Gentiles, have a corrupting or degenerating influence. Various forms of corruption may occur: moral, political, intellectual, sensual, and so on. Among the many ideas which have been attributed to "Jewish contamination" are free love, radicalism, atheism, moral relativism, modern trends in art and literature. Gentiles who support ideas such as these tend to be regarded as unwitting victims who have been psychologically contaminated in the same w a y that one may be organically infected b y a disease. The notion that one J e w can "infect" many Gentiles is very useful in rationalizing many apparent contradictions. It permits one to attribute great influence to the Jews and thus to blame most social problems on them, despite their relatively very small number. It justifies one's hostile feelings and discriminatory actions. Furthermore, an idea or social movement can be called "Jewish" even when most of its supporters are Gentile, since the latter are regarded as merely dupes or victims of Jewish contamination. An indi­ vidual who accepts this reasoning feels compelled, no matter how great his value for tolerance, to protect the Gentile group b y restricting the activities of the Jewish group. Viewed psychologically, this w a y of thinking raises several questions. W h y is it necessary for anti-Semites to regard Jews as the source of all these ideas, that is, w h y do they regard these ideas as imposed on Gentile but originating in Jews? One hypothesis is that this represents an attempt on the part of the prejudiced individual to resolve an inner moral conflict b y externalizing or projecting his own immoral tendencies; the inner conflict is replaced b y a new conflict between groups: the sterotypically moral " w e " and the stereotypically immoral "they." That the inner conflict persists unconsciously in full force is shown b y emphasis on external immorality and b y the fear that this immorality will corrupt all who are exposed to it. The investigation of this and other hypotheses is reported in later chapters. In addition to the fear of contamination there is the fear of being over­ whelmed. This anxiety is related to the imagery of Jews as prying and powerseeking. If Jews are given the opportunity of free participation in commu­ nity affairs then, granted that they have these tendencies, they will form a small sectarian clique interested only in their own power and material inter­ ests. T o gain these aims they will shrewdly use even the most ruthless and dishonest methods. There is thus great danger that the Gentile group will be persecuted, victimized, exploited—in short, overwhelmed. It is difficult indeed, for a person with such hostile imagery and such anxiety, to have entirely democratic attitudes regarding Jewish-Gentile

THE

STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC

IDEOLOGY

99

interaction. Most pseudodemocratic attitudes represent attempts, conscious or unconscious, at compromise between the tendency to express the under­ lying hostility directly (aggressive attack) and the tendency to conform to democratic values (tolerance, equality). The demand for total Jewish assim­ ilation represents one such compromise, since total assimilation is, so to speak, a nonviolent w a y of liquidating the Jews. If there were no Jews then at least one source of anxiety and one object of hostility would be removed. Unfor­ tunately, partial assimilation (the phase in which some Jews attempt to assim­ ilate while others do not) seems to be more disturbing to anti-Semites than none at all. As long as the anti-Semites have some sense of the presence of a Jewish group—and thus an image of "the J e w " which can be applied stereotypically to all individual Jews—those Jews who seem to be assimilating will be suspected of evil motives. It is an oft-repeated historical paradox that those who demand total assimilation do the most to prevent it, since their hostility and discrimination tend on the one hand to increase Jewish nation­ alism and pride, and on the other hand to provide external barriers repelling those Jews who attempt assimilation into the dominant group. Conversely, Jewish assimilation has proceeded most rapidly in those communities which have accepted them without totalitarian demands for submission and all-out assimilation. A second w a y of nonviolently eliminating the Jews, and thus of solving the problem of interaction b y simply not having any, is for them to "stay on their side of the fence and we stay on ours." If they cannot be entirely absorbed—and, despite their demand for total assimilation, most anti-Semites seem to feel that the "basic Jewishness" is permanent—then they should be totally separate. The separation could be made complete if the Jews would "form a nation of their own and keep more to themselves" (Item I I - 2 4 ) . Some individuals, including Jews, have supported the idea of separation (fraternal organizations, neighborhoods, and the like) on grounds of differ­ ences in interests and culture. There can be no objection, from a democratic point of view, to an organization devoted primarily to Jewish culture and conducted in the Yiddish language, nor to one concerned mainly with Chris1 2

1 2

The idea of a Jewish nation, particularly the important issue of Jewish settlement in Palestine, has been supported by various ideological camps. Much support in America has come from open or pseudodemocratic anti-Semites who wish that all Jews would settle there and who are afraid that, if the doors of Palestine are closed, America would have to open its doors to the refugees. Many non-anti-Semites have also supported the idea of a Jewish homeland, but not for reasons of separation and exclusion. The main democratic reasoning, in general, is that there should be a geographical-political unit in which Jewish culture can be the primary one, that this nation should be a part of the family of nations, and that all indi­ viduals should be free to settle in whatever nation they choose, without the demand for total assimilation or the threat of exclusion. Since the Jewish group contains the same diversity of ideologies and personalities as any other major grouping, it is not surprising that there is much disagreement on this issue among Jews. In the present discussion, how­ ever, the main concern is with non-Jews.

IOO

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

tian religion or any other cultural form. But consistency with democratic values does require that, once the primary aims and functions of the organi­ zation are laid down, membership be open to any individual who accepts its principles and meets its requirements. It is undemocratic to exclude any group as a whole, that is, to be unwilling to consider any applicant on the basis of his individual merits and faults. The exclusionism of some Jewish groups, while understandable as a defensive "pride" reaction, is no more justified than the equivalent policy in other groups. The total exclusion of one group b y another, whether on ethnic, religious, social class, skin color, or other grounds, is necessarily based on stereotypy, hostility and anxiety, conscious or not. It is sometimes said that "a J e w (or Negro or Catholic) would not be comfortable here." This usually means that he would be ex­ posed to some degree of prejudice, subtle or crude, and it is the others who would be uncomfortable. Discrimination takes a variety of other forms, all designed to limit JewishGentile interaction b y restricting the full participation of J e w s in community and national affairs. All forms of discrimination (exclusion, segregation, sup­ pression, and so forth) against all groups have the double function of restrict­ ing intergroup contact and of maintaining the dominant social position of the group doing the discriminating. There are many economic, political, religious, and other institutional forces involved in the subordination of various American groups. These broader social forces were, however, beyond the scope of this research. W e were concerned, as stated in Chapter I, with the problem of the consumption of ideology b y the individual: granted that various ideologies are present in the social environment, w h y is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more demo­ cratic forms? The general assumption made was that, granted the possibility of choice, an individual will be most receptive to that ideology which has most psychological meaning for him and the most significant function within his over-all adjustment. Accordingly, there was much concern with the psychological content of anti-Semitic ideology in an attempt to form hypotheses regarding the deeper psychological trends, if any, which underlie and motivate the surface opinions and attitudes. Numerous trends underlying anti-Semitic ideology are suggested b y the present scale results: stereotypy; rigid adherence to middle-class values; the tendency to regard one's own group as morally pure in contrast to the immoral outgroup; opposition to and exaggeration of prying and sensuality; extreme concern with dominance and power (fear of Jewish power and desire for Gentile p o w e r ) ; fear of moral contamination; fear of being over­ whelmed and victimized; the desire to erect social barriers in order to separate one group from another and to maintain the morality and the dominance of one's own group.

THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY

IOI

Can it be demonstrated that these personality trends are actually present in anti-Semitic individuals? In the chapters which follow, there are several lines of evidence bearing on this question: ( a ) If these trends are present, then they should also be found in various other ideological areas, ( b ) These trends should be expressed in nonideological forms as well, that is, in w a y s of thinking about people and life generally, ( c ) Intensive clinical study should reveal these and other trends directly, as well as their organization and function in the total personality, and their course of development.

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

I V

T H E STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY Daniel J. Levinson

A.

INTRODUCTION

Our attention turns now to the problem of prejudice, broadly conceived. The term "prejudice" is not entirely adequate, since it has numerous mean­ ings and connotations which might obscure or distort the ideas guiding this research. The term "ethnocentrism" is preferable because its traditional meaning comes much closer to that used here. First introduced and used descriptively by Sumner ( 1 1 5 ) in 1 9 0 6 , the term had the general meaning of provincialism or cultural narrowness; it meant a tendency in the individual to be "ethnically centered," to be rigid in his acceptance of the culturally "alike" and in his rejection of the "unlike." The traditional conception of ethnocentrism, from which the present one is derived, differs in several important respects from the usual notion of prejudice. Prejudice is commonly regarded as a feeling of dislike against a specific group; ethnocentrism, on the other hand, refers to a relatively con­ sistent frame of mind concerning "aliens" generally. Usually, in discussions of prejudice against groups there is specific reference to "race prejudice" or "prejudice against racial and religious minorities." This terminology is used even by people who know that "race" is a socially harmful idea as ordinarily understood, and who know that many groups (zootsuiters, "Okies," and so forth) are discriminated against on neither racial nor religious grounds. Ethnocentrism refers to group relations generally; it has to do not only with numerous groups toward which the individual has hostile opinions and atti­ tudes but, equally important, with groups toward which he is positively disposed. A theory of ethnocentrism offers a starting point for the understanding of the psychological aspect of group relations—why individuals are inclined toward competition, or conflict, or harmonious interaction, and so on. It is concerned with such questions as: W h a t kinds of general attitudes do indi­ viduals have about their own and other groups? W h a t underlying ideas or themes run through an individual's thinking about groups and group rela102

THE

STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY

103

tions? How do these ideas develop? How are they related to trends in the individual's thinking about other social processes? W h a t personality trends, if any, are they related to, and in what way? How are they related to mem­ bership in class, church, political party, and so forth? The term "ethnocentrism" shifts the emphasis from "race" to "ethnic group." The everyday use of the term "race" has been criticized from many sides and on many grounds. It was originally suggested as one type of broad classification of human beings on the basis of skin color. Other anthropo­ metric measures such as head shape and blood type were also suggested. Each of these organic bases of classification divides human beings (also known as the human "race") into groups which are mixed with respect to the other organic characteristics. Thus, the Negroes, a "race" according to the skin color criterion, are mixed with respect to head shape and blood type. But, apart from the arbitrariness of the organic basis of classification, the greatest dangers of the race concept lie in its hereditarian psychological implications and in its misapplication to cultures. Psychologically, the race theory implies, whether or not this is always made explicit, that people of a given race (e.g., skin color) are also very similar psychologically because they have a common hereditary family tree. This notion has been contro­ verted in the past few decades b y work in psychology on the problem of "heredity vs. environment" and b y work in cultural anthropology on the tremendous psychological variations within any given culture. Furthermore, the term "race" is often applied to groups which are not races at all in the technical sense. Sometimes this term is applied to nations, e.g., "the German race" or even "the American race." Sometimes it is misused in connection with American ethnic minorities, such as Italians or Greeks. There is no adequate term, other than "ethnic," by which to describe cultures (that is, systems of social ways, institutions, traditions, language, and so forth) which are not nations, that is, which do not form politico-geographical entities. This confusion, which is more than merely terminological and which per­ meates much thinking on social problems, has plagued the Jews particularly; they are a good example of an ethnic group which is neither a formal nation nor a race. From the point of view of sociology, cultural anthropology, and social psychology, the important concepts are not race and heredity but social organization (national, regional, subcultural, communal) and the interaction of social forms and individual personalities. T o the extent that relative uniformities in psychological characteristics are found within any cultural grouping, these uniformities must be explained primarily in terms of social organization rather than "racial heredity." The use and develop­ ment of the concept of "ethnic group," as part of a broad educational pro­ gram dealing with individual development and social change, can do much to clarify everyday thinking about social processes and problems. The conception of ideology presented in earlier chapters has been utilized

104

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

here. Ethnocentrism is conceived as an ideological system pertaining to groups and group relations. A distinction is made between ingroups (those groups with which the individual identifies himself) and outgroups (with which he does not have a sense of belonging and which are regarded as antithetical to the ingroups). Outgroups are the objects of negative opinions and hostile attitudes; ingroups are the objects of positive opinions and un­ critically supportive attitudes; and it is considered that outgroups should be socially subordinate to ingroups. The basic questions for research were raised in Chapter II. T h e y concern the inclusiveness of ideas regarding a given group, the generality of out­ group rejection, the content of ideas about ingroups and outgroups, and the amount of stereotypy in thinking about groups generally. There were numerous indications that some generality of ingroup and outgroup ideology within the individual would be found ( 1 3 , 2 5 , 8 5 , 9 0 ) . Sumner found such consistency in his anthropological studies. Fascistic social movements have shown consistent tendencies to oppose a variety of minority groups. Many historians, literary men, and political analysts have, in a nontechnical, nonquantitative w a y , had this conception of ideology ( 2 1 , 6 9 , 7 2 , 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 5 , 1 0 1 ) . One meets consistent outgroup rejection in everyday parlor and street-corner discussions. A quantitative indication of consistency was found in a previous study of anti-Semitism ( 7 1 ) . Increasing degrees of anti-Semitism were shown to be closely related to increasing opposition to labor unions and racial equality, and to increasing support of Father Coughlin. Members of college sororities —which tend to have a strong ingroup ideology—were significantly more anti-Semitic on the average than nonmembers. And subjects reporting some ideological friction with parents—indicating ability to criticize the family, a major ingroup—were significantly less anti-Semitic than those reporting no such friction. T o obtain a more conclusive answer to the questions raised in Chapter II, it seemed that the best method—in terms of rigor and quantification—was an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of ethnocentrism. The construc­ tion of this scale was, therefore, the first step taken. It was constructed in such a w a y that an analysis of its statistical properties and internal relation­ ships might help to answer the major questions concerning the structure of ethnocentric ideology. B.

CONSTRUCTION

OF T H E E T H N O C E N T R I S M ( E ) SCALE

The procedure followed in the construction of the E scale was the same as that for the anti-Semitism scale (Chapter III). Once again, and b y the same reasoning, the Likert method of scaling was used. Again, all items were nega-

THE

STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY

IO5

tive, that is, hostile to the group in question, and finally, the same general rules of item formulation were followed. 1.

M A J O R SUBDIVISIONS OR A R E A S : T H E SUBSCALES

Subscales were used in order to insure broad coverage of the total field and to permit statistical analysis of certain relationships with ethnocentric ideology. Since one of the primary research questions concerned the gener­ ality of ethnocentrism, each subscale dealt with a different set of ingroupoutgroup relations. Within each subscale an attempt was made to cover a variety of common pseudodemocratic—and a few openly antidemocraticopinions and attitudes. The E scale in its initial forms did not include items about Jews; rather, the initial anti-Semitism scale was included separately in the questionnaire TABLE 1 (IV) ETHNOCENTRISM; SCALE

Negro Subscale (N) 2.

5. 8. 11. 14. 16. 19. 22. 25. 28. 31. 34.

If there are enough Negroes who want to attend dances at a local dance hall featuring a colored band, a good way to arrange this would be to have one all-Negro night, and then the whites could dance in peace the rest of the time. The Negroes would solve many of their social problems by not being so ir­ responsible, lazy, and ignorant. Negro musicians are sometimes as good as white musicians at swing music and jazz, but it is a mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands. It would be a mistake to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over whites. Negroes may have a part to play in white civilization, but it is best to keep them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too much intermixing with whites. Manual labor and menial jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and ability better than more skilled or responsible work. In a community of 1,000 whites and 50 Negroes, a drunken Negro shoots and kills an officer who is trying to arrest him. The white population should im­ mediately drive all the Negroes out of town. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level as whites and giving them the same privileges are mostly radical agitators trying to stir up conflicts. An occasional lynching in the South is a good thing because there is a large percentage of Negroes in many communities and they need a scare once in a while to prevent them from starting riots and disturbances. It would be best to limit Negroes to grammar and trade school education since more schooling just gives them ambition and desires which they are unable to fulfill in white competition. There is something inherently primitive and uncivilized in the Negro, as shown in his music and his extreme aggressiveness. Most Negroes would become officious, overbearing, and disagreeable if not kept in their place.

106

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

so that correlations between the two scales might be obtained. The develop­ ment of a more complete E scale, including items about Jews, will be reported later in this chapter. The initial E scale consists of thirty-four items arranged in three subscales dealing respectively with Negroes, various other minorities, and patriotism (extranational outgroups). These will now be discussed, a. NEGROES. Since Negroes are a large and severely oppressed group and since imagery of "the Negro" has become so elaborated in American cultural mythology, they merited a subscale of their own. The twelve items presented in Table i ( I V ) constitute the Negro subscale. (The items are numbered as they appear in the total scale.) These items attempt to cover most of the current ideology regarding Negroes and Negro-white relations. Negroes are described as lazy and igno­ rant (Item 5 ) and as not really wanting equality with whites (Item 2 2 : it is "radical agitators" who stir them u p ) . Do individuals with the opinion that TABLE 2 (IV) ETHNOCENTRISM SCALE

Minority Subscale (M) 1.

4. 6. 9. 15. 17. 21. 24. 27. 29. 30. 32.

The many political parties tend to confuse national issues, add to the ex­ pense of elections, and raise unnecessary agitation. For this and other reasons, it would be best if all political parties except the two major ones were abol­ ished. Certain religious sects whose beliefs do not permit them to salute the flag should be forced to conform to such a patriotic action, or else be abolished. Any group or social movement which contains many foreigners should be watched with suspicion and, whenever possible, be investigated by the FBI. Although women are necessary in the armed forces and in industry, they should be returned to their proper place in the home as soon as the war ends. One main difficulty with allowing the entire population to participate fully in government affairs (voting, jobs, etc.) is that such a large percentage is innately deficient and incapable. It is a mistake to allow any Japanese to leave internment camps and enter the army where they would be free to commit sabotage. The many faults, and the general inability to get along, of the Oklahomans ("Okies") who have recently flooded California, prove that we ought to send them back where they came from as soon as conditions permit. A large-scale system of sterilization would be one good way of breeding out criminals and other undesirable elements in our society and so raise its gen­ eral standards and living conditions. Filipinos are all right in their place, but they carry it too far when they dress lavishly, buy good cars, and go around with white girls. Zootsuiters demonstrate that inferior groups, when they are given too much freedom and money, just misuse their privileges and create disturbances. The most vicious, irresponsible, and racketeering unions are, in most cases, those having largely foreigners for leaders. W e are spending too much money for the pampering of criminals and the insane, and for the education of inherently incapable people.

THE

STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY

IO7

Negroes are "naturally" lazy or unambitious also have the attitude that when Negroes do strive for higher status they should be "kept in their place" (Item 3 4 ) and prevented from having positions of leadership (Item 1 1 ) ? Is the attitude that Negroes should be segregated (Items 2 , 8, 1 4 ) held by the same persons who regard Negroes as threatening and inferior and who favor more active subordination of Negroes? These are some of the questions underlying this subscale, and the statistical results should offer at least a partial answer to them. b. MINORITIES. The second subscale (see Table 2 ( I V ) ) contains twelve items dealing with various American minority groups (other than Jews and Negroes) about which negative opinions and imagery often exist and toward which attitudes of subordination, restriction of social functioning, segrega­ tion, and the like are often directed. Included are organized groups such as minority political parties and religious sects as well as social movements and labor unions "containing many foreigners"; also ethnic minorities such as Japanese-Americans, Oklahomans (in California), and Filipinos. Zootsuiters, criminals, the insane, "inherently incapable people" and "undesirable ele­ ments," which constitute moral minorities or outgroups, are also objects of hostile opinions and attitudes. Although prejudice is usually thought of as directed against minorities— in the sense of small numbers, and as opposed to a vague "majority"—one may ask if prejudice is not sometimes directed against a group containing more than half of the population. The phenomena of "contempt for the masses" and the subordination of women were considered examples of ethnocentrism of this type; Items 9 and 1 5 were included to determine how closely such attitudes are correlated with the others. Can the attitude that "women's place is in the home" be considered a prejudice? It would appear that it is, to the extent that people with this attitude have others which are more obviously ethnocentric. A more conclusive proof would require a detailed study of ideology regarding women, oriented within a general theory of ethnocentric vs. nonethnocentric approaches. c. PATRIOTISM. This subscale (see Table 3 ( I V ) ) contains ten items dealing with international relations and viewing America as an ingroup in relation to other nations as outgroups. The term "patriotism" as used here does not mean "love of country." Rather, the present concept involves blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing group ways, and rejection of other nations as outgroups. It might better be termed pseudopatriotism and distinguished from genuine patriotism, in which love of country and attachment to national values is based on critical understanding. The genuine patriot, it would appear, can appreciate the values and w a y s of other nations, and can be permissive 1

1

During the war at least, the status of the last-named groups was a focal issue in Cali­ fornia—more so than in most other states.

THE AUTHORITARIAN

io8

PERSONALITY

TABLE 3 ( I V ) ETHNOCENTRISM SCALE

Patriotism Subscale (P) 3. 7.

10. 12. 13. 18. 20. 23. 26. 33.

Patriotism and loyalty are the first and most important requirements of a good citizen. There will always be superior and inferior nations in the world and, in the interests of all concerned, it is best that the superior ones be in control of world affairs. Minor forms of military training, obedience, and discipline, such as drill, marching and simple commands, should be made a part of the elementary school educational program. The main threat to basic American institutions during this century has come from the infiltration of foreign ideas, doctrines, and agitators. Present treatment of conscientious objectors, draft evaders, and enemy aliens is too lenient and mollycoddling. If a person won't fight for his country, he deserves a lot worse than just prison or a work camp. In view of the present national emergency, it is highly important to limit responsible government jobs to native, white, Christian Americans. European refugees may be in need, but it would be a big mistake to lower our immigration quotas and allow them to flood the country. It has become clear that the Germans and Japanese are racially war-minded and power-seeking, and the only guarantee of future peace is to wipe out most of them and to keep the rest under careful control. Mexico can never advance to the standards of living and civilization of the U . S., due mainly to the innate dirtiness, laziness, and general backwardness of Mexicans. There will always be wars because, for one thing, there will always be races who ruthlessly try to grab more than their share.

toward much that he cannot personally accept for himself. He is free of rigid conformism, outgroup rejection, and imperialistic striving for power. Ingroup opinions and attitudes are expressed in Items 3 , 7 , and 10. T h e y are intended to express a general value for obedience and discipline, the opinion that nations are arranged hierarchically from superior to inferior, and the attitude that the superior ones should be dominant—with the assump­ tion that we are one of the superior nations. The rigidity of the value for obedience is shown by the punitive attitude toward those who disobey (Item 1 3 : Punishment of conscientious objectors and draft evaders). The glorification of the national ingroup is shown further in the tendency to regard other nations as inferior when they are distant (Item 2 6 ) , and threatening when they come too close (Items 1 2 , 20, and 2 3 ) . W e are there­ fore morally justified in excluding refugees, in "wiping out" the Germans and Japanese, in excluding foreigners and others from government jobs, 2

2

This item ( 2 3 ) , so relevant during the war, can of course no longer be used. (It should be pointed out that one could actively support the war without such a destructive attitude toward the enemy or such national smugness.) If these attitudes are correlated with rejec­ tion of most other nations, then the people w h o made high (ethnocentric) scores on this scale may be the ones who now show similar attitudes toward our wartime allies and sup­ port militaristic, imperialistic, "tough-minded policies guaranteeing American sovereignty and interests."

THE

STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY

IO9

and in maintaining our dominant position as a nation. The cynicism about peace and the moralistic attribution of war to "ruthless, grabbing races" also indicate the sense of threat from outgroups and the moral righteousness of the ingroup. The fact that this theory of the cause of war is held b y many college students who have been exposed to sociological explanations in terms of socioeconomic organization and conflicts raises the question: W h a t are the inner barriers in some individuals which make them unreceptive to nonmoralistic explanations? This problem, to be taken up in later chapters, concerns the personality dynamics underlying ethnocentric ideology. If people who make high scores on this subscale are also high on the others, then it would appear that although they hold America to be superior and inviolable, they actually reject the great majority of the people in this coun­ try. Item 1 8 brings this out directly: it is only the native, white, Christian Americans who can be trusted. And various items from the "Minorities" subscale indicate that large sections of this population are also in the out­ group category. 2.

THE

T O T A L E T H N O C E N T R I S M (E)

SCALE

The total E scale is intended to measure the individual's readiness to accept or oppose ethnocentric ideology as a whole. The scale consists of 3 4 items and comprises the three subscales N, M, and P. It is presented in Table 4 ( I V ) , with instructions to subjects, just as it was administered. 3

C.

R E S U L T S : S T A T I S T I C A L ANALYSIS OF T H E SCALE

The subjects were allowed the same six choices of response for each item (-(-3 to — 3 , with no neutral response), and the responses were converted into scores in the same w a y ( — 3 = 1 point, — 2 = 2 points, etc.) as was the case with the A-S scale. All the items were regarded as pro-ethnocentric. For the 3 4 items, then, the total scores can range between 3 4 points ( 1 point on each item, indicating strong anti-ethnocentrism) and 2 3 8 points ( 7 points on each item, strong ethnocentrism). W h e n the total score is divided b y 3 4 w e obtain the mean score per item; thus, a total score of 5 1 can also be stated as a mean per item of 1 . 5 . This scale was administered as part of the questionnaire which also con­ tained the initial ( 5 2 item) A-S scale. As reported in Chapter III, this ques­ tionnaire was given in April, 1 9 4 4 , to a class in Introductory Psychology at the University of California. The data presented here are based on the ques­ tionnaires of the 1 4 4 women subjects, including nineteen members of major minorities. 3

Items 1 , 3 , 4 , 7 , 9, 10 of the present scale were taken, in some cases with slight modifica­ tions, from the "Unlabelled Fascist Attitudes" Scale of Edwards ( 2 2 ) . Both Edwards' study and the present one have profitted from previous studies by Gundlach (46), Katz and Cantril ( 1 7 ) , and Stagner ( 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 ) . Several of the "Negro" items have been taken from Murphy and Likert (84).

I IO

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 4 (IV) THE TOTAL ETHNOCENTRISM SCALE

Public Opinion Questionnaire E The following statements refer to opinions regarding a number of social groups and issues, about which some people agree and others disagree. Please mark each statement in the left-hand margin according to your agreement or disagreement, as follows: + i: slight support, agreement — i: slight opposition, disagreement + 2 : moderate support, " — 2 : moderate opposition, " + 3 : strong support, " — 3 : strong opposition, 1. The many political parties tend to confuse national issues, add to the expense of elections, and raise unnecessary agitation. For this and other reasons, it would be best if all political parties except the two major ones were abolished. 2. If there are enough Negroes who want to attend dances at a local dance hall featuring a colored band, a good way to arrange this would be to have one all-Negro night, and then the whites could dance In peace the rest of the time. 3. Patriotism and loyalty are the first and most important requirements of a good citizen. 4. Certain religious sects whose beliefs do not permit them to salute the flag should be forced to conform to such a patriotic action, or else be abolished. 5. The Negroes would solve many of their social problems by not being so irresponsible, lazy, and ignorant. 6. Any group or social movement which contains many foreigners should be watched with suspicion and, whenever possible, be investigated bv the FBI. 7. There will always be superior and inferior nations in the world and, in the interests of all concerned, it is best that the superior ones be in control of world affairs. 8. Negro musicians are sometimes as good as white musicians at swing music and jazz, but it is a mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands. 9. Although women are necessary now in the armed forces and in indus­ try, they should be returned to their proper place in the home as soon as the war ends. 10. Minor forms of military training, obedience, and discipline, such as drill, marching and simple commands, should be made a part of the elementary school educational program. 1 1 . It would be a mistake to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over whites. 12. The main threat to basic American institutions during this century has come from the infiltration of foreign ideas, doctrines, and agitators. 1 3 . Present treatment of conscientious objectors, draft-evaders, and enemy aliens is too lenient and mollycoddling. If a person won't fight for his country, he deserves a lot worse than just a prison or a work camp. 14. Negroes may have a part to play in white civilization, but it is best to keep them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too much intermixing with whites. 15. One main difficulty with allowing the entire population to participate 1

THE

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. _25.

_26. „ 2 7. _ 2 8. _29. _3o. _3i. _32. _33_34-

STUDY OF E T H N O C E N T R I C IDEOLOGY

11 I

fully in government affairs (voting, jobs, etc.) is that such a large percentage is innately deficient and incapable. Manual labor and menial jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and abil­ ity better than more skilled or responsible work. It is a mistake to allow any Japanese to leave internment camps and enter the army where they would be free to commit sabotage. In view of the present national emergency, it is highly important to limit responsible government jobs to native, white, Christian Ameri­ cans. In a community of 1,000 whites and 50 Negroes, a drunken Negro shoots and kills an officer who is trying to arrest him. The white pop­ ulation should immediately drive all the Negroes out of town. European refugees may be in need, but it would be a big mistake to lower our immigration quotas and allow them to flood the country. The many faults, and the general inability to get along, of the Oklahomans ("Okies"), who have recently flooded California, prove that we ought to send them back where they came from as soon as condi­ tions permit. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level as whites and giving them the same privileges are mostly radical agitators trying to stir up conflicts. It has become clear that the Germans and Japanese are racially warminded and power-seeking, and the only guarantee of future peace is to wipe out most of them and to keep the rest under careful control. A large-scale system of sterilization would be one good way of breed­ ing out criminals and other undesirable elements in our society and so raise its general standards and living conditions. An occasional lynching in the South is a good thing because there is a large percentage of Negroes in many communities and they need a scare once in a while to prevent them from starting riots and disturb­ ances. Mexico can never advance to the standards of living and civilization of the U. S., due mainly to the innate dirtiness, laziness, and general backwardness of Mexicans. Filipinos are all right in their place, but they carry it too far when they dress lavishly, buy good cars, and go around with white girls. It would be best to limit Negroes to grammar and trade school educa­ tion since more schooling just gives them ambitions and desires which they are unable to fulfill in white competition. Zootsuiters demonstrate that inferior groups, when they are given too much freedom and money, just misuse their privileges and create disturbances. The most vicious, irresponsible, and racketeering unions are, in most cases, those having largely foreigners for leaders. There is something inherently primitive and uncivilized in the Negro, as shown in his music and his extreme aggressiveness. W e are spending too much money for the pampering of criminals and the insane, and for the education of inherently incapable people. There will always be wars because, for one thing, there will always be races who ruthlessly try to grab more than their share. Most Negroes would become officious, overbearing, and disagreeable if not kept in their place.

THE AUTHORITARIAN

112

1.

PERSONALITY

RELIABILITY

Data indicating the reliability and related statistical properties of the E scale and its subscales are given in Table 5 ( I V ) . TABLE 5 (IV) RELIABILITY OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM (E) SCALE AND ITS SUBSCALES

Property 8 1

Reliability Number of items Mean ( t o t a l ) Mean (odd h a l f ) Mean (even h a l f ) b

S.D. S.D. S.D.

b

(total) (odd h a l f ) (even h a l f )

Range*

3

Subscales Minorities

Total E Scale

Negroes

.91 34 3. 17 3. 02 3.32

.91 12 2.72 2.65 2. 78

.82 12 3.32 3. 23 3.40

.80 10 3.53 3.88 3. 18

t. 15 1.17 1.21

1. 25 1. 25 1.42

1. 21 1.37 1. 28

1. 26 1. 26 1.46

1. 2 - 5 . 6

1.0-5. 6

1.0-6.0

Patriotism

1.0-6. 1

^ h e s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t y of each s c a l e was o b t a i n e d by c o r r e l a t ing t h e sum of t h e s c o r e s on t h e iH i-H +> 53 b O 8 C8 3 O < ** ' >

a

C-

i-H

CN

CO

T-

CO

CO

TM

u 4-> s 4-> •0 •H LI U > 0 0 a 0 u.3 ,—.

0

>>

y—. >>

CO

A.

00 m

^ ' ^ •

CO m

0 CO

CO

<M *4 <M O O O O fH > >>>>>> L. CO iH *H iH 09 CQ CQ CQ Li LI LI O CO CO CO O > > > » iH iH TH CO B B B L.

OOOO A A A A

3 3 3 3

OOOO L L L L

i68

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

These groups are more conservative on specific issues than the over-all scale mean of 3 . 9 2 indicates. The over-all means on the items ( 4 , 9, 1 5 , 3 1 , 3 7 , 4 3 ) dealing with unions, business, and government functions range from 4 . 7 4 to 5 . 3 5 , and these items are also the most discriminating. It would appear, then, that with regard to what is most definitive in liberalism and conserva­ tism—mainly ideas regarding power relations among labor, business, and gov­ ernment—the liberal position is as y e t less crystallized and less militantly held than is the conservative position. There is some question as to how far these results can be generalized beyond the present sample. T h e y are, however, in general accord with numerous other findings and observations regarding the contemporary political scene. W h a t is more difficult, and also more im­ portant, to gauge is the psychological potential for future ideological de­ velopment in various directions in the face of changing political and economic conditions. Perhaps the other components of political ideology, when sys­ tematically measured and psychologically understood, would provide a basis for the solution of this problem. 5

4. THE THIRD PEC SCALE (FORMS 45 AND 40) The construction of Forms 4 5 and 4 0 was, as has been discussed in the previous chapter, influenced greatly b y considerations of practicality and of administrative expediency. In view of these considerations, and in order to make room for the inclusion of other material, the PEC scale was cut literally to the bone. It was identical in both forms of the questionnaire and contained only five items—not enough to obtain an adequate measure of re­ liability, and hardly enough to be called a "scale." The reasoning behind the use of a five-item E scale was discussed and criticized in Chapter IV; the same criticisms apply to the present PEC scale. It appears now that it would have been wiser to have used a 10-item form; the short form used did, how­ ever, make possible the comparison of various groups and the study of rela­ tionships between this scale and the others.

The Form 4 5 - 4 0 PEC scale is presented in Table 7 ( V ) . It will be seen that the five items were not selected solely on statistical grounds; rather an attempt was made to include items whose D. P.'s were above a minimal level and, more important, which covered as many as possible of the ideological trends previously discussed. The first four items are taken, with occasional slight revisions, from Form 60. Item 1 7 (Economic security), has a history of transiency; originally in the Form 7 8 PEC scale, it was moved to the F scale in Form 6 0 (see Chapter V I I ) ; it has been returned to PEC in an attempt to rid the F scale of all items which might be connected fairly directly with 5

The representativeness of this sample with respect to political party and other group memberships will be considered later in this chapter (Section E). That the university groups are not unusually conservative is suggested by the fact that E-scale means are rela­ tively low in comparison with other middle-class groups (see Chapter IV). Their PEC means can be compared with those for the groups taking Forms 45 and 40, below.

POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY A N D G R O U P

MEMBERSHIPS

169

TABLE 7 ( V ) THE THIRD FORM OF THE POLITICO-ECONOMIC CONSERVATISM (PEC) SCALE (FORMS 4 5 - 4 0 )

3.° Labor unions should become stronger and have more influence generally. 7. America may not be perfect, but the American W a y has brought us about as close as human beings can get to a perfect society, i i . " Most government controls over business should be continued even though the war is over. 14. Men like Henry Ford or J . P . Morgan, who overcame all competition on the road to success, are models for all young people to admire and imitate. 17. In general, full economic security is bad; most men wouldn't work if they didn't need the money for eating and living. These items are "liberal," the others are "conservative." A high score is given for agree­ ment with the conservative items, disagreement with the liberal items. a

existing ideologies regarding politico-economic or minority groups. Item 1 7 , as well as several others, might be included in any of several scales; proper placement must ultimately be based on statistical analysis. Forms 4 5 and 4 0 were administered late in 1 9 4 5 and in the first part of 1 9 4 6 . The sampling methods and problems, as well as the composition of the groups and their combination for statistical purposes, have been discussed in Chapter IV. It will suffice here to list the groups comprising this sample. The Form 4 5 sample contains four groups: ( a ) Extension Testing Class (adult) Women ( N = 5 9 ) at the University of California; ( b ) San Quentin Men ( N = n o ) , inmates at the California State Prison; ( c ) and ( d ) Psychi­ atric Clinic Women ( N = 7 1 ) and Men ( N = 5 0 ) , mostly outpatients at a community clinic in San Francisco. The following groups are included in the Form 4 0 sample: ( e ) George Washington University Women ( N = 1 3 2 ) , members of day and evening classes in psychology; (f) California Service Club Men ( N = 6 3 ) , obtained at luncheon meetings of San Francisco Bay Area Kiwanis and Rotary clubs; ( g ) and ( h ) Middle-Class Men ( N = 6 9 ) and Women ( N = 1 5 4 ) , mem­ bers of various local groups such as church, P. T. A., women's clubs, etc.; (i) and ( j ) Working-Class Men ( N = 6 1 ) and Women ( N = 5 3 ) , mem­ bers of local groups such as United Electrical Workers Union, Warehouse­ men's Union (I. L. W . U . ) , California Labor School, etc.; ( k ) and (1) Los Angeles Men ( N = 1 1 7 ) and Women ( N = 1 3 0 ) , a heterogeneous but largely middle-class sample of various local groups in Los Angeles. Data on some of the subgroupings within these statistical units will be considered in Section E, below. In addition, there were two groups which were given both Forms 4 5 and 40. First, the School for Merchant Marine Officers (to be referred to as "Maritime School") ( N = 3 4 3 ) , half of which was given Form 4 5 , the other half Form 4 0 , the two halves being equated for intelligence ( A G C T ) , time in school, and planned function as officer (deck or engine). Second, veterans

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 8 (V) MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PEC SCALE SCORES FOR GROUPS TAKING FORMS 45 AND 4 0 S t a t i s t i c a l Property

Group Groups taking Form Extension T e s t i n g Women San Quentin Men Psychiatric Clinic Psychiatric Clinic Over-all

Rank

S.D.

Mean E

59 no 71 50

4.33 4.68. 4.12 4.14

(4) (2) (11) (10)

1.28 0.96 1.53 1.40

3.77 5.33 4.23 3.92

290

4.32

1.29

4.31

132

4.30

(6.5)

1.13

4.04

(6)

63 69 154 61 53 117 130

4.83 4.30 4.26 3.39 3.25 3.91 4.16

(1) (6.5) (8) (13) (14) (12) (9)

1.31 1.52 1.62 1.58 1.53 1.49 1.41

4.31 3.89 3.64 3.92 3.91 3.82 3.71

(4) (10) (14) (7.5) (9) (11) (13)

779

4.05

1.45

3.91

A

Rank

45 Class

Women Men

b

b. Groups taking Form 40 George Washington U n i v e r s i t y Women C a l i f o r n i a S e r v i c e Club Men M i d d l e - C l a s s Men M i d d l e - C l a s s Women Working-Class Men W o r k i n g - C l a s s Women Los Angeles Men Los Angeles Women Over-all

Mean

b

a

(12) (1) (5) (7.5)

C. Groups taking both forms Maritime School Men rm 4 5

l°

Form 4 0 Employment S e r v i c e Men Veterans

179

164

4

31)

-4 . 3 2 ) (5)

m v en O

>

POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND

GROUP MEMBERSHIPS

199

It will be noted that some 2 5 per cent of the total sample reported "no in­ come," while 1 3 per cent left the question blank. The majority of reported incomes were below $ 3 , 0 0 0 per year, only three individuals reporting in­ comes of over |io,ooo. Among the incomes below $ 5 , 0 0 0 there are no appreciable differences in E mean ( 3 . 3 0 to 3 . 5 7 ) , and no consistent trend of increase or decrease. However, the $ 5 , 0 0 0 - ! 1 0 , 0 0 0 group has a conspicuously low E mean of 3 . 0 2 , while the "above $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 " group is highest in ethno­ centrism, with a mean of 4 . 7 0 . The large but heterogeneous group—mostly women—with no income is also relatively high on E ( 4 . 1 0 ) . Among the Working-Class Men (Form 4 0 ) , E mean decreases as income increases up to $ 5 , 0 0 0 , after which the E mean goes up again. Among the Middle-Class Men (Form 4 0 ) and the University of Oregon and University of California Student Men (Form 6 0 ) , on the other hand, the l5,ooo-|io,ooo group is by far the lowest on E. Thus, there is no simple relation between income and ethnocentrism, and the relation between income and ideology may well be different for the middle class as compared with the working class. It is of some interest that in the two groups of nonstudent women (Psychiatric Clinic and Middle Class) those with no income were considerably more ethnocentric on the average than those with some income. The lower E mean in women who work may be due to their economic position; it is more likely, however, that the personality trends which lead to nonethnocentrism tend to produce also the willingness or desire to have gainful work. It seemed that expected income might yield a better measure of economic aspirations (and perhaps of class identification) than did present income. The mean E scores for groups divided on the basis of expected income (ten years from now) are presented in Table 1 8 ( V ) . The two largest groups are those expecting $ 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 and $ 3 , 0 0 0 ^ 3 , 9 0 0 , in that order. The over-all totals for all samples combined show that E mean gradually increases as expected income increases. However, the data for individual samples reveal a more complex state of affairs. The E mean for the three highest income groupings ( $ 4 , 0 0 0 and above) is greater than that for the low income groupings mainly because the ethnocentric Maritime School samples (Forms 4 5 and 4 0 ) form the bulk ( 5 0 - 7 0 per cent) of these groupings. It will be noted that within each Maritime School sample there is no clear-cut relationship between expected income and E mean. Similarly, there are no consistent trends in the other samples. Thus, for Form 7 8 the $ 4 , 0 0 0 - $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 levels are slightly but not significantly more ethnocentric than the lower levels, but the lowest E mean is for the "above $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 " level. For Form 60, on the other hand, the variations in E mean are small ( 2 . 9 7 to 3 . 3 4 ) and unrelated to income. Dif­ ferences among samples are, therefore, much greater than differences among actual or expected income levels. These results have little if any bearing 16

1 6

Similar negative results were obtained in preliminary (unpublished) studies of E in relation to desired income.

THE

200

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 1 8 (V) a

MEAN A-S OR E SC0KES FOR GROUPS HAVING VARIOUS LEVELS OF EXPECTED YEARLY INCOME Expected Income Below $2,000$2,000 2.900 N Mean N Mean

Group Groups taking Form 78: U.C. P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Women U.C. P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Men Extension Psychology C l a s s Women P r o f e s s i o n a l Women Totals: Groups taking Form 60: U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon Student Women Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Student Women Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a Student Men Totals:

6 0 0 14

3.08

2.91

26 5 4 11

2.99 3.74 3.80 2.65

20

2.97

46

3.06

2 6 2

2.99 3.90 1.99

9 9 2

3.27 3.30 3.07

10

3.34

20

3.27

5.17

9 3

4.16 3.30

3

5.17

12

3.94

1

5.20

16

5.22

34

3.34

94

3.37

Groups taking Form 45Maritime School Men P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Men Totals Group taking Form hO: Maritime School Men Over-all

totals:

on the theory that economic forces play a basic role in creating a setting for the development of ethnocentrism; but they provide evidence against the hypothesis that economic level and economic motives per se operate as major psychological forces impelling the individual in an ethnocentric or antiethnocentric direction. A further hypothesis to be considered is that prejudice is determined by the economic level of the parents. Stated most simply: " A person growing up in a rich family is more likely to be prejudiced than one growing up in a middle- or low-income family." In order to make a partial test of this hypoth­ esis, a question regarding father's income was included in the questionnaire, and the mean A-S or E score was obtained for groups representing several income levels. T h e data are presented in Table 1 9 ( V ) . The number of cases

POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS

201

Expected Income $4,0004,900

$3,0003,900

$5,00010,000

Above $10,000

None Mean

N

56 5 29 14

3 . 45 2. 76 3 . 66 2. 04

14 0 0 0

3 . 11 1 4 0 — . . . 52 --. . . 42 63 —

3.32 3.34 3.40 2.57

1. 1. 1. 1.

4

2 . 6 0 104

3 . 28

14

3 . 1 1 297

3.18

1. 46

2.82 1.91 3.12

0 0 4

3 . 50 3 . 71 3 . 03

9 8 0

3 . 55 2. 95

3.03

19 8 6

47 54 57

3.42 3.24 2.93

1. 38 1. 29 1. 25

28

2.98

4

3.03

33

3 . 47

17

3 . 2 7 158

3.18

1. 3 1

4.52 4.73

70 10

4.46 3.45

12 1

4.38 3.40

2 0

3 . 95

41 25

3. 98 178 3 . 70 50

4.36 3.67

1.60 1.. 5 9

17

4.55

80

4.34

13

4.30

2

3. 95

66

3 . 87 2 2 8

4.20

1..62

5.23

20

5.05

44

5.06

10

5.60

0

-. . .

45

4. 84 164

5.08

1,. 7 6

3.73

69

4 . 1 6 193

4.09

31

4 . 3 4 139

3, 33 142

4. 03 847

3.82

-. . .

N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Mean

21 9 4 14

3.18 3.00 2.10 2.84

6 10 1 3

4.32 3.52 3.80 2.07

11 22 4 4

3.62 3.55 2.35 2.10

0 1 0 3

....

3.07

48

2.95

20. 3 . 5 6

41

3.31

6 16 12

3.54 2.91 2.75

1 4 7

2.66 4.03 2.70

1 3 24

34

2.97

12

3.14

27 8

4.57 3.59

14 3

35

4.34

28 145

1.20

—

N

Over- a l l Mean S. D.

Mean

Mean

a

Blank N

N

—

--—

43 48 36 37

T h e following scales were used in the various forms: Form Form Form Form

78: 60: 45: 40:

A-S Scale E Scale E Scale E Scale

(12 (10 (10 (5

items) items) items) items)

in the various income levels provides another indication of the largely middleclass character of the total sample. The $ 5 , 0 0 0 - $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 group was the largest, with 2 0 5 cases. The $2,ooo-$2,ooo and $3,ooo-$3,ooo groups, which during 1 9 4 4 - 4 6 would probably have been the largest in the general population, had 1 5 4 and 1 8 6 cases, respectively. A disproportionately large number, 5 5 , were in the " $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 and above" group. The interpretation of these data is com­ plicated b y the fact that the father's income now may not be what it was

2

0

2

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 19 (V) MEAN A-S OR E SCORES*

F

0

R

G

R

0

U

P

S

WHOSE FATHERS HAD VARIOUS INCOMES

Groups taking Form 78: U.C. Public Speaking C l a s s Women U.C. Public Speaking C l a s s Men Extension Psychology C l a s s Women P r o f e s s i o n a l Women

Below $2,000

$2,000-

N Mean

NF Mean

8 2.94 2 5.45 1 4.20 2 5.65

17 6 2 6

3.35 3.33 4.25 2.30

Totals: 13 Groups taking Form 60: U n i v e r s i t y o f Oregon Student Women Univ. o f Oregon and Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a S t Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a S t

3.84

31

3.20

5 3.45 o 6 2.60

7 9 11

3.08 3.17 3.28

2.99

27

3.19

12 3 . 8 8 6 3.62

4.09 2.88 3. 70

Women Men

Totals: 11 Groups taking Form 45: Maritime School Men P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Men P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Women

5

4.36

26 4 4

23

3.92

34

3.90

2 6 7 3 5

4.80 5.57 3.46 2.87 4.00

7 34 9 8 4

3.20 5.48 3.29 3.35 5.40

23

4. 16

62

4.62

70

3 . 8 4 154 3 . 9 2

Totals: Groups taking Form 4O.­ George Washington U n i v e r s i t y Student Women Maritime School Men Middle-Class Women Middle-Class Men Working-class Men Totals: Over-all

totals:

during the subjects childhood. It should also be noted that almost half of the subjects left this question blank; it is not possible t o say h o w much this has influenced the results.

The E means in Table ip(V) do not vary consistently in relation to fathers tncome. T h e y show negligible and unsystematic variations ( f r o m 3 - 7 7 t o 3 . 9 2 ) among the various

rr

m e d

l - T ,

levels

below $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 .

*"*

However,

TenSic th ^ * centric than the combined l o w e r income levels (means of

the

^

group

ethno­ 3.35 and 3.84

POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS

$3,0003,900

$4,0004,900

$5,00010,000

Blank

Above $10,000

203

Over-all

N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Mean

N

Mean

S.D.

28 10 7 3

2.99 3.18 3.17 2.40

9 5 0 0

3.97 3.42

22 13 4 10

3.32 3.39 2.63 2.23

11 5 1 5

3.83 3.34 4.70 2.34

45 11 27 37

3.34 3.03 3.43 2.59

140 52 42 63

3.32 3.34 3.40 2.57

1.43 1.48 1.36 1.37

48

3.02

14

3.77

49

3.06

22

3.42

120

3.10

297

3.18

1.46

8 9 8

3.17 3.14 3.17

0 4 5

10 11 8

3.03 3.34 2.66

1 0 2

5.31

3.13 2.56

2.49

16 21 17

3.80 3.28 3.01

47 54 57

3.42 3.24 2.93

1.38 1.29 1.25

25

3.16

9

2. 81

29

3.05

3

3.43

54

3.35

158

3.18

1.31

31 6 5

4.48 3.03 1.66

12 2 2

4.68 3.25 3.95

28 7 6

4.68 2.97 2.75

8 0 1

3.54 1.60

64 25 48

4.40 4.18 3.92

178 50 71

4.36 3.67 3.65

1. 60 1.59 1.60

42

3.94

16

4.41

41

4.11

9

3.32

134

4.19

299

4.07

1.63

13 - 4 . 1 1 30 5 . 0 1 10 3 . 3 0 6 4. 63 12 4 . 0 0

10 14 5 5 0

3.64 4.73 1.84 4.56

35 29 9 10 3

4.14 5.13 2.64 4.12 5.67

7 5 5 4 0

3.97 4.60 1.72 2.40

58 46 109 33 35

4.12 4.89 3.96 4.00 3.41

132 164 154 69 59

4.04 5.08 3.64 3.89 3.83

1.58 1.76 1.96 2.08 1.72

71

4.40

34

3.96

86

4.37

21

3.29

281

4.08

578

4.19

1.90

186

3.77

73

3.88

205

3.82

55

3.35

589

3.84

1332

3.82

-

a

T h e following scales were Form 78: A-S Scale Form 60: E Scale Form 45: E Scale Form 40: E Scale

used in the various forms: (10 items) (12 items) (10 items) ( 5 items)

204

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

respectively). Whether this lower mean holds for all individuals whose fathers are in this income group, or only for those individuals who get into organized groups such as those tested, is not clear. Further study may reveal that the lower E mean characterizes those individuals who were born in wealthier families but who tend—presumably for emotionally important reasons—to gravitate toward middle- or working-class groups, occupations, and ideologies. W e are led to suspect, on the basis of results in numerous areas, that upward class mobility and identification with the status quo cor­ relate positively with ethnocentrism, and that downward class mobility and identification go with anti-ethnocentrism. A final "socioeconomic background" factor studied was father's occupa­ tion. Table 2 0 ( V ) gives the mean E score for various groups based on occupation of father. The most common occupations ( N = 1 3 6 - 1 6 9 ) were: Labor (skilled and unskilled), white collar, and big business-managerial. Small business and professional groups were next in size ( N = 9 5 and 9 0 ) , and in order of decreasing size we find farmers, engineers, government offi­ cials, and religious (ministers, etc.). W i t h regard to E mean, there are only three groups which deviate more than 0.3 points from the over-all mean of 3 . 8 6 . The offspring of engineers are significantly above average, with a mean of 4 . 3 6 . On the other hand, the offspring of fathers with religious or govern­ ment occupations are well below average ( 3 . 2 0 and 3 . 2 5 ) . For all other occu­ pations differences are minor and even smaller than the differences from sample to sample for any one occupation. No occupational grouping is con­ sistently high or consistently low in every sample. Even in the case of fathers with big business and managerial occupations, the E mean varies considerably; it is sometimes below, sometimes above that for the test group from which it was taken. Thus, w e find particularly low E means for this occupational group in the Extension Psychology Class and Professional Women, and a relatively high mean for the George Washington University W o m e n (rela­ tive to the other occupational groupings in each sample). These variations suggest, as do the data above, that ethnocentrism in the individual is not significantly correlated with many of the socioeconomic groupings which are commonly assumed ( b y many social scientists as well as b y laymen) to be direct, immediate determinants of ethnocentrism. It is the meaning of the group to the individual rather than membership per se, that helps us to predict his stand on ethnocentrism and other issues. On the basis of the group membership data presented in this section (Tables i 2 ( V ) - 2 o ( V ) ) , certain hypotheses can tentatively be drawn. Per­ haps the first lesson to be learned concerns the danger of stereotyped think­ ing about groups. No broad grouping in this study showed anything approaching ideological homogeneity. This is not presented as a startling discovery but rather as a sober reminder to those who assume a close relation

POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS d m

I

r4

CO

S 3 9 5 M M M c4 ri „ •F « -T TO N ; 1 ! I I ', : ; : I 0000 0 0

§ E

M

M

S E

E O N N 9 ri cjriri ri TO-* TA R IT • TT T 1 1 T R OOOO O

§

m

5 E E g

g

1

0? " M N ri ri cj ci ri TOroTO 0 s

E

S S 8 8 •F T R > T1 M 1 T« I O) 01 01 «

8 S S « Pi N IF N M : S G J ri « O N CJ © "* uS •rf

ri

ri

to

CO «

3 3 S

0

CO

0M 1

«* IRI 03 TG S m I RI

N

>N >N

O

0

S 8 *r I RI S

8 W

3

ri S

ri IN T0 ri N 0>

m

!

TO J « 0 AS ci IRI

N O TO

S

ri ri ri

M « 03 3

2

"O "O

N CO TO 01

ri M 0 0

ri

CO CJ S ri IRI S 3 5

— 000 Z OO O S. £ > ^

! i i i

§ S .5 A

ri

(0 M 0

a S

EO T-

ri s

CO

N O rf I RI S s

ri ri ri ri

ri N

CO •ri

£ •5 O

1

ri

O)

M ©

„ TO T- M O>

0

TN

0a0 a00

& S S A 8 « « E U "3 r r Cg B £ "« «

N M O)

CJ 0 0T1- 00

I I

1

CO

*

R pT OR 0 O •N ASS

ri ri ri ri

»

TO H

X

•

O

4.42

-—

47 54

3.43 3. 25

1. 38 1.29

8

2.19

0

—

37

2.95

1.26

49 * 3 . 0 7

3. 45 3. 18

—

O O

0 3

v

"i

3. 3. 3. 2. 3.

Never N Mean

\

15

2.99

14

3. 30

20

2.97

43

3. 24

35

3. 47

69

3.09

147

3. 23

11

2.80

O

—

158

3. 20

1.32

14 7 12 33

4. 74 2.60 4.35 4.15

29 9 13 51

4. 3. 3. 4.

36 89 65 09

100 22 29 151

4.46 4.24 4.20 4. 38

143 38 54 235

4. 3. 4. 4.

46 86 10 28

32 10 16 58

3.82 2.98 2. 28 3.25

3 2 1 6

4.77 3.50 1.30 3.77

178 50 71 299

4.36 3.67 3.65 4.07

1. 60 1.59 1.60 1.63

47 17 35 9 8 116

4. 34 4.67 4. 14 3.56 4. 50 4. 27

42 45 38 12 13 150

4. 5. 3. 5. 4. 4.

43 42 61 37 72 62

36 82 57 27 27 229

3.44 5.09 3.92 4. 26 3.72 4.28

125 144 130 48 48 495

4. 5. 3. 4. 4. 4.

11 14 89 40 14 38

5 16 17 19 9 66

2.32 4.66 1.56 2.60 2.40 2. 78

2 4 7 2 2 17

4.20 4.40 4.06 3. 90 3.60 4.08

132 164 154 69 59 578

4.04 5.08 3. 64 3.88 3.83 4.19

1. 58 1.76 1.96 2.08 1.72 1.90

268

3. 79

303

4 . 14

567

3.94

1138

3. 96

165

2.87

29

3.87

1332

3.82

—

> W po tz> O

% >

r

1

KJ

ETHNOCENTRISM

213

A N D RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES

obtained by means of the question, "How often do y o u attend services?" which appeared in all forms of the questionnaire are given in Table 2 ( V I ) . Our supposition with respect to those who attend regularly is not borne out. The mean score for subjects in this category is not significantly different from the means of those who attend often or of those who attend seldom. If, however, we combine these three categories, "regularly," "often," "sel­ dom," and compare the mean score of subjects in this broader category with that of subjects who say they never attend, then it appears that the latter score very notably lower. Once again, it appears that those who reject re­ ligion have less ethnocentrism than those who seem to accept it. W h a t it is among the latter that makes for high or for low scores has still to be discovered. d.

RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS OF PARENTS.

It may be inquired whether re­

ligious subjects do not differ, in a w a y that is significant for prejudice, with respect to the manner in which religious pressures have been applied and the manner in which they have been accepted. It has been pointed out earlier that a group membership which the subject chooses for himself may have a different significance than a group membership which he has b y virtue of having grown up within it. It may be suggested also that the homogeneity of the religious pattern to which the subject was subjected during his forma­ tive years and the consistency with which religious pressures have been applied have a bearing upon prejudice. Some light may be shed upon these matters by examining the data obtained b y asking the subjects to state on their questionnaires what was or is the religion of their father and of their mother. This made it possible to consider various relations between father's religion and that of the mother as possible correlates of ethnocentrism score. The results of this proceeding are shown in Table 3 ( V I ) . Here it is worth noting that, with each form of the questionnaire, A - S or E score is slightly higher on the average in those subjects whose father and mother had the same religion than in those whose parents had different religions. The dif­ ference which appears in the over-all totals probably approaches statistical significance. In groups taking Forms 7 8 and 6 0 the mean score is slightly lower for subjects neither of whose parents was religious than for subjects in either of the first two categories; in the case of the three groups taking Forms 4 0 and 4 5 whose responses were analyzed, the number of subjects in the category "neither religious" is so small as to be negligible. These results suggest that ethnocentrism may be higher in subjects whose parents presented 4

4

Calculations of this relationship were performed on only one group taking Form 45 and two groups taking Form 40. The relationships with which we were concerned had appeared so consistently in all groups examined up to the time Form 60 was revised, that it seemed we might economize merely by sampling the remaining^ groups. This, as it turned out, was not very fortunate, in as much as some of the relationships found with Forms 7 8 and 60 are not confirmed in the groups selected for analysis from among those taking Forms 40 and 45.

TABLE 3 (VI) MEAN A-S OR E SCORES FOR GROUPS SHOWING VARIOUS RELATIONS BETWEEN FATHER' S RELIGION AND MOTHER'S RELIGION

R e l a t i o n Between F a t h e r ' s and M o t h e r ' s R e l i g i o n Same

Different

M Religious

Religion N Mean

Religion Mean N

F Not Me an N

M Not N Mean

Religious N Mean

N

42 40 43 73 28

38 7 10 15 70

53 19 20 37 20

14 5 2 9 30

89 66 55 37 97

2 0 0 0 2

1.40

5 2 2 2 11

2.66 1. 20 2.80 1.05 2. 13

6 2 3 2 13

3.00 4.30 3.47 3.75 3.42

140 52 42 63 297

22 37

3. 47 3 . 54

9 7

3. 69 2. 66

8 3

3. 72 3. 47

2 1

2.00 3.00

2 2

3. 54 2.88

4 4

2.71 1. 71

Groups taking Form 78: P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Women 75 P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Men 36 Extension Psychology C l a s s Women 25 P r o f e s s i o n a l Women 35 Totals: 171

3. 3. 3. 2. 3.

3. 3. 3. 2. 3.

2. 3. 4. 2. 2.

F Religious

1.40

— — —

Neither Blank Mean

N

Over-all Mean S. D. 3. 3. 3. 2. 3.

32 34 40 57 18

1.43 1.48 1. 36 1. 37 1.46

47 54

3. 43 3. 25

1. 38 1. 29

1. 78

57

2. 95

1. 26

Groups taking Form 60: Univ. of Oregon Student Women Univ. of Oregon and Univ. o f C a l i f o r n i a Student Women Univ. o f Oregon and Univ. o f C a l i f o r n i a Student Men Totals:

41

3. 17

6

2. 94

5

2. 10

0

—

2

2.21

3

100

3. 38

22

3. 16

16

3. 17

3

2. 33

6

2.88

11

2.09

158

3. 20

1. 32

Groups taking Form 45: Maritime School Men

120

4. 36

30

4. 24

9

4. 9 4

0

--

1

4. 60

18

4.21

178

4. 36

1.60

Groups taking Form 40: Geo. Washington Univ. Women Maritime School Men Totals:

78 115 193

4. 29 5. 20 4. 83

45 19 64

3. 84 4. 80 4. 12

3 12 15

2. 67 4. 47 4. 11

0 0 0

— — —

1 2 3

3.40 5.20 4.60

5 16 21

2.96 4.99 4.51

132 164 296

4. 0 4 5 . 08 4. 61

1.58 1.76

584

4. 03

186

3. 68

70

3 . 51

5

1.96

21

2.81

63

3.78

929

3. 87

Over-all

Totals:

—

ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES

2 15

a united religious front than in subjects in whose case the religious influence from the parents was inconsistent, partial, or nonexistent. It may be that in the ethnocentric subjects whose mother and father were both religious, w e are dealing with submission to ingroup authority and that the effects are the more pronounced the more consistent that authority has been. But regardless of what might have been the relation between the father's religion and that of the mother, the subject may or may not have accepted the religious pressures of his family. Going on the assumption that in America religion is most largely a "maternal" matter, w e have brought together in Table ( V I ) the mean A-S or E scores of groups showing various relations between the subject's religion and the mother's religion. Here it appears that, in general, subjects professing the same religion as the mother have a higher score on A-S or E than do subjects professing a religion different from that of the mother. W h e r e the mother is religious but the subject not, or the sub­ ject is religious while the mother is not, the prejudice score is still lower and as we should expect, the lowest means appear when neither the subject nor the mother is religious. Concerning these results as a whole, one might say that whereas religious affiliation goes with higher scores on the scales, this is less likely to be the case if the religion is "one's own," that is to say, if it has been accepted independently of or in revolt against the main carrier of re­ ligious influence in the family. W h e r e this has been the case, the chances are that the religion has been fairly well internalized. More than this, w e have reason to believe that submission to and dependence upon parental authority is an important determinant of ethnocentrism; subjects, particularly women, who profess a religion that is different from that of the mother have probably been able to free themselves from these attitudes and hence, to a considerable degree, from prejudice. 4

The results just presented are much more pronounced in women than in men. The explanation here might be that for men the mother is not usually a center of conflict with respect to authority and that men who side with the mother in the matter of religion may gain thereby something of that Christian humanism which works against prejudice. These results on family relationships in relation to religion and ethnocen­ trism suggest that in order to understand w h y some religious people are prejudiced and others are not, it is necessary to explore the deeper psycho­ logical aspects of the problem rather than limit ourselves to gross sociological factors. 2.

"IMPORTANCE"

OF RELIGION A N D T H E

CHURCH

One approach to the psychological aspects of religion was to ask subjects directly, "How important in your opinion are religion and the Church?" This question appeared on the questionnaire form used just prior to Form 7 8 . Answers were obtained from 1 2 3 women students in an Introductory Psy-

TABLE 4 (VI) MEAN A-S OR E SCORES FOR GROUPS SHOWING VARIOUS RELATIONS BETWEEN SUBJECT' S RELIGION AND MOTHER' S RELIGION

Same N Mean Groups taking Form 78: P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Women P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Men Extension Psychology C l a s s Women P r o f e s s i o n a l Women Total s: Groups taking Form 60: Univ. o f Oregon Student Women Univ. o f Oregon and Univ. o f C a l i f o r n i a Student Women Univ. o f Oregon and Univ. o f C a l i f o r n i a S t u d e n t Men Totals:

Relation Between Subject's and Mother's Religion M Religious S Religious Neither Different S Not M Not Religious Blank N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N 9 7 10 9 35

2.47 3.71 2. 62 1.48 2.51

3. 50 3.37 3.90 2. 74 3.37

41 5 10 21 77

3.32 3.48 3.23 2. 95 3.22

2. 23 1. 20 4.00

21 28

4. 22 3.45

16 18

3.00 3. 18

25

3.15

22

3. 1 1

5

1.60

1

1.67

1

2.75

7

2.79

4

8

1.17 2.29

74

3.57

56

3.10

10

1.83

129 24 40 19 3

4.56 4. 1 6 4.25 4.44

16 14 11 41

4. 13 2.94 3.75 3.6 2

22 6 9 37

3.61 3. 17 2. 22 3.20

Groups taking Form AO: Geo. Washington Univ. Women Maritime School Men M i d d l e - C l a s s Women M i d d l e - C l a s s Men Working-Cla.ss Men Totals:

85 128 84 40 33 370

4. 27 5. 10 4.22 4.49 4.16 4.56

33 15 47 13 7 115

3.88 5.43 3.38 3. 75 3.83 3.86

8 12 10 13 11 54

3.08 4.33 1. 22 2.60 2.62 2.80

5 6

807

4.19

289

3.51

136

2.76

21

Totals:

2.33

4

2. 85 3.21

Groups taking Form 45: Maritime School Men P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Men P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Women Total s:

Over-all

3.45

82 38 19 31 170

Over-all Mean S. D.

3.87

140 52 42 63 297

3.32 3.34 3. 40 2.57 3.18

1.43 1.48 1. 36 1. 37 1.46

3. 33 2.50

47 54

3. 43 3. 25

1. 38 1. 29

3

2.78

57

2.95

1.26

1.85

7

2.98

158

3. 19

1.32

4.50

3.72 3.88 3.30 3.64

178 50 71 299

4.36 3. 67 3.65 4.07

1.60 1. 59 1.60 1.63 1.58 1.76 1.96 2.08 1.72 1.90

1. 20 1.60 1.05 1.23

4.70 3

1. 17 2.33

5

1. 18 1.84

10 6 7 23

5.00 4.40

1 6

3.40 5.20 1.20 1.00 1.00 2.83

5 7 11 2 2 27

2.92 5.17 2.95 2.70 3.40 3.53

132 164 154 69 59 578

4.04 5.08 3.64 3.89 3. 83 4. 19

3.07

19

2.03

60

3.53

1332

3.82

1.40

ETHNOCENTRISM

A N D RELIGIOUS A T T I T U D E S

21J

5

chology Class at the University of California. The responses of the subjects were categorized according to the following scheme: 1. 2. 3.

Generally and without qualification against both religion and the Church. "Not important," with no qualifications given. Agnostic; emphasis on values, ethics, way of living fostered by religion and the Church. 4. Emphasis on religion as a source of inner strength and satisfaction. 5. Acceptance of religion but rejection of the Church; emphasis on such con­ cepts as faith and God. 6. "Mildly important," with no qualifications given. 7. Religion and the Church both important; acceptance of prayer, church attendance, religious rituals. Mean A-S score for subjects giving each of these categories of response was calculated. Means for categories 6 and 7 were relatively high, means for all the other categories relatively low. These results were not, however, satisTABLE 5 (VI) MEAN A-S SCORES OF GROUPS GIVING DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION:

"HOW IMPORTANT ARE RELIGION

AND THE CHURCH?"

C a t e g o r i e s of

Mean

Response

S.D.

A-S S c o r e "High" c a t e g o r i e s 6 and 7 combined

65

180.7

54.5

"Low" c a t e g o r i e s 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 combined

58

115.4

41.8

factory from a statistical point of view, mainly because several of the cate­ gories were represented by very few subjects. It seemed justifiable to com­ bine categories 6 and 7, on the basis that both described a favorable attitude toward religion and the church while making no distinction between the two; similarly, all the remaining categories could be combined on the basis that they represented something other than uncritical acceptance of formal­ ized religion. The means for these two higher-order categories appear in Table 5 ( V I ) . Subjects who believe that religion and the church are both important have a mean A-S score of 1 8 0 . 7 , ^ subjects, those who are against religion and the church generally, those who accept religion but not the church, and those who emphasize the personal, ethical, and ra­ tional aspects of religion, have a mean of 1 1 5 . 4 . The difference between these two means is 6 5 . 3 and the C. R. is 7 . 3 . The over-all data for this group were presented in Chapter III. t

5

h

e

o

t

n

e

r

2l8

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

These data may be taken to mean that for subjects high on A-S, religion is important primarily as a matter of convention. Subjects who are low on A-S may either be against religion or have a religion that is relatively per­ sonal and internalized. The fact of acceptance or rejection of religion is not as important as the way in which it is accepted or rejected. 3.

SCALE ITEMS

Three items pertaining to religious ideology were included in the scale which attempted to measure potentially fascistic trends in the personality. This scale will be described in the next chapter but it seems appropriate to consider here those items which touch upon the topic of religion. The first item was the following: "The modern church with its many rules and hypocrisies, does not appeal to the deeply religious person; it appeals mainly to the childish, the insecure, and the uncritical." The hypothesis here was that disagreement with the item would indicate uncritical acceptance of the church and, hence, ethnocentrism, and that agreement with the item would indicate either an antireligious attitude or a genuinely religious but more intellectual point of view from which the church might be criti­ cized—something which we should expect to go with low scores on the scales for measuring prejudice. The results were disappointing. The mean score on the item for the 2 9 5 subjects taking Form 7 8 of the questionnaire was 4 . 6 7 and the D. P . was — 1 . 1 8 . It appeared in retrospect that the state­ ment was too complex and awkward, and hence, frequently misunderstood. More than this, the high mean score indicates that relatively few people were ready to criticize the church in this w a y ; this, of course, would lower the chances of the item's being discriminating. Needless to say, the item was not retained in the questionnaire after its first trial. A S

Another item in the scale was the following: "Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does not question." The hypoth­ esis was that agreement with this statement, which expresses very firm belief in the supernatural and an attitude of submission toward it, would be asso­ ciated with prejudice. The mean score for the 2 9 5 subjects taking Form 7 8 was 3 . 9 7 and the D. P . , 1 . 2 6 . W h e n the item, slightly revised, was used in Form 6 0 of the questionnaire ( N = 2 2 6 ) the mean score was 3.60 and the D. P.E, 1 . 3 8 . These D. P.'s are large enough to indicate that the relation of this item to ethnocentrism approaches statistical significance. The item was significantly correlated with the remainder of the scale in which it appeared, and this total scale was highly correlated with ethnocentrism. The third item was as follows: "Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried man very far but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind." It was considered that subjects in agreeing with this item conceived of a mysterious spiritual A G

ETHNOCENTRISM

A N D RELIGIOUS A T T I T U D E S

2IQ

realm of things with respect to which investigation was taboo and toward which their attitude was one of reverence. This outlook was expected to correlate with ethnocentrism. The mean in the case of Form 7 8 was 4 . 3 5 and the D. P. s, -97- In the case of Form 6 0 , where the item appeared in a slightly revised version, the mean was 4 . 9 8 and the D. P. , 1 . 3 2 . Here, once again, is evidence of a relationship between a particular religious idea and ethnocentrism. This item, like the "supernatural force" item discussed above, was significantly correlated with the remainder of the scale for measuring implicit antidemocratic trends and it was employed throughout the course of the study. These results suggest that had it been possible to express a variety of religious beliefs, ideas, and sentiments in the form of scale items, more im­ pressive quantitative results bearing on the relations of religious ideology to ethnocentrism would have been obtained. This is a matter which might well be the topic of future research. A

B

C.

DISCUSSION

Belonging to or identifying oneself with a religious body in America today certainly does not mean that one thereby takes over the traditional Christian values of tolerance, brotherhood, and equality. On the contrary, it appears that these values are more firmly held by people who do not affiliate with any religious group. It may be that religious affiliation or church attendance is of little importance one w a y or the other in determining social attitudes, that the great majority of middle-class Americans identify themselves with some religious denomination as a matter of course, without thinking much about it. This would be in keeping with the facts that the mean scores and the variability for the large religious denominations are very similar to those found in our sample as a whole. It may be argued, however, that this conventional approach to religion expresses enough identification with the status quo, submission to external authority, and readiness to emphasize moralistically the differences between those who "belong" and those who do not, to differentiate, in terms of E score, members of the large denominations from the nonreligious and from the members of those minor groups which actually stand for trends of an opposite character. At the same time, mem­ bers of the major denominations seem to differ widely among themselves with respect to trends of this kind, and where there are signs that the ac­ ceptance of religion has been determined primarily b y conventional or ex­ ternal considerations, E score tends to go up. Thus it is that agreement between the parents in the matter of religious affiliation, a circumstance that might lessen the chances of an awakening on the part of the subject to the issues involved, and sameness of the subject's religion and that of the mother, something that might be indicative of submissiveness toward au-

220

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

thority, tend to be associated with ethnocentrism. But among the members of the major denominations there are many subjects whose religion would appear to be "genuine," in the sense that it was arrived at more or less independently of external pressure and takes the form of internalized values. These subjects, it seems, tend to score low, often very low, on ethnocentrism. Subjects with this same outlook probably predominate in the low-scoring Protestant denominations and often, no doubt, they profess to no religious affiliation at all. It seems that we can approach an understanding of the relations between religion and ethnocentrism by paying attention to what the acceptance or the rejection of religion means to the individual. W h e n the problem is ap­ proached from this point of view the psychological factors which appear as most important are much the same as those which came to the fore in the preceding chapters: conformity, conventionalism, authoritarian submission, determination by external pressures, thinking in ingroup-outgroup terms, and the like vs. nonconformity, independence, internalization of values, and so forth. The fragmentary data on religious ideology afforded by the scale items lend themselves to the same mode of interpretation. An attitude of com­ plete submissiveness toward "supernatural forces" and a readiness to accept the essential incomprehensibility of "many important things" strongly sug­ gest the persistence in the individual of infantile attitudes toward the parents, that is to say, of authoritarian submission in a very pure form. Psychological variables of the kind discussed here are investigated directly in the next chapter.

D.

S U M M A R Y A N D CONCLUSION

Subjects who profess to some religious affiliation express more prejudice than those who do not; but mean A - S or E scores for all the large denomina­ tions are close to the theoretical neutral point. The vast majority of our subjects do identify themselves with some religious group, and the variability with respect to ethnocentrism among these subjects is almost as great as it is in our sample as a whole. The factor of religious denomination does not prove to be very significant. Among the largest denominations no differ­ ences of any significance appear; but Unitarians, who seem to be distin­ guished by their liberalism, and a group of minor Protestant groups, in the case of which there might be some spirit of nonconformity or some lack of identification with the status quo, score lower than the others. Frequency of church attendance is also not particularly revealing; however, the finding that those who never attend obtain lower E scores than those who do attend is added evidence that people who reject organized religion are less prej­ udiced than those who accept it. W h e n the religious affiliation of the subject is considered in relation to that

ETHNOCENTRISM

A N D RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES

221

of his parents, it appears that ethnocentrism tends to be more pronounced in subjects whose parents presented a unified religious front than in cases where the religious influence from the parents was inconsistent, partial, or nonexistent. Furthermore, there is an indication that agreement between the subject and his or her mother in the matter of religion tends to be asso­ ciated with ethnocentrism, disagreement with its opposite. These results sug­ gest that acceptance of religion mainly as an expression of submission to a clear pattern of parental authority is a condition favorable to ethnocentrism. A quantitative approach to religious ideology was made by including in one form of the questionnaire an open-ended question concerning the im­ portance, in the subject's mind, of religion and the church. W h e n a cate­ gorization of the answers to this question was made and mean A - S scores cal­ culated, it turned out that the subjects who considered both religion and the church important were very considerably more anti-Semitic than were sub­ jects who considered neither important or emphasized the ethical aspects of religion or differentiated between the church and "real" religion and, while rejecting the former, stressed the more personal and the more rational aspects of the latter. T w o scale-items pertaining to religious ideology appeared to be slightly correlated with prejudice. The more agreement with statements to the effect that people should have "complete faith in some supernatural force" and that "there are some things that can never be understood b y the human mind," the higher did the A - S score tend to be. In general, it appeared that gross, objective factors—denomination and frequency of church attendance—were less significant for prejudice than were certain psychological trends reflected in the w a y the subject accepted or rejected religion and in the content of his religious ideology. These trends —conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and so forth—were generally the same as those which came to the fore in preceding chapters, and w e turn now to our attempt to investigate them directly.

C

H

A

P

T

E

R

V I I

T H E MEASUREMENT OF IMPLICIT ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS R. Nevitt Sanford, T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunsivik, and Daniel J. Levinson

A.

INTRODUCTION

At a certain stage of the study, after considerable work with the A - S and E scales had been done, there gradually evolved a plan for constructing a scale that would measure prejudice without appearing to have this aim and without mentioning the name of any minority group. It appeared that such an instrument, if it correlated highly enough with the A-S and E scales, might prove to be a very useful substitute for them. It might be used to survey opinion in groups where "racial questions" were too "ticklish" a matter to permit the introduction of an A-S or E scale, e.g., a group which included many members of one or another ethnic minority. It might be used for measuring prejudice among minority group members themselves. Most important, by circumventing some of the defenses which people employ when asked to express themselves with respect to "race issues," it might provide a more valid measure of prejudice. The PEC scale might have commended itself as an index of prejudice, but its correlations with the A-S and E scales did not approach being high enough. Moreover, the items of this scale were too explicitly ideological, that is, they might be too readily associated with prejudice in some logical or automatic w a y . W h a t was needed was a collection of items each of which was correlated with A-S and E but which did not come from an area ordinarily covered in discussions of political, economic, and social matters. The natural place to turn was to the clinical material already collected, where, particularly in the subjects' discussions of such topics as the self, family, sex, interpersonal relations, moral and personal values,- there had appeared numerous trends which, it appeared, might be connected with prejudice. At this point the second—and major—purpose of the new scale began to 222

MEASUREMENT

OF

ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

223

take shape. Might not such a scale yield a valid estimate of antidemocratic tendencies at the personality level? It was clear, at the time the new scale was being planned, that anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism were not merely matters of surface opinion, but general tendencies with sources, in part at least, deep within the structure of the person. W o u l d it not be possible to construct a scale that would approach more directly these deeper, often un­ conscious forces? If so, and if the scale could be validated by means of later clinical studies, would we not have a better estimate of antidemocratic po­ tential than could be obtained from the scales that were more openly ideo­ logical? The prospect was intriguing. And experience with clinical tech­ niques and with the other scales gave considerable promise of success. In attempting to account for the generality of A-S and of E, to explain what it was that made the diverse items of these scales go together, we had been led to the formulation of enduring psychological dispositions in the person —stereotypy, conventionalism, concern with power, and so forth. Study of the ideological discussions of individuals, e.g., Mack and Larry, had had the same outcome: there appeared to be dispositions in each individual that were reflected in his discussion of each ideological area as well as in his dis­ cussion of matters not ordinarily regarded as ideological. And when clinicalgenetic material was examined, it appeared that these dispositions could fre­ quently be referred to deep-lying personality needs. The task then was to formulate scale items which, though they were statements of opinions and attitudes and had the same form as those appearing in ordinary opinionattitude questionnaires, would actually serve as "giveaways" of underlying antidemocratic trends in the personality. This would make it possible to carry over into group studies the insights and hypotheses derived from clinical investigation; it would test whether we could study on a mass scale features ordinarily regarded as individualistic and qualitative. This second purpose—the quantification of antidemocratic trends at the level of personality—did not supersede the first, that of measuring antiSemitism and ethnocentrism without mentioning minority groups or cur­ rent politico-economic issues. Rather, it seemed that the two might be realized together. The notion was that A-S and E would correlate with the new scale because the A-S and E responses were strongly influenced b y the underlying trends which the new scale sought to get at b y a different approach. Indeed, if such a correlation could be obtained it could be taken as evidence that anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism were not isolated or specific or entirely superficial attitudes but expressions of persistent tendencies in the person. This would depend, however, upon how successful was the attempt to exclude from the new scale items which might have been so frequently or so automatically associated with anti-Semitism or ethnocentrism that they might be regarded as aspects of the same political "line." In any case, how­ ever, it seemed that the discovery of opinions and attitudes, in various areas

224

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

other than the usual politico-socioeconomic one, that were associated with anti-Semitism and ethnocentrism, would give a more comprehensive grasp of the prejudiced outlook on the world. The new instrument was termed the F scale, to signify its concern with implicit prefascist tendencies. On theoretical grounds it was expected that the correlations of F with A-S and E would not approach unity. It was hoped that the F scale would catch some of the antidemocratic potential that might not be expressed when sub­ jects responded to items which dealt directly with hostility toward minority groups. True, the items of the present A-S and E scales were, for the most part, so formulated as to allow the subject to express prejudice while main­ taining the feeling that he was being democratic. Yet it was recognized that a subject might score relatively low on A-S or E and still, in the interview, where a confidential relationship was established and the interviewer was very permissive, reveal that he was prejudiced. More than this, it had to be admitted that a subject might refuse altogether to express hostility against minority groups and yet reveal features, e.g., a tendency to think of such groups in a stereotyped w a y or a tendency moralistically to reject social groups other than ethnic ones, which had to be taken as susceptibility to anti­ democratic propaganda. If the F scale were to be regarded as a measure of antidemocratic potential—something which might or might not be ex­ pressed in open hostility against outgroups—then it could not be perfectly correlated with A-S or E. Rather, the demand to be made of it was that it single out individuals who in intensive clinical study revealed themselves to be receptive to antidemocratic propaganda. Although it was not possible within the scope of the study to use the F scale alone as the basis for selecting interviewees, it was possible to relate F scale score to various other indices of antidemocratic personality trends as brought to light by other techniques. Such trends, it seemed, could exist in the absence of high A-S or E scores. However, the distinction between potential and manifest should not be overdrawn. Given emotionally determined antidemocratic trends in the person, we should expect that in general they would be evoked by the A - S and E items, which were designed for just this purpose, as well as by the F scale and other indirect methods. The person who was high on F but not on A - S or E would be the exception, whose inhibitions upon the expression of prejudice against minorities would require special explanation. B.

C O N S T R U C T I O N OF T H E FASCISM ( F ) SCALE 1. T H E

UNDERLYING T H E O R Y

The 3 8 items of the original F scale are shown in Table i ( V I I ) , num­ bered in the order of their appearance on Form 7 8 . If the reader considers that most of what has gone before in this volume was either known or

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

225

thought about before construction of the F scale began, it will be apparent that in devising the scale we did not proceed in a strictly empirical fashion. W e did not consider starting with hundreds of items chosen more or less at random and then seeing by trial and error which ones might be associated with A-S and E. For every item there was a hypothesis, sometimes several hypotheses, stating what might be the nature of its connection with prejudice. The major source of these hypotheses was the research already performed in the present study. Available for the purpose was the following material: results, such as those given in preceding chapters, from the A-S, E, and PEC scales; numerous correlates of E derived from questionnaire studies, that is, from responses to factual and short essay questions pertaining to such topics as religion, war, ideal society, and so forth; early results from projective questions; finally, and by far the most important, material from the inter­ views and the Thematic Apperception Tests. Another important source of items was research in fields allied to the present one in which the authors had previously had a part. Principal among these were several studies performed at the University of California on personality in relation to war morale and ideology ( 1 9 , 2 0 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 7 , 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 ) , and researches of the Institute of Social Research such as content analyses of speeches of anti-Semitic agi­ tators and a study on anti-Semitic workers ( 2 , 3 , 5 6 , 5 7 , 5 7 A , 5 7 B ) . Finally, there was the general literature on anti-Semitism and fascism, embracing both empirical and theoretical studies. It will have been recognized that the interpretation of the material of the present study was guided by a theoretical orientation that was present at the start. The same orientation played the most crucial role in the prepara­ tion of the F scale. Once a hypothesis had been formulated concerning the w a y in which some deep-lying trend in the personality might express itself in some opinion or attitude that was dynamically, though not logically, re­ lated to prejudice against outgroups, a preliminary sketch for an item was usually not far to seek: a phrase from the daily newspaper, an utterance by an interviewee, a fragment of ordinary conversation was usually ready at hand. (As will be seen, however, the actual formulation of an item was a technical proceeding to which considerable care had to be devoted.) As to what kinds of central personality trends w e might expect to be the most significant, the major guide, as has been said, was the research which had gone before; they were the trends which, as hypothetical constructs, seemed best to explain the consistency of response on the foregoing scales, and which emerged from the analysis of clinical material as the likely sources of the coherence found in individual cases. Most of these trends have been mentioned before, usually when it was necessary to do so in order to give meaning to obtained results. For example, when it was discovered that the anti-Semitic individual objects to Jews on the ground that they violate con­ ventional moral valfes, one interpretation was that this individual had a

226

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE I (VII) THE F SCALE: FORM 7 8

2. Although many people may scoff, it may yet be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things. 3. America is getting so far from the true American way of life that force may be necessary to restore it. 6. It is only natural and right that women be restricted in certain ways in which men have more freedom. 9. Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we should return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active way of life. 10. It is more than a remarkable coincidence that Japan had an earthquake on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944. 12. The modern church, with its many rules and hypocrisies, does not appeal to the deeply religious person; it appeals mainly to the childish, the insecure, and the uncritical. 14. After we finish off the Germans and Japs, we ought to concentrate on other enemies of the human race such as rats, snakes, and germs. 17. Familiarity breeds contempt. 19. One should avoid doing things in public which appear wrong to others, even though one knows that these things are really all right. 20. One of the main values of progressive education is that it gives the child great freedom in expressing those natural impulses and desires so often frowned upon by conventional middle-class society. 23. He is, indeed, contemptible who does not feel an undying love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 24. Today everything is unstable; we should be prepared for a period of constant change, conflict, and upheaval. 28. Novels or stories that tell about what people think and feel are more interest­ ing than those which contain mainly action, romance, and adventure. 30. Reports of atrocities in Europe have been greatly exaggerated for propa­ ganda purposes. 3 1 . Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and ought to be severely punished. 32. It is essential for learning or effective work that our teachers or bosses outline in detail what is to be done and exactly how to go about it. 35. There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when responsible officials won't take the proper steps, the wide-awake citizen should take the law into his own hands. 38. There is too much emphasis in college on intellectual and theoretical topics, not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the homely virtues of living. 39. Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does not question. 42. No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only one reason. 43. Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried men very far, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 46. The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even in circles where people might least expect it.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

227

47. 50.

No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. 53. There are some things too intimate or personal to talk about even with one's closest friends. 55. Although leisure is a fine thing, it is good hard work that makes life interest­ ing and worthwhile. 56. After the war, we may expect a crime wave; the control of gangsters and ruffians will become a major social problem. 58. What a man does is not so important so long as he does it well. 59. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. 60. Which of the following are the most important for a person to have or to

be? Mark X the three most important.

65. 66. 67. 70. 73. 74. 75. 77.

artistic and sensuous popular, good personality drive, determination, will power broad, humanitarian social outlook neatness and good manners sensitivity and understanding efficiency, practicality, thrift intellectual and serious emotional expressiveness, warmth, intimacy kindness and charity It is entirely possible that this series of wars and conflicts will be ended once and for all by a world-destroying earthquake, flood, or other catastrophe. Books and movies ought not to deal so much with the sordid and seamy side of life; they ought to concentrate on themes that are entertaining or uplifting. When you come right down to it, it's human nature never to do anything without an eye to one's own profit. To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed by plots hatched in secret by politicians. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around so much and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially careful to protect himself against infection and disease. What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more courageous, tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their faith in. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative.

particularly strong and rigid adherence to conventional values, and that this general disposition in his personality provided some of the motivational basis for anti-Semitism, and at the same time expressed itself in other ways, e.g., in a general tendency to look down on and to punish those who were believed to be violating conventional values. This interpretation was sup­ ported by results from the E and PEC scales, where it was shown that items expressive of conventionalism were associated with more manifest forms of prejudice. Accordingly, therefore, adherence to conventional values

228

THE

AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

came to be thought of as a variable in the person—something which could be approached b y means of scale items of the F type and shown to be related functionally to various manifestations of prejudice. Similarly, a con­ sideration of E-scale results strongly suggested that underlying several of the prejudiced responses was a general disposition to glorify, to be sub­ servient to and remain uncritical toward authoritative figures of the ingroup and to take an attitude of punishing outgroup figures in the name of some moral authority. Hence, authoritarianism assumed the proportions of a variable worthy to be investigated in its own right. In the same w a y , a number of such variables were derived and defined, and they, taken together, made up the basic content of the F scale. Each was regarded as a more or less central trend in the person which, in accord­ ance with some dynamic process, expressed itself on the surface in ethno­ centrism as well as in diverse psychologically related opinions and attitudes. These variables are listed below, together with a brief definition of each. a. Conventionalism. Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values. b. Authoritarian submission. Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup. c. Authoritarian aggression. Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to con­ demn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. d. Anti-intraception. Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tenderminded. e. Superstition and stereotypy. The belief in mystical determinants of the individual's fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. f. Power and "toughness." Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. g. Destructiveness and cynicism. Generalized hostility, vilification of the human. h. Projectivity. The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses. i. Sex. Exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on." These variables were thought of as going together to form a single syn­ drome, a more or less enduring structure in the person that renders him re­ ceptive to antidemocratic propaganda. One might say, therefore, that the F scale attempts to measure the potentially antidemocratic personality. This does not imply that all the features of this personality pattern are touched upon in the scale, but only that the scale embraces a fair sample of the ways in which this pattern characteristically expresses itself. Indeed, as the study went on, numerous additional features of the pattern, as well as varia­ tions within the over-all pattern, suggested themselves—and it was regretted that a second F scale could not have been constructed in order to carry these explorations further. It is to be emphasized that one can speak of personality

/

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

229

here only to the extent that the coherence of the scale items can be better explained on the ground of an inner structure than on the ground of external association. The variables of the scale may be discussed in more detail, with emphasis on their organization and the nature of their relations to ethnocentrism. As each variable is introduced, the scale items deemed to be expressive of it are presented. It will be noted, as the variables are taken up in turn, that the same item sometimes appears under more than one heading. This follows from our approach to scale construction. In order efficiently to cover a wide area it was necessary to formulate items that were maximally rich, that is, pertinent to as much as possible of the underlying theory—hence a single item was sometimes used to represent two, and sometimes more, different ideas. It will be noted also that different variables are represented by different numbers of items. This is for the reason that the scale was designed with first attention to the whole pattern into which the variables fitted, sofne with more important roles than others.

a. Conventionalism 12.

T h e m o d e r n c h u r c h , w i t h its m a n y rules and hypocrisies, does not appeal to the deeply religious person; it appeals m a i n l y to the childish, the insecure, and the uncritical.

19.

O n e should avoid doing things in public w h i c h appear w r o n g to others, even t h o u g h one k n o w s that these things are really all right.

38.

T h e r e is too m u c h emphasis in colleges on intellectual and theoreti­ cal topics, not e n o u g h emphasis on practical matters and on the h o m e l y virtues of living.

55.

A l t h o u g h leisure is a fine thing, it is g o o d hard w o r k that makes life interesting and

worthwhile.

58.

What

60.

W h i c h of the f o l l o w i n g are the most important f o r a person to have

a man does is not so important so long as he does it well.

or to be? Mark X the three most important. artistic and sensuous popular, g o o d personality drive, determination, w i l l p o w e r b r o a d , humanitarian social outlook neatness and g o o d manners sensitivity and understanding efficiency, practicality, thrift intellectual and serious emotional expressiveness, w a r m t h , i n t i m a c y kindness and c h a r i t y

It is a well-known hypothesis that susceptibility to fascism is most charac­ teristically a middle-class phenomenon, that it is "in the culture" and, hence, that those who conform the most to this culture will be the most prejudiced.

230

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

Items referring to the holding of conventional values were included in order to gather data bearing on this hypothesis. Many of the early findings of the present study, however, gave evidence that the matter was not quite so simple. The correlation between conventional values and prejudice seemed to be positive but not very high; whereas unconventional people tended to be free of prejudice, it was clear that some conventional people were prejudiced while others were not. It seemed that, among the conventional group, what might make the difference was the deeper source of the conventionality, or rather the type of broader personality structure within which it had a func­ tional role. If the adherence to conventional values was an expression of a fully established individual conscience, then w e should expect no necessary connection between these values and antidemocratic potential. T h e same standards which render the individual easily offended b y what he conceives to be the morally loose behavior of unassimilated minority group members or of "lower-class" people, would—if they are well internalized-cause him to resist the violence and delinquency which characterize the advanced stages of fascism. If, on the other hand, adherence to conventional values is de­ termined b y contemporary external social pressure, if it is based upon the individual's adherence to the standards of the collective powers with which he, for the time being, is identified, then we should expect a close association with antidemocratic receptivity. It is this latter state of affairs that we wish to call conventionalism—and to distinguish from mere acceptance of con­ ventional values. T h e conventionalistic individual could in good conscience follow the dictates of the external agency wherever they might lead him and, moreover, he would be capable of totally exchanging one set of standards for another quite different one—as in a conversion from official Communism to Catholicism. The scale items listed under Conventionalism afford the subject an op­ portunity to reveal whether or not his adherence to conventional values is of the rigid, absolutist character just described. For example, this would seem to be indicated b y a mark of + 3 on the item, "Obedience and respect for au­ thority are the most important virtues children should learn." However, a sound decision on this matter would depend on the individual's responses to items in the other categories. For example, extreme conventionalism going with a strong inclination to punish those who violate conventional values is a different thing from conventional values associated with a philosophy of live and let live. In other words, the meaning of a high score on this variable, as on any of the others, is to be known from the broader context within which it occurs.

b. Authoritarian Submission 20.

One of the main values of progressive education is that it gives the child great freedom in expressing those natural impulses and desires so often frowned upon by conventional middle-class society.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

23.

He is indeed contemptible who does not feel an undying love, grati­ tude, and respect for his parents.

32.

It is essential for learning or effective work that our teachers or bosses outline in detail what is to be done and exactly how to go about it.

39.

Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does not question.

43.

Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried men very far, but there are many important things that can never pos­ sibly be understood by the human mind.

50.

Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.

74.

What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more courageous, tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their faith in.

77.

No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative.

23 I

Submission to authority, desire for a strong leader, subservience of the individual to the state, and so forth, have so frequently and, as it seems to us, correctly, been set forth as important aspects of the Nazi creed that a search for correlates of prejudice had naturally to take these attitudes into account. These attitudes have indeed been so regularly mentioned in associa­ tion with anti-Semitism that it was particularly difficult to formulate items that would express the underlying trend and still be sufficiently free of logical or direct relations to prejudice—and w e cannot claim to have been entirely successful. Direct references to dictatorship and political figures were avoided for the most part, and the main emphasis was on obedience, respect, rebel­ lion, and relations to authority in general. Authoritarian submission was conceived of as a very general attitude that would be evoked in relation to a variety of authority figures—parents, older people, leaders, supernatural power, and so forth. 1

The attempt was made to formulate the items in such a w a y that agree­ ment with them would indicate not merely a realistic, balanced respect for valid authority but an exaggerated, all-out, emotional need to submit. This would be indicated, it seemed, b y agreement that obedience and respect for authority were the most important virtues that children should learn, that a person should obey without question the decisions of a supernatural power, and so forth. It was considered that here, as in the case of conventionalism, the subservience to external agencies was probably due to some failure in »E. Fromm (42), E. H. Erikson (25), A . Maslow (79), M. B. Chisholm (18), and W. Reich (96) are among the writers whose thinking about authoritarianism has influenced our own.

232

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

the development of an inner authority, i.e., conscience. Another hypothesis was that authoritarian submission was commonly a w a y of handling ambival­ ent feelings toward authority figures: underlying hostile and rebellious im­ pulses, held in check by fear, lead the subject to overdo in the direction of respect, obedience, gratitude, and the like. It seems clear that authoritarian submission b y itself contributes largely to the antidemocratic potential by rendering the individual particularly re­ ceptive to manipulation by the strongest external powers. The immediate connection of this attitude with ethnocentrism has been suggested in earlier chapters: hostility against ingroup authorities, originally the parents, has had to be repressed; the "bad" aspects of these figures-that they are unfair, self-seeking, dominating—are then seen as existing in outgroups, who are charged with dictatorship, plutocracy, desire to control, and so forth. And this displacement of negative imagery is not the only w a y in which the repressed hostility is handled; it seems often to find expression in authoritarian aggression.

c. Authoritarian Aggression 6.

It is only natural and right that women be restricted in certain ways in which men have more freedom.

23.

He is indeed contemptible who does not feel an undying love, grati­ tude, and respect for his parents.

31.

Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and ought to be severely punished.

47.

No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished.

75.

Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped.

The individual who has been forced to give up basic pleasures and to live under a system of rigid restraints, and who therefore feels put upon, is likely not only to seek an object upon which he can "take it out" but also to be par­ ticularly annoyed at the idea that another person is "getting away with some­ thing." Thus, it may be said that the present variable represents the sadistic component of authoritarianism just as the immediately foregoing one repre­ sents its masochistic component. It is to be expected, therefore, that the conventionalist who cannot bring himself to utter any real criticism of accepted authority will have a desire to condemn, reject, and punish those who violate these values. As the emotional life which this person regards as proper and a part of himself is likely to be very limited, so the impulses, es­ pecially sexual and aggressive ones, which remain unconscious and ego-alien are likely to be strong and turbulent. Since in this circumstance a wide va­ riety of stimuli can tempt the individual and so arouse his anxiety (fear of punishment), the list of traits, behavior patterns, individuals, and groups

MEASUREMENT

OF

ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

233

that he must condemn grows very long indeed. It has been suggested before that this mechanism might lie behind the ethnocentric rejection of such groups as zootsuiters, foreigners, bther nations; it is here hypothesized that this feature of ethnocentrism is but a part of a more general tendency to punish violators of conventional values: homosexuals, sex offenders, people with bad manners, etc. Once the individual has convinced himself that there are people who ought to be punished, he is provided with a channel through which his deepest aggressive impulses may be expressed, even while he thinks of himself as thoroughly moral. If his external authorities, or the crowd, lend their approval to this form of aggression, then it may take the most violent forms, and it may persist after the conventional values, in the name of which it was undertaken, have been lost from sight. One might say that in authoritarian aggression, hostility that was orig­ inally aroused by and directed toward ingroup authorities is displaced onto outgroups. This mechanism is superficially similar to but essentially dif­ ferent from a process that has often been referred to as "scapegoating." A c ­ cording to the latter conception, the individual's aggression is aroused by frustration, usually of his economic needs; and then, being unable due to in­ tellectual confusion to tell the real causes of his difficulty, he lashes out about him, as it were, venting his fury upon whatever object is available and not too likely to strike back. W h i l e it is granted that this process has a role in hostility against minority groups, it must be emphasized that according to the present theory of displacement, the authoritarian must, out of an inner necessity, turn his aggression against outgroups. He must do so because he is psychologically unable to attack ingroup authorities, rather than because of intellectual confusion regarding the source of his frustration. If this theory is correct, then authoritarian aggression and authoritarian submission should turn out to be highly correlated. Furthermore, this theory helps to explain w h y the aggression is so regularly justified in moralistic terms, w h y it can become so violent and lose all connection with the stimulus which originally set it off. Readiness to condemn other people on moral grounds may have still an­ other source: it is not only that the authoritarian must condemn the moral laxness that he sees in others, but he is actually driven to see immoral at­ tributes in them whether this has » basis in fact or not. This is a further device for countering his own inhibited tendencies; he says to himself, as it were: "I am not bad and deserving of punishment, he is." In other words the indi­ vidual's own unacceptable impulses are projected onto other individuals and groups who are then rejected. Projectivity as a variable is dealt with more fully below. Conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression all have to do with the moral aspect of life—with standards of conduct, with the authorities who enforce these standards, with offenders against them

234

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

who deserve to be punished. W e should expect that, in general, subjects who score high on one of these variables will score high on the others also, inas­ much as all three can be understood as expressions of a particular kind of structure within the personality. The most essential feature of this structure is a lack of integration between the moral agencies b y which the subject lives and the rest of his personality. One might say that the conscience or superego is incompletely integrated with the self or ego, the ego here being conceived of as embracing the various self-controlling and self-expressing functions of the individual. It is the ego that governs the relations between self and outer world, and between self and deeper layers of the personality; the ego under­ takes to regulate impulses in a w a y that will permit gratification without inviting too much punishment b y the superego, and it seeks in general to carry out the activities of the individual in accordance with the demands of reality. It is a function of the ego to make peace with conscience, to create a larger synthesis within which conscience, emotional impulses, and self operate in relative harmony. W h e n this synthesis is not achieved, the super­ ego has somewhat the role of a foreign body within the personality, and it exhibits those rigid, automatic, and unstable aspects discussed above. There is some reason to believe that a failure in superego internalization is due to weakness in the ego, to its inability to perform the necessary syn­ thesis, i.e., to integrate the superego with itself. Whether or not this is so, ego weakness would seem to be a concomitant of conventionalism and au­ thoritarianism. Weakness in the ego is expressed in the inability to build up a consistent and enduring set of moral values within the personality; and it is this state of affairs, apparently, that makes it necessary for the individual to seek some organizing and coordinating agency outside of himself. W h e r e such outside agencies are depended upon for moral decisions one may say that the conscience is externalized. Although conventionalism and authoritarianism might thus be regarded as signs of ego weakness, it seemed worthwhile to seek other, more direct, means for estimating this trend in personality, and to correlate this trend with the others. Ego weakness would, it seemed, be expressed fairly directly in such phenomena as opposition to introspection, in superstition and stere­ otypy, and in overemphasis upon the ego and its supposed strength. The fol­ lowing three variables deal with these phenomena.

d. Anti-intraception 28.

Novels or stories that tell about what people think and feel are more interesting than those which contain mainly action, romance, and adventure.

38.

There is too much emphasis in colleges on intellectual and theoreti­ cal topics, not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the homely virtues of living.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

53.

There are some things too intimate or personal to talk about even with one's closest friends.

55.

Although leisure is a fine thing, it is good hard work that makes life interesting and worthwhile.

58.

What a man does is not so important so long as he does it well.

66.

Books and movies ought not to deal so much with the sordid and seamy side of life; they ought to concentrate on themes that are entertaining or uplifting.

235

Intraception is a term introduced by Murray ( 8 9 ) to stand for "the dom­ inance of feelings, fantasies, speculations, aspirations—an imaginative, sub­ jective human outlook." The opposite of intraception is extraception, "a term that describes the tendency to be determined by concrete, clearly ob­ servable, physical conditions (tangible, objective facts)." The relations of intraception/extraception to ego weakness and to prejudice are probably highly complex, and this is not the place to consider them in detail. It seems fairly clear, however, that ^roft'-intraception, an attitude of impatience with and opposition to the subjective and tender-minded, might well be a mark of the weak ego. The extremely anti-intraceptive individual is afraid of thinking about human phenomena because he might, as it were, think the wrong thoughts; he is afraid of genuine feeling because his emotions might get out of control. Out of touch with large areas of his own inner life, he is afraid of what might be revealed if he, or others, should look closely at him­ self. He is therefore against "prying," against concern with what people think and feel, against unnecessary "talk"; instead he would keep busy, devote himself to practical pursuits, and instead of examining an inner conflict, turn his thoughts to something cheerful. A n important feature of the Nazi pro­ gram, it will be recalled, was the defamation of everything that tended to make the individual aware of himself and his problems; not only was " J e w ­ ish" psychoanalysis quickly eliminated but every kind of psychology except aptitude testing came under attack. This general attitude easily leads to a devaluation of the human and an overevaluation of the physical object; when it is most extreme, human beings are looked upon as if they were physical objects to be coldly manipulated—even while physical objects, now vested with emotional appeal, are treated with loving care.

e. Superstition and Stereotypy 2.

Although many people may scoff, it may yet be shown that astrol­ ogy can explain a lot of things.

10.

It is more than a remarkable coincidence that Japan had an earth­ quake on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944.

39.

Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does not question.

236

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

43.

Sciences like chemistry, physics, and medicine have carried men very far, but there are many important things that can never pos­ sibly be understood by the human mind.

65.

It is entirely possible that this series of wars and conflicts will be ended once and for all by a world-destroying earthquake, flood, or other catastrophe.

Superstitiousness, the belief in mystical or fantastic external determinants of the individual's fate, and stereotypy, the disposition to think in rigid categories, have been mentioned so frequently in the foregoing chapters and are so obviously related to ethnocentrism that they need little discussion here. A question that must be raised concerns the relations of these trends to gen­ eral intelligence—and the relations of intelligence to ethnocentrism. Probably superstition and stereotypy tend to go with low intelligence, but low in­ telligence appears to be correlated with ethnocentrism to only a slight degree (see Chapter VIII). It appears likely that superstition and stereotypy em­ brace, over and above the mere lack of intelligence in the ordinary sense, certain dispositions in thinking which are closely akin to prejudice, even though they might not hamper intelligent performance in the extraceptive sphere. These dispositions can be understood, in part at least, as expressions of ego weakness. Stereotypy is a form of obtuseness particularly in psycho­ logical and social matters. It might be hypothesized that one reason w h y people in modern society—even those who are otherwise "intelligent" or "in­ formed"—resort to primitive, oversimplified explanations of human events is that so many of the ideas and observations needed for an adequate account are not allowed to enter into the calculations: because they are affect-laden and potentially anxiety-producing, the weak ego cannot include them within its scheme of things. More than this, those deeper forces within the personal­ ity which the ego cannot integrate with itself are likely to be projected onto the outer world; this is a source of bizarre ideas concerning other peoples' behavior and concerning the causation of events in nature. 2

Superstitiousness indicates a tendency to shift responsibility from within the individual onto outside forces beyond one's control; it indicates that the ego might already have "given up," that is jto say, renounced the idea that it might determine the individual's fate by overcoming external forces. It must, of course, be recognized that in modern industrial society the capacity of the individual to determine what happens to himself has actually decreased, so that items referring to external causation might easily be realistic and hence of no significance for personality. It seemed necessary, therefore, to select items that would express ego weakness in a nonrealistic w a y b y making the individual's fate dependent on more or less fantastic factors. 2

Although no items pertaining specifically to stereotypy appear in Form 7 8 of the F scale, several such items do find a place in the later forms; hence, it seems well to introduce this concept into the discussion at this point.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

237

f. Power and "Toughness" 9.

Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we should return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active way of life.

35.

There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when re­ sponsible officials won't take the proper steps, the wide-awake citi­ zen should take the law into his own hands.

47.

No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished.

70.

To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed by plots hatched in secret by politicians.

74.

What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more courageous, tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their faith in.

This variable refers, in the first place, to overemphasis upon the conven­ tionalized attributes of the ego. The underlying hypothesis is that overdisplay of toughness may reflect not only the weakness of the ego but also the magnitude of the task it has to perform, that is to say, the strength of certain kinds of needs which are proscribed in the subject's culture. The relations of ego and impulse, then, are at least as close as the relations of ego and con­ science. Nevertheless, they may be separated for purposes of analysis, and other variables of the F scale refer to the deeper strata of the individual's emotional life. Closely related to the phenomenon of exaggerated toughness is some­ thing which might be described as a "power complex." Most apparent in its manifestations is overemphasis on the power motif in human relationships; there is a disposition to view all relations among people in terms of such categories as strong-weak, dominant-submissive, leader-follower, "hammeranvil." And it is difficult to say with which of these roles the subject is the more fully identified. It appears that he wants to get power, to have it and not to lose it, and at the same time is afraid to seize and wield it. It appears that he also admires power in others and is inclined to submit to it—and at the same time is afraid of the weakness thus implied. The individual whom we expected to score high on this cluster readily identifies himself with the "little people," or "the average," but he does so, it seems, with little or no humility, and he seems actually to think of himself as strong or to believe that he can somehow become so. In short, the power complex contains elements that are essentially contradictory, and we should expect that sometimes one feature and sometimes another will predominate at the surface level. W e should expect that both leaders and followers will score high on this variable, for the reason that the actual role of the individual seems to be less im­ portant than his concern that leader-follower relations shall obtain. One solution which such an individual often achieves is that of alignment with

238

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

power figures, an arrangement by which he is able to gratify both his need for power and his need to submit. He hopes that by submitting to power he can participate in it. For example, a man who reports that the most aweinspiring experience for him would be "to shake hands with the President" probably finds his gratification not in submission alone but in the idea that some of the big man's power has, as it were, rubbed off onto him, so that he is a more important person for having "shook his hand" or "known him" or "been there." The same pattern of gratification can be obtained by acting in the role of "the lieutenant" or by functioning in a middle position in some clearly structured hierarchy where there is always somebody above and somebody below. The power complex has immediate relations with certain aspects of ethno­ centrism. An individual who thinks of most human relations in such terms as strong versus weak is likely to apply these categories in his thinking about ingroups and outgroups, e.g., to conceive of "superior" and "inferior races." And one of the psychologically least costly devices for attaining a sense of superiority is to claim it on the basis of membership in a particular "race."

g. Destructiveness and Cynicism 3.

America is getting so far from the true American way of life that force may be necessary to restore it.

9.

Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we should return to the fundamentals, to a more red-blooded, active way of life.

14.

After we finish off the Germans and Japs, we ought to concentrate on other enemies of the human race such as rats, snakes, and germs.

17.

Familiarity breeds contempt.

24.

Today everything is unstable; we should be prepared for a period of constant change, conflict, and upheaval.

30.

Reports of atrocities in Europe have been greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes.

35.

There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when re­ sponsible officials won't take the proper steps, the wide-awake citi­ zen should take the law into his own hands.

42.

No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only one reason.

56.

After the war, we may expect a crime wave; the control of gangsters and ruffians will become a major social problem.

59.

Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.

67.

When you come right down to it, it's human nature never to do anything without an eye to one's own profit.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

239

According to the present theory, the antidemocratic individual, because he has had to accept numerous externally imposed restrictions upon the satisfaction of his needs, harbors strong underlying aggressive impulses. As we have seen, one outlet for this aggression is through displacement onto out­ groups leading to moral indignation and authoritarian aggression. Undoubt­ edly this is a very serviceable device for the individual; yet, the strong underlying aggression seems at the same time to express itself in some other way—in a nonmoralized way. It was assumed, of course, that primitive ag­ gressive impulses are rarely expressed with complete directness b y adults, but must instead be sufficiently modified, or at least justified, so that they are acceptable to the ego. The present variable, then, refers to rationalized, ego-accepted, nonmoral­ ized aggression. The supposition was that a subject could express this ten­ dency by agreeing with statements which though thoroughly aggressive were couched in such terms as to avoid his moral censorship. Thus, some items offered justifications for aggression, and were formulated in such a w a y that strong agreement would indicate that the subject needed only slight justification in order to be ready for all-out aggression. Other items dealt with contempt for mankind, the theory being that here the hostility is so gen­ eralized, so free of direction against any particular object, that the individual need not feel accountable for it. Still another guiding conception was that a person can most freely express aggression when he believes that everybody is doing it and, hence, if he wants to be aggressive, he is disposed to believe that everybody is doing it, e.g., that it is "human nature" to exploit and to make war upon one's neighbors. It goes without saying that such undif­ ferentiated aggressiveness could easily, by means of propaganda, be directed against minority groups, or against any group the persecution of whic.h was politically profitable.

h. Projectivity 46.

The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even in circles where people might least expect it.

56.

After the war, we may expect a crime wave; the control of gangsters and ruffians will become a major social problem.

65. It is entirely possible that this series of wars and conflicts will be ended once and for all by a world-destroying earthquake, flood, or other catastrophe. 70.

To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed by plots hatched in secret by politicians.

73.

Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around so much and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially care­ ful to protect himself against infection and disease.

240

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

The mechanism of projection was mentioned in connection with authori­ tarian aggression: the suppressed impulses of the authoritarian character tend to be projected onto other people who are then blamed out of hand. Projec­ tion is thus a device for keeping id drives ego-alien, and it may be taken as a sign of the ego's inadequacy in carrying out its function. Indeed, in one sense most of the items of the F scale are projective: they involve the as­ sumption that judgments and interpretations of fact are distorted by psycho­ logical urges. The subject's tendency to project is utilized, in the present group of items, in an attempt to gain access to some of the deeper trends in his personality. If the antidemocratic individual is disposed to see in the outer world impulses which are suppressed in himself, and we wish to know what these impulses are, then something may be learned by noting what attributes he most readily, but unrealistically, ascribes to the world around him. If an individual insists that someone has hostile designs on him, and w e can find no evidence that this is true, we have good reason to suspect that our subject himself has aggressive intentions and is seeking by means of projection to justify them. A notorious example is Father Coughlin's refer­ ring to anti-Semitism as a "defense mechanism," i.e., a protection of Gentiles against the supposed aggressive designs of the Jews. Similarly, it seemed that the greater a subject's preoccupation with "evil forces" in the world, as shown by his readiness to think about and to believe in the existence of such phenomena as wild erotic excesses, plots and conspiracies, and danger from natural catastrophes, the stronger would be his own unconscious urges of both sexuality and destructiveness. i. Sex 3 1 . Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and ought to be severely punished. 42.

No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only one reason.

46.

The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even in circles where people might least expect it.

75.

Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped.

Concern with overt sexuality is represented in the F scale by four items, two of which have appeared in connection with authoritarian aggression and one other as an expression of projectivity. This is an example of the close interaction of all the present variables; since, taken together they constitute a totality, it follows that a single question may pertain to two or more aspects of the whole. For purposes of analysis, sex may be abstracted from the totality as well as any of the other variables. W h i c h of these variables are most basic must be determined b y clinical study. In any case, it seemed that

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

241

countercathexis (repression, reaction formation, projection) of sexual wishes was well qualified for special study. The present variable is conceived of as ego-alien sexuality. A strong in­ clination to punish violators of sex mores (homosexuals, sex offenders) may be an expression of a general punitive attitude based on identification with ingroup authorities, but it also suggests that the subject's own sexual desires are suppressed and in danger of getting out of hand. A readiness to believe in "sex orgies" may be an indication of a general tendency to distort reality through projection, but sexual content would hardly be projected unless the subject had impulses of this same kind that were unconscious and strongly active. The three items pertaining to the punishment of homosexuals and of sex criminals and to the existence of sex orgies may, therefore, give some indication of the strength of the subject's unconscious sexual drives. 2. T H E

F O R M U L A T I O N OF SCALE ITEMS

The considerations which guided the formulation of items in the scales described in previous chapters held as well for the F scale. There were several principles which, though a part of our general approach to scale construc­ tion, had particular significance for the present scale. In the first place, the item should have a maximum of indirectness, in the sense that it should not come close to the surface of overt prejudice and it should appear to be as far removed as possible from our actual interest. From this point of view, items such as 2 (Astrology) and 6 5 (Flood) were regarded as superior to items such as 7 4 (Tireless leaders) and 3 (Force to preserve). The latter two items, admittedly, could very well express certain aspects of an explicit fascist ideology, yet, as indicated above, statements touching upon the leader idea and the idea of force were definitely called for on theoretical grounds. More than this, there was a question of whether the aim of constructing a scale to correlate with E would be better served b y the most indirect items or by the more direct ones, and in this first attempt it seemed the better part of wisdom to include some items of both kinds. A second rule in item formulation was that each item should achieve a proper balance between irrationality and objective truth. If a statement was so "wild" that very few people would agree with it, or if it contained so large an element of truth that almost everyone would agree with it, then obviously it could not distinguish between prejudiced and unprejudiced subjects, and hence was of no value. Each item had to have some degree of rational appeal, but it had to be formulated in such a w a y that the rational aspect was not the major factor making for agreement or disagreement. This in many cases was a highly subtle matter; e.g., social historians might conceiv­ ably agree that Item 4 6 (Sex orgies) is probably quite true, yet it was here re­ garded as a possible index of projected sexuality, the argument being that most subjects would have no basis on which to judge its truth and would

242

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

respond in accordance with their feelings. Since each item contained an element of objective truth or rational justification, an individual's response to a particular item might conceivably be determined by this fact alone. Hence, no item taken by itself could be regarded as diagnostic of potential fascism. The item's worth to the scale would have to be judged mainly in terms of its discriminatory power, and the meaning of an individual's re­ sponse to it would have to be inferred from his total pattern of response. If a man marks + 3 on Item 4 6 (Sex orgies) but marks — 3 or — 2 on Items 3 1 (Homosexuality) and 7 5 (Sex Crimes), it might be concluded that he is a man of knowledge and sophistication; but a + 3 on Item 4 6 , accompanying agreement with Items 3 1 and 7 5 would seem to be a fairly good indication of concern with sexuality. Finally, it was required of each item that it contribute to the structural unity of the scale as a whole. It had to do its part in covering the diverse personality trends that entered into the broad pattern which the scale pur­ ported to measure. W h i l e it was granted that different individuals might give the same response to a given item for different reasons—and this apart from the matter of objective truth—it was necessary that the item carry suf­ ficient meaningfulness so that any response to it could, when responses on all items were known, be interpreted in the light of our over-all theory. C. 1.

R E S U L T S W I T H SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF T H E F SCALE

S T A T I S T I C A L PROPERTIES OF T H E PRELIMINARY SCALE (FORM 78)

The preliminary F scale, made up of the 3 8 items listed above, was admin­ istered as a part of questionnaire Form 7 8 to four groups of subjects in the spring of 1 9 4 5 . These groups were described in Chapter III, and they are listed in Table 1 1 (III). The scoring of the scale followed the procedures used with the A-S, E, and PEC scales. Except in the case of negative items, a mark of + 3 was scored 7, + 2 was scored as 6, and so on. Items 1 2 , 2 0 , and 2 8 are negative (they state the unprejudiced position), and here, of course, a mark of + 3 was scored 1 , and so on. Table 2 (VII) gives the reliability coefficients, mean scores per item, and Standard Deviations for these four groups. T h e mean reliability of . 7 4 is within the range ordinarily regarded as adequate for group comparisons, but well below what is required of a truly accurate instrument. It might be said that, considering the diversity of elements that went into the F scale, the degree of consistency indicated by the present figure is all that could be expected of this preliminary form of the scale. The question was whether b y revision of the scale it might be possible to attain the degree of reliability that characterizes the E scale, or whether we might be dealing

MEASUREMENT

243

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

here—as seemed to be the case in the PEC scale—with areas of response in which people are simply not very consistent. It may be noted that the Professional Women show considerably more consistency than do the other groups of subjects, their reliability coefficient of .88 being in the neighborhood of that regularly obtained with the E scale. Since these women are considerably older, on the average, than our other subjects, it may be suggested that the higher reliability is due to their greater consistency of personality. There appears to be no ready explanation for the low reliability found in the case of the Public Speaking Men. It may be noted that the Standard Deviation and the range for this group were also unusually small. Adequate explanation would require data from a larger sample of men and from an improved F scale. Examination of Table 2 ( V I I ) shows that there are no extremely high and no extremely low scores in any of the groups and that the obtained TABLE 2

(VII)

RELIABILITY OF THE F SCALE (FORM 7 8 )

B

A Reliability Mean ( t o t a l ) Mean (odd h a l f ) Mean (even h a l f ) (total) (odd h a l f ) (even h a l f )

N

C

.78

.56

.72

.88

.74

3.72 3. 59 3.87

3. 7 5 3. 60 3.91

3.43 3.22 3.64

3.71 3. 55 3. 88

.71 .87 .69

. 57 .71 .65

.70 .85 .76

.86 .94 .84

.71 .84 . 74

2. 1 2 - 5 . 2 6

52 2 . 5 5 - 4 . 87

40 2. 3 9 - 5 . 0 5

63 1 . 6 8 - 5 . 63

295 1.68-5.63

a

T h e four groups on which these data are based are: Group A: U. C. Public Speaking Class Women. Group B: U. C. Public Speaking Class Men. Group C: U. C. Extension Psychology Class Women.

b

I n obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N.

Group

D:

0

D

3.94 3. 80 4.08

140

Range

Over-all

Group

Property

S.D. S.D. S.D.

a

Professional Women.

means are near the neutral point. The relatively narrow distribution of scores—narrow as compared with those obtained from the other scales—may be in part a result of lack of consistency within the scale: unless the items are actually expressive of the same general trend, we could hardly expect an individual to respond to the great majority of them with consistent agree­ ment or consistent disagreement. On the other hand, it is possible that the

244

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

present sample does not contain subjects who are actually extreme with respect to the pattern which the F scale was designed to measure. This cir­ cumstance (lowered "range of talent") would tend to lower the reliability coefficients. The F scale correlated . 5 3 with A-S and .65 with E, in Form 7 8 . 2. ITEM A N A L Y S I S A N D

REVISION OF T H E

PRELIMINARY SCALE

Data obtained from the initial four groups of subjects were used in attempting to improve the F scale—to increase its reliability and to shorten it somewhat, without loss in its breadth or meaningfulness. As with the other scales, the Discriminatory Power of an item provided the major statistical basis for judging its worth. Since it was intended that the F scale should not only have internal consistency but should also correlate highly with overt prejudice, attention was given both to the item's relation to the total F scale and to its ability to discriminate between high and low scorers on the A-S scale. An item's Discriminatory Power in terms of A-S (D. P . - s ) is simply the difference between the mean score of the high A-S quartile on that item and the mean score of the low A-S quartile on the item. Table 3 ( V I I ) gives for each item the mean score, the Discriminatory Power in terms of high vs. low scorers on F (D. P . ) , the D. P.p's order of merit, the D. P . - s , the hitter's order of merit and, finally, the item's rank in a distribution of the sums of the D. P.p plus the D. P. _ - This final rank order was a convenient index of the item's statistical "goodness" for our over-all purpose. The average D. P. , 1.80, is considerably below that found in the case of the A-S or E scales. Yet it indicates that, in general, the items yield statis­ tically significant differences between the high and the low quartiles. Sixteen D. P.'s are above 2 , 1 8 fall in the range 1 - 2 , and only 4 are below 1 . The means are, in general, fairly satisfactory; they average 3 . 7 1 , which is near the neutral point of 4 . 0 , and only 9 means are definitely too extreme, i.e., above 5.0 or below 3.0. As is to be expected, only 2 of the items with extreme means yield D. P.'s as great as 2.0. The D. P.'s in terms of A-S are, of course, much lower; yet there are 1 7 items which appear to be significantly related to A-S, i.e., have a D. P . greater than 1.0. Since it is the total F pattern that we expect to correlate with A-S and E, it is not necessary that each single F item b y itself be sig­ nificantly related to the latter. In general, items which are most discriminating in terms of F tend to discriminate best in terms of A-S, though there are some striking exceptions. In deciding whether to retain an item for use in a revised scale most weight was given to the D. P . and to the general prin­ ciples guiding our scale construction; these things being equal, the greater an item's D, P . - , the greater its chances of being included in the revised scale. A

P

A

A

s

F

A

F

A

S

S

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

245

TABLE 3 (VII) MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F-SCALE ITEMS (FORM 78) Rank

Rank Item 2. ( A s t r o l o g y ) 3. (Force t o p r e s e r v e ) 6. (Women r e s t r i c t e d ) 9. (Red-blooded l i f e ) 10. (Pearl Harbor Day) 12. (Modern church) 14- ( R a t s . . . germs) 17- ( F a m i l i a r i t y ) 19. (One should avoid) 20. (Progressive education) 23. (Undying l o v e ) 24. (Things unstable) 28. (Novels o r s t o r i e s ) 30. (Reports o f a t r o c i t i e s ) 3 1 . (Homosexuals) 32- (Essential for learning) 35- (Law in own hands) 38. (Emphasis in c o l l e g e ) 39. (Supernatural f o r c e ) 42. (For one reason) 43. (Sciences l i k e chemistry) 46- (Sex o r g i e s ) 47- (Honor) 50. (Obedience and r e s p e c t ) 53. (Things too i n t i m a t e ) 55. (Leisure) 56- (Crime wave) 58. (What a man does) 59. (Always war) 60. (Important v a l u e s ) 65- (World c a t a s t r o p h e ) 66. (Books and movies) 67. (Eye t o p r o f i t ) 70. ( P l o t s by p o l i t i c i a n s ) 73. ( I n f e c t i o n and d i s e a s e ) 74. ( T i r e l e s s l e a d e r s ) 75- (Sex crimes) 77. (No sane person) Mean/Person/Item

Mean

D.P.

2.60 3. 04 2.93 3. 99 2. 22 4. 67 4. 44 3. 33 3. 63 3. 28 3. 62 5.01 3.02 4. 20 3. 22 3. 3 1 2. 50 3.91 3. 97 2. 06 4.35 3. 64 3.00 3.72 4. 82 5.20 4. 60 3. 48 4. 26 4. 17 2. 58 4. 10 3. 7 1 3. 27 4. 79 5.00 3. 26 4. 12

1.74 1.98 1.75 2.04 2. 20 0. 19 1. 60 1.86 0.76 1.07 2. 61 0.79 1. 29 0. 43 2. 16 1. 67 1.42 1.20 2. 54 1.05 2. 79 2.11 2.09 3.09 1.99 2. 11 1. 16 1.70 2.59 1. 60 1.55 2. 48 2. 21 1. 85 2.02 1.66 2. 81 2. 12

F

D.P.p

D.P. AS

D . P . AS

(22) (18) (21) (15) (9) (38) (26. 5) (19) (36) (33) (4) (35) (30) (37) (10) (24) (29) (31) (6) (34) (3) ( 1 2 . 5) (14) (1) (17) (12. 5) (32) (23) (5) (26.5) (28) (7) (8) (20) (16) (25) (2) (11)

1. 24 1. 05 0. 41 - 0 . 08 1. 37 - 1 . 18 0.85 1.56 0.70 - 0 . 25 1. 17 0.88 0.76 0. 66 1. 18 1. 10 0. 62 1. 14 1.26 0. 59 0.97 0. 93 1. 65 1.55 - 0 . 23 1. 26 0. 62 0.87 1.91 0. 31 0.90 0. 38 0.78 1. 15 1. 34 0.94 2.07 1. 36

(11) (17) (32) (35) (6) (38) (24) (4) (27) (37) (13) (22) (26) (28) (12) (16) (29. 5) (15) (9. 5) (31) (18) (20) (3) (5) (36) (9.5) (29. 5) (23) (2) (34) (21) (33) (25) (14) (8) (19) (1) (7)

Final

Rank

d

( D . P . F+D. P . A S

(18) (15) (26) (29) (8) (38) (23. 5) (10) (35) (37) (5) (33) (27) (36) (13) (20) (28) (25) (4) (34) (6) (14) (7) (2) (32) (ID (31) (22) (3) (30) (23.5) (19) (17) (16) (12) (21) (1) (9)

0.89 3. 71 1. 80 ^ h e four groups on which these data are based are: Group A: U.C. Public Speaking Class ((omen (N = 140); Croup B: U. C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52); Group C: U. C. Extension Psychology Class Women (N = 40); Group D: Professional Women (N = 63). In obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N. ''D.P. p is based on the difference between the high quartile and the low quartile on the F scale distribution. C

l

s

D.P. A s based on the difference between the high quartile and the low quartile on the A-S scale distribution. E.g., the D.P. s 1-24 on Item 2 indicates that the mean of the low quartile on A-S was 1. 24 points lower than the mean of the high quartile on A-S. o

f

A

^For each item the sum of D.P.p + D . P . A S obtained. The final rank of an item is the rank of this sum in the distribution of sums for the whole scale. i

s

246

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

W e may now inquire what it is that distinguishes the items which turned out well statistically from those that turned out poorly. Can any general statements be made about each of these two groups of items that can serve as guides in the formulation of new items? The first question concerns the nine groups of items chosen to represent the variables that entered into the conceptualization of F. Do most of the items with high D. P.'s pertain to a few of the variables? Are there some variables which simply do not belong to the pattern we are considering? Three of the clusters, Sex, Authoritarian Aggression, and Authoritarian Submission, had mean D. P.'s above 2 . 0 , the remaining clusters having mean D. P.'s in the range 1 . 2 6 - 1 . 8 0 . Projectivity ( 1 . 7 0 ) , Destructiveness and Cynicism ( 1 . 5 6 ) , and Conventionalism ( 1 . 2 6 ) were the least satisfactory. However, it is to be noted that every cluster has within it at least one item with a D. P. above 2.0. At this stage, therefore, it seemed best not to eliminate any of the variables but to give attention to improving or replacing the poorer items found in each cluster. Turning to a consideration of items which proved to be outstandingly good in the statistical sense, w e note that Item 7 5 (Sex crimes) leads all the rest, i.e., has the highest sum of D. P . plus D. P. -s- This item represents rather well the ideal to which w e aspired in formulating items for the F scale. Not only is there a wide distribution of responses, with a mean fairly near the neutral point, but the item combines, apparently in a very effective w a y , several ideas which according to theory have crucial roles in prejudice: the underlying interest in the more primitive aspects of sex, the readiness for all-out physical aggressiveness, the justification of aggression by an appeal to moralistic values. More than this, the item seems to be sufficiently free of any logical or automatic connection with overt prejudice. That the next best item, 5 0 (Obedience and respect), should be outstandingly differentiating is not surprising since this kind of authoritarianism is a well-known aspect of the fascist outlook. The device of putting the authoritarianism in a context of child training seems to remove it from the surface of ethnocentrism; but whether or not this is true, the item pertains to an aspect of the fascist philos­ ophy that could in no case be left out of account. F

A

Third in the rank order of goodness is Item 59, "Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict." This item, from the Destructive­ ness and Cynicism cluster, expresses several ideas which are particularly important in the F syndrome. In addition to an element of overt antipacifist opinion, there is contempt for men and acceptance of the "survival of the fittest" idea as a rationalization for aggressiveness. The next item, 3 9 (Super­ natural force), seems to express very well the tendency to shift responsibility to outside forces beyond one's own control. This is a manifestation of what has been termed ego weakness; the item has also been placed in the Authori­ tarian Submission cluster on the ground that faith in a supernatural force is related to faith in ingroup authorities. It was not expected that the presence

MEASUREMENT

OF

ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

247

of religious feeling and belief would by itself be significant for prejudice; the aim in devising the present item was to compose a statement which was so extreme that not too many subjects would agree with it and which placed enough emphasis upon "total allegiance" and obedience "without question" so that the uncritically submissive person could distinguish himself. The mean of 3.97 and the D. P . of 2 . 5 4 indicate that this aim was largely realized. Item 2 3 (Undying love), which ranked fifth in order of goodness, expresses extreme moral conventionality and ingroup feeling related to the family. It has a place in both the Authoritarian Submission and the Authoritarian A g ­ gression clusters, because it includes both allegiance to the ingroup and a punishing attitude ("He is indeed contemptible") toward those who violate this value. The statement is so exaggerated, so expressive, as it seems, of the "protesting too much" attitude that we may wonder if strong agreement with it does not mask underlying but inhibited rebellious hostility against parents and parent figures. F

Concerning all five of these items it may be said that they are highly diverse in their surface content, that they pertain to various aspects of the underlying theory—superego, ego, and id are expressed—and that with the possible ex­ ception of Item 5 0 (Obedience and respect) they are highly indirect in the present sense of the term. Indeed, as one examines further the ranking of the items in terms of their Discriminatory Powers—(Sciences like chemistry), (Honor), (Pearl Harbor D a y ) , (No sane person), (Familiarity), (Leisure), (Infection and disease)—he may note that, in general, items which are best in the statistical sense are those which seem best in their formulation and in terms of our over-all theory and method of approach. Items which turned out to be poor in the statistical sense are, in retrospect, easy to criticize. In some instances there was a failure in formulation: the statement was so unclear or ambiguous that many of the subjects, apparently, drew from it different implications from those intended. This would seem to have been true particularly of Items 1 2 (Modern church) and 2 0 (Pro­ gressive education). In other instances, e.g., Items 2 4 (Things unstable), 7 4 (Tireless leaders), and 5 8 (Crime w a v e ) , the statements contained too large an element of truth or rational justification and so appealed, as shown by the high mean scores, to both high and low scorers. Again, some of the items were too crude or openly aggressive, so that most of the high scorers as well as the low scorers tended to disagree. For example, Items 4 2 (For one reason) and 3 5 ( L a w in own hands) have both low means and low D. P.'s. 3.

THE SECOND F SCALE: FORM 60

In preparing the new form of the questionnaire, the E and PEC scales were shortened so drastically that a comparatively long F scale ( 3 4 items) could still be used without allowing the total number of scale items to go above 6 0 . Since we were still faced with the task of producing a reliable F scale, with-

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

T A B L E 4 (VII) THE F SCALE: FORM 60

Conventionalism: R i g i d adherence i. 6. 53.

to conventional, middle-class values, O b e d i e n c e and respect f o r authority are the most important virtues children should learn. A person w h o has bad manners, habits, and breeding c a n h a r d l y expect to be liked and accepted b y decent people. O n e main trouble t o d a y is that people talk too m u c h and w o r k too little.

Authoritarian Submission: Submissive,

uncritical attitude t o w a r d idealized moral authorities of the i n g r o u p . 1. O b e d i e n c e and respect f o r authority are the most important virtues children should learn. 7. S c i e n c e has c a r r i e d man v e r y far, but there are m a n y important things that can never possibly be understood b y the human mind. 1 1 . E v e r y person should h a v e complete faith in some supernatural p o w e r w h o s e decisions he obeys w i t h o u t question. 2 3 . Y o u n g people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as t h e y g r o w u p t h e y o u g h t to get o v e r them and settle d o w n . 29. N o sane, normal, decent person c o u l d ever think of hurting a close friend o r relative. 3 2 . W h a t this c o u n t r y needs most, m o r e than l a w s and political p r o g r a m s , is a f e w courageous, tireless, d e v o t e d leaders in w h o m the people can p u t their faith. 44. In o r d e r f o r us to do g o o d w o r k , it is necessary that o u r bosses outline c a r e f u l l y w h a t is to be done and e x a c t l y h o w to g o about it.

Authoritarian Aggression: T e n d e n c y

to be on the lookout for, and to c o n d e m n , reject, and punish people w h o violate conventional values.

6. 17. 19. 22.

34.

39. 49. 53. 58.

A person w h o has bad manners, habits, and breeding can h a r d l y expect to be liked and a c c e p t e d b y decent people. A n insult to our h o n o r should a l w a y s be punished. W h a t the y o u t h needs most is strict discipline, r u g g e d deter­ mination, and the w i l l to w o r k and fight f o r f a m i l y and c o u n t r y . T h e trouble w i t h letting e v e r y b o d y have a say in running the g o v e r n m e n t is that so m a n y people are just naturally stupid or full of w i l d ideas. S e x crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve m o r e than mere imprisonment; such criminals o u g h t to be p u b l i c l y w h i p p e d , or w o r s e . T h e r e is h a r d l y a n y t h i n g l o w e r than a person w h o does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect f o r his parents. M o s t of o u r social problems w o u l d be solved if w e c o u l d s o m e ­ h o w get rid of the immoral, c r o o k e d , and feebleminded people. O n e main trouble t o d a y is that people talk too m u c h and w o r k too little. H o m o s e x u a l s are nothing but degenerates and o u g h t to be severely punished.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

249

d. Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded. 16. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. 30. Some cases of feeblemindedness are caused by overstudy. 45. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. 53. One main trouble today is that people talk too much and work too little. e. Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mystical determinants of the individual's fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. 7. Science has carried man very far, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 1 1 . Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without question. 18. It is more than just chance that Japan had an earthquake on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944. 24. Some people are born with the urge to jump from high places. 30. Some cases of feeblemindedness are caused by overstudy. 35. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong. 40. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things. 46. It is possible that wars and social troubles will be ended once and for all by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole world. 50. It's a mistake to trust anybody who doesn't look you straight in the eye. f.

Power and "Toughness": Preoccupation with the dominance-submis­ sion, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. 2. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough will power. 5. Any red-blooded American will fight to defend his property. 17. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 19. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged deter­ mination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 32. What this country needs most, more than laws and political programs, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith. 3 5 . People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong. 57. Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret by politicians.

g. Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of the human. 10. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict.

THE

25. 41.

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

Familiarity breeds contempt. The true American way of life is disappearing so fast that force may be necessary to preserve it.

h. Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outward of unconscious emo­ tional impulses. 36. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around so much and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially careful to protect himself against infection and disease. 45. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. 46. It is possible that wars and social troubles will be ended once and for all by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole world. 52. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com­ pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it. 57. Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret by politicians. i. Sex: Exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on." 34. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse. 52. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com­ pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it. 58. Homosexuals are nothing but degenerates and ought to be severely punished. out sacrificing breadth or meaningfulness, it seemed the better part of wis­ dom not to undertake much shortening of it at this stage. The 1 9 items from the F scale (Form 7 8 ) that ranked highest in order of goodness were retained, in the same or slightly revised form, in the new scale. Thus, statistical differentiating power of the item was the main basis of selection. As stated above, however, the items which came out best statis­ tically were, in general, those which seemed best from the point of view of theory, so that retaining them required no compromise with the original purpose of the scale. Of these items, 5 were changed in no w a y ; revision of the others involved change in wording but not in essential meaning, the aim being to avoid too much uniformity of agreement or disagreement and, hence, to produce mean scores as close as possible to the neutral point. Given 1 9 items of known dependability, the task was to formulate 1 5 additional ones which, singly, met the requirements of good items and which, taken together, covered the ground mapped out according to our theory. Here, criteria other than statistical ones played an important role. In attempt­ ing to achieve a maximum of indirectness we not only eliminated items which were too openly aggressive (they had low D. P.'s a n y w a y ) but retained, in

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

a slightly revised form, Item 6 5 ( W o r l d catastrophe) despite its relatively low D.P. (R. O. 2 3 . 5 ) , because it expressed a theoretically important idea and appeared on the surface to be almost completely removed from "race" prejudice and fascism. In the name of breadth, Item 6 7 (Eye to profit), whose D. P. was not low (R. O. 2 1 ) , was eliminated because of its too great similarity to the highly discriminating Item 5 9 ( A l w a y s w a r ) . To cover a great variety of ideas as efficiently as possible, two or more of them were combined in the same statement, e.g., " A n y red-blooded American will fight to defend his property'" or " . . . people think too much and work too little." W i t h attention to these criteria, and to meaningfulness, contribution to the

structural unity of the scale, and proper degree of rational justification, 4 items from the F scale (Form 7 8 ) whose D. P. rank orders were lower than 1 9 , were revised and 1 1 new items were formulated to complete the new form. The 3 4 items, grouped according to the variables which they were supposed to represent, are shown in table 4 ( V I I ) . Reliability of the scale, mean score per item, S. D., and the range of scores for each of the five groups to whom the F scale (Form 6 0 ) was given are shown in Table 5 ( V I I ) . The reliability of the scale is a considerable im­ provement over that obtained with Form 7 8 ( . 8 7 as compared with . 7 4 ) ; it TABLE 5 ( V I I ) RELIABILITY OF THE F SCALE (FORM 6 0 )

a

Over-all

Group

Property II

I Reliability

86

III

IV

V

.91

.89

.87

.81

.87

Mean (total) Mean (odd half) Mean (even half)

3.32 3.41 3. 24

3.39 3.42 3.36

3.82 4.09 3.56

3.74 3.78 3.73

3.25 3.19 3.28

3.50 3.58 3.43

S.D. (total) S.D. (odd half) S.D. (even half)

.86 .97 .75

.96 1.03 .96

.93 .99 .97

.81 .77 .93

.71 .83 .76

.85 .92 .87

47

54

57

68

60

286

N Range

^ h e five Croup Croup Croup Croup Croup b

1.00-5.50

1.24-5. 50 1.82-4. 38 2.24-5.62

b

1. 97-5.35 1. 82-5.62

groups on which these data are based are: I: University of Oregon Student Women. II: University of Oregon and University of California Student Women. III: University of Oregon and University of California Student Men. IV: Oregon Service Club Men. V: Oregon Service Club Men (A Part only).

I n obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N.

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

is as high as that of the shortened E scale ( . 8 7 as compared with . 8 6 ) and much better than the reliability of . 7 0 for the shortened PEC scale. The mean scores are not quite so close to the neutral point as was the case with Form 7 8 (over-all mean of 3.5 as compared with 3 . 7 ) ; the range and the variability, however, are somewhat greater. Inspection of the Discriminatory Powers of the items, as shown in Table 6 ( V I I ) , shows once again considerable improvement over Form 7 8 . The mean D. P . is now 2 . 1 5 as compared with 1 . 8 0 for Form 7 8 . Three D. P.'s are above 3 . 0 , 1 8 fall in the range 2 . 0 - 3 . 0 , 1 2 are in the range 1 . 0 - 2 . 0 , and only 1 is below 1.0. The mean D. P. in terms of E, 1 . 5 3 , is notably greater than the mean D. P. -s, -89, found with Form 7 8 . There are 2 8 items with a mean D. P . greater than 1.0; these F items are significantly related to ethnocentrism at the 5 per cent level of confidence or better. Each of the variables that entered into the F scale—Conventionalism, Superstition, etc.— is represented b y items that are satisfactorily differentiating. The correlation between the F scale (Form 6 0 ) and E is, on the average, .69. This is a considerable improvement over the results obtained with Form 7 8 , where F correlated . 5 3 with A-S and .65 with E, though it is still not quite as high as its intended functions require. 3

F

A

E

4.

T H E THIRD F SCALE: FORMS 45 A N D

40

Although the F scale (Form 6 0 ) might be described as a fairly adequate instrument, it still had some obvious shortcomings, and it was hoped that these might be removed before the scale was used with numerous groups of subjects. It still contained a number of items so poor statistically that they contributed almost nothing to the purpose of the scale. Also, there were two items (numbers 12 and 1 8 ) which, despite their ranking 1 and 9 in order of 3

It may be reported here that in the case of the University of Oregon Student W o m e n Form 60 of the questionnaire was administered in two parts: Part A contained the F scale and one half of the PEC scale and Part B, administered a day later, contained the E scale and the other half of the PEC scale. The purpose of this proceeding was to test whether responses to the items of one scale were affected by the presence within the same question­ naire of items from other scales. Apparently this variation in the manner of administration made little or no difference. W h e n the results for the University of Oregon Student W o m e n (Group 1 ) are compared with those for the University of Oregon and University of California Student W o m e n (Group 2)—a fairly similar group—the differences in relia­ bility, mean score, and S.D. appear to be insignificant. The same is true in the cases of the E and PEC scales, and reference to Table 14 (IV) and to Table 5 ( V ) will show. The mean for the group of Oregon Service Club Men (Group V ) who received only the A part of Form 60 does seem to be somewhat lower than that of the other group of Oregon Service Club Men. This difference cannot, however, be attributed to the difference in the form of the questionnaire. More important, probably, is the fact that Group V , in contrast to the other group, received the questionnaire after having listened to a talk on "What to do with Germany." There was at least an implicit connection between the content of the talk and the content of the F scale; as one of the subjects who sensed this connection said afterwards to our staff member, "You should have given the questionnaire before your talk."

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

253

TABLE 6 (VII) MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F-SCALE ITEMS (FORM 6 0 )

d

F i n a l Rank (aP.p+D.P. )

D. P.g

Rank D.P.

(14) (11) (29.5) (23) (24) (26) (4) (3) (20.5) (12) (10)

1. 52 1.46 1. 18 1.56 1.32 1.70 1.38 2.83 1. 18 2.34 1.83

(17) (19) (25. 5) (13.5) (23) (10) (21) (1) (25.5) (4) (9)

(13) (12) (27) (22) (25) (21) (10) (1) (23) (7) (9)

(2) (29.5) (7) (8) (20. 5) (6) (32. 5) (13) (5) (34) (25) (1) (17) (15) (27) (9) (32. 5) (19) (31) (18) (22) (28) (16)

2.28 1. 17 2.29 2.28 1.33 1.95 0.91 1.43 2.52 0. 38 1.03 2.56 1.66 1.56 0.50 1.56 0. 94 1. 56 0. 84 1.50 1.24 0.63 1. 54

(6. 5) (27) (5) (6.5) (22) (8) (30) (20) (3) (34) (28) (2) (11) (13.5) (33) (13.5) (29) (13.5) (31) (18) (24) (32) (16)

(3) (28) (5) (6) (20) (8) (30) (15) (4) (34) (26) (2) (16) (14) (33) (11) (29) (18) (31) (19) (24) (32) (17)

Mean

D.P.£

Rank D.P.

1. (Obedience & r e s p e c t ) 2. ( W i l l power) 5. (Red blooded American) 6. (Bad manners) 7. (Science) 10. (War & c o n f l i c t ) 1 1 . ( S u p e r n a t u r a l power) 12. (Germans & J a p s ) 16. (Cheerful t h i n g s ) 17. (Honor) 18. ( P e a r l Harbor Day) 19. ( D i s c i p l i n e & determination) 22. (Not everybody i n g o v ' t . ) 23. ( R e b e l l i o u s ideas) 24. (Born with urge) 25. ( F a m i l i a r i t y ) 29. (No sane person) 30. (Feebleminded) 3 2 . (Devoted l e a d e r s ) 34. (Sex crime) 3 5 . (Two c l a s s e s ) 36. ( I n f e c t i o n & d i s e a s e ) 39. (Love f o r p a r e n t s ) 40. ( A s t r o l o g y ) 4 1 . (Force t o p r e s e r v e ) 44. (Bosses o u t l i n e ) 45. (Prying) 46. (Flood) 4 9 . (Rid o f immoral people) 5 0 . (Mistake t o t r u s t ) 5 2 . (Sex l i f e ) 53. (Talk too much) 57. ( P l o t s ) 5 8 . (Homosexuals)

4.86 4.44 5.49 5.30 4. 98 4.46 3.60 3.71 3. 15 3.14 2.19

2.39 2.50 1.46 1.80 1.71 1.67 2.91 3.16 2.08 2. 46 2.51

3.68 2.74 4.30 2.87 3.30 3.55 1.84 4.49 3.43 1.44 4.80 3. 16 2.56 2.48 2. 46 3.48 2. 15 2.74 2. 12 3. 18 3.87 4.24 2. 29

3. 17 1.46 2.70 2.60 2.08 2.82 1.43 2.42 2. 83 0. 73 1.68 3.28 2. 15 2.31 1.60 2.52 1.43 2.12 1.45 2. 13 1.83 1.55 2.20

Mean/Per s o n / 1 tem

3.42

2.15

Item

a

p

E

E

1.53

BThe four groups on which these data are based are: Group I: University of Oregon Student Women (N = 47) Group II: University of Oregon and University of California Student Women (N=54) Group III: University of Oregon and University of California Student Men (N = 67) Group IV: Oregon Service Club Men (N = 68) In obtaining the o v e r - a l l means, the individual group means were not weighted according to N. ''D.P.p i s based on the difference between the high quartile and the low q u a r t i l e of the F scale distribution. C

D.P. i s based on the difference between the high quartile and the low q u a r t i l e of trie E scale distribution, e.g., the D.P. of 1.52 on Item 1 indicates that the nean of the low quartile on E was 1.52 points lower than the mean of the high quartile on E. K

E

d

For each item the sum of D.P.p+D.P. E i s obtained. The final rank of an item i s the rank of t h i s sum in the distribution of sums for the whole scale.

254

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

goodness, had to be dropped in the early fall of 1 9 4 5 because they had lost their war-period timeliness. More than this, experience had shown that when it came to working with highly diverse groups outside the University, a questionnaire shorter than Form 6 0 was highly desirable. The other scales having already been reduced to an absolute minimum, the F scale had now to bear some of the pruning. Yet, such pruning had to be extremely judicious if the scale was not to lose in comprehensiveness and if, as was hoped, its reliability and its correlation with E were to be raised. Thirty was the num­ ber of items decided upon. Revision consisted mainly in discarding seven items and adding three new ones. T w o excellent items were discarded because, as mentioned above, they were no longer timely. Five items were taken out because they had relatively very low D. P.'s and because other items seemed to fulfill the same functions better: 4 4 (Bosses outline, R. O. 3 3 ) , 5 0 (Mistake to trust, R . O . 3 1 ) , 3 0 (Feebleminded, R. O. 3 0 ) , 2 2 (Not everybody in government, R. O. 2 8 ) , and 5 (Red-blooded American, R. O. 2 7 ) . Several items which ranked low in terms of D. P. were thoroughly revised and kept in the new scale: 3 5 ( T w o classes, R. O. 3 4 ) , 5 7 (Plots, R. O. 3 2 ) , and 4 6 (Flood, R. O. 2 9 ) . One of the three new items was the following: "The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor." This is a slightly revised version of an item which appeared in the earlier forms of the PEC scale, where it had proved to be discriminatory both in terms of PEC and in terms of E. Since this item expresses rather well both conventionalism and anti-intraception, it appeared to be a promising addition to the F scale. A second new item was, "It is best to use some prewar authorities in Ger­ many to keep order and prevent chaos." At the time this item was formulated - l a t e summer 1 9 4 5 - G e n e r a l Patton had been accused of using German Nazis and extremely conservative bigwigs to help carry out certain phases of the occupation. His critics argued that this was a poor w a y to secure the cooperation of democratic elements in Germany; his defenders pointed to the necessity for promoting efficiency and preventing chaos. The issue was a lively one; and it appeared that an item bearing upon it might give the high scorer a chance to express his admiration for military authority, his means-centeredness, his preoccupation with order vs. chaos. (That the item did not work very well is probably due to inadequate wording: we had not dared to be sufficiently explicit about which prewar authorities were to be used, so that "prewar" could be taken to mean "pre-Nazi.") "Nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffer­ ing," was the third of the new items. Here the temptation-constantly present during each revision of the F scale-to test a new hypothesis, or better, to obtain quantitative data bearing upon a phenomenon which in clinical study had appeared in relation to the general pattern of potential fascism, became

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

TABLE 7 (VII) F-SCALE CLUSTERS: FORMS 4 5 AND 4 0

Conventionalism: Rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class / values. ' 1 . Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. 12. A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people. 37. If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off. 4 1 . The business man and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor. Authoritarian Submission: Submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup. 1. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important vir­ tues children should learn. 4. Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without question. 2 1 . Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down. 23. What this country needs most, more than laws and political pro/ grams, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith. 42. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative. 44. Nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffering. Authoritarian Aggression: Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values. 1 2 . A person who has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people. 1 3 . What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determina­ tion, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 19. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 25. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse. 27. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 34. Most of our social problems would be solved if we could some­ how get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people. 37. If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off. 39. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

d. Anti-intraception: Opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded. 9. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. 3 1 . Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. yf'. If people would talk less ana work more, everybody would be ^ better off. 4 1 . The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor. e. Superstition and Stereotypy: The belief in mystical determinants of the individual's fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories. 4. Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. 8. Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without question. 16. Some people are born with an urge to jump from high places. /16. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the [/ strong. 29. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things. 33. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earth­ quake or flood that will destroy the whole world. f. Power and "Toughness": Preoccupation with the dominance-submis­ sion, strong-weak, leader-follower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness. 2. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough will power. 1 3 . What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged deter­ mination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. 19. An insult to our honor should always be punished. 22. It is best to use some prewar authorities in Germany to keep order and prevent chaos. 23. What this country needs most, more than laws and political pro­ grams, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith. 26. People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong. / ' 38. Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by " plots hatched in secret places. g. Destructiveness and Cynicism: Generalized hostility, vilification of the human. 6. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. 43. Familiarity breeds contempt.

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

257

h. Projectivity: The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emo­ tional impulses. 18. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself es­ pecially carefully against catching an infection or disease from them. 3 1 . Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. 33. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earth­ quake or flood that will destroy the whole world. 35. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com­ pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it. 38. Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places. i. Sex: Exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on." , / Z j . Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse. 35. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame com­ pared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it. 39. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished. too strong. The item was taken from an editorial in a prominent picture magazine, where it had appeared in a context of political reaction. It seemed well adapted to bring out the sado-masochistic theme believed to be prom­ inent in the personality of the high scorer: he believes that he has suffered and, therefore, knows the important things and that those who have not suc­ ceeded in raising their status, i.e., the underprivileged, should suffer more if they hope to improve their lot. The item did not work very well, its rank in order of goodness for men being 29. (Its D. P., 1 . 7 0 , is still significant at the 5 per cent level, however.) It seems that this was partly because many subjects thought it unreasonable (the mean was 2 . 5 4 ) , and partly because, where it was agreed with, it probably appealed to different subjects for dif­ ferent reasons: if it tapped the deep-lying sado-masochistic structures in some high scorers, it also appealed to the surface masochism, and perhaps to the intraceptiveness, of some low scorers. The final F items, grouped according to the variables to which they per­ tain, are presented in Table 7 ( V I I ) . Reliability of the scale, mean score per item, S. D., and range for each of the fourteen groups (total N = 1 5 1 8 ) taking Form 4 0 and/or 4 5 are given in Table 8 ( V I I ) . The average of the reliability coefficients is .90, their range .81 to .97. Not only is there a slight improvement in reliability over Form 6 0 (av. r = . 8 7 ) and a very marked improvement over the original Form 7 8

258

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 8 (VII) RELIABILITY OF THE F SCALE (FORMS 40 AND 45)

Range

N.

Reliability

Mean

S.D.

132 63 69 154 61 53 117 130

.84 .94 .92 .93 .88 .97 .92 .91

3.51 4.08 3.69 3.62 4.19 3.86 3.68 3.49

.90 1.03 1. 22 1.26 1. 18 1. 67 1.17 1. 13

779

.91

3.76

1. 20

Testing C l a s s Women San Quentin Men P r i s o n e r s P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Women P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Men

59 110 71 50

.89 .87 .94 .89

3. 62 4.73 3.69 3.82

. 99 .86 1.30 1.01

1.3 2.0 1.0 1. 7

- 56 ..98 - 6. 3 - 5.9

Mean

290

.90

3.96

1.04

1.5

- 6. 2

106 343

.89 .81

3. 74 4.06

1.04 .77

1.2 1.6

— —

5.8 6. 1

449

.85

3.90

.90

1.4

—

5.9

1518

.90

3.84

1. 10

1.4

- 6.3

Group Form

40:

George Washington Univ. Women C a l i f o r n i a S e r v i c e Club Men Middle-Class Men M i d d l e - C l a s s Women Working-Class Men Working-Class Women Los Angeles Men Los Angeles Women Mean

a

- 57 .. 40 - 66 .. 77 - 6.9 - 6.6 -- 65 .. 08 1.3 - 6.4.

1.2 1.8 1.3 1.1 1.8 1.3 1. 1 1.2 —

For a 45:

b

b

Form 40 and Form

45:

Employment S e r v i c e Men V e t e r a n s Maritime School Men Mean

a

O v e r - a l l mean

a

I n obtaining the combined group means, the individual group means were not weighted by N.

b

D u e to a substitution of forms, the F scale for the Psychiatric Clinic subjects contained only 28 items.

(av. r — . 7 4 ) , but the scale has now been developed to a point where it meets rigorous statistical requirements. A reliability of . 9 0 may be interpreted to mean that the scale can place individuals along a dimension—in this case a broad and complex dimension—with a small margin of error. In other words, the score attained by an individual can be relied upon in the sense that chance errors of measurement have been minimized, so that in a repetition of the scale, at a time when political-socioeconomic conditions were generally the

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

259

same as before, his new score would either be the same as his first or fall within narrow limits above or below it. The degree of reliability attained here is within the range which characterizes acceptable intelligence tests. The means, though they vary from one group to another (a matter to be discussed later), are fairly close, on the whole, to the neural point. As is to be expected from administration of the scale to a great variety of subjects, the range and the S. D. are greater than in previous forms. W h i l e no distri­ bution curves have actually been made, the scatter diagrams indicate that they would be fairly normal in form (symmetrical but slightly platykurtic). a. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY. The Discriminatory Powers of the scale items, as shown in Table 9 ( V I I ) , are considerably higher on the average ( 2 . 8 5 ) than in the case of Form 6 0 ( 2 . 1 5 ) . All of the items differentiate significantly between the high and the low quartiles. It is to be noted that numerous items taken over without change from Form 6 0 work much better here than in that instance. This is probably due in part to the fact that the diverse groups given Form 4 5 - 4 0 included more extreme scorers and in part to improvement of the scale as a whole: a good item differentiates the more sharply between the upper and lower quartiles the more successfully the total scale distin­ guishes individuals who are actually extreme with respect to the trends being measured. The fact that the D. P.'s are somewhat higher, on the average, for women than for men is deserving of some comment. This phenomenon would seem to be connected with the fact that there were three groups of men—Maritime School, San Quentin Inmates, and Working-Class Men—in whose cases the reliability of the scale was relatively low ( . 8 1 - 8 8 ) . Since these groups of men were less educated than most of our subjects, there is considerable like­ lihood that they failed to understand some of the scale items, a circumstance that would work against high D. P.'s as well as against reliability. Moreover, these are the three groups who, of all those studied, obtained the highest mean scores. It can be inferred from this that there was too much general agreement with some of the items, something which, as we have seen, tends to lower the D. P. This raises the question of whether we did not encounter in these groups not only more extreme manifestations of potential fascism than had been anticipated but also patterns of prefascist personality trends that the F scale did not adequately cover. Most of the work that went into the construction and revision of the scale was performed with groups of subjects in which the high scorers were, in the main, highly conventional. The procedure of retaining items which differentiated best within these groups was probably not the best one for constructing an instrument which would work with maximum efficiency in groups where tendencies to psy­ chopathy and delinquency were much more pronounced. This is a matter to be discussed in more detail later. Despite the absolute differences in the D. P.'s between men and women,

TABLE 9 (VII) MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F-SCALE ITEMS (FORMS 40 AND Men' 3 Groups Item T. (Obedience & r e s p e c t ) 2. ( W i l l power) 4. (Science) 6. (War and c o n f l i c t ) 8. ( S u p e r n a t u r a l power) 9. (Cheerful things) 12. (Bad manners) 13. (Discipline & determination) 16. (Born w i t h urge) 18. ( I n f e c t i o n and d i s e a s e ) 19. (Honor) 21. (Rebellious ideas) 22. (Germany) 23. (Devoted l e a d e r s ) 25/24. (Sex crimes) 26/25. (Weak and s t r o n g ) 27/26. (Undying l o v e ) 29/27. (Astrology) 30/28. (Force t o p r e s e r v e ) 31/29. (Prying) 33/30. (Earthquake) 34/31. (Immoral p e o p l e ) 35/32. (Wild sex l i f e ) 37/33. (Talk l e s s ) 38/34. (Plots) 39/35. (Homosexuals) 41/36. (Artists-businessmen) 42/37. (No sane person) 43/38. (Familiarity) 44/39. (Suffering)

Mean 5.41 5.16 4.20 4.69 3.47 3.80 5.22 4.59 3.75 4.53 3.50 4.71 4.26 5.18 4.54 3.05 4.09 3.31 2.92 4.34 2.58 3.38 4.04 4.88 4.32 3.10 2.36 4.42 3.56 2.54

Mean/person/item

4.00

Rank (!) (4) (15) (7) (22) (18) ( 2) (8) (19) (10) ( 21) (6) (14) ( 3) (9) ( 26) (16) (24) (27) (12) ( 28) (23) (17) (5) (13) ( 25) ( 30) (11) (20) ( 29)

D.P. 2.70 2.48 2.55 2.32 3.19 2.52 1.77 3.60 2.54 2.82 2.74 3.04 1.98 2.32 3.68 2.94 3.76 2.79 2.54 2.98 1.76 2.90 2.48 2.84 1.97 3.25 1.58 3.13 2.20 1.70 2.64

Women's Groups Rank (15) (20.5) (16) (22.5) (5) (19) ( 27) (3) (17.5) (12) (14) (7) (24) (22.5) ( 2) (9) (1) (13) (17.5) (8) ( 28 ) (10) ( 20.5) (11) (26) (4 ) ( 30) (6) (25) ( 29)

Mean 4.67 4.94 4.32 4.26 3.43 3.71 4.80 4.03 3.25 4.13 3.11 4.14 3.74 4.84 4 . 29 2.48 3.21 3.16 2.47 3.66 2.59 3.16 3.60 4.59 3.99 2.67 1.88 3.85 3.20 .2.47 3.63

Rank ( 4) (1) (6) (8) (18) (15) ( 3) (11) (19) (10) (25 ) (9) (14) ( 2) ( 7) ( 29 ) (20) (22.5) (27.5) (16) ( 26) (22.5) (17) (5) (12) ( 24) ( 30) (13) (21) (27.5)

D.P. 3.91 2.67 2.89 2.98 3.92 3.14 2.60 4.03 2.47 3.52 3.12 3.72 2.40 2.87 4.32 3.39 3.66 3.33 2.73 3.02 2.19 2.85 2.93 3.10 2.54 3.36 1.88 3.18 2.90 2.29

Rank (4) (23) (19) (16) (3) (12) ( 24) (2) (26) (7) (13) (5) ( 27) ( 20) (1) ( 8) (6) (10) (22) (15) ( 29) (21) (17) (14) (25) ( 9) ( 30) (11) (18) ( 28)

3.08

^These d a t a a r e based on a l l f o u r t e e n groups taking Forms 40 and 45 ( s e e Table 8 ( V I I ) ) .

w OS O

Men and Women Combined Mean Rank D.P. Rank 5.04 5.05 4.26 4.48 3.45 3.76 5.01 4.31 3.50 4.33 3.31 4.43 4.00 5.01 4.41 2.77 3.65 3.24 2.70 4.00 2.59 3.27 3.82 4.74 4.16 2.89 2.12 4.14 3.38 2.51 3.81

(2) (1) (11)

(6) (20) (17) (3.5) (10) (19 ) (9) (22) ( 7) (14.5) (3.5) (8) (26) (18) ( 24) ( 27) (14.5) ( 28) (23) (16) (5) (12) (25) (30) (13) ( 21) (29)

3.31 2.58 2.72 2.65 3.56 2.83 2.19 3.82 2.51 3.17 2.93 3.38 2. 19 2.60 4.00 3. 17 3.71 3.06 2.64 3.00 1.98 2.88 2.71 2.97 2.26 3.31 1.73 3,16 2.55 2.00 2.85

(6.5) (22) (17) (19) (4) (16) (26.5) (2) (24) (8.5) (14) ( 5) (26.5) (21) (1) (8.5) (3) (11) ( 20) (12) ( 29) (15) (18) (13) (25) (6.5) (30) (10) ( 23) (28)

H

X W

>

0

£ g » 3 £

2 £ A

2 5 co

S > £ H

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

261

items which work well for one sex tend, in general, to work well for the other. The correlation between the D. P. rank orders for the men and those for the women is .84. This is sufficient justification for averaging the D. P.'s of the two groups to obtain an over-all "order of goodness" for each item. Since the differences between men and women, in the present context, are probably as great as the differences between any two groups of the same sex in the present sample, it is highly probable that a correlation between the D. P. rankings of any two such groups would be in the neighborhood of . 8 4 . There appear to be no general or systematic differences between the items which work better for men and those which work better for women. Mean scores for the men's groups are somewhat higher on the average than mean scores for the women's groups. This phenomenon would seem to be due primarily to the three male groups discussed above whose scores are particularly high. If men and women of the same socioeconomic class are compared, the means are not significantly different. Moreover, items which appeal most strongly to the men are much the same as those which appeal most strongly to the women, the rank-order correlation between the means for men and those for women being . 9 5 . b. CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS. A S a part of an independent investigation, the E, PEC, and F scales (from Forms 4 0 and 4 5 ) were administered to 9 0 0 students in an Elementary Psychology Class at the University of California. It was decided not to include the data from this new college group among the general results of the present study because the total sample of subjects was already weighted too heavily on the side of young and relatively welleducated people. However, the 5 1 7 women from this psychology class con­ stitute the only group in whose case the scales were subjected to an item-byitem correlational analysis. The results of this analysis will be summarized here. Each item of the F scale was correlated with every other item. The average of the 4 3 5 coefficients was . 1 3 , the range — . 0 5 to . 4 4 . In addition, each item was correlated with the remainder of the scale, the mean r here being . 3 3 , the range . 1 5 to . 5 2 . In the case of the E scale the mean interitem r was . 4 2 , and the mean item-total score r, . 5 9 . Whereas the E scale has about the same degree of unidimensionality as do acceptable intelligence tests (in the case of the 1 9 3 7 Stanford-Binet Revision the average interitem r is about . 3 8 , the average item-total score r, . 6 1 ) , the F scale rates considerably lower in this regard. Despite the scale's relative lack of surface homogeneity, however, we are justified in speaking of an F pattern or syndrome, for the items do "hang together" in the sense that each is significantly correlated with the 4

5

4

This analysis was made possible by a Grant-in-aid from the Social Science Research Council. Fisher's Z was used in computing the average r. 5

r

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

262

PERSONALITY

scale as a whole. It will be recalled in this connection that in constructing the F scale two purposes were held in mind: ( a ) to seek over a wide area for diverse responses that belonged to a single syndrome, and ( b ) to construct an instrument which would yield a reliable prediction of scores on E. It is clear that the first purpose has been in large part realized, although the search for additional items that would help characterize the F syndrome could be continued with profit. The fact that the individual F items correlate . 2 5 on the average with the total E scale augurs well for the fulfillment of the second purpose—a matter to which w e shall turn in a moment. Proof that the variables or groups of items used in thinking about the F scale are not clusters in the statistical sense, is contained in the data from the present group of 5 1 7 women. Although the items within each of the Form 4 5 F-clusters tend to intercorrelate ( . 1 1 to . 2 4 ) , the items in any one cluster correlate with one another no better than they do with numerous items from other clusters. W e are justified in using these clusters, therefore, only as a priori aids to discussion. D.

CORRELATIONS OF T H E F SCALE W I T H E AND W I T H PEC

Correlations of F with the E and PEC scales, based on the three question­ naire forms and derived from all the groups used in the study, are shown in Table 1 0 ( V I I ) . The major result expressed in this table is that the correla­ tion between E and F has increased with the successive revisions of the scale until it has reached a point (about . 7 5 on the average in Forms 4 0 , 4 5 ) where scores on the former can be predicted with fair accuracy from scores on the latter. The correlation between F and E varies rather widely from one group to another, a matter that seems to depend mainly upon the reliability of the scales themselves. Thus, in the San Quentin group, where the reliability of F is . 8 7 and that of E only . 6 5 , the correlation between the two scales is at the lowest, . 5 9 ; while in the case of the Working-Class Women, where the reliability of F climbs to . 9 7 , the correlation is at its maximum, . 8 7 . It is obvious, therefore, that if the reliabilities of the two scales were increased (which can be done by increasing the number of items within each) the 6

7

6

The correlation between E and F does not seem to depend upon whether the two scales are administered at different times, or at the same time with items from the one scale in­ terspersed among those of the other. The correlation obtained in the case of the Universiy of Oregon Student Women, who were given Form 60 in two parts, is not only similar to that obtained, with the use of the regular Form 60, in the case of the University of Oregon and University of California Student Women, but it is virtually the same as the mean E F correlation for ail groups of subjects. The reliability of the "A" half of the E scale, which was given as a part of Form 40 to that group, was not calculated. 7

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC

263

TRENDS

TABLE 10 (VII) CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE WITH THE A - S . E. AND PEC SCALES IN THE SEVERAL FORMS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Groups taking Form 78: P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Women P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Men Extension C l a s s Women P r o f e s s i o n a l Women O v e r - a l l a:

Form 78

Groups taking Form 60: Univ. of Oregon Student Women Univ. o f Oregon and Univ. o f C a l i f o r n i a S t u d e n t Women Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a S t u d e n t Men Oregon S e r v i c e Club Men Oregon S e r v i c e Club Men b

Over-all:

Form 60

Groups taking Form 45: T e s t i n g C l a s s Women San Quentin Men P r i s o n e r s P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Women P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Men Working-Class Men and Women Employment S e r v i c e Men V e t e r a n s Maritime School Men Over-all:

Form 45

N

F. A - S

F.E

F. PEC

140 52 40 63

.55 .52 .49 .57

.58 .56 .74 . 73

.52 .45 .54 .65

295

.53

. 65

.54

47

.72

. 29

54

. 78

. 49

57 68 60

. 58 . 69

.43 .29 .22

286

. 69

.34

59 110 71 50 50 51 179

.79 .59 .36 .76 .85 .67 .56

.54 .23 .62° 57° .70 '.62 .39

570

.73

.52

132 63 69 61 154 53 117 130 55 165

. 69 .80 .81 .76 .83 .87 .82 .75 .72 . 62

.53 .59 .71 .60 .70 .72 .58 .61 .62 .39

999

.77

. 61

. 73

. 52

J d

d

e

Groups taking Form 40 : George Washington Univ. Women C a l i f o r n i a S e r v i c e Club Men M i d d l e - C l a s s Men Working-Class Men Middle-CI a s s Women Working-Class Women Los Angeles Men Los Angeles Women Employment S e r v i c e Men V e t e r a n s Maritime School Men Over-all:

Form 40

Over-all:

A l l Forms

2150

. 53

^ n obtaining the o v e r - a l l group means, the individual group means were not weighted by N. b

This group of Oregon Service Club Men received a short questionnaire form containing only the F scale and half of the PEC scale.

°For the c o r r e l a t i o n s of F with PEC In the Psychiatric Clinic groups, the number of women was 45, the number of men 29, due to a substitution of forms. d

These F-PEC c o r r e l a t i o n s are based on both Forms 40 and 45. Since i t was con­ sidered highly unlikely that the presence or absence of 5 E items would affect the c o r r e l a t i o n of F and PEC, the two forms are taken together in order to have the advantage of the larger N's. The t o t a l N i s 106 for the Employment Service Men Veterans, 343 for the Maritime School Men.

e

I n Form 40, i t w i l l be recalled, only the "A" half of the 10-item E scale was used.

264

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY 8

correlation between E and F would be very high indeed. This is not to say, however, that E and F for all practical purposes measure the same thing. A correlation of . 7 7 5 means that about two-thirds of the subjects who score in the high quartile on the one scale, score in the high quartile on the other, and that there are practically no reversals, i.e., cases in which a subject is high on one scale but low on the other. If one wished to use the F scale alone in order to single out subjects who were practically certain to be highly ethnocentric, i.e., in the high quartile on the present E scale, it would be necessary for him to limit himself to those scoring at the very highest extreme on F, perhaps the top 1 0 per cent. As pointed out earlier, there are reasons w h y some discrepancy between the two scales should be expected. Surely there are some individuals who have the kind of susceptibility to fascist propaganda with which the F scale is concerned but who for one reason or another tend to inhibit expressions of hostility against minority groups (sub­ jects high on F but low on E ) . And we have good reason to believe that there are other people who rather freely repeat the cliches of ethnocentrism— perhaps in accordance with the climate of opinion in which they are living— without this being expressive of deep-lying trends in their personalities (sub­ jects high on E but low on F ) . Such "exceptions" will be taken up in more detail later. It is to be noted that the correlation between F and E is slightly higher on the average in the case of groups taking Form 4 0 than for groups taking Form 4 5 . This means that F correlates slightly better with the A half of the E scale than with the total E scale, and that the correlation must be still lower in the case of the B half of the scale. In several groups taking Form 4 5 the correlations of E and of E with F were calculated, in addition to the cor­ relation of total E with F. The results appear in Table 1 1 ( V I I ) . In each A

B

TABLE 1 1 (VII) CORRELATIONS OF THE F SCALE WITH EACH HALF AND WITH THE WHOLE OF THE E SCALE

Group

Correlations

N_ E .F A

San Quentin Men P r i s o n e r s Employment S e r v i c e Men V e t e r a n s Maritime School Men Testing C l a s s Women Mean 8

110 51 179 59

Eg.F

EA+B- F .59

.56 .66

.45 .61

.67

.61 .77

.40

.56

.66

.79

. 65

.53

.65

The correlation coefficient which, theoretically, would result if two scales were per­ fectly reliable, i.e., if the average obtained r were corrected for attenuation, is about .9. This indicates a striking correspondence, though not a complete identity, of what is meas­ ured by the two scales.

265

M E A S U R E M E N T OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

group E -F is notably higher than E F , and about the same as E + B - F . It may be recalled that the A half of the scale refers to highly generalized ethnocentrism and contains no A-S items, while the B half is made up of four A-S items and one Negro item. It happened that this Negro item was a relatively poor one in the statistical sense (rank order, 5 for men, 1 0 for women), but this is not enough to account for the superiority of the E -F correlations. It seems, rather, that the F syndrome is actually more closely related to general ethnocentrism than to anti-Semitism. This is in keeping with the finding, reported earlier, that in Form 7 8 the F scale correlated more highly with the E scale than with the A-S scale. Although anti-Semitism is still to be understood primarily as an aspect of general ethnocentrism, there can be no doubt but that it has some special features of its own. Some of these features are described in Chapter XVI. A

B

A

A

The F syndrome bears only a moderately close relation to politicoeconomic conservatism, the average correlation for Forms 4 5 and 4 0 being . 5 7 . Our interpretation is that high scores on PEC may proceed either from genuine conservatism or from pseudoconservatism, and that it is the latter which is most expressive of the personality trends which the F scale measures. This is in keeping with the finding that E, which is closely related to F, also shows only moderate correlation with PEC. The E.PEC correlation is about the same as the F.PEC correlation. It would appear that general ethnocen­ trism, as measured by the present scales, is mainly an expression of those personality structures which the F scale measures; politico-economic con­ servatism, while it may have this same source, may be more dependent than E upon factors in the individual's contemporary situation.

E.

DIFFERENCES IN M E A N F-SCALE SCORE A M O N G V A R I O U S GROUPS

W e may turn now to a consideration of the mean F-scale scores of different groups. These means have been set forth in Table 1 2 ( V I I ) . It is well to recall here what was stated at the beginning (Chapter I, C ) , that since no steps were taken to insure that each group studied was actually representa­ tive of a larger section of the population, we are in no position to generalize from the present results on mean scores, however suggestive they might be. ( A large-scale community study would be necessary in order to produce a sound estimate of the relative amounts of fascist potential in different sec­ tions of the general population. The F scale, we believe, is worthy to be used in such a study, though it would have to be modified somewhat in order to be suitable for groups with little education.) It seems well to recall, too, that the group with which a subject filled out the questionnaire does not necessarily represent a group membership that is significant for the present study. The differences with which w e are here concerned are not very large,

THE

z66

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

v TABLE 1 2 (VII) MEAN F-SCALE SCORES OF GROUPS TAKING THE SEVERAL FORMS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE

N

Mean

S. D.

78: P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Women P u b l i c Speaking C l a s s Men Extension C l a s s Women P r o f e s s i o n a l Women

140 52 40 63

3.94 3.72 3.75 3. 43

.71 .57 .70 .86

O v e r - a l l mean, Form 78

295

3.71

.71

47

3.32

.86

54

3. 39

-96

57 68 60

3. 82 3. 74 3. 25

.93 .81 .71

O v e r - a l l mean, Form 60

286

3.50

.85

45: T e s t i n g C l a s s Women San Quentin Men P r i s o n e r s P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Women P s y c h i a t r i c C l i n i c Men

59 110 71 50

3. 62 4. 73 3. 69 3.82

.99 .86 1. 30 1.01

O v e r - a l l mean, Form 45

290

3.96

1.04

40: George Washington Univ. Women C a l i f o r n i a S e r v i c e Club Men M i d d l e - C l a s s Women M i d d l e - C l a s s Men Working-Class Women W o r k i n g - C l a s s Men Los Angeles Women Los A n g e l e s Men

132 63 154 69 53 61 130 117

3.51 4.08 3. 62 3. 69 3.86 4. 19 3.49 3. 68

.90 1.03 1. 2 6 1. 22 1.67 1. 18 1. 13 1. 17

O v e r - a l l mean, Form 40

779

3. 76

1. 20

40 and 45: Employment S e r v i c e Men V e t e r a n s Maritime School Men

106 343

3. 74 4.06

1.04 .77

O v e r - a l l mean, Forms 40 and 4 5

449

3.90

.90

2099

3.78

Group Form

Form 60: Univ. o f Oregon Student Women Univ. of Oregon and Univ. o f C a l i f o r n i a S t u d e n t Women Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of C a l i f o r n i a S t u d e n t Men Oregon S e r v i c e Club Men Oregon S e r v i c e Club Men (A Form o n l y )

Form

Form

Forms

O v e r - a l l mean, Four Forms (78,

60 ,

45, 40):

MEASUREMENT

OF

ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

267

while the variability within each group is marked. Only rarely is the differ­ ence between two groups greater than one S. D. In our view, we should find large group differences in mean F score only when membership in a group has some psychological significance, and this does not seem to be true of most of the present groups. ( A study of the F-scale score in relation to group membership factors such as those covered by page 1 of the questionnaire [income, religion, etc.] would probably be rewarding. In view of the high correlation between F and E we should expect results generally similar to those found in the case of the latter scale, but discrepancies would be par­ ticularly interesting.) Nevertheless, some important sociological and psycho­ logical differences among the present groups are known to exist—indeed some of these groups have been described as " k e y " groups—and, if the F scale is valid, we should expect differences in mean score that are intelligible in the light of our general theory. Of all the fourteen groups taking Form 4 0 - 4 5 , the San Quentin Inmates obtained the highest mean score, 4 . 7 3 . This mean is significantly different (C. R. = 3 . 2 ) from that of the next highest scoring group, the WorkingClass Men, whose mean is 4 . 1 9 . Between the San Quentin group and the low­ est scoring group of men (Los Angeles Men, M = 3 . 6 8 ) the difference is very marked (C. R. = 7 . 8 ) . In view of all that has been written concerning the close affinity of criminality and fascism, these results should not be sur­ prising. Since the findings on the " k e y " San Quentin group are analyzed in detail in Chapter XXI, further discussion here is unnecessary. Service Club Men and Working-Class Men do not differ significantly in mean F score. This will come as a surprise only to those who have become accustomed to explaining all important differences in social attitudes on the basis of socioeconomic group membership, and who look to the working man as the main carrier of liberal ideas. It is true, of course, as a matter of economic and social fact, that the crucial role in the struggle against increas­ ing concentration of economic power will have to be played by the working people, acting in accordance with their self-interest, but it is foolhardy to underestimate the susceptibility to fascist propaganda within these masses themselves. For our part, we see no reason to suppose that the authoritarian structures with which we are concerned would be any less well developed in the working class than in other segments of the population. If it be argued that our sample of working-class men might be an unusually reactionary one, the answer is that approximately half of this sample come either from the militantly "liberal" United Electrical Workers Union (C.I.O.) or from classes at the California Labor School, and that there is no reason to suppose that men from the United Seaman's Service or new members of the I.L.W.U. —who constitute the remainder of the sample—are more conservative than working men generally. For that matter, the extremely high scoring San Quentin Inmates come in very large part from the working class, and there

2

68

THE

AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

is good reason to suppose that their general outlook depends upon their background as well as upon the circumstance of their being in prison. It appears that differences among the present groups of men depend more upon the factor of contact with liberal organizations and liberal thought than upon socioeconomic group membership. This is the basis on which we would explain the relatively low means of the Middle-Class Men ( 3 . 6 9 ) and the Los Angeles Men ( 3 . 6 8 ) , both of which are significantly different (be­ yond the 5 per cent level) from that of the Service Club Men ( 4 . 0 8 ) . The Middle-Class Men and the Service Club Men are quite similar with respect to economic and occupational status; the difference between them that is reflected in their F-scale mean lies, most probably, in whatever it is that dis­ poses the former to appear at a meeting of the P.T.A. or the layman's league of a Presbyterian Church or at evening classes at the California Labor School, and the latter at a Service Club luncheon. This, in our opinion, is primarily a psychological matter; the difference lies in the degree of something which may be labeled, for the moment, a disposition toward liberalism or progressivism or humanitarianism. The Los Angeles Men, it will be recalled, were recruited primarily from the University and the movie communities. Thus, though their socioeconomic status was certainly no lower than that of the Service Club Men in the San Francisco area, the setting in which they were found was one of greater liberalism. The Maritime School Group, made up predominantly of men with working-class and lower middle-class ante­ cedents who are out to raise their status, belongs on the basis of its mean ( 4 . 0 6 ) with the Service Club Men and the Working-Class Men, while the Psychiatric Clinic Men ( M = 3 . 8 2 ) and the Employment Service Veterans (M = 3 - 7 4 ) who probably are more heterogeneous with respect to either class status or liberal affiliations, have intermediate positions in the rank order of means. 5

It has been pointed out that the fact of the men in our total sample having a higher mean than the women is due primarily to the presence in the male sample of the outstandingly high scoring groups that have just been con­ sidered. The present data show that where social group membership is con­ stant, the means for men are not significantly different from those of women. Thus, in the case of the Working-Class Women and the Working-Class Men, the C. R. is only 1 . 2 2 , while the differences between men and women in the Psychiatric Clinic, the Los Angeles and the Middle-Class groups are prac­ tically negligible. It is to be noted, however, that in each case the men are slightly higher, and that in a larger sample the difference might become significant. Among the women's groups, the only difference that approaches signifi­ cance is that existing between the Working-Class Women ( M = 3 . 8 6 ) , on the one hand, and the George Washington University Women ( M = 3 . 5 1 ) and Los Angeles W o m e n ( M = 3 . 4 9 ) on the other. If a true difference exists,

MEASUREMENT

OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

269

the explanation would seem to be the same as that advanced in the case of some of the men's groups: that the latter groups of women have been in closer touch with liberal trends. It is of some interest to consider group differences in mean F score in rela­ tion to the mean E score of these same groups. In general, groups that score highest on F tend to score highest on E also. The most notable discrepancies occur in the cases of the George Washington Women, who are relatively much higher on E ( M = 4 . 0 4 ) than on F ( M = 3 . 5 1 ) , and the WorkingClass Men, who are slightly higher on F ( M = 4 . 1 9 ) than on E ( M = 3 . 9 2 ) . It seems probable that in the case of this group of women, we have to deal with a regional difference: many observers have noted that there is more prejudice in the East than in the West. It may be, therefore, that although these college women were relatively liberal as a group, they were led by the prevailing climate of opinion to go fairly high on E. This is in keeping with the fact that the correlation between F and E in this group was one of the lowest obtained. The group of Working-Class Men is the only one in which the mean E score is lower than the mean F score. This is probably attributable to the success of indoctrination in antidiscrimination which occurs in the "liberal" unions to which a majority of these subjects belong. Apparently, however, this indoctrination did not go so far as to modify those attitudes centering around authoritarianism, which are more pronounced in this group than in most others. One might say that if this indoctrination were dispensed with, or if propaganda having an opposite direction were substituted for it, then the results from this group would fall into line with all the others. It has often been suggested that working-class people are relatively unin­ hibited in expressing the prejudice that they have and that this does not go very deep, while middle-class people are more restrained in giving vent to their—often deeper—prejudice. That nothing to support this formulation is to be found in the present data may be due most largely to the fact that our ethnocentric statements were for the most part fairly restrained, i.e., formu­ lated in such a w a y that a pseudodemocratic person could agree with them and still maintain the illusion that he was not prejudiced.

F.

V A L I D A T I O N BY CASE STUDIES: T H E F-SCALE RESPONSES OF MACK AND L A R R Y

The responses of Mack and Larry on the F scale may now be compared with their remarks in the interview. In Table 1 3 (VII) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group mean, and the D. P. for each of the 3 8 items in the F scale (Form 7 8 ) , the items having been grouped according to the scheme of F-scale variables. The mean F-scale scores of the two men seem to be in keeping with the

THE AUTHORITARIAN

270

PERSONALITY

TABLE 13 (VII) RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE F SCALE (FORM 78)

Item

Mack

Larry

Group

Group

Me ana

D.P.

a

(N = 295) Conventional ism 12. (Modern church) 19. (One should a v o i d ) 38. (Emphasis i n the c o l l e g e s ) 55. (Leisure) 58. (What a man does) 60. (Important v a l u e s ) C l u s t e r mean Authoritarian Submission 20. ( P r o g r e s s i v e education) 23. (Undying l o v e ) 32. (Essential for learning) 39. (Supernatural force) . 43. (Sciences l i k e chemistry) 50. (Obedience and r e s p e c t ) 74. (Tireless leaders)' 77. (No sane, normal p e r s o n ) C l u s t e r mean Authoritarian Aggression 6. (Women r e s t r i c t e d ) 23. (Undying l o v e ) 31. (Homosexuals) 47. (Honor) 75. (Sex crimes) C l u s t e r mean Anti-intraception 28. (Novels o r s t o r i e s ) 38. (Emphasis i n c o l l e g e s ) 53. (Things too i n t i m a t e ) 55. (Leisure) 58. (What a man does) 66. (Books and movies) C l u s t e r mean Superstition 2. (Astrology) 10. ( P e a r l Harbor Day) 39. (Supernatural force) 43. (Sciences l i k e chemistry) 65. (World c a t a s t r o p h e ) C l u s t e r mean

5 2 5 7 6 5

7 1 2 6 1 5

4.67 3.63 3.91 5. 20 3.48 4. 17

0 . 19 0.76 1.20 2. 11 1.70 1. 60

5.00

3.66

4.18

1.26

3 6 7 1 1 6 2 6

1 7 6 1 2 2 1 5

3.28 3.62 3.61 3.97 4.35 3.72 5.00 4. 12

1.07 2.61 1.67 2.54 2.79 3.09 1.66 2. 1 2

4.00

3. 13

3.96

2. 19

1 7 6 2 1

2.93 3.62 3.22 3.00 3 2 X O

M3

low

19.2

36. 1

L

L

L

L

2 >

M4

high

77. 3

78. 1

H

H

H

H

SO

M5

low

31.4

31. 7

L

L

L

L

M6

high

72. 7

74. 4

H

H

H

H

R to

M19

low

70.4

31. 1

H

L

H

?

O

F24

high

70.5

70. 0

H

H

H

H

>

F29

low

33.3

34. 4

L

L

L

L

F31

high

79.4

77. 7

H

H

H

H

F39

low

72.2

27. 2

H

L

H

L

>

INTERVIEWS AS A P P R O A C H T O PREJUDICED PERSONALITY

331

in Table 7 ( I X ) . The prejudice scores based on the questionnaire are taken from Tables 1 (IX) and 2 ( I X ) . However, the numerical scores appearing on these tables for the subjects listed here, as based on the ratings of rater M are limited to a selection of the more discriminating categories (see below' Section 6 ) . The figures in Table ( I X ) are based upon the ratings on all categories and are further given as percentages of "High" ratings relative to the possible maximum of ratings as given b y the total number of cate­ gories. Thereby the number of Neutral ratings-easily obtained by subtract­ ing both High and " L o w " ratings from the total number of categories 1 "J"!" ° ° ) - h a s been added half and half to the High and the " L o w " ratings. Composite standing as indicated by a percentage score of over, or of under, 50, and finally intuitive over-all ratings of the interview make up the remainder of the table. 7

9

0

f

r

W

m

e

n

( s C e

b e l o w

Percentage scores show excellent interrater agreement for six of the nine subjects. Of the remaining three, those with really striking discrepancies are the same two mentioned above as having been misjudged by the original rater, M, namely Mi and F . In both cases, the second rater has rectified the error very clearly by establishing percentage scores in the neighborhood of 3 0 which contrast sharply with those in the neighborhood of 7 0 as obtained from the first rater. The correlation coefficient between the columns repre­ senting the two raters-not very meaningful under the circumstances-is 6 1 It would be raised to about .8 if one of the two "controversial" cases just mentioned were eliminated so as to adjust the proportion of such cases more closely to that referred to above as existing in the total sample of inter­ viewees namely I J per cent. Such a figure, if verified on a broader basis would be quite satisfactory for the kind of material involved. In terms of composite standing and intuitive ratings, agreement is perfect save for the two cases mentioned. (Intuitive ratings on one of the controversial subjects, Mi9, is incomplete due to the fact that rater R, contrary to instruc­ tions, declared herself as unable to make up her mind in this particular case ) It may be added that the means of the percentage scores for the two raters are quite close to one another as well as to the ideal value of 5 0 T h e y are 58.4 for M and 5 0 . 9 for R. This augments the evidence brought forward above under ( a ) with respect to the proportion of ratings given by the two raters. The slight preponderance of "High" ratings in rater M is also reflected in his intuitive over-all ratings. In fact, it is concentrated in the two cases where he makes his mistakes and where the second rater evens out the score A breakdown for the six major areas covered by the Scoring Manual namely family patterns (see Chapter X ) , attitude toward sex, other people' and self (see Chapter X I ) , and dynamic character structure and cognitive personality organization (see Chapter XII) is given in Table 8 (IX) The number of categories for each area is also indicated. Considering the smallness of these numbers, pairs of averages from raw scores in terms of number 9

39

TABLE 8 (IX) INTERRATER AGREEMENT ON INTERVIEW RATINGS FOR SIX MAJOR AREAS

Areas

in S c o r i n g

Number of

Manual

categories

Average four

Rater M H-L

Family

pattern

(parents,

Attitude

toward

sex

Attitude

toward

other

Attitude

toward

self

Dynamic c h a r a c t e r Cognitive

etc)

people

personality

organization

Totals

0

ratings

b

received

five

by

low s c o r e r s

0

Rater R

Rater M

Rater R

H-L

H-L

H-L 3.0-8.6

28

6.8-1

3

9.3-1.3

3. 8 - 5 . 6

7

4.5-0

3

5.3-0.3

1.8-2.2

1.0-3.4

11

6.3-0

0

6.3-0.3

2.2-3.2

0.4-5.0 1.0-9.8

16

structure

number of

high s c o r e r s

9.5-1.5

3.0-6.6

22

15.3-0

3

14.5-0.5

5. 8 - 6 . 2

1.6-8.8

6

5.0-0

0

5.0-0.5

2.0-2.8

0.4-5.0

49. 9-4. 4

18. 6-26. 6

90

9. 3 - 1 3

a

47. 2-3 2

7.4-40.6

For men the total is only 8 6 ; no adjustment to this slight difference has been made in the present table in the case of the men subjects. 'Rounded to one decimal place c

S e e Table 7

(IX)

INTERVIEWS AS A P P R O A C H T O PREJUDICED PERSONALITY

333

of "High" and " L o w " ratings ( H - L ) are given for the four high scorers as contrasted with the five low scorers listed in Table ( I X ) . No indices of reliability were computed here; but comparison of the first with the second and of the third with the fourth pair of figures in each row of Table 8 (IX) reveals a good deal of agreement between the two raters. The fact that this agreement is less pronounced in the case of the low scorers as shown in the columns containing the third and fourth pairs of figures, and that, further­ more, the values of H and L within these pairs often show less clear-cut differentiation than they do in the left part of the table, is d u e - a s was revealed in more detailed analysis not presented here-to the fact that both cases with controversial diagnosis, Mi and F , happen to be in this group. Perhaps with the exception of family pattern and attitude toward self, this lack of differentiation for the group of low scorers, especially in rater M and the ensuing disagreement with rater R, is about evenly distributed over the various areas; for high scorers differentiation and agreement is about equally good for all the areas, and the "totals" are in excellent agreement with one another. 7

9

39

Discounting the controversial cases, i.e., the i per cent in our total sample of interviewees for which the original rater arrived at a diagnosis op­ posite to that given by the defining score on the prejudice scales, the results of this fragmentary analysis of reliability are quite encouraging In fact if the trend as discussed for Table (IX) should be representative of the entire sample, interrater agreement for the remaining 85 per cent of the inter­ viewees would be close to .0. For the other , per cent one may contemplate challenging the validity of the defining prejudice score along with doubting the validity of the interview rating. The "questionnaire-high" may after all be considered the product of an approach that is by definition less con­ cerned with underlying dynamics than is the diagnosis of the "personalityFurther data on interrater agreement on the interview will be presented in Chapter XIII. 5

7

5

r

The problem of agreement of various types of ratings among themselves such as in our present context especially of composite standing and intuitive over-all rating, will be discussed in Chapter XIII. In a broader sense such aspects are also included within the general concept of reliability. A third avenue of scrutiny somewhat akin to reliability problems is through the study of "halo-effects," to be discussed next. 5.

MINIMIZING HALO-EFFECTS IN R A T I N G T H E

INTERVIEWS

W e return now to the problem of the carry-over from one category to another, much in the w a y of the "halo-effect" known in social and educa­ tional psychology. One w a y of preventing or minimizing the halo-effect would have been to use designations other than "(presumably) High" and

334

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

"(presumably) Low" to characterize the two opposites within the various categories. But such a procedure would have prevented only raters un­ familiar with the underlying hypotheses from succumbing to halo-effects. Such raters, on the other hand, would have been undesirable from other, more crucial points of view. It was thus decided to leave control of haloeffects to special analytical attitudes the raters were asked to maintain, and to ascertain the degree of relatedness in a statistical analysis of the completed ratings. It must be noted that—as in all cases of halo-effects—a certain amount of correlation may be fully justified b y fact, i.e., by existing correlation of real traits. Exactly how much of the halo is realistic would require further intensive study for all combinations of categories involved. Both the variability of the discriminatory power of the single categories (see below) and the variability of the proportion of "High" and " L o w " rat­ ings ascribed to the various subjects seem to indicate that the raters succeeded, at least in part, in keeping the halo-effect within reasonable bounds in rat­ ing the subjects. Evidence on the second of these points is contained in Tables i (IX) and 2 (IX) in the first two of the columns relating to ratings of the interviews. As is readily seen, hardly any of the subjects are classified as "High" or as " L o w " on all categories even when the "Neutral" ratings are excluded from consideration, and for some of them there is an approximately equal number of "High" and "Low" ratings. This shows that the raters were quite capable of separating the various issues involved, and of rating a person as "High" in one respect and as "Low" in another. 6.

T A B U L A T I O N OF I N T E R V I E W R A T I N G S BY CATEGORIES: S T A T I S T I C A L SIGNIFICANCE

A tabulation of interview ratings by single categories was obtained simply b y counting the instances of High ( H ) , of Low ( L ) , and of Neutral ( N ) ratings, on a given category, among subjects of each of four groups—highscoring men, low-scoring men, high-scoring women, and low-scoring women (scoring, that is, extremely high or low on the direct prejudice ques­ tionnaire) . Analysis of the figures for a given category, with a view to their bearing upon the underlying hypotheses, could have any one of four outcomes—two "positive" and two "negative." The "positive" instances are confirmatory of the original hypothesis. T h e y include "High" ratings—i.e., those designat­ ing reactions presumed to occur more frequently in the prejudiced person— when given to subjects scoring high on the prejudice scales, as well as " L o w " ratings given to relatively unprejudiced, i.e., our so-called "low-scoring," subjects, in short, the hH and 1L combinations. The remaining two figures, indicating the frequency of prejudiced subjects receiving a " L o w " and of un­ prejudiced subjects receiving a "High" rating, in short, the hL and the 1H combinations, constitute the "negative," nonconfirmatory instances.

INTERVIEWS AS A P P R O A C H T O PREJUDICED PERSONALITY

335

The series of tables in Chapters X to XII (Tables i ( X ) to 2 ( X I I ) ) pre­ sents, for the two sexes separately, the numbers of prejudiced and of un­ prejudiced interviewees who give the presumably "High" and the pre­ sumably "Low" responses in the interviews, for each of the scoring categories. The number of "Neutrals" may be obtained b y subtraction of their sums from the total number of subjects in the respective prejudiced or unprejudiced groups. The four raw figures are followed by two sums which contrast the total number of positive with the total number of negative in­ stances. All "positive," i.e., confirmatory, evidence is italicized. Whenever a category is defined in the Scoring Manual by only one variant, H or L, rather than b y an opposition of an H with an L, only the presence of the trait in question is registered in the tables and the remaining space is left blank. The final column of the tables indicates the level of statistical significance of the difference, on the category in question, between prejudiced and unprej­ udiced extremes as denned in the present study. It thus refers to the "dis­ criminatory power" and the importance of the category as a personality correlate—and therefore as a potential measure—of overtly expressed ethnic prejudice. Indications of significance are given in terms of whether or not the 5 per cent (satisfactory), the 2 per cent, or the 1 per cent level (highly satisfactory, since in this latter case there is a 9 9 per cent probability that the obtained difference is not due to chance factors) has been reached or surpassed, without specifying whether or by how much they have been surpassed. Significance was computed after evenly dividing the "Neutrals" among the "High" and the "Low" ratings. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that dividing the Neutral ratings tends to lower the index of significance, the more so the larger the proportion of these ratings. Thus, in treating the Neutral ratings as we do, we are keeping on the safe side, since, as was pointed out above, the Neutral scorings are based, in a con­ siderable proportion of the cases, on lack of information rather than on lack of actual discriminability. Wherever the proportion of Neutrals for the total sample of interviewees is larger than 5 0 per cent, the statistical significance of the category in question was not computed and therefore there was no entry under any circumstances in the last column of the tables. The category was also omitted from the survey of interview scores in Tables 1 (IX) and 2 ( I X ) . For men the total number of categories is 86, somewhat less than for women, in whose case a few more subdivisions were introduced into the Scoring Manual. Of these 86 categories, 7 2 yielded less than 5 0 per cent Neutrals, and thus re­ mained for full treatment. For women only 6 5 of the original 9 0 categories yielded less than 5 0 per cent Neutrals and were thus retained for full treat­ ment. The fact that the categories were generally somewhat more dis­ criminatory in the case of the men than in the case of the women may be

33*5

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

accounted for b y the fact that most of the men were interviewed at a later stage of the study and that therefore their records were more complete. All the calculations discussed above were performed separately for men and women. Corresponding figures for each appear closely adjacent to one another in the tables, those for men ( M ) in the upper left-hand and those for women ( W ) in the lower right-hand area of each of the "cells" that one may imagine at the intersection of vertical columns with horizontal rows, the latter defined by the various categories.

C

PARENTS

H

A

P

AND

T

E

R

X

CHILDHOOD

AS

SEEN THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS Eke

A.

Frenkel-Brunsivik

INTRODUCTION

In turning to the specific results of the interviews w e begin with the organization of the family. Many of the attitudes and underlying needs dis­ cussed in this volume must be assumed to originate, as far as the individual is concerned, in the family situation. Here the growing child learns for the first time to handle interpersonal relations. Some of the members of the family are in an authoritative, others in an equalitarian or in a weaker position than himself. Some are of the same, others are of the opposite sex. It soon becomes evident to the youngster what kind of behavior is considered appropriate and will lead to reward and what kind of behavior will be punished. He finds himself confronted with a certain set of values and certain expectations which he has to meet. Within the general common framework of the white American popula­ tion, families vary greatly as to the rigidity or flexibility of the roles defined within the family, as well as to values in general. W e shall encounter families in which considerably more emphasis is placed on obedience than it is in others. In some cases discipline is harsh and threatening, in others intelligible and mild. Or there may be rigorous adherence to conventional rules and customs rather than to more flexible and more intrinsic values which lead to greater tolerance for individual variations. Or smooth functioning within the family may depend either more on exchange of well-defined obligations and "goods," or else on an exchange of genuine affection. These and other differences in the organization of the family are under scrutiny in the light of their possible implications with respect to the personality structure of the individual and his social and political beliefs. Although no striking relations between these patterns and gross economic factors have been uncovered in the present study, systematic investigations of a more distinctly sociological nature would undoubtedly reveal broader 337

33^

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

cultural and subcultural determinants of these differences, say, the greater frequency of one or the other type of family organization in different national subgroups, or a dependence on the relative stability or instability of the socioeconomic family history. While this goes to press, data from a separate project (Frenkel-Brunswik, for an advance report see 3 0 ) seem to indicate that parents of ex­ tremely prejudiced children are relatively often the children of foreign-born parents or show preoccupation as to social and national insecurity. Specific rating categories from the Interview Scoring Manual in the area of family organization, followed by tabulation of quantitative results and eventually by a discussion and the presentation of pertinent quotations from the interviews themselves, are given in Sections B to D. 1

B.

ATTITUDES

1.

T O W A R D P A R E N T S AND T H E FAMILY

CONCEPTION

DEFINITION OF R A T I N G C A T E G O R I E S Q U A N T I T A T I V E RESULTS

OF

AND

In line with the over-all subject matter of the present volume, the discus­ sion concerning attitudes toward parents will, among others, center about the following questions: Is the general tendency toward glorification and lack of critical evaluation of ingroups on the part of the ethnically prejudiced also mirrored in their attitudes toward their parents? Is there a tendency toward submission, and how are the problems of rebellion, hostility, and guilt handled in our two opposite groups? H o w are the feelings of genuine love related to conformity as contrasted with independence? The definitions of the specific categories of the Scoring Manual dealing with problems of this nature are listed here in the form in which they were used by the raters. It should be remembered, however, that the Manual represents merely a summary of what was developed, and discussed with the two raters, in extended conferences preceding the actual rating procedure. The subsequent text makes occasional use of the more prominent of the con­ notations thus established which were not formally incorporated in the Manual in order not to overload it in actual use. Before starting the presentation of the various parts of the Interview Scoring Manual, attention must be called to the fact that strict opposi1

The study on social discrimination in children referred to here is being carried out at the Institute of Child Welfare of the University of California. The project was initiated by the present writer, in cooperation with Harold E. Jones and T. W . Adorno, and spon­ sorship was at first by the Scientific Department of the American Jewish Committee. In developing the tests and experiments the present writer was aided primarily by Claire Brednor, Donald T. Campbell, Joan Havel, Murray E. Jarvik, and Milton Rokeach.

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

339

tion or near-opposition of the presumably "High" and the presumably "Low" variants is to be assumed only where the numbers or number-letter combinations appearing on the right side of the page are identical with those on the left. Thus Category 2 , "victimization," stands in a somewhat oblique relation to Categories 2 a to 2 c. In some cases pairings of this kind reflect the fact that there is more than one opposite to a given variant. Beginning with Section C of this chapter, different sets of letters are sometimes used on the two sides to stress an absence of one-by-one correspondence of a series of alternatives listed on the right with a series of items on the left, although the lists in their entirety define a more clear-cut pattern of oppo­ sition. (Concerning the lopsided evaluation of asymmetrical categories in the tables to follow, see the concluding pages of the preceding chapter.) The first subdivision of the Interview Scoring Manual follows. As in the Interview Schedule, italics are used to represent key phrases which had been emphasized to the raters b y underscoring. INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL: ATTITUDES TOWARD AND CONCEPTION OF FAMILY (to Table i ( X ) ) . PRESUMABLY "HIGH" VARIANTS

1. Conventional idealization of parent(s): Overestimation of qualities and status, expressed in behavioral (essentially exter­ nal), conventionalized general­ ities, or undifferentiated "all's well" attitude 2. Victimization (quasi-persecutory) by parent (s): Neglect, in­ cluding failure to give proper discipline, unjust discipline; "picked on"; unfair: resents pre­ ferring of rival sib or spouse (or foster-sib or step-spouse); etc. 3a. Submission to parental author­ ity and values: respect based on fear

3b. Capricious rebellion

PRESUMABLY "Low"

PARENTS

VARIANTS

1. Objective appraisal of parents

2 a. Principled open rejection 2B. Genuine positive affect: some reference to (positive) psycho­ logical qualities; individualized characterizations

2C Blocked affect

(Presumably

mutually exclusive with 2A)

3. Principled independence

against

parents; delinquency

4a. Ego - alien

dependence - for - 4. Love-seeking succorance-nur-

things and support on parents: essentially exploitive-manipulative-"getting"; an externalized relationship

4b. Sense of obligation-and-duty to

turance-afjiliation toward par­ ents

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

parents: Desire to "make it up to them"

5. Ingroup orientation to family as a whole; e.g., emphasis on family heredity and "background"; homogeneous-totalitarian fam­ ily vs. rest of world; aristocratic superiority of family, etc.

5. Individualized approach

to

members of the family

In Table i ( X ) , the results for both men and women interviewees are presented in the manner described in the concluding section of the preceding chapter. Abbreviated formulations of the categories just listed are presented, along with category numbers, for purposes of easier identification. 2.

IDEALIZATION VS. OBJECTIVE A P P R A I S A L OF P A R E N T S

In view of their general tendency toward conventionality and submission toward ingroup members, it is not surprising to find in the prejudiced sub­ jects a tendency toward "idealization of the parents." This idealization is expressed characteristically in generalized and undifferentiated, convention­ alized terms which primarily glorify external features of physical appear­ ance or overt behavioral conduct rather than involving the more internal aspects of their personality. "Objective appraisal" of parents, referring to an ability for critical evaluation of the parents in specific and psychologically conceived terms, on the other hand, is predominant in the unprejudiced subjects. The detailed results presented in Table 1 ( X ) (under Category 1 ) reveal the striking fact that none of the low-scoring women interviewed shows the glorification of the parents just described; instead, 1 1 of them show objective, critical appraisal. Of the high-scoring women, 9 show glorification and 6 ob­ jective appraisal of parents. For the total group of women, there are 2 0 "positive" as contrasted with 6 "negative" instances in the sense defined at the end of the preceding chapter. The statistical significance of the differ­ ence between the positive evidence (i.e., that confirming the original hypoth­ esis underlying the distinction between the "High" and the "Low" variant) and the negative (nonconfirmatory) evidence cited is found to be at the " 1 per cent level," and thus highly satisfactory (see Chapter IX, Section F, 6 ) . A good illustration of the "High" attitude in women is given by the fol­ lowing quotation from the interview of one of the high scorers: " M o t h e r she amazes me—millions of activities—had two maids in years ago, but never since—such calmness—never sick, never—beautiful woman she really is." The reference to external dimensions, both behavioral ("million ac­ tivities") and physical ("never sick, beautiful"), can be seen clearly in the foregoing record. It must be emphasized that the subjects were asked, in this connection, "What kind of person is your father (mother)?" without further

TABLE 1 (X) INTERVIEW RATINGS ON ATTITUDE TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPT OF FAMILY FOR 80 SUBJECTS SCORING EXTREMELY "HIGH" OR "LOW" ON THE ETHNIC PREJUDICE QUESTIONNAIRE SCALE Number of •High"(H) and "Low"(L) Interview rating categories (abbreviated from Manual)

Sex '

r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d by 20 men and 20 men and 25 women 15 women "high s c o r e r s " "low s c o r e r s " L H L

1. Conventional i d e a l i z a t i o n ( H ) v s . o b j e c t i v e a p p r a i s a l ( L ) of p a r e n t s

Men Women

11

2. V i c t i m i z a t i o n by p a r e n t s (H) v s . a. P r i n c i p l e d open r e j e c t i o n gf p a r e n t s (L)

Men Women

_£. _8

b. c. Genuine a f f e c t i o n or blocked a f f e c t f o r parents(L)

Men Women Men Women

3a. Submission t o parents(H) v s . p r i n c i p l e d independence(L)

Men Women

3b. C a p r i c i o u s

Men Women

rebellion(H)

4a. Dependence f o r t h i n g s on p a r e n t s (H) v s . l o v e - s e e k i n g affiliation(L)

Men Women

4b. Sense of o b l i g a t i o n and duty(H)

Men Women

5.

Ingroup conception of

family(H)

J9_

Men Women

1 6

2 0 4 4

1 2 4 3 14

9. 9 13 13

13 11

2 0

1 5

Sums of instances "positive'

"negative"

24 20

3 6

_£

4 4

8 3 _3_ 12 10

3 3_

1 2

12 10

4 3 4 1

2 1 4 1

10

24

JL

11 9

1 2

14 _8_

J6_

4 1

27 21

2 7 1 1

5 1_

1 1

JL

6

2 1

6

J_

_1_

2 1

Level of statistical significance reached (percentage) 1

I

1 2

1 5

34

2

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

specification (see the Interview Schedule as presented in the preceding chap­ ter). The overestimation of parents in more general terms is especially clear in the record of another prejudiced woman interviewee (F24): "Father—he is wonderful; couldn't make him better. He is always willing to do anything for you. He is about years old, six feet tall, has dark brown hair, slim build, young-looking face, good-looking, dark green eyes." The same sub­ ject gives further evidence of the stereotypical conception of parents in the high scorers by repeating the same description for her mother, differentiat­ ing only the physical characteristics. After repeating the first two sentences she continues: "She is about 5 feet 5 inches, neither slim nor stocky. She's reducing. She has dark hair, blue eyes, is nice looking. She is years old." These illustrations are quite typical of the responses of our high-scoring subjects. It should be added that none of the 6 high-scoring women who show "ob­ jective appraisal" of parents was considered to manifest "positive affect" toward the parents (Category 2 ) . This will be discussed below. V e r y characteristic of high-scoring subjects is an initial statement of great admiration for parents, followed by some criticism which is not, how­ ever, recognized as such by the subject. The comparison of reactions to general questions with reactions to specific questions proved especially fruitful, e.g., when parents were characterized in general positive terms but the specific episodes and traits referred to were mostly of a negative charac­ ter. (Regarding related mechanisms of self-deception, see 3 3 , 3 4 . ) The sub­ ject is aware only of admiration toward the parents, and the reservations seem to enter the picture against "better" intention and knowledge, thus in­ jecting into the statement an element of ambivalence. Examples of this attitude from the protocols of high-scoring women are quoted in the following. It should be mentioned here that throughout Chapters X to XII the special code numbers used in rating the interviews are retained for greater anonymity; for the same reason, localities, occupa­ tions and related personal data are either left out or disguised. F31: (Father? ) "He has a marvelous personality and gets along well with people. He has a hot temper." Or F79: "Mother was, of course, a very wonderful person. She was very nervous. Irritable only when overdoing." Or again, F74: "Father is quiet and calm. He never shows irritation. He is very intelligent, and his opinions are very valid. He is very sincere and very well liked by friends and employees. He rarely puts himself out for people, but people love him. He is exceptionally good looking, dresses well, has gray hair, and is years Glorification of parents is equally or even more pronounced in our highscoring men than it is in the high-scoring women. Of the 2 0 interviewees

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

343

in this group, 1 1 show this feature whereas only one has been rated as giving evidence of "objective appraisal"; and the entire category is again sig­ nificant at the 1 per cent level. One of the high-scoring men describes his father as a "very, very fine man—intelligent, understanding, excellent father, in every w a y . " Another says that his father "is always good to his family. Naturally, a kid would not think their parents had any weaknesses in them." Use of such terms as "naturally" or "of course"—the latter in the protocol of F79 quoted above—reveals the element of conventionalism inherent in the mechanism of glorification. Another high-scoring man says: M47: (What sort of person was your mother? ) "Well, best in the w o r l d . . . . She's good, in fact, the best. In other words, she's just tops with me. She's friendly with everybody. Never has no trouble. Does anything for me she can. Writes me all the time. (What do you admire most about her? ) Just about everything. When father went away, mother took care of me all her life, where she could have put me in a home some place if she had wanted to. She always stayed with me in trouble." ' Or, M52: (What have you admired most about your father? ) "Well, let's see. . . . Well, there's really no particular point that I admire most... . I've always been very proud to be his son. (What sort of person was your mother? ) Most terrific person in the world to me. (Shortcomings of mother? ) Well, I don't really think she has any, except maybe too wound up in her home, and didn't take more interest in social affairs.... I truthfully can't say she has any definite shortcomings." Or, M;i: (Going back to your father, you say you didn't accept him as a shining example when you were a child? ) "He was always with me except when I was in boarding school, that is, always at home. I just took him for granted, that's all. I never analyzed him . . . when I was very small. Instead of asking why does the sun shine, how are babies made, etc., etc., my father says I took everything for granted. . . . I wonder why that was. . . ." One of the outstanding features in the above quotations from high scorers is the use of superlatives in the description of parents, such as "excellent man in every w a y , " "best in the world," "most terrific person," etc. If more detailed and specific elaborations are made at all, they refer to material bene­ fits or help given by the parents. W h e r e there is no readiness to admit that one's parents have any weakness in them it is not surprising to find later an indication of repressed hostility and revengeful fantasies behind the mask of compliance. Some evidence on this point has already been presented above. The high scorers' emphasis on more obvious rather than on subtle and internalized characteristics cannot be traced to a lower level of education or of intelligence (see Chapter VIII). Rather it must be seen as in line with their general tendency toward greater shallowness and stereotypy and a diluted diffuseness of inner experiences. The objective appraisal of one's parents, manifested primarily by the low scorers, has a very different quality. Instead of an apparent overestimation of the parents which, as will be seen, goes hand in hand with a fear­ ful submission to them, we find in the typical unprejudiced subject an evalua-

344

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

tion of the parents on terms of equality. In the following records, all taken from interviews of low-scoring subjects, we find the parents described as real people with real assets and shortcomings. The emphasis in the descrip­ tion is on internal rather than external and physical characteristics. Con­ comitant with a more critical attitude, we often find in these records a closer and warmer relationship with the parents. It also becomes clear that the parents have often been a source of comfort and love for these subjects, who, in their turn, are more secure in their feelings toward their parents. T h e y are thus able to face and to express conflicts in the areas where there is or was disagreement. Often we get the impression that the low scorers talk in a benevolently condescending w a y about their parents, critically and at the same time lovingly. Thus low-scoring women are found to describe their parents as follows: F6;: "My mother is very much interested in people; she is practical and sensible, but she gets too much interested in fads. On some points I disagree with my mother very much. Mother wants me to be more social. She wants me to wear lipstick, go out to parties, etc. I am too lazy to do all those things. She is very good, nice and does the right thing, but I don't like her temperament. She is mad one minute and the next one she isn't. She gives me too much advice." F62: "Father tries to be rational, but he is not always so. He is a dominant person, though my mother was master of the house." F 7 0 : (What kind of person is your father? ) "Father was never much in the pic­ ture; he paid more attention to me between the ages of one and six than later. I think he wanted a boy, so he paid little attention to me, so probably has not influenced my attitudes very much. Describing father is easier. He's a more definite kind of per­ son than mother. He's a person of great intolerance; he is 'a great authority on all subjects' (spoken with some irony) including medicine and physiology." Fzy. "Father was very dominating in the home, like all European men, and mother submitted to him. I almost think she enjoyed 'being a martyr'!" (It then became very clear that her mother's submissive and self-sacrificing attitude were unacceptable to the subject. The mother never got what she wanted. The things she wanted were like dreams, and she seemed satisfied to keep them as dreams. For example, she would have liked to redecorate the house or to buy a summer place, but the father would never let her.) F26 feels that her father did not understand her point of view. She thinks he is sensitive, but does not sense other people's feelings. The mother is described as a pal, and as having a sense of humor. Subject thinks that, unlike her father, her mother understood what she was feeling. Examples of "objective appraisal" of parents in low-scoring men follow. As is to be expected in our culture, there sometimes is a word or two of exaggerated praise at the beginning; but this is usually followed up by some more specific qualifiation of a less stereotyped, more vivid and direct kind. M42: (What sort of person is your mother? ) "Well, I think she is a wonderful woman . . . been very good to me . . . never put too many restrictions on my activ­ ities . . . her rules were few and far between, but what rules there were, had to be obeyed and not to be monkeyed w i t h . . . . As a woman, she might seem to be a little

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD SEEN T H R O U G H INTERVIEWS

345

hard to get acquainted with . . . and, at first, might seem a little 'uppitish,' but . . . she tends to have relatively few friends, and comes to know them pretty well . . . quiet, listens more than she talks, very fair. (What do you admire most about her?) I don't know. I've never given it much thought. I don't think of any one trait.. . she is very fair. . . . I don't think you could talk her into cheating . . . if she feels some­ thing is right, she'll stick up for it no matter what." M44: (What sort of person is your father?) "Oh, he's the kind of guy who never has been very happy working for somebody else. He's always had a little difficulty, especially with a very large company (laughs). He just has a venomous hatred for any big outfit.. . . He has a very vital sense of justice and honesty, and he just can't stand pressure practices...." M50: (What sort of person is your mother?) "An intellectual and a very welleducated person. Her principal gift seems to be that of perception. And a musician (piano) . . . not by trade but certainly by nature. (What do you admire most about her? ) Her intellectual ability." M53: (What sort of person was your mother?) "Well, sort of an average person, a rather happy person, quite a happy person. I think she was fairly intelligent, and there again was conditioned to mother-wife sort of thing. Always maintained a pleasant home, I mean really pleasant. (Weaknesses?) Well, I would say a certain unworldliness. (How do you mean?) Perhaps, a perfect product of her age, in a way. Kind of a respectable, average, God-fearing sort of person ( l a u g h s ) . . . . Didn't know much about finances . . . clinging-vine type of female, but a very pleasant per­ son. Made not a desperate attempt, but maintained a very pleasant home . . . very pleasant, reasonable sort of person. Certain possessiveness (towards subject)." M s : "I like my father. He is more a taciturn type, a quiet Frenchman, keeps out of trouble. I don't particularly respect my mother. She is intellectually shallow, wishywashy—vacillating is the word. That's a hell of a thing to say about mother, b u t . . . . (Q) "Like I'll tell her what I want to do, and she'll agree enthusiastically. Then father will come along with his ideas against mine, and she'll agree with him. You can only take so much of that. . . . I admire father for his ability to keep his mouth shut. He just says nothing and looks dignified and everyone admires and respects him. I wish I could do that. Of the two, I'd rather be alone with him. (What is your mother like?) Kindly, generous, always wishing well, seeing the bright side of things, fairly jolly, cracking jokes. Gets along with people fairly well, they like her and she likes them. Her geniality may be just practice because she's been teaching so long . . . principal of a local grammar school... she knows how to be amusing, hailfellow-well-met, you might say. But slightly moralistic, morals of about 1910. For example, she is against Errol Flynn; doesn't moralize, just makes critical remarks in a joking way." M i s : "Father was born in 1890 on a farm in , mother in 1889 on an farm. (Subject describes his father as having a bad temper and being very strict, punishing the children severely; such as beating them with a strap.) Father did not attend high school. He had many friends. Played football. Father started out as a game feeder at University, also became a good carpenter and painter. In the 1920's the family moved to and father became a minister in the . Church. The only prerequisite for that was to be able to read the Bible. His sermons are all hell-fire and brimstone." (Subject thinks that father had an 'inferiority com­ plex,' doesn't know just how to explain it.) Not only do low-scoring subjects express disagreement with their parents more freely, but there is evidence in the records that when they disagree they

34-6

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

have the strength to follow their own w a y , though often not without paying the price of conflict and guilt. It is with respect to the following aspects that the unprejudiced subjects are most often critical of their parents: pressure to sociability, parents giving too much advice, too much dominance or possessiveness, lack of under­ standing, religious conflicts. Often hand in hand with these resentments real appreciation of the parents is expressed in specific terms by pointing to their abilities, their independence of conventions, generosity, perceptiveness, happiness. Since typical low scorers do not really see their parents as any too over­ powering or frightening, they can afford to express their feelings of resent­ ment more readily. Being able to mobilize rebellion, unprejudiced subjects thus learn to conceive of equality as an alternative to the relationship of dominance-submission. Ambivalence toward the parents can be openly faced and worked out on this basis, preventing the crippling effect of too much repression and submission. It is in this manner that expression of rebellious­ ness seems to go with increased ability to give as well as to receive genuine affection while repression of resentment is associated with a more stereotyp­ ical glorification of parents that seems devoid of real feeling. 3.

GENUINENESS OF A F F E C T

Manifestations of genuine positive affect toward the parents as revealed, among other things, b y references to (positive) psychological qualities, were found mainly in low-scoring subjects (Category 2 b ) . It can be understood readily that positive affect toward parents should be found more often where there is an objective evaluation of the parents rather than where there is resentment toward them. In addition to the illustrations of positive affect given previously, we quote here one example of a very intensive expression of positive feeling for the father on the part of a low-scoring woman: F63: "But I remember when my father left, she came to my room and said, 'You'll never see your Daddy again.' Those were her exact words. I was crazy with grief and felt it was her fault. I threw things, emptied drawers out of the window, pulled the spreads off the bed, then threw things at the wall." The finding that positive affect toward parents is present more often in low scorers must be seen in conjunction with the results on glorification versus objective appraisal as discussed above. In fact, 6 out of the 2 5 highscoring women interviewees (as against 1 1 out of the 1 5 lower scorers, to be sure) were rated as manifesting objective appraisal. From the present data, however, it is evident that the objectivity of the high-scoring women must be regarded as more hostile than positive. None of them was rated as having "genuine positive affect." Being basically an attitude of libidinized interest, true objectivity seems to be primarily the domain of the low scorers, at least

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

347

in the present context. This is far from saying that all or nearly all the prejudiced extremes exhibit this trait. In fact, low scorers sometimes display distortions all their own, caused mainly by feelings of guilt and remorse and often leading to an obsessive rather than a genuine type of objectivity (see Chapter XII). There is some evidence of what may be called blocked affect in the low scorers (Category 2 c ) . An example is given by one of the men in this classi­ fication who answered the question, " W h a t were your parents like?" by simply saying "normal parents" without being able to elaborate on this topic when questioned further. It was expected, on the basis of the generally greater openness of the low scorers, that if parents were rejected b y low-scoring subjects, this rejection would tend to be open and based on disagreement with respect to basic prin­ ciples. Principled open rejection (Category 2 a ) did not, however, prove to be statistically differentiating. This may well be due to the fact that only a few cases manifested this attitude. 4. FEELINGS OF VICTIMIZATION Somewhat more often than open rejection of the parents, a feeling of victimization by the parents (Category 2 ) is found in the high-scoring women interviewees. These feelings include complaints about being neg­ lected, unjustly disciplined, picked on or otherwise unfairly treated, espe­ cially in rivalry situations within the family. Eight of the high-scoring women interviewees showed this attitude, often in conjunction with a glorification of the parents. The subsequent record of a high-scoring woman interviewee gives an example of admiration for the father in general terms, as expressed by the initial phrase, "a grand person," combined with resentment and a feeling of being neglected in favor of the brothers which is brought out after encouragement by the interviewer to describe the father's faults: F32: Altogether she thinks her "father is a grand person." When asked whether, since no one is perfect, there were any little faults that she could name, she said that she couldn't think of any. He never drank; well, he swore a little bit. And he was argumentative. (However, in discussing her vocation, subject had mentioned that the father had been willing to finance the education of the boys, but that he expected the girls to stay home and be ladies, so what the girls got they got on their own. In another connection, subject remarked that she had got nothing out of her father. He provided them with the necessities of life, but would not give them anything extra. He never allowed the girls to entertain boys at home. Nevertheless, subject stated that she was closer to her father than to her mother.) When the interviewer broached the topic of her brothers and sisters, subject replied, "I'm right in the middle-don't they say middle children are forgotten children!" When asked if she thought that was so, subject closed up, merely remarking that her parents showed no partiality. Some of the other high-scoring women are resentful against their parents

3

4

8

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

because of a feeling that their brothers were preferred b y virtue of their being boys. Envy, resentment, and depreciation of the brother b y highscoring women, in conjunction with the sense of being victimized by the parents, is exemplified b y the following report: F39: "I had to get up early with mother and bake and clean all day long. I used to say that it was especially unfair because my brother would play. Mother said, well, he was a boy, and that really made me mad." It must be emphasized that these feelings of resentment against the parents, especially when they appear in the records of high-scoring subjects, are usually not ego-accepted. Thus F39, whose record was just quoted above, states that her mother was "terribly strict with me about learning to keep h o u s e . . . . I am glad now, but I resented it then." The feelings of resentment are considered "bad" and therefore projected onto childhood and not ac­ cepted as present feelings. Such strictness and the general idea of being treated as a "child" at home are often the source of feelings of victimization. At the same time there is, as will be discussed in greater detail below, submission to the demands of the parents. One high-scoring girl complains about her father: "Can't say I don't like him . . . but he wouldn't let me date at 1 6 . I had to stay home " Another girl in this group says, "Father and mother were so anxious to adjust that they forgot us. T h e y treated us as 16-year-olds when w e were actually 1 8 . " Prejudiced subjects generally tend to feel themselves "forgot­ ten," the victims of injustice who did not "get" enough of the things they deserved. T h e y thus tend to resent other people, especially outgroups, of whom they readily conceive as unjustifiably threatening, as intruding on their rights, and as attempting to take privileges away from them. As was pointed out in previous publications (E. Frenkel-Brunswik, 3 5 , 3 8 ) and as will be shown in detail in Chapter XIV, high-scoring women tend to express a great deal of hostility toward mother figures in their responses to the Thematic Apperception Test. In their interviews, however, we find mainly admiration for the mother, although this is frequently intermingled with nonaecepted feelings of hostility and resentment. In those relatively rare cases in which there is an open expression of hostility toward the mother in the interview of a high-scoring woman, one is likely to find this hostility very intense and of an almost paranoid character. The following example is characteristic of this: F36: Subject describes her mother variously as domineering, dictatorial, and selfcentered. Her mother is good at social relationships; she knew how to get along with people. After her divorce, she worked as a traveling . saleswoman until subject graduated from high school. When on the road, she was very popular with the other salesmen. She worked just long enough to see subject through school, then expected subject to support her, and so quit work. When subject was in high school, she used to make all the clothes for her mother and herself. Once her mother

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

349

cut out a dress wrongly and when subject criticized what she had done, her mother cried, "You don't want to do anything for your mother!" To this, subject retorted, "I never will make anything for you again!" And she never did. In , subject shared an apartment with her mother; her mother wanted to run her life and made it impossible for her to have friends at home. She expected her to give in to her for everything. She practically pushed subject out of the apartment; so sub­ ject told her finally that she would have to get a place of her own. Her mother asked her how much money she was making and subject replied, "None of your business!" This was what her mother had often said to her. Her mother figured out how much she was making and then asked subject to increase her allowance. Subject retorted, "What would you do if I didn't support you!" This shut her up. Things finally be­ came so unbearable that subject broke with her mother completely and has not seen her for years. However, she has continued to support her mother and still sends her a check regularly. The foregoing record is atypical of the interview material but would be typical of the stories that high-scoring women tell about mother figures in the Thematic Apperception Test. In the stories told by prejudiced women about mother figures the pressure which such women exert upon their daughters is usually revealed alongside the fantasies of revenge. In the more direct descriptions of their mothers in the interviews there is, in most cases, nothing but expressions of admiration. The intensity of hostility, once such an attitude breaks through in the interview, points toward the fact that strong defenses against it are necessary and indicates once again the source and meaning of the attitude of "glorifi­ cation." In spite of the fact that the subject quoted above openly faces her hostility toward her mother, she still often feels obliged to submit to the mother although she really cannot accept this kind of dependency. T y p i ­ cally, the quarrel with the mother centers about material benefits and prob­ lems of exploitation. Feelings of victimization were also found in 4 low-scoring women. How­ ever, in the low-sco'ring cases such feelings differ somewhat in kind from those of subjects who score high. For example, F63, whose intense expres­ sions of despair have been quoted above, experiences the divorce of her parents as desertion by her father. There, the feeling of resentment has a different quality in that it seems a reaction to loss of love rather than a dis­ satisfaction with not "getting" enough. In other cases the feelings of resent­ ment toward the parents in low-scoring subjects are similar to those of the high scorers, except for the fact that they are more readily accepted and therefore do not appear in the same context with glorification of the parents. In men, feelings of "victimization" as such are still less differentiating than in women. Four low scorers and 6 high scorers, out of the 2 0 men inter­ viewees in each group, show this attitude. There is again, however, a dif­ ferent quality in the two groups in this respect. In the high scorers, reference is usually made to the parent as a disciplinarian. One man complains of having had to work too much, another of not having been slapped enough.

35°

THE- A U T H O R I T A R I A N

PERSONALITY

M51: "Usually got my way. In fact, all I ever had to do was cry about anything and he'd do whatever it was that upset me (sic!). . . . I think if I'd been slapped around a little more as a child, I might not need to be slapped around now that I'm grown up Not only that, but my selfishness is something I can almost blame him for. His attitude and that of the whole family led me to believe that I was . . . the whole universe . . . I know now. I'm not selfish now. But I had to learn that for my­ self. . . . My playing cops and robbers: that was because I felt stepped on " On the other hand, the feelings of victimization found in low-scoring men give the impression of being more directly based on reality, and tend to refer to not receiving love or some substitute for it. The following is an illustration of this: M$y. "For example, he would take a delicacy like candy, pretend to offer us some and then eat it himself and laugh uproariously. . . . Makes him seem sort of a monster, though he's not really." 5.

SUBMISSION VS. PRINCIPLED

INDEPENDENCE

Related to glorification of parents is an attitude to be characterized as submission to parental authority and values out of respect based on fear. Its opposite has been designated as principled independence. The importance of this aspect (incorporated here as Category 3 a ) has been stressed several times before in this volume, on the grounds that submission to parental authority may be closely related to submission to authority in general. And submission to authority, in its turn, has the broadest implications for social and personal behavior both toward those with power and those without it. It is therefore interesting to note that this category shows marked differences between prejudiced and unprejudiced interviewees. The percentage of highscoring men who manifest this attitude (as well as the index of significance on this category for men) is greater than that of the high-scoring women. This gives some support to the hypothesis that high-scoring men are faced with a more serious submission problem than high-scoring women. Their longing for submission as well as their "toughness," described on previous occasions as a reaction to precisely this submission, will be traced below in greater detail to factors in the family constellation. Examples of submission to parental authority in high-scoring men are the following: M41: (Discipline? ) "Well, there wasn't much to exercise. W e just did what they said. Children didn't run wild in those days like they do nowadays." M43: "Sun-up to sun-down. (How did you take that?) W e did what the elders told us to. (Ever question it?) Well, I never questioned." M47: "Well, to tell the truth, I don't think she was strict enough with us. . . . I'd get out and run around, come home later than supposed to. She never licked me. Just bawled me out, which was worse. Only licked me once, for stealing my brother's watch when I was 10. (What were you disciplined for?) Schoolwork, and doing what I was told to do. She was pretty strict about that being home on time. (How

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

351

did you respond? ) It just hurt. I never sassed her back or said a mean thing to her...." M57: (How did you react when you were spanked?) "I just didn't do it any­ more." M58: "But, you know, I never held that against my father—I had it coming. He laid the law down, and if I broke it, there was punishment, but never in uncontrolled anger." From the foregoing protocols it is evident that many of the high-scoring men not only submit to discipline and punishment because there is no other choice left, but often find themselves in complete agreement with the ad­ ministration of harsh punishment. T h e y identify themselves with the punisher and even seem to enjoy punishment. Not only do they appear to have had this attitude as children, but during their adult life the idea of punishment and the fear of it stays with them, often preventing them from transgressing a narrow path of seeming virtue. This holds only for the genuinely conserva­ tive type of prejudiced person, not for the delinquent or psychopathic vari­ ant (see Chapter X X I ) . Examples of submission to parental authority from the protocols of highscoring women are: F66: "He never spanked me; mother always did that. You always did what he said, but it was right; there was no question about it." F78: Her parents definitely approve of the engagement. Subject wouldn't even go with anyone if they didn't like him. These short examples may suffice to illustrate that submission to author­ ity is not only less frequent in high-scoring women than in men, but also that it has a less intense quality. The opposite of submission to authority we designated as principled inde­ pendence. It is found more often in our low scorers. Eight of the 1 5 lowscoring women interviewees .and none of the 2 5 high-scoring ones show this trait. Correspondingly, 1 0 of the 2 0 low-scoring men interviewees and only 2 of the like number of high scorers display this attitude in their interviews. In particular, the protocols of low-scoring subjects rated as showing prin­ cipled independence contain references to "being independent," to "argu­ ing with parents on certain issues," etc. As with submission toward parents, principled independence is more outspoken in the records of men. M44: (You talked with your mother a lot? ) "Yeah (laughs), though we often dis­ agreed. But she was very good to talk with Now I've almost quit writing about religious things to my mother . . . to avoid disturbing her. . . . She was willing to accept my ideas about things even if she didn't like them. She'd go her way and I'd go mine. I think she was very wise in that " This record further illustrates the fact that independence in relation to parents is easily combined with tender feelings of love for them, feelings of which the low-scoring subjects are, generally, more capable (see above).

35

2

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

Another example of independence—here concerning religious issues— which does not disturb the basic good relationship to parents,is the following: M55: (Reactions to Sunday School? ) Older sister (one and a half years older) is more rebellious and influenced subject rather strongly, although "I really don't think I needed much influence. (Conflict with parents?) Surprisingly, it didn't; they'd get awfully angry sometimes . . . mainly over Sunday School. Didn't ever dis­ cuss the theology. When I was younger, father read the Bible, which I enjoyed a lot (age eight to eleven, about). I liked the stories, though not as religion. When went to Sunday School, then began to rebel against religion." Unprejudiced subjects seem less in need of complete approval by their parents. The record of MJJ also points up the fact that the occasional ex­ pression of mild aggression is not detrimental to, but has a positive effect on, the basic good relationships with parents or interpersonal relationships in general. Indications in the interviews, and especially findings from the Thematic Apperception Test (see Chapter X I V ) , suggest that the inability of the typical high-scoring subject to express aggression toward, or inde­ pendence from, parents is due to the overpitched intensity of these feelings, so that the fear of punishment is too great to allow their being openly expressed. Still a further illustration of independence in the sphere of religion—a frequent occurrence in the low-scoring subjects—is the following: M16: "My mother takes her religion very seriously. But I never wanted to go to church. By the time I was 6 years old I had developed ways of getting around it. There were some hills behind the town-you know the country around there in southern ? On Sunday morning I'd be gone at dawn and wouldn't come home untU evening. Just to be out of church. ( W h y ? ) I guess it was mostly boredom. I didn't want to sit there and listen to all that nonsense-salvation, Jesus Christ most of all. My mother always used to pray over me." This record also manifests the benevolently condescending attitude of low scorers, especially the men, toward their parents in general and toward the mother in particular. It stands in clear opposition to submission; and characteristically the mother, instead of being angry, is seen as praying over her disobedient son. In some cases the strivings for independence in the unprejudiced subjects seem to be connected with the feelings of guilt and anxiety lest the intensity and warmth of the relationship with the parents might be lost in disagreement. Though we do not find, in the high-scoring subjects, much of real rebel­ lion based on "principled independence," there is sometimes an indication of capricious rebellion against the parents (Category 3b), through which resentment is expressed without any real independence being gained. Six of the high-scoring and only 1 of the low-scoring women interviewees show this trait. In men the difference is less pronounced, the rating appearing in 9 high scorers and 4 low scorers.

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

353

In high-scoring women capricious rebellion takes the form primarily of temper tantrums, which they tend to indulge in when punished or restricted by the parents. Afterwards they usually submit even more fully than before without having made any progress toward independence. Especially high-scoring men, when dissatisfied with their parents, some­ times leave home; truancy or becoming delinquent in some other form is more frequent than fighting it out. One of the high-scoring men tells that he took to thievery because his father did not understand him. 6.

DEPENDENCE F O R T H I N G S VS. pEPENDENCE FOR L O V E

The attitude of submission to and the absence of real rebellion against the parents, found primarily in high-scoring subjects, appears to be connected with a kind of materialistic dependence on them which is not recognized as such. It may thus be termed ego-alien dependence for things and support. This dependence is essentially an exploitive-manipulative, externalized rela­ tionship. It is in contrast with what we have called love-seeking succorancenurturance-affiliation toward the parents (Category 4 a ) . The assumption was that typical prejudiced subjects want to be taken care of like children; that they want to exploit their parents as they want to exploit other people; and that, not being self-reliant, they need support and comfort, first from the parents and then from parent-substitutes. This dependence, however, is neither focused nor conscious; it is rather a need for the help of others in getting things; the persons from whom things can be gotten may equally well be parents, or the "leader," or anyone else who seems capable of offering tangible support. T h e kind of dependence on the parents expected to be characteristic of unprejudiced subjects, on the other hand, is the kind of dependence which people with an ability to love direct toward those for whom an object cathexis has been established. The first type of person is more dependent—for benefits and "things"—but at the same time he is less dependent on specific persons because of the ready exchangeability of objects. The difference between these two types of dependence proved highly significant in the direction expected. As many as 1 3 of the 2 5 high-scoring women interviewees were considered to have displayed in their interviews evidence of marked ego-alien dependence for things, as contrasted with 2 of the 1 5 low scorers. Even more strikingly, i 3 of the 2 0 high-scoring men and only 1 of the 2 0 low scorers show the presumedly "High" type of dependence. Conversely, 1 4 of the low-scoring men interviewees but only 1 of the corresponding high scorers show evidence of love-oriented de­ pendence in the interview. T h e affection-seeking kind of dependence in men is oriented mainly toward the mother. The fact that in women this difference is somewhat less pronounced than in men is probably due to the fact that in spite of the existing differences

354

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

between prejudiced and unprejudiced women the orientation toward depen­ dence tends to be stronger in women than in men. Examples of the ego-alien dependence for things in high-scoring women and men follow: F68: "I a l w a y s s a y m y m o t h e r is still taking care of me. Y o u should see m y closets - s t a c k e d w i t h fruits, jams, p i c k l e s - a n d e v e r y couple of w e e k s there is chicken, eggs, c r e a m , e v e r y t h i n g y o u can think of. S h e just loves to do things f o r people." _ > / w r i t e s about her father: " R i g h t n o w I'm his favorite . . . he'll do a n y t h i n g f o r me—takes m e to school and calls f o r me." T h e utilitarian a p p r o a c h of o u r h i g h - s c o r i n g subjects is s h o w n in the r e c o r d of F79: " Y e s , as I said on m y questionnaire, I w a s closer to m y m o t h e r at 6, 9, and 1 2 , b u t n o w I have s w i t c h e d to m y f a t h e r - t h a t is, since I w a s about 20. H e holds the m o n e y bags. If I w a n t to do anything, I h a v e to g o to him."

Records of high-scoring men show the same kind of dependence for things: M41: " W e l l , kids a l w a y s think m o r e of their m o t h e r than their father. T h e y look m o r e to their m o t h e r f o r things." O r M43: ( H o w do y o u m e a n ? ) " G o o d to the c h i l d r e n - c l o t h e d , fed, took care of w h e n sick." M47 says about his mother: " W e l l , I guess her being so g o o d and f r i e n d l y to e v e r y b o d y , especially me. ( F o r example? ) W e l l , a l w a y s t r y i n g to do e v e r y t h i n g f o r me. V e r y seldom g o u p t o w n w i t h o u t b ri n g i n g something b a c k f o r me." M51 s h o w s the dependent, parasitic attitude: "I n e v e r say a n y virtue in w o r k . " S u b j e c t lived on his father's insurance p o l i c y after his father's death and before that on his father. W a s n e v e r really self-supporting and w h e n "I tried to ( s u p p o r t m y s e l f ) I landed here ( p r i s o n ) . " M$2 evaluates his father o n l y in terms of w h a t he g o t f r o m him: " I haven't had e v e r y t h i n g I m i g h t have w a n t e d f r o m him. I w o u l d h a v e liked to h a v e a nicer home, better position, b u t all in all, I w a s v e r y h a p p y to be one of his b o y s . . . . F a t h e r w a s v e r y p r o u d of me." A l o n g similar lines is the r e c o r d of Af 5 7 : ( W h a t w e r e y o u disciplined for? ) " W e l l , w h e n I w a n t e d to g o to a dance and take the car, used to make m e m a d if I couldn't g e t it ( D i d y o u h a v e an a l l o w a n c e ? ) $ 1 5 o r $ 2 0 a w e e k , u p . A l w a y s had p l e n t y of m o n e y to spend." S u b j e c t spontaneously mentioned that his father w o u l d c o m ­ m o n l y g i v e him $ 5 0 or so to g o to a rodeo, and that in adolescence started g i v i n g him m o n e y f o r prostitutes. H e adds that his father w o u l d often leave m o n e y out on the table f o r him f o r various purposes, even before subject had asked f o r it. T h e w i s h f o r guidance is expressed in the r e c o r d of M58: " F a t h e r w a n t e d m e t o g o to college, b u t his death interrupted this. If I'd had someone to guide me. . . ." Subject's father w a n t e d him to be an architect, and talked about it all the time. Mi3 s h o w s appreciation of the father because he gives e v e r y t h i n g to his children: ( W h a t things did y o u admire especially in y o u r father? ) " M o s t l y , his attention to us kids w a s v e r y admirable. He's v e r y honest, so m u c h so that he w o n ' t c o n d o n e c h a r g e accounts. H e ' s k n o w n t h r o u g h o u t the c o u n t r y as a man w h o s e w o r d is as g o o d as his bond. H i s greatest contribution w a s d e n y i n g himself pleasure to take care of us kids."

A blatant opportunism is revealed in the foregoing appraisal of parents on the part of prejudiced subjects, by the undisguised references to the food,

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

355

money, and other goods they received. Most crudely, however, it is ex­ pressed by the subject who tells us she "switched to father. He holds the money bags now." An example of the affection-seeking attitude, from the record of a lowscoring subject follows: F62: " W e have all been very close. W e were like one person. W e liked the same things. W e were always doing things for each other." This record shows the intimacy and loving dependence of the family members on each other. Low-scoring men show a similar affection-oriented attitude. M44 describes his home background: "Pleasantness isn't a very good word. Simplicity and real affection." In the records of low-scoring men, there are quite often affectionate remarks about the mother: "On the whole w e were quite fond of her," says MJJ about his mother. As will be pointed out in Chapter XXI, some of the delinquent low-scoring men even commit crimes because of a mother fixa­ tion. In one such case the motive was to rescue the mother who was in debt; in others the desire to receive love from a mother substitute had been frustrated. The relatively pronounced emphasis on getting love, in low-scoring sub­ jects, as compared with a more distinct orientation toward getting power and material benefits, in the high-scoring subjects, is a basic differentiation, the far-reaching consequences of which will be discussed later. In spite of this difference, evident all through the interview material, it is noteworthy that orientation toward love and affection is less elaborately and pronouncedly expressed by our subjects than are opportunistic senti­ ments of the sort just quoted. The cultural trends seem, to a certain degree, to discourage affection, or at least its overt expression. The orientation toward "getting things" may be seen in relation to an atti­ tude of "exchange." W h e n this general attitude predominates, human rela­ tionships come to be regarded as one form of "making a deal." In the attitude toward parents this is sometimes manifested in a vague feeling of obligation, of having to return in terms of material goods what one has received from the parents. The idea of having to "give" seems generally very painful to most of the high-scoring subjects, but at the same time theirs seems to be the conception, "You scratch m y back and I'll scratch yours," if not "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Such have been the considerations behind the introduction into the evalu­ ation of the interviews of the aspect of sense of obligation and duty to parents (Category 4b). It is further defined as desire to "make it up to them." A c ­ cording to our expectation this attitude should be characteristic of the high scorers. However, the category did not prove discriminating in women, responses of this kind being generally few. In men, there were 5 high scorers

356

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

as compared with i low scorer in whom this response was found. Thus M47 feels he has to make recompense to his mother because he got a lot of things, including money, from her: M47: (Main satisfactions with her?) "Well, that's hard to say. I guess I haven't made her very happy, b u t . . . when I'm out there and going straight, I'll always take care of my mother I feel I've never treated her like I really should." The orientation of low-scoring men toward gaining affection primarily from the mother was mentioned above. High-scoring men, in contrast, seem more oriented toward the father. This orientation and the idea of making up to the father is illustrated in the following record: M$i: "My father is very unemotional. He never says what he is thinking, anyway. (Did you miss him a lot when he was away? ) I missed him very much when I was at the boarding house I've saved all my letters to him. . . . He very dramatically returned all my letters, like to an old love. I loved my father very much. (Q) Yeah, I wished even before he died that I could get on my feet before he did die. When I was sick, I used to . .. daydream about his coming to see me (Q) I wanted to be more what he wanted me to be " ^ The idea that one has to "make it up" to the parents is illustrated directly by M6: "The depression had more influence on my life than on other people my age. My parents really had a bad time. I hope to make it up to them. My father was on relief at the same time I had to see the doctors." Some of the other records indicate that the prejudiced person considers that the surest w a y to find favor with his parents is to do something for them, in the sense of offering them material pleasures or support. Starting from this discussion of family relationships, subsequent presenta­ tion will show the very pronounced consistency, in the typical high-scoring subject, with respect to a materialistic, utilitarian view of interpersonal and social relationships. On the surface this may seem a kind of realism; actually it is pseudorealism, since it ultimately leads to an impoverishment and to hostilities in human relationships. The low scorer is of course by no means free of such trends although they are on the whole less pronounced in him. 7.

I N G R O U P O R I E N T A T I O N T O THE

FAMILY

As to the conception of the family as a whole, high-scoring subjects were expected to tend toward an ingroup orientation, as exemplified b y emphasis on family heredity and background, a setting off of a homogeneous totali­ tarian family against the rest of the world and a stressing of aristocratic superiority of the family. This is constrasted with thinking in terms of individuals within the family, expected in the low-scoring subjects. Seven high-scoring and only 1 low-scoring woman, and 6 as against 2 of the men interviewees display the presumedly "High" conception of the family. Thus F68 is proud of the prestige the family of her father enjoyed: "We lived up in the mountains, County. His folks were pioneers-gold setders and quite wealthy. Everyone knows the 's of County up that way. My

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD SEEN T H R O U G H INTERVIEWS

357

father was the spoiled darling of the family. My mother was a German girl, proud, hard working, thrifty." In a similar vein, F79 describes her family: "I am Pat (giving her family name)." She made it clear that she could find nothing about herself in which she could take pride except the fact that she belonged to the family. A high-scoring man, M46, tells that his wife was brought up "by aristocratic parents with patriarchal setup." One of the prison inmates, M 5 1 , says about his mother, "She came out in Capitol society, that's where she met my father." The same tendency to overemphasize the socioeconomic status of his family could be seen in the record of M4, where the mother's family status seems to be exag­ geratedly described and an effort is made to conceal embarrassment about the status of the father's family: "Family on both sides have been here for several generations. Mother came from a quite well-to-do family; her grandfather was a millionaire, her father independently wealthy and never worked. There were 6 children, all devout Catholics. Grandmother was a very well trained artist; Mother herself went to high school, then married when she was about 18. Father came from a family less well-to-do." Subject couldn't quite say this, but the grandfather ran a small grocery store in , sold out somewhere around , came to California, worked in the shipyards. "Father himself went to high school, afterwards went to a school, started his business, which he sold later on to work for a large corporation." A mixture of pride and embarrassment about family status is also seen in the de­ scription of Mu: "My father's first father was named His second father was named , and he took that name. His father, , worked, or still works, as on the railroads. My mother's mother was from Her father was Spanish, born in this country." The high-scoring subjects show a tendency to magnify the status of their families in a w a y which enters and essentially modifies their entire concep­ tion of their families. W e find both an insecure concern about status and an ardent wish to transmit the impression that their families had repute and prestige. In an attempt to summarize the attitudes toward parents thus far dis­ cussed, the following may be said: The prejudiced subjects show little evi­ dence of genuine love toward their parents. On the surface theirs is a stereotyped, rigid glorification of the parents, with strong resentment and feelings of victimization occasionally breaking through on the overt level in the interview material. Usually, however, only admiration for the parent is accepted by the subject. The underlying hostility has to be kept ego-alien for several reasons: it is too strong to be fully admitted; and it interferes with the desire to be taken care of b y the parents. This conflict leads to a sub­ mission to parental authority on the surface and a resentment underneath which, although not admitted, is the more active under the guise of mecha­ nisms of displacement. There is evidence, on the other hand, that the unprejudiced subjects re­ ceived more love and therefore have basically more security in their rela­ tionships to their parents. Disagreement with, and resentment against, the

35^

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

parents are openly worked out, resulting in a much greater degree of inde­ pendence from them. This independence is carried over into the subject's attitude toward social institutions and authorities in general. At the same time, there is more love-oriented dependence on people, which prevents the individual from too much manipulation and exploitation of others. In spite of the conflicts these subjects carry with them, this type of relationship remains for them one of their important sources of gratification. C.

CONCEPTIONS OF CHILDHOOD E N V I R O N M E N T 1.

DEFINITION OF R A T I N G C A T E G O R I E S Q U A N T I T A T I V E RESULTS

AND

In this section discussion will center about the subject's conception of childhood events, including especially also the recollection and image of parental figures and their handling of discipline. The preceding section was concerned with the attitude toward the parents in general; now w e proceed to describe the specific images of father and mother in the prejudiced and the unprejudiced. As stated in Chapter IX, it is difficult to say how much the image of a parent corresponds to reality and how much it is a subjective conception. However, this distinction may be of less importance when, as is the case here, personality structure rather than its genesis is the major concern. The notions our subjects have of their parents are psychologically relevant in the discussion of the parent-child relationship whether they are true or not. In a separate project, parents of prejudiced and unprejudiced children were actually studied, substantiating in kind many of the state­ ments our present interviewees make about their own childhood (preliminary report by E. Frenkel-Brunswik, 3 0 ) . W e will first consider the traits ascribed to the father by both the male and female interviewees. Since the categories under this heading in the Scor­ ing Manual are rather specific, the total of responses in each category is not very large. Not all subjects described their parents spontaneously in such terms. The differences are, therefore, less significant here than elsewhere. The list of categories relating to the image of the parents is as follows: INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL: CONCEPTIONS OF CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT (to Table ( X ) ) 2

PRESUMABLY "HIGH" VARIANTS

PRESUMABLY "LOW" VARIANTS

6M. Traits ascribed to father by Men: a. Distant, stern, bad temper, "a a. Some demonstrativeness barrier between us"

b. A moral-model c. Pseudo-masculine: Determination, worked his way up, a "success"

b. Principled puritanism c. Relaxed, mild

359

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD SEEN T H R O U G H INTERVIEWS

6W. Traits ascribed to father by Women: z. Hardworkingprovider:"~W\\\ do anything for me" (externalized), works fingers to bone for family; or psychopath

c. Warm, sociable, lovable d. Understanding e. Intellectual-aesthetic *

b. A moral-model 7M. Traits ascribed to mother by Men: a. Sacrificing, "kind," submissive

c. Warm, sociable, lovable d. Understanding

b. A moral-model

e. Intellectual-aesthetic

7 W . Traits ascribed to mother by Women: a. Restricting d. Some demonstrativeness b. A moral-model e. Understanding c. "Sweet," pseudofeminine f. Intellectual-aesthetic 8. Denial of parental conflict—ex.- 8. Objective verbalization of pacept "mild-normal" disagreements

rental conflict

9M. Power relationship, Man (Score a or b, not both): a. Father was dominant, more influential

b. Henpeckingly dominant mother

a. Mother-centered (Love-nurturance) home

b. Equalitarian home

9 W . Power relationship, Women (Score a or b, not both):

a. "Perfect division of labor": Mother, home; father, work

b. Mother stronger, dominant

a. Father more important, stronger

b. Equalitarian home

10. Discipline for violation of rules, primarily moralistic

10. Discipline for violation of principles, primarily rationalized

11. Discipline threatening, trauma-

11. Discipline assimilable (non-

tic, overwhelming (castrationthreat)

egodestructive)

In keeping with the preliminary study of the interviews which always preceded the definition of categories, categories for men and women are not always symmetrical or analogous, and distinctions appearing as a pair of opposites within one and the same subcategory in the case of one of the sexes, may be separated for the other. Quantitative results are given in Table 2 ( X ) in the manner established in Section F of the preceding chapter, and in Table 1 ( X ) . 2. I M A G E OF T H E F A T H E R IN MEN: D I S T A N T A N D STERN VS. R E L A X E D A N D MILD

W e begin with the conception, in men, of a distant, stern father, with bad temper, and a barrier between father and son, as opposed to the picture of a

360

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

warm, demonstrative father

(Category 6 M a ) . Twelve high- and 5 lowscoring men interviewees conceive of their father as stern; 7 low- and only 1 high-scoring men refer to the father as demonstrative. The entire category for men is statistically significant, but only at the 5 per cent level. The "high" conception can best be understood from the actual statements of high-scoring men. M51 declares: " M y father died five years ago—he w a s very—I've j u d g e d him w i t h so m u c h prejudice. I t h o u g h t he w a s so strict . . . actually he w a s just the opposite . . . not the least demonstrative . . . he disapproved of a n y s h o w of emotion of any kind. If I ever did a n y t h i n g w r o n g , it w a s the L a t i n in me, w h i c h is the side I have m o r e of an affinity for—my mother's side. I look m o r e like them."

The foregoing record shows the extent to which the subject felt the (true or imaginary) coldness and remoteness of his father. A t the same time he does not dare really to criticize his father; he blames himself but—charac­ teristically—without feeling guilty; "it is the Latin strain" in him which relieves him from any real responsibility. The barrier between parents and children in the families of high-scoring subjects is indicated by the answer of a high-scoring man, M J J , to the ques­ tion, Did you confide in your parents? "No, never had any problem to talk about." The barrier between father and son goes to the point of not talking to each other. The relationship seems to be barren of any affect. Rather than blame the parents, the subject denies the existence of any problems. After a few admiring sentences about his father, another subject says: Mu: " M a y b e — w e l l , in w a y s he isn't even tempered. H e ' s as stubborn as an ox. H e ' d rather start a fight or an a r g u m e n t than do something he doesn't w a n t to. A n d he can fly off the handle. W e kid him out of it n o w . ( W h a t have y o u disagreed w i t h y o u r father a b o u t ? ) I have gone days w i t h o u t talking to him or w e e k s w i t h o u t ask­ i n g a n y favors. . . . W e l l , w e are l a z y about such things; w e are not m e c h a n i c a l l y m i n d e d , and w e hate gardening. W e have some trouble because he's too stubborn to ask m e f o r help but y e t he gets m a d because I w o n ' t . . . . E a r l i e r he g o t m a d because I w o u l d n ' t w e a r enough clothes."

On the other hand, reference to friendliness on the part of the father is characteristic of the records of low-scoring men: Mi6: ( W h a t w a s y o u r father l i k e ? ) " H e w a s a v e r y kind man, gentle, w a s a l w a y s v e r y g o o d to us, that is, as m u c h as w a s possible u n d e r the circumstances. ( S t r i c t about some t h i n g s ? ) N o , not v e r y . H e liked us kids a lot. ( Q ) I'm the y o u n g e s t of five." M42 gives an affectionate description of his father. W e get the impression of a relaxed person w h o has the ability to e n j o y his life deeply. O r M50: " H e champions m y causes . . . told the other children that I had m o r e sense in m y little finger than all the other children put together. H e w a s a l w a y s in m y c o r n e r . . . and of course he w a s fostering a n y latent art ability I had. . . . C u r i o u s l y enough, I don't think I have a n y particular art ability. I think I c o u l d have b e c o m e a g o o d musician, p i a n i s t . . . . "

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

SEEN T H R O U G H

INTERVIEWS

361

(Pleasant memories of father?) "Lots of pleasant memories, because he spoiled us when he was home, always cooking up wonderful ideas for things to do." M;: (How did you and your father get along? ) "Well, a very friendly relation­ ship. He was pretty much of a pal. W e liked to go places together, fishing, play cards, etc. W e had a lot of good times." It is quite convincingly evident from the last three records that the fathers of these men possessed, as well as displayed, a good deal of affection for their sons. In general, the fathers of the unprejudiced men seem to have spent a great deal of time playing and "doing things" with their sons. It is interesting also to note the reference of Mjo to his father's interest in art. From all our evidence it seems likely that many of the fathers of our prejudiced men would have considered such an interest, in themselves or in their sons, as effeminate or "sissy." A further possibility is to see the father primarily as a moral-model. This may be contrasted with a view of the father as an example of what may be called principled puritanism (Category 6 M b ) . This pair of opposites is in­ tended to characterize orientation toward, and acceptance of, a set of con­ ventional values (externalized superego, i.e., social anxiety) vs. an upholding of real ethical principles (internalized superego). As was expected, prejudiced men tend to describe the father as a moral-model, whereas the unprejudiced refer more often to the "puritanism" of their fathers. There is a high propor­ tion of Neutral ratings so that the statistical significance of this difference has not been established; to be sure, there also is the difficulty in deciding, in each instance, whether we have a case of a moral model or of genuine conscien­ tiousness before us. A passage in the record of M13, a high scorer, reads as follows: "He drank but little, and he never smoked. He was very honest and strict in his dealings. He followed the church rules without going to church." It shows the empha­ sis on external virtue, such as abstinence from smoking, drinking, etc. Another subject in this group, M41, says about his father: "He'd tell us what we should do, what he wanted us to do, and what he expected us to do. He always asked the blessings at the table and prayed at night before bedtime." The somewhat different quality that is manifested in the records of lowscoring men in their descriptions of the puritanism of their fathers is exem­ plified as follows: M$6: (What sort of person is your father?) "Hard man to describe; he is a puritan really. His father is a drunkard, he reacted to t h a t . . . very strict, but human." W h e n there is moral strictness in the fathers of low-scoring men, it often tends to be characterized b y a definite "human" touch, rather than by an emphasis on strict conformity to custom—the wish to be a shining example in the community—that appears in the fathers of high-scoring men.

TABLE 2 (X) INTERVIEW RATINGS ON CONCEPT OF CHILDHOOD ENVIRONMENT 1

FOR 80 SUBJECTS SCORING EXTREMELY "HIGH' OR "LOW ON THE ETHNIC PREJUDICE QUESTIONNAIRE SCALE

Interview r a t i n g c a t e g o r i e s (abbreviated from Manual)

6M. Conception of f a t h e r in men: a. D i s t a n t , bad temper(H) v s . some demonstrativeness(L) b. Moral-model(H) v s . p r i n c i p l e d puritanism(L) c. Psuedomasculine(H) v s . r e l a x e d , mild(L) 6W. Concept of f a t h e r in women: a. Hardworking p r o v i d e r ; or psychopath(H) b. Moral-model(H) c. Warm, s o c i a b l e , l o v a b l e ( L ) d. Understanding(L) e. I n t e l l e c t u a l - a e s t h e t i c ( L ) 7M. a. b. c. d. e.

Concept of mother in men: S a c r i f i c i n g , submissive (H) Moral-model(H) Warm, lovable(L) Understanding(L) Intellectual-aesthetic(L)

Sex

Men

Number of "High"(H) and "Low"(L) r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d by 20 men and 20 men and 15 women 25 women "high s c o r e r s " "low s c o r e r s " _H_ L H L_

12

1

5

2

5

1

1

±

6

1

4

9

Women

6

n

4_

tt n n

9

19

6

5

2 15

5

5 1 .6

4 5 1 £

4 4 2 1

9 4 5

6 9 4 5

2 2 0 2 0

2 2 0 2 0

"negative"

1

4 4 2 1

it

Men

1

"positive"

Level of statistical significance reached (percentage)

Sums of i n s t a n c e s

7W. a. b. c. d. e. f.

Concept of mother i n women: Restricting(H) Moral-model(H) Sweet, pseudofeminine(H) Warm, demonstrative (L) Understanding(L) Intellectual-aesthetic(L)

8.

Denial(H) v s . v e r b a l i z a t i o n ( L ) of p a r e n t a l c o n f l i c t

Women n n n

10 6 _2_ 3 5 4

N

n

Men Women

6 _8_

4 5

9Ma. b. Father-dominated(H) v s . mother-oriented(L) home; or henpecking mother (H) v s . e q u a l i t a r i a n horoe(L)

Men

12

1

9Wa.b. D i v i s i o n of labor(H) v s . f a t h e r more important(L); or henpecking mother(H) v s . e q u a l i t a r i a n home(L)

Women

D i s c i p l i n e f o r : v i o l a t i o n of rules(H) v s . v i o l a t i o n of principles(L)

Men Women

14 12

D i s c i p l i n e : Threatening, traumatic(H) v s . a s s i m i l a b l e ( L )

Men Women

13

10.

11.

1_

9

4

1 2

0 3

PARENTS A N D CHILDHOOD

m

N

H

4 3

49.

51. a.

"negative"

25 24

Anal r e a c t i o n - f o r m a t i o n s r i g i d m o r a l i s t i c (H) v s . f u n c t i o n a l and n o n m o r a l i s t i c ( L )

b. Moral i s t i c - a u t h o r i t a r i a n ( H ) vs. principled-intellectualized or l o v e - o r i e n t e d ( L ) Destructive-explosive(H) v s . r e l a t i v e l y mild(L)

'"positive'

Level of statistical significance reached o r surpassed (percentage)

9 5

Men Women

love-

Sums o f i n s t a n c e s

12, 13.

R e j e c t i o n ( H ) v s . p o s i t i v e exp r e s s i o n ( L ) of " e r o t i c " o r a l i t y

48.

Number o f "High"(H) and "Low"(L) r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d by en and 20 men and 2015 women 25 women "high s c o r e r s " " low s c o r e r s " H_ L H L_

a 1

1

o

> w »

!

O

1 1

>

1

52. Oedipus complex: a. Inverted(H) v s . normal(L)

Men Women

6, _9_

Men Women

12 15

1 1

cM. PSeudo m a s c u l i n i t y ( H ) v s . ego-integrated masculinity or " f e m i n i t y " ( L )

Men

15

1

cW. Pseudo f e m i n i n i t y ( H ) v s . ego-integrated femininity or " m a s c u l i n i t y " ( L )

Women

4_

5

53. Externalized(H) v s . i z e d superego(L)

Men Women

16 ij>

3 5

5 4 . C o u n t e r c a t h e x i s of e g o - a l i e n id(H) v s . a c c e p t a n c e and sublimation of id(L)

Men Women

14_ 21

1 1

55.

Ego weak(H) v s . ego medium s t r e n g t h or strong(L)

Men Women

14 12

.5 9

56a.

D i s t o r t i o n of r e a l i t y ( H ) vs. r e a l i s t i c - o b j e c t i v e ( L )

Men Women

j} _8

3 4

b.

A u t h o r i t a r i a n moralism(H) vs. intellectualization(L)

Men Women

14 16

3 1

c.

Denial of n e g a t i v e t h i n g s i n s e l f ( H ) v s . open p s y c h o l o g i c a l conflict(L)

Men Women

17 12

1 3

d.

Concern w i t h p h y s i c a l

Men

JJ

f.

Hysterical

Men

_g_

b. E g o - a l i e n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h o p p o s i t e s e x p a r e n t ' s r o l e (H) vs. ego-integrated i d e n t i f i ­ c a t i o n w i t h e i t h e r or both parent(L)

internal-

conversions(H)

Women

7

4 11

PERSONALITY

ORGANIZATION

t-^t*

00 00

co

t-

m

co co

eg eg

eg

eg

n h

cd

cd

m

SEEN T H R O U G H

eg eg

t-c-

cd

^

t-n

tj CM ^ . CD 33 o _ .c it Ml K M C

c a ° _ 01 l-i

c

_

e

ml

T-i

eg r(< eg

* *

h h

eg >H

t - CO

co eg

c ?: No clue in p i c t u r e .

or n e i t h e r

1. t o p a s s i v e submissive figure 2. t o dominant aggressive figure

1. Dominant sometimes aggressive 2. P a s s i v e

Environmental stimuli

Religious, ethereal background

A (sometimes oppos i t e sex when identified)

Peculiar clothing A background

Gay

Slum a r e a . Dark, somber. Heavy c l o t h i n g Bars of p r i s o n

A

Home surroundings

A

Mother f i g u r e

Suspect: f e a r Police: A

496

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

had been established that they were sufficiently ambiguous so that the subject could project his own personality into the story. Pictures two, four, six, and nine were selected by the study staff from current magazines. The people in these pictures were intended to suggest minority group members. W e expected to obtain an expression of attitudes toward minority groups that was more spontaneous than that obtained through direct questioning. W e selected this particular set of ten pictures because w e thought they would give us the maximum amount of pertinent material in approximately one hour's testing time, the amount of time that was allotted for this part of the clinical investigation of a subject. W e sought pictures that were dissimilar from one another, offering the subject a variety of possible story heroes and a diversity of suggested situa­ tions. W e also wanted to make sure that each picture would allow for a variety of different themes, and hence provide a basis for comparing our different subjects. In short, w e tried to find a series of pictures that would elicit as much information as possible about the individual's conceptualized environment, and his personality needs striving for expression. Each picture has certain stimulus values that are fairly stable for all of our subjects (see Table 4 ( X I V ) ) . Beyond these consistent similarities w e found certain striking differences. The remainder of this chapter will be concerned with the methods by which the responses of high- and low-scoring subjects were compared, and the results obtained thereby. B. METHOD OF A N A L Y S I S OF T H E S T O R Y

PROTOCOLS

The T. A. T. stories were subjected to analysis by two separate techniques. First, they were scored according to Sanford's revised Murray need-press system ( 1 0 5 ) . The second technique, based on Murray's concept of thema and adapted to the present study b y the writer, was used to examine differ­ ences in the patterns of combinations of need-press variables. A device for analysis of story outcomes was also applied. However, at the time this project was under w a y the outcome analysis technique was still in its undeveloped stages ( 1 2 ) . Consequently, the results obtained added little to this investigation, and we shall, therefore, refer to them only briefly. 1.

THE

MURRAY-SANFORD

SCHEME

a. EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD. The Murray-Sanford scheme for scor­ ing Thematic Apperception Tests is a device by which the subject's stories are measured in terms of certain variables. These variables are conceived as a kind of shorthand representation of psychologically meaningful content of the fantasy of an individual as expressed in response to the T. A. T. pic­ tures. The variables fall into two groups, those that represent the direction 1

1

The method and variables used in this study differ somewhat from those presented in

the book referred to above.

THE

T H E M A T I C APPERCEPTION

TEST

497 of activity of the characters within the story and those that denote environ­ mental (personal or physical) influences that act upon these characters The former variables are termed need variables, the latter press variables In a particular story, the hero's (or heroes') behavior (i.e., the actions of the central figure or figures) is noted by use of the proper need variable pre­ ceded by an "n." Reference to activity from external sources imposed upon the hero (or heroes) is noted by use of a press " p " variable. Secondary char­ acters or central figures in the story who are openly rejected b y the story­ teller, and whose actions are not directed toward the hero, are termed objects and their behavior is recorded by use of need variables, preceded by the notation "on." Similarly, environmental impositions upon these characters are referred to by use of object press "op" variables. A list of these variables and an explanation of each follows: NEED VARIABLES

(*These need variables are also used as press variables.)

n Abasement: n Achievement: *n Acquisition: *n Affiliation: *n Aggression: n Autonomy: n Blamavoidance: n Blamescape: *n Cognizance: n Construction: n Counteraction: n Defendence: *n Dominance: *n Deference: n Excitement: *n Exposition: n Harmavoidance:

To comply, surrender, accept punishment. To apologize, condone, atone. To depreciate one­ self. Masochism. To work intensely and persistently towards a goal. To take, snatch, or steal objects. Greedily to work for money or "goods." To bargain or gamble. To want possessions. To be sociable. To make friends. To love. To fight. To criticize, blame, accuse, or ridicule maliciously. To injure or kill. Sadism. To resist coercion. To be free and independent. To avoid blame by inhibiting asocial impulses. To fear censure, ostracism, or punishment. To be well-behaved. To escape blame by flight or by concealment of guilt. To observe, inquire, explore, and investigate. To acquire facts. To organize and build things. To produce. To restrive after failure and to overcome weak­ ness. To defend the self verbally against blame or criticism. To influence or control others. Leadership. To admire and follow a superior allied object. To seek adventure and excitement. To enjoy thrills, new sensations, drama. To relate facts. To explain, judge, interpret. To avoid or flee from danger. To fear injury, illness, or death. To hide or take protective measures.

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

n Inf'avoidance: *n Nurturance: n Nutriance: n Passivity: n Play: n Recognition: *n Rejection: *n Retention: n Seclusion: n Sentience: *n Sex: *n Succorance: n Understanding:

PERSONALITY

To avoid shame. To escape failure or humilia­ tion. To nourish and protect a helpless object. To express sympathy. To mother a child. To seek food and drink. To be relaxed and inactive. To receive benefits without effort. To allow others their way. To relax tension and alleviate stress by pleasur­ able and humorously irresponsible activitymotor, verbal, or mental. To seek attention, praise, appreciation, honor, fame. To exclude or scornfully ignore inferior objects. To retain possession of objects. Economy, fru­ gality, miserliness, to defend property. To be alone or inconspicuous. To maintain privacy. To enjoy sensuous pleasures—sights and sounds. To participate in a heterosexual love relation­ ship. To court, to enjoy intercourse. To seek aid, protection, or sympathy. To in­ dulge in self-pity. To think out explanations, develop logical rela­ tions, work out plans of procedure. PRESS VARIABLES

Psychological Press: These variables have the same meaning when used as need or press variables. When used as press variables they represent activity imposed upon the hero rather than expressed by the hero. Acquisition Affiliation Aggression Cognizance Dominance Deference

Environmental Press: p Affliction: p Bad Luck: p Claustrum: p Death of Hero: p Death of Object: p Failure: p Gratuity:

P P P P P P

Exposition Nurturance Rejection Retention Sex Succorance

The hero is the victim of an illness or disease, is a dope fiend or chronic alcoholic. The hero experiences misfortune which he him­ self has not created. The hero is forced into confinement. The hero dies. Someone other than the hero dies. The hero fails in his attempts to gain personal achievement. The hero is endowed with money or personal success although he has not striven for this particular gain.

T H E T H E M A T I C APPERCEPTION TEST

499

p Inferiority: p Injury: p Lack:

The hero is an "innately" inferior person. The hero is physically injured. The hero suffers from economic or environ­ mental barrenness. P Loss: The hero loses something or someone (money, job, friend, opportunity). p Old Age: The hero is victimized by old age. p Physical Danger: The hero is exposed to physical danger from sources such as animals, a flood, a tornado, or by a warring national enemy. p Superiority: The hero is endowed with a superior personality. p Task: The hero is given something to do; practice on a violin, study. He is sent on a mission to serve his employer, a cause, or his country. p Uncongenial Environment: The hero's physical environment is unpleasant: ugly, sordid, noxious, dreary, or noisy. Each story is analyzed separately and every variable reflected in the story content is noted and given a value of 1 to 5 . The score thus assigned is based upon the degree of intensity of expression in the case of the particular variable and upon its importance to the story as a whole. W e shall refer to these quantified scores as intensity scores. The following discussion will be concerned primarily with the comparison of scoring of a particular variable for all pictures in the case of unprejudiced men (or women) and in the case of prejudiced men (or women). In some cases reference will be made also to the number of times a variable is recorded for each of the two groups, regardless of the numerical intensity values that were assigned. These scores will be referred to as frequency scores. b. RESULTS OF SCORING. The results of scoring by the Murray-Sanford scheme are given in Tables 5 ( X I V ) A and ( X I V ) B . T w e n t y of the 8 0 records used in this sample were rescored by a second scorer for purposes of rehability testing. Rank order correlations of the two scorers' ratings of the stories of the twenty individuals for each variable varied between + . 4 1 and + . 8 3 except for one r (for n Rejection), which fell to .26. The fifteen vari­ ables with the highest reliability ratings (between - f . 6 3 and + . 8 3 ) are desig­ nated in the tables. 5

The sum of the scoring of all variables was somewhat higher for the un­ prejudiced than for the prejudiced women (Low-scoring Women 4 5 8 1 / High-scoring Women 4 1 8 6 ) . However, this difference was not apparent in the case of the men (Low-scoring Men 4 1 8 3 / H i g h - s c o r i n g Men 4 2 5 4 ) . In both cases, however, the subjects scoring low on ethnocentrism expressed more material that could be scored as needs (Low-scoring Women 2 4 7 3 / High-scoring Women 1 9 6 6 ) (Low-scoring Men 2 1 5 4 / H i g h - s c o r i n g Men 1 8 9 6 ) but less that could be scored as object needs (on) (Low-scoring Women 276/High-scoring Women 3 3 3 ) (Low-scoring men 3 2 3 / H i g h scoring Men 5 1 6 ) . In our sample, both of men and of women, the total press

500

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 5 (XIV) A INTENSITIES OF NEED AND PRESS VARIABLES AS EXPRESSED IN STORIES TOLD BY MEN

Ficture 1 Low

High

Low

High

Low

Picture J

Picture 5

P i c t u r e

Passivity

2

a

0

8

Recognition

0

2 0

0

a

Nurturance

0

18

Exposition

Play

0

2

2

1

0

Retention Seclusion

0

0

Sentience

2

3

Rejection

Sex

0

2

8

8

Succorance

21

Understanding

Its op

p

op

p

Abasement

0

0

0

0

0

Acquisition

3

0

0

0

0

Affiliation

11

Press

p

Variables:

op

p

1

1

T

8

Aggression

p

op

op

27

Cognizance

0

0"

4

5

0

6

Dominance

0

Excitance

0

Rejection

8

Sex Affliction

Birth-offspring| Bad

Death o f

Hero

2

0 0

Object|

0

3.

21

14

0~

12.

p

op

0

0

3

3

43

14

9

22

0

6

0

TJ

0

0

22

16

42

»

0

0

0

0

7

2

0

TO 0 33

0

4

23

a

£

2

o

^0

0

0

5

11

2

3

_

16

0 10

0

"o"

0

0

0

0

3 0 3.

o SS.

'

0

3

0

0

0

I)

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

Danger|

3 7

0

0 0

op

0

14

A »

p

0

28

9

Superiority

op

M

19

Age

0

3

14

Loss

p

0

0

ZL

Injury

op

0

6

0

Inferiority

uncongenial

p

S 23

s

Lack

Task

op

0

0

12

Gratuity

Physical

i 3

TT

Failure

Old

p

0

Luck

Claustrum Death o f

3

4

TT

op

V

0

0

H

8

o

0

0 0

Succorance

o

7

I

8

p

a

9

Exposition Nurturance

IT

op

°„ $

2

Deference

p

13

~ i

Environment "These

fifteen

pronounced

variables

in stories

of

showed

high

the highest

scorers.

reliability

(.63 to

. 8 3 ) between

scores

of. two independent

raters

T H E T H E M A T I C APPERCEPTION TEST

5°3

TABLE 5 (XIV) B INTENSITIES OF NEED AND PRESS VARIABLES AS EXPRESSED IN STORIESTOLDBY HOMEN

Picture 7

Picture 8

Picture 9

P i c t u r e ID

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Low

High

Scorers

Scorers

Scorers

Scorers

Scorers

Scorers

Scorers

Scorers

Totals 10 P i c t u r e s Low Scorers

High Scorers

Need Variables; Abasement Achievement Acquisition Affiliation Aggression Autonomy Blamavoidance Blamescape Cognizance Construction Counteraction Deference Defendance Dominance Excitance Exposition Harmavoidance Infavoidance Nurturance Nutriance Passivity Play Recognition Rejection Retention Seclusion Sentience Sex Succorance Understanding Press Variables: Abasement Acquisition Affiliation Aggression Cognizance Deference Dominance Excitance Exposition Nurturance Rejection Sex Succorance Affliction Birth-offspring Bad Luck Claustrum Death of Hero Death of Object Failure Gratuity Inferiority Injury Lack Loss Old Age Physical Danger Superiority Task Uncongenial Environment

4 0 5 3 5

4

7

13

n

5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2

184 148 122 164 101 113 34 15 142

26 12 12 6 10 14 0 J4 0

op

JS 0 6 0 7

0 9

0 0

p 0 12 a

"5

op

P 0 0

13

0 0 0

0 0 17 2

1

22 0 J? 13

14 18 0 10 7

iS fi

n

ii

2 2 0 0 2

0 1

E *ij

3 0 2 11 0 4

0 0 13 7 0 2

2

2 48 0 128 7 9 6 0 60 62 13 5 J8 2 3> 108 7 70 14 11 6 11 0 0 iS. 0 178" 5 •53 1 0 J3 2 16 51 10 4 56 4 104 £. 95 2p 27 117 26 6 12 2 14 54 10 0 25 2 11 52 15 0 216 J§ 3 71 2

£ 3 0_ 0 3 0 0 p

0

J9

3

24

JL 152 2S. 4 91 5 23 25 31 13 139 16 46 138 45

0

4 0

m 3

10 14 2 U 20 5 0 0

14 0

2 4 12 3 0 0

2 3 0 0 0

ID

1

12 2

0

£

op

P

op

0 3 22. 3 130 2 123 9 127 31 125 42 54 16 57 21 84 6 93 3 179 27 149 33 4 O 2 0 51 3 67 1 114 4 111 10 162 13 122 18 61 2 45 6 19 3 II 0 4g 10 104 14 15 0 2 _12 0 35 17 2 . 3 65 6 101 8 105 £ 18 3 20 0 35 3 41 6 7 2. 7 15 3 3 0 T 75 2 64 n 30 0 36 TT 26 0 19 3 34 3 27 6 47 0 24 0 106 6 62 4 21 fl 55 U g

j04

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

scored was about the same for unprejudiced and prejudiced subjects (Lowscoring Women 1657/High-scoring Women 1 6 3 8 ) (Low-scoring Men 1538/High-scoring Men 1 5 1 1 ) , but press directed at characters with whom the subject did not identify-object press-was more common among prej­ udiced subjects (Low-scoring Women 175/High-scoring W o m e n 2 4 9 ) (Low-scoring Men 168/High-scoring Men 3 3 1 ) . It is apparent from the data reported above that expressions which could properly be scored as need variables are scored more heavily for the stories of unprejudiced subjects while object need and object press variables have higher scores in the case of stories of prejudiced subjects. The press variables have about equal scoring in the case of the stories of each group. The ques­ tion then remains as to which of the individual variables that go to make up the above summarized need and press scores differentiate the prejudiced and unprejudiced subjects. An analysis of single variables on this basis follows. The variables are grouped in terms of certain similarities indicated in the headings below. Each notation of a variable, or of a group of variables, is followed b y the mean per person (in the case of unprejudiced and of prejudiced subjects) of the total of the intensity scores (or, where indicated, frequency scores) for that variable or for each variable within the cluster being discussed. Aggressive Rebellion Needs. The need variables of aggressive rebellion appear to be rated higher for low- than for high-scoring men. The ratio of the mean scores of unprejudiced to those of prejudiced men for these vari­ ables are: n Aggression 7 . 7 / 5 . 7 , n Autonomy 6 . 5 / 5 . 9 , Rejection 5 . 5 / 2 . 9 . However, prejudiced men describe more aggressive and rebellious be­ havior by objects (on Aggression 2 . 0 / 4 . 2 , on Autonomy 1 . 8 / 2 . 6 , on Rejec­ tion . 9 / 1 . 5 ) . This differentiation does not hold for women, except in the case of Auton­ omy (n Autonomy, Low-scoring mean 5 . 7 , High-scoring mean 4 . 0 ; on Autonomy, Low-scoring mean 1.0, High-scoring mean 2 . 4 ) . n Aggression and n Rejection both tend to have a slightly higher scoring in the case of "high" than of "low" stories (n Aggression 5 . 0 / 6 . 9 ; n Rejection 5 . 0 / 5 . 4 ) . However, characters are often condemned by both groups for aggressive or rejective behavior (on Aggression: Low-scoring group 2.4/High-scoring group 2 . 3 ; on Rejection: Low-scoring group 1.3/High-scoring group 1 . 3 ) . In most cases the proportion of frequency of occurrence of a variable in stories of low- as compared to those of high-scoring men is about equal to the intensity proportions. The variables of n Aggression and n Autonomy are among the few whose frequency scores are worthy of special reference. n Autonomy and on Autonomy appear as frequently in the stories of prejudiced as in the stories of unprejudiced men. Since the intensity scores of the two variables are differentiating for the two groups of subjects, we n

THE

T H E M A T I C APPERCEPTION TEST

5O5

may conclude that the unprejudiced men identify with more intense expres­ sion of autonomy, whereas prejudiced men, when describing strong auton­ omous striving, tend to condemn the individual for his actions. W e find also that the greater intensity of on Aggression in the stories of prejudiced men is due largely to higher scorings for each expression rather than to a greater frequency of expression (ratio of average intensity per expression: 2 . 5 / 3 . 8 ) . Even the expressions of n Aggression, although less frequent, tend toward more intensity in stories of high-scoring men (ratio: 3 . 0 / 3 . 2 ) . It would appear then that high-scoring men describe more intense aggression than do lowscoring men, although more often denying identification with the aggressive act. The differences in scored autonomy-both needs and object needs-of prejudiced and unprejudiced women are due to its greater incidence in the stories of one group than in those of the other, rather than to its stronger expression. Although greater frequency but not intensity also accounts for a higher total rating of on Aggression, intensity ratings of n Aggression tend to be greater for prejudiced than for unprejudiced women (mean ratio of 3 to 2 . 5 ) .

Submissive Withdrawal Needs. In contrast to the tendency of lowscoring men to describe more rebellion in their stories than do high-scoring men, the latter have a greater tendency toward expression of submissive, withdrawal needs (n Abasement: Low-scoring men 7.9/High-scoring men 10.0; n Blamavoidance: Low-scoring men 1.8/High-scoring men 3 . 2 ; n Se­ clusion: Low-scoring men 1.9/High-scoring men 2 . 5 ) . These differences do not hold for our female subjects. In fact, n Abasement appears to be somewhat higher for low- than for high-scoring women (Lowscoring mean 9.2/High-scoring mean 7 . 6 ) , although scoring of on Abasement is greater for the prejudiced than for the unprejudiced women (Low-scoring mean .5/High-scoring mean 1 . 3 ) . ^ Needs of Creative Expression. All the variables pertaining to construc­ tive and creative behavior that differentiate high and low scorers indicate a predominance of expression on the part of the low scorers. The ratio of the mean scores of nonprejudiced to those of prejudiced men for these variables are: n Cognizance, 6 . 0 / 3 . 7 ; n Expression 4 . 2 / 2 . 9 ; n Understanding 1 . 8 / . 4 ; p Task 4 . 3 / 3 . 2 . For the women the ratio is n Achievement 7 . 4 / 4 . 5 ; n Cogni­ tion 7 . 1 / 5 . 6 ; n Construction 1 . 0 / . 2 ; n Expression 5 . 4 / 3 . 5 ; p Task 5 . 3 / 3 . 1 . Needs of Sensual Expression. W e found also that all the needs of sensual expression are scored higher in stories of low scorers than in those of high scorers. Men: n Excitance 1 . 2 5 / 1 . 0 5 ; n Passivity 2 . 9 5 / 2 . 2 5 ; n Play 3 . 0 5 / 1 . 6 5 ; n Sex 5 . 7 0 / 3 . 8 0 ; n Sentience 3 . 5 0 / . 9 0 . Women: n Excitance 1 . 5 / . 9 ; n Pas­ sivity 2.6A5; Play 2 . 8 / 1 . 4 ; n Sex 3 . 7 / 2 . 6 ; n Sentience 2 . 7 / 1 . 2 . The scoring of object needs of sensual expression is greater for high- than n

506

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

for low-scoring men (mean of sum of sensual needs scored on: Low-scoring men 1.7/High-scoring men 3 . 2 ) . The total scoring of object needs of sensual expression in the case of both groups of women is not appreciable. Other Single Needs Differentiating Low and High Scorers. T w o other variables have sufficiently greater scores for unprejudiced than for prejudiced women to deserve special mention: n Nurturance (Low-scoring mean 8.9/ High-scoring mean 4 . 6 ) and n Acquisition (Low-scoring mean 6 . 1 / H i g h scoring mean 3 . 7 ) . The latter variable appears to be especially differentiating in stories told in response to Pictures 2 and 4, where the subjects often inter­ pret the picture as indicating poverty, and in stories to Picture 7 , where it appears to be related to the tendencies toward achievement and rebellion of the low-scoring women. Press Variables from Human and Nonhuman Sources. Variables of press from human sources are expressed as often and with equal intensity b y low and high scorers. Press from threatening nonhuman sources tends to be more common in stories of high- than in those of low-scoring subjects. The fan­ tasies of permanent damage to the human body, scored as p Affliction and p Death-hero, are found to be especially differentiating between high and low scorers, both men and women (p Affliction: Women, Low-scoring mean 2.8/High-scoring mean 3 . 7 ; Men, Low-scoring mean 2.4/High-scoring mean 5 . 2 ) (p Death-hero: Women 1 . 5 / 2 . 8 ; Men 1 . 8 / 3 . 2 ) . Reference to undefined misfortune, p Bad Luck, is also more common in high-scoring subjects (Women: Low-scoring mean . 1/High-scoring mean 1 . 2 ; Men: Low-scoring mean .6/High-scoring mean 1 . 4 ) . 2. T H E M A T I C

ANALYSIS

a. EXPLANATION OF THE METHOD. The thematic analysis, instead of meas­ uring each separate variable, examines the variables in combination. Here we discover not how much of each individual variable is expressed, but rather how often certain patterns of variables occur. This type of analysis has the advantage of molarity with the disadvantage, often, of ambiguity. The concept of thema is taken over from Murray ( 8 9 ) . He defines it as "the dynamic structure of an event on a molar level," the "combination of a particular press or preaction or outcome and a particular need." W h e n diagrammatically expressing a thema pattern, arrows are used to represent the direction of influence: e.g., p Dominance —» n Deference means that press Dominance imposed upon the hero causes him to express Deference; n Sen­ tience —» n Sex means that need for Sentience causes the hero to express a need for Sex; n Succorance n Nurturance means that two equally im­ portant heroes express a mutual nurturance-succorance relationship. W e constructed hypothetical "low" and "high" thema categories after careful study of the differences in need and press scores shown in Tables

T H E T H E M A T I C APPERCEPTION TEST

507

5 ( X I V ) A and 5 ( X I V ) B , and after observation of the stories told in response to each picture by each of the low and high scorers. Such categories were thought of as giving the general trends of the content of the stories. T h e y were representative of differences in the more common variable constellation in the stories of our "high" as compared with our "low" subjects. W e noted especially certain constellations in which one variable was equally weighted for "high" and "low" subjects. W e noted also certain differences in the types of identifications with the heroes who expressed certain needs, and differ­ ences in the object toward which the action was directed. A list of "low" and "high" categories was thus compiled—one for men and one for women. There were several categories for each picture. After the thema categories had been empirically derived in the fashion described above, each set of 4 0 stories (i.e., the stories told in response to each picture by the 4 0 men and by the 4 0 women tested) were scored "blindly" by two scorers, one staff member and one graduate student who had had no previous experience on our study. The scorers had only the derived categories as criteria by which to judge the "highness" or "lowness" of the subject who had told a particular story. Each story had been coded for identification, separated from other stories told by the same person, and randomly placed among the rest of the stories. Thus, judgments were based on the content of the single story. Every story thema was judged in terms of the thema category it most resembled. It should be pointed out that not all stories told conformed to patterns of the thema categories adopted as criteria. T h e y were often more complex and sometimes included a combina­ tion of two or three themes. Scoring problems created by story complexity were dealt with by two methods. ( 1 ) The use of a neutral category when the theme of a particular story differed widely from any of the categories (about 1 0 per cent of the judgments fell in the neutral c a t e g o r y ) ; ( 2 ) scor­ ing Y or y to each of two or three included themes. The percentage of agreement between the two scorers as to their "High," "Low," or "Neutral" judgments was higher on some pictures than on others. The mean percentage agreement of judgments on men's stories was 7 6 , the range of percentages being from 7 0 to 80. The scorers had a mean percentage agreement of 7 9 on their ratings of the women's stories. Although the agree­ ment was only 6 3 per cent for Picture 3 , the range of percentages for the other nine sets of stories was from 7 4 to 9 1 . Examples of thema variables are included (in small print) in the following comparison of the stories told by low- and high-scoring subjects. Each ex­ ample is followed by a notation, in parenthesis, of the picture concerned and of the number of times the given thema was found, by each of the two scorers, to occur in stories of subjects scoring low on the Ethnocentrism scale and by subjects scoring high on this scale. The practice of assigning 2

3

508

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

scores of % or % to each of two or three themes found in a given storyaccounts for the fractional totals which appear in the following summaries of themes. Within the discussion, notations are made also from time to time of the sum of intensity scores on a particular variable (reflected in the stories to the picture in question) in the case of low-scoring subjects and in the case of high-scoring subjects. W e have chosen to discuss stories told in response to Pictures i and 7 (dealing with parental figures) first; stories to 3 and 5 (relationships to oppo­ site sex) next; and then stories to 8 and 1 0 (responses to nonfamilial press), considering the men's stories and then the stories of the women subjects. Stories of both men and women told in response to the special pictures por­ traying members of minority groups ( 2 , 4, 6, 9 ) are discussed last. The reader is referred to Table 4 ( X I V ) . b.

RESULTS

1. Comparison of Stories Told by High- and by Low-scoring Men in Response to the Pictures from the Murray Series PICTURE M I . Male subjects in both groups usually identify the characters as father and son or "older man" and "younger man." Identification tends to be mainly with the son, who is said to be somber, sad, distressed. Many of the themes told to this picture describe the older man in the capacity of advisor or counselor. There is a greater tendency for low- than for highscoring men to describe the younger man's reaction to this supervision as respectful (n Deference: Low scorers 1 7 , High scorers 8 ) and for high scorers to describe it as submissive (n Abasement: L o w scorers 1 9 , High scorers 3 0 ) . (p Dominance-* n Submissive Abasement): The hero is reprimanded by the father for having committed an antisocial act. He responds with feelings of shame and submission to the instructions of the older man. The father figure acts as a restraining force, not just as an advisor or counselor. There is often a nurturant aspect to the father's dominance, but the dominance is the stronger press. ( M i : Low scorers, 2, 1; High scorers, 8, 9.) There appears to be a tendency for both groups to describe fantasies of rebellion against the older man's advice (n Autonomy, L o w scorers 2 5 ; High scorers 1 8 ) . (p Nurturance-Dominance -> n Autonomy-Rejection): The older man is advis­ ing the younger one. The younger man rejects the older man's advice. The father is deeply hurt, or in some way shows genuine concern over the action of the younger man—a concern other than a desire to dominate the boy. ( M i : Low scorers 7, 6; High scorers 6, 7 . ) However, there is a greater tendency for the high scorers to follow

M U R R A Y P I C T U R E S GIVEN TO M E N AND

WOMEN

(CONTINUED)

S P E C I A L P I C T U R E S GIVEN TO M E N A N D

WOMEN

T H E T H E M A T I C APPERCEPTION TEST

50Q

this theme with punishment for the rebellious younger man ( 3 of 7 highscoring men, but no low-scoring men). Another theme sometimes elicited by this picture is one in which both men are planning or plotting together. The low scorers more often than the high scorers describe a constructive enterprise (n Expression: Low scorers 12, High scorers 7 ; n Understanding: Low scorers 10, High scorers 1; n Cog­ nizance: Low scorers 16; High scorers 5 ) . (n Understanding, n Nurturance): The hero strives for understanding and bet­ terment of society. He attempts to right a wrong done to society. Rebellion is motivated by rational principle. There is close identification with the hero, who rebels against social injustice or who wants to right an injustice committed against a friend or relative. ( M i : Low scorers 3, 6; High scorers iY2, i%.) The high- more often than the low-scoring men depict a father who acts as a moral control over the actions of the son and causes the son to conform to his demands or be punished. The low scorers are more inclined to portray a relationship in which the father acts as an advisor whom the son respects, but the son does not necessarily submit to his wishes. Although high and low scorers alike describe heroes who behave contrary to the wishes of the father, a principled, constructive purpose initiating the rebellion is more commonly described by "lows," whereas the rebellion in the stories of "highs" is more often of a criminal, impulsive nature. Furthermore, the revolt is more likely to be rejected or given up in stories of high scorers than in those of low scorers. These differences in fantasied relationship between father and son remind one of the difference in the childhood memories of the father pointed out in Chapter X. The reader will recall that the stern father who represented a "moral-model" and who was respected out of fear, was more frequently described in the childhood memories of the high-scoring men than in those of the low-scoring men. On the other hand, the low scorers more often re­ ported that their fathers were "relaxed and mild" and supported "principled independence," a similar picture to the one drawn in the T. A. T. stories. To what extent either of these sources of portrayed relationships offers a true picture of family relationship is still an open question, but it is im­ portant to note that the needs expressed by the prejudiced men are in the direction of authoritarian relationships with father figures whereas those set forth by unprejudiced men tend to allow for individualized behavior. One may conclude from this that the low- as compared with the high-scoring men have less residual fears of punishment by their fathers, and that this accounts for'their being better able to accept fantasies of constructive autonomy. PICTURE M 7 . Most of our male subjects describe the people portrayed in this picture as mother and son, and the identification is mainly with the son.

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

The mother is usually said to be rejecting the son, and the mood expressed by the son is somber. There are two main themes that appear more often in the stories of highscoring men than in those of the low scorers. One of these, which deviates from the more common story of the rejecting mother, stresses tragic events leading up to the portrayed scene (p Aggression: Low scorers 7 , High scorers 1 5 ; p Death: Low scorers 5 , High scorers 2 2 ; p Physical Danger: Low scorers o, High scorers 6 ) . (Environmental p Aggression, p Death-object, p Physical Danger -> n Succorance): Environmental factors (a death or fire; a rejecting or erring child, or a demand from an external force that forces the man to leave home) threaten both of the portrayed figures. They both respond with dejection. ( M 7 : Low scorers o; High scorers 4, 6.) In the other predominantly "high" theme more direct mother-son rela­ tionships are often described. In such cases the son is usually said to have committed a crime, and he is confessing or apologizing, (n Blamavoidance: Low scorers 9, High scorers 1 7 ; n Abasement: Low scorers 24, High scorers 32-)

(p Dominance-* n Submissive Abasement): The mother rejects the son or the son fears she will reject him (for an act of theft, murder, or an affair with a girl). He responds with guilt and anxiety and subsequent submission to his mother's wishes. (He tries to make amends for what he has done by apologizing and/or complying with his mother's wishes from then on.) ( M 7 : Low scorers, 4, 2; High scorers 4%, 9%.) The mother-son conflict expressed b y low scorers is most commonly said to arise out of the young man's demand for autonomy. He wants to do some­ thing of which the mother disapproves (leave home, marry, or plan for a particular career). In some stories she is said to be annoyed with him because he has committed a minor crime. These subjects often indicate that the son feels he is justified to some extent at least in what he has done or what he intends to do. He is determined to do what he thinks right, or defend what he has done. There is usually some sign of regret that he is disappointing his mother b y defying her wishes, yet he insists on his independence, (n Auton­ omy: Low scorers 4 1 , High scorers 3 3 ; n Rejection: Low scorers 2 4 , High scorers 1 2 . ) Autonomous striving receives high scores in both groups, but in the stories of our prejudiced subjects it is intense at first but is later given up, whereas nonprejudiced subjects describe less violent, less destructive autonomy that carries through to the conclusion. (p Dominance-> n Autonomy): A possessive mother rejects her son because of his past activities or plans for the future, of which she disapproves (leaving home, conflict over mode of achievement, intended marriage, a theft). The son feels that

THE THEMATIC

APPERCEPTION

TEST

5I I

he is justified to some extent at least in what he has done or intends to do. He is determined to do what he thinks right or defend what he has done. There may be a note of regret that he must disappoint his mother by defying her wishes. ( M 7 : Low scorers n , 1 1 ; High scorers 4, 3.) The fantasies of low-scoring and of high-scoring men centering about the mother figure tend to be distinguishable in much the same w a y as their fantasies about the father figure; that is, the high-scoring men tend to describe a hero who is morally dependent upon the mother while the hero of the lowscoring men more often considers her advice but finally acts according to his own judgment. This differentiation is in accordance with the analysis of the interview material, which indicated a more realistic, less awesome por­ trayal of the childhood mother by low than by high scorers. Prejudiced subjects more often than the unprejudiced describe relations to parents, both fantasied and real (in the interviews), with more reference to the child's reacting because of fear or because of the compulsion of the parental demands for obedience. However, both the interviews and the T. A. T. indicate that the low-scoring subjects have a more critical attitude toward parental influences. PICTURE 3. Male subjects in both groups tend to identify with a male hero in their stories to this picture. Usually the upper figure is so designated, the lower figure being described as his wife. In the responses of low-scoring men to this picture there is much variability in the relationship between the two people portrayed. Often the woman is a nurturant mother figure who encourages and helps the man; sometimes he is the stronger and more dominant one who cares for her. In general how­ ever, there is a clear affiiiative relationship in which hero and love object show a mutual sensitivity to and concern over the mood and feelings of the other. (Mutual Nurturance-Succorance Sex relationship—fusion of n Nurturance, n Succorance, n Sex, n Affiliation): Two people (husband and wife, usually) are em­ bracing each other. They are glad to be together ("to see each other after a long separation") or both are sad (because they have to be separated). This theme is not preceded by an aggressive press such as an argument between them, the fear of death, affliction, or physical danger. Affiliation and Sex are expressed in the mutuality of the Nurturance-Succorance. ( 3 : Low scorers 14, 16; High scorers 7, 2 - )

Closer investigation of the stories of low scorers who produce this thema shows that when a joyful event such as a reunion is described, the woman usually plays the more active role. She is the one who protects and nurtures the man, the latter enjoying a more passive role. W h e n the event is unpleasant or sad, a situation such as departure, the man is usually the one to give the woman support and reassurance and to deal forcefully with the situation. The high-scoring men more often fantasy the man as the dominant person

5

1

2

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

in the heterosexual relationship. T h e y are inclined to identify with the role of a benevolent but despotic father, demonstrating no real dependence on the woman. The man is likely to be described as the master, while the woman is weak and dependent. This division of masculine and feminine roles is often sharply made, no overlapping of roles being allowed. At the same time the high-scoring man is likely to reject the woman because of her dependency. He describes her as being fickle, flighty or burdensome. (Male n Dominance ^ F e m a l e n Succorance): There is no overlapping of roles She is dependent and weak; he is the source of strength and he refrains from ex­ pressing any dependence on her. ("She is on the verge of hysterics; so he comforts her. bhe is relying on strength from her husband to pull her through." "He com­ forts her and hides his own feelings.") ( 3 : Low scorers 3, 2%; High scorers li

4v

The woman becomes obstreperous. He comforts her in order to quiet her and subdue her aggression. ("He's comforting her. They have quarrelled, as they often do over some trivial matter." "She nagged at him. He got mad. Now he's comforting her. ) ( 3 : Low scorers o, o; High scorers 3 , 2 . ) Although the situational factor in the stories of high-scoring subjects is somewhat variable, reference to dangerous situations resulting in death and affliction are very common (p Death-hero: Low scorers 4, High scorers 1 3 ; p Affliction: Low scorers o; High scorers 9 ) . Usually the high scorers de­ scribe episodes which cause the woman to exhibit her weakness and the man his strength and superior capabilities. Even when the focus is on the husband's departure for war, ideas of fear are usually projected onto the woman. She is the one who "fears for his safety." It appears, then, that the low- and high-scoring groups conceptualize dif­ ferent types of heterosexual relationship. The low-scoring men tend to identify mainly with a flexible male role that is varied with different situa­ tions, the heterosexual adjustment of hero and love object being on the basis of reciprocal dependency stemming from their mutual need of companion­ ship and sympathy, and of someone to care for; whereas the high-scoring men characteristically identify with a dominant, heroic role, the woman being subservient. In contrast to stories of low-scoring men, in which women serve as helpful companions, the high-scoring men more often conceive of the woman's function as one of serving the man's needs, and he resents any demands placed upon him by her. The implications derived from the differences in content of the stories told by low- and high-scoring men in response to Picture M i - t h a t the "highs" tend to be more fearful of asserting themselves in the face of the father's opposition than are the "lows"-suggest one aspect at least of the differences in motivation behind the fantasied roles described in response to the present picture. The high-scoring men apparently can identify with the father's role in certain situations. T h e y seem to compensate for feelings

THE THEMATIC APPERCEPTION TEST

513

of inadequacy precipitated by the father, by adopting the r o l e - a t least in fantasy-of a dominant, authoritarian individual in relationships with people less threatening than the father. From the interview material we would have reason to believe that the authoritarian sex role described by the prejudiced men in the T. A. T. is not limited to their fantasies. The quantitative results in Chapter XI, indicating that they tend to adhere to exploitive-manipulative and power-oriented attitudes toward sex objects, corroborate our findings here. The interview data for unprejudiced men are also in keeping with T. A. T . results Their interviews reveal appreciation of more relaxed, equalitarian modes of loveseeking. PICTURE M . Except in rare cases there is consistent identification b y all the male subjects with the man in the picture. The description of events leading up to the portrayed situation, in stories of low and high scorers alike often involves an impulsive sexual act. Aggressive behavior on the part of the hero is described more often by low- than by high-scoring men; but the expression is more intense and more commonly rejected in stories of high than in those of low scorers (n Aggression: Low scorers 28, High scorers 8on Aggression: Low scorers 6, High scorers 1 4 ) . Some high-scoring subjects ignore the woman in the background and attribute the man's dejection to overindulgence in liquor. 5

The main difference between the stories of one group and those of the other lies in the story-teller's attitude toward what the hero has done and w h y he has done it. The more aggressive stories of murder and rape are often explained by low-scoring men on the basis of temporary maladjustments that could occur in the life of anyone, e.g., "He has difficulty in adjusting to civilian life after his army experiences." These story-tellers rarely condemn the hero. Rather they tend to identify with his problems, describing his feelings and thoughts about the situation. The hero is usually portrayed as dejected, guilt-ridden, and concerned about the welfare of the girl involved. • 1 ' v ^^ ! "* Abasement-intrapunitive type): The hero is reproach­ ing himself for having harmed the girl as the result of an impulsive sexual act The girl is never rejected; m fact there is often an expression of affection for her' The hero is not rejected by the story-teller. Rather there are signs of sympathy for the hero's problems. ( M : Low scorers 8, 6; High scorers 2, 1Y2.) * (

S e X

e

s

s

o

n

n

P

7

5

The high scorers who describe the same situational factors as the above often attribute the action to inherent criminal tendencies, referring to the hero by such phrases as "a fiend" or a "sex maniac." Although detailed de­ scription of the crime may be given, references to the hero's feelings or thoughts about what has happened are comparatively rare. Suicide or punish­ ment b y authorities is the most common ending to these stories. (on Aggression): The central character is rejected for being a criminal or a low

514

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

character, and the picture is condemned as sordid. The story deals with an intense aggressive episode in which the story character has indulged preceding the pictured scene. He has committed a major crime (rape, murder, robbery) and the result is one of serious damage. ( M 5 : Low scorers o, 1; High scorers 2, 4%.) Subjects from both groups sometimes tell less aggressive stories dealing mainly with the sensual aspects of the picture. In these stories, the low scorers also tend to be more accepting of sensual indulgence than are high scorers. Three nonprejudiced men tell stories of the pleasures of "wine, women, and song," but none of the prejudiced men approach such a theme. There are, however, many stories by prejudiced men which center around a con­ demnation of passive sensuality. (on Sex, Sentience-* on Abasement, giving up of self-respect): The hero has yielded to sensual impulses because of innate weakness or a disappointing experi­ ence. (He has become a drunkard or indulged in sexual activities with a whore.) He is guilt-ridden, loses all self-respect, and becomes worthless to society. ( M 5 : Low scorers 6, 5; High scorers 1 2 % , 10%.) The low scorers, then, tend to identify with a hero who either finds no harm in a little overindulgence of sensuality or who blames himself for his transgressions, whereas the high scorers more often reject the hero for such behavior and predict for him a future of moral degradation. The T.A.T. stories are in keeping with the evidence from the interviews (see Chapter XI) that the low-scoring men are better able to accept id impulses than are high-scoring men. T h e y are, furthermore, consistent with interview data (see Chapter XII) indicating that intrapunitiveness tends to be more com­ mon in low than in high scorers. PICTURE 8. The content of all the stories elicited by this picture implies a recognition, on the part of the subject, of the contrasting active and passive roles of the two figures presented. In most of the stories of high- and lowscoring subjects alike the situation described is either a hypnotic session or a scene of death or illness. Many of the subjects elaborate very little beyond a description of the setting. W h e r e further content is offered, there is a tend­ ency for high more often than for low scorers to attribute permanent af­ fliction and death to their heroes (p Affliction: Low scorers, 1 6 , High scorers, 2 3 ; Death-hero: low scorers, 6, High scorers 1 0 ) and to give emphasis to themes of exploitation by the dominant figure. 2

(n Coercive Dominance 80

|

87

•

92

-

-

89

90

83

83

90

150

128

65

1859

d

6.

Middle-Class and B u s i n e s s Club Men d

Mean Percentage Agreement

15

Total N

312

a

T h e N for Groups 2, 3, and 4 is complicated by the fact that two ques­ tionnaire forms were given. Only 24 of the 51 highs and lows in Group 2 received Form 45, which contained all 8 questions; the remaining 27 received Form 40, containing only questions 1-5. Similarly, some of the subjects in Groups 3 and 4 filled out Form 45, while others received a modified form containing items 3, 4, 5, and 6 only. The differences between subgroups within each sample are random.

b

T h e over-all group and item means are based on single item means weighted by N.

c

G r o u p 1 received Form 78, which did not contain question 8.

d

Groups 5 and 6 received Form 40, which did not contain questions 6, 7, and 8.

eKey to questions:

1 (Moods), 2 (Desires), 3 (Great People), 4 (Drive Nuts), 5 (Crimes), 6 (Embarrassing), 7 (Last Six Months), 8 (Awe-inspiring).

584

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

the l o w ) , only Group 2 , with 9 5 per cent agreement, is above the over-all mean. For only one group, the Psychiatric Clinic Men, does the reliability drop conspicuously below 9 0 per cent. This drop (to 80 per cent) seems due in part to certain intrinsic ambiguities in the responses of this group, and in part to the fact that this was the first group to be scored blindly. The reliabilities for the individual items are also satisfactory, ranging from 83 to 9 5 per cent. Questions 1 ("Moods"), 3 ("Great people"), and 5 ("Crimes") were scored most consistently. The average agreement on Ques­ tions 7 ("Last six months") and 8 ("Awe-inspiring") might have been higher had they been filled out by Groups 5 and 6. In only 6 cases out of the total of 4 1 did an item have a reliability of less than 8 0 per cent. It would appear, therefore, that the present scoring scheme is relatively reliable, and in this sense "objective." 2.

PROJECTIVE QUESTION SCORES IN R E L A T I O N T O ON THE E SCALE

STANDING

T o what extent are L scores on the Projective Questions characteristic of the anti-ethnocentric individuals, H scores characteristic of the extremely ethnocentric individuals? The Scoring Manual is based on the hypothesis that the low quartiles on the Ethnocentrism scale will give responses falling mainly in the low categories, whereas the responses of the high quartiles will fall mainly in the high categories. Data bearing on this question are presented in Table 2 ( X V ) , which indi­ cates the degree to which the Projective Questions differentiate the ethno­ centric from the anti-ethnocentric subjects. In order to obtain a quantitative measure of the relationship between Pro­ jective Question scores and standing on the E scale, the percentage of PQ-E agreement was computed for each quartile. This is called the L% in the case of the low quartile, H% for the high quartile, and %A for the two quartiles combined (average over-all agreement). Let us use L% to illustrate the pro­ cedure. Had scores of H and L been the only ones assigned, the L% would be simply the number of L scores divided by the total number of cases; thus, if all the low quartile members received L scores on a given item there would be 1 0 0 per cent agreement between PQ and E. But this procedure was not feasible because of the neutral scores. Since a neutral score represents a half error, i.e., it signifies less agreement than an L score but more agreement than an H score, the L% was computed according to the following formula: 7

Sum of L scores plus % 0

7

s

u

m

°f neutral scores (Na, Nb, Nhl)

Number of subjects in low quartile

One possibility would have been not to consider subjects receiving scores of N, and to get a L / H ratio for the remaining subjects. This would have given higher L% values than those obtained by the method finally used, since in the latter method the N scores were used in such a way as to lower the L%. It was believed that all individuals taking the test should be included in the statistical treatment.

PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS

585

where Na means "ambiguous," Nb means "blank" (omitted), Nhl means "mixed high and low trends." The only exception to this formula is in the case of Nb on Items i , 2 , 4, 7, and 8, where Nb is equivalent to H and is included among the H scores. The computation of H% is based on an equivalent formula: Sum of H scores plus V sum of neutral scores (Na, Nb, Nhl) 2

Number of subjects in high quartile Finally, %A is the average of L% and H%, weighted by N (number of cases in each quartile), and it indicates the over-all PQ-E agreement. Table 2 ( X V ) gives the L%, H%, and %A for each group tested and for all groups combined. It also gives the number and percentage of Nb, Na, and Nhl responses. It may be noted first that the over-all PQ-E agreement (%A) is 7 4 . 9 per cent—a value which indicates a statistically significant rela­ tionship between Projective Question scores and high vs. low standing on the E scale. On a purely chance basis, the agreement would be only 5 0 per cent. The highs tend, however, to be more consistent in their PQ responses than do the lows: the highs have an over-all H% of 80.7, while for the lows the L% is only 6 9 . 1 . In other words, the lows received more H scores than the highs did L scores. It is, so to speak, easier to make an H than an L score. The reason for this does not appear to he primarily in the subjects them­ selves, for our general impression, based on other results and on clinical judgment, was that the low quartiles fitted the over-all conception of the "democratic" personality at least as well as the highs approximated the prototypic "authoritarian" personality. The preponderance of H scores is prob­ ably due to the conditions of testing. Since many of the groups were pressed for time, and since the instructions were not emphatic in suggesting that a fairly detailed answer be given, many of the responses were brief and superficial. It will be recalled from the Scoring Manual that references to "vague, dilute emotional experiences," as well as references only to "be­ havior or the situation per se, without consideration of inner meanings and motives," were important cues for assigning a score of H. It may be argued that if the instructions emphasized the giving of more detailed answers, both highs and lows would give more responses meriting a score of L. In the present groups, however, the elaborations of most lows took an L direction, of most highs an H direction. It might be expected, then, that the obtaining of longer responses would clarify and increase the differences between the low and high quartiles. It would also probably reduce somewhat the propor­ tion ( 8 . 8 per cent) of responses scored Na and Nhl. W e should not, of course, overlook the likelihood that numerous pressures in our culture, and perhaps the predominant ones, tend to make for authoritarianism in the individual. T o the extent that this is true, w e should expect some H trends even in individuals attempting to achieve a thoroughly democratic orienta­ tion.

5

THE

86

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

«s5 CO

J3

,

S

N

O

N

CM i CO

O

CO

co o c- cm

CO CO CO C O t-H t-H

n t- n

CU

H

co o

co

C M t— C O C O C M t—I

CO CM CM C-

O i CO CM c-

CM O S

OJ

« «1

Score

1

2

3

L% Nb a-N„ ER

4

5

6

7

8

Total

Mean

76.7 9 8 146

63.0 19 8 146

75.8 8 22 155

68.4 3 20 155

65.8 14 12 155

63.0 7 11 73

57.0 0 13 64

85.9 1 1 32

61 95 926

69.1 6.6% 10. 3% 116

84.0 15 4 144

79.9 33 4 144

71.3 17 27 157

84.4 9 9 157

86.0 11 15 157

7S.3 7 3 77

85.9 2 4 64

72.7 5 2 33

99 68 933

80.7 10.6% 7.3% 117

80.3 24 12 290

71.4 52 12 290

73.6 25 49 312

76.5 12 29 312

76.0 25 27 312

69.3 14 14 150

71.5 2 17 JL28

79.2 6 3 65

160 163 1859

74.9 8.6% 8.8% 232

7. A l l groups combined Low quartile N

High q u a r t i l e

L

H% N

b Na-N L ER H

Total

%A N

b Na"N L ER H

SB o H O H

< w

a

Por Groups 2, 3, and 4 the number of subjects varies somewhat from item to item because two questionnaire forms were used. The number indicated in the "N" column is the total N in each group or quartile. The N in parentheses refers to those subjects who received the complete set of projective questions. Thus, in Group 2 all 51 subjects received items 1 - 5 (Forms 45 and 4 0 ) ; only 10 Low and 14 High received all 8 questions (Form 4 5 ) , so that the N's on items 6, 7, and 8 are 10 and 14 respectively, as indicated in parentheses in the "N" column. Similarly, of the 14 Lows in Group 3, only 9 received the full battery, the remaining 5 receiving a form which did not inelude items 1, 2, 7, and 8. For the high quartile in Group 3, there is an N of 8 on items 1, 2, 7, and 8. In Group 4, the N on these same items is 13 for Lows and 11 for Highs.

§ W H Q % M

Group 1 received a form which did not include item 8 (see text). Groups 5 and 6 received Form 40

which contained items 1-5 only.

Thus, while there were 312 subjects in all, the N per item varied. This is shown in the table under "All groups combined," where the row "ER" gives the number of subjects answering each item. bin the computation of all means, the component values are weighted by N. Key to questions:

1 (Moods), 2 (Desires), 3 (Great People), 4 (Drive Nuts), 5 (Crimes), 6 (Embarrassing), 7 (Last Six Months), 8 (Awe-inspiring).

V

M

n

H c«

O *1 H

Acquisitiveness

X a

> c H

K

o

50 H

> •d

W

50 Cfl

O

> V

H

Distant and moralistic father

Cousin Bud

Mother's care Sister's care

Mother's strictness (sister, aunt)

Mother's illness OO and death o

802

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

strong and out to take unfair advantage of me." The mechanism is the same as that which underlies the "persecution complex" so regularly associated with repressed homosexuality, though the conflict in Mack seems much less intense than that found in clinic patients. W h a t we see on the surface here is the selfpity implicit in his thesis that he has done well considering all that he has had to contend with, and his projective thinking about such outgroups as the Jews, the N e w Deal, and the Washington bureaus. There can be little doubt that the problem with which Mack is struggling here was first presented to him in connection with his childhood relations with his father: "How can I be expected to oppose, to be strong and independent, to become a man, when father is so strong." That he has been able to transpose the whole complex into the area of group relations saves him from having to oppose any individ­ ual or group that is really strong, and at the same time—since his ideas are now shared for various reasons by many other people—to achieve an appearance of "normality" that he would not have were he to concentrate on a single private "enemy." Mack has made some attempt to conceal weakness by contriving a tough exterior. The leather jacket and the "nice equipment, for example a good rifle" are probably intended as unmistakable signs of masculinity. Mack is unable, however, to behave aggressively, and hence the device of overcompensatory toughness does not serve him as well as it does many prejudiced men. But if he is unable to be physically tough, he can at least be toughminded. His general attitude of anti-intraception can be understood as pri­ marily an attempt to ward off any suggestion of "softness" that might be implicit in a more human w a y of looking at things. The most primitive mechanism for dispelling a sense of weakness is the projection, "I am not weak, they are." Mack makes some use of this mech­ anism, though not in the crudest possible w a y . It is not so much that he sees weakness where none exists; rather, he thinks of people and groups in rigid categories of weak versus strong, and if any weakness is actually there it is what first strikes his eye, as it were, and he reacts to it in a particular w a y . His main concern is not to be in any w a y identified with weakness. Religious people, Jewish refugees, and women may actually be, in one sense or another, weak, but for Mack this is the main fact about these groups of people and he must at all costs set them apart from himself. If one asks w h y he cannot have pity for weak people but instead actually hates them, the answer is two­ fold. In the first place, they remind him too much of his own weakness and all the dreadful fear with which it is associated. Second, and probably more important, he believes weak people to be dangerous. W h e n he says that Jews "should not resent" their persecution we can readily infer that he believes they do resent it and will seek revenge in time. Women and Ne6

6

Cf. in this connection J . F. Brown's findings, from the use of the Rosenzweig PictureFrustration Test, on "passive anti-Semitism" ( 1 6 ) .

GENETIC ASPECTS O F T H E A U T H O R I T A R I A N PERSONALITY

803

groes, as the T.A.T. analysis made clear, are regarded in this same w a y . It is to be granted that the strictness of Mack's mother, and later attempts of the sister and the aunt to carry out her policy, helped to teach Mack that women could be aggressive, but there is reason to believe that his notions about the dangerous aspects of " w e a k " people are based primarily upon a projection. The feeling of being persecuted aroused in him the strongest impulses to violence ("the young man looks like he might commit murder if oppressed") and he imagines that "downtrodden" people are similarly motivated. Fear of the weak woman, as has been pointed out, would largely explain Mack's sexual backwardness, and this in turn offers sufficient basis for the moralistic sex attitudes expressed on the questionnaire and in the interview. H o w is the rejection of women to be reconciled with the fact that Mack idealizes his mother and intends to marry a girl with a "tremendously nice personality"? Here it must be considered that Mack actually has two con­ ceptions of women: the "bad," weak, dangerous, exploitive, sexual woman who drags one down, and the good, wholesome, asexual one who gives. It is the former with whom one dares to have sex relations as "the aftermath of a N e w Year's party"; the latter is described mainly contrasting her with the former; she is not interested primarily in "a good time" or "in spending fellows' money" or in anything "sordid." Undoubtedly the imagery of this "good" woman derives in part from the imagery of the mother "who devoted her last strength to us kids." Certainly Mack would like to recapture some of the love and comfort that he received from his mother, provided this mo­ tive on his part can be adequately rationalized. It must be pointed out, how­ ever, that his appreciation of his mother seems somewhat overdone, enough so to suggest that his idealization of her is based partly on bad conscience and is an attempt to undo hostility that was directed against her. One cannot be very optimistic about the prospects for Mack's forthcoming marriage. W h i l e on the one hand he wants more than any woman can give him, on the other hand, he feels it would be weak to ask his wife for anything at all. And this is not to mention the problem of how sex is to be introduced into the picture without spoiling it altogether. It has already been suggested that Mack's strivings for power and status— his desire to "raise" himself—may be regarded as largely overcompensatory. Indeed, it would be very surprising if some kind of counteractive activity did not have a place among the devices he employs for overcoming the sense of weakness. From this point of view we can understand w h y it is that the needs for affiliation and recognition when they appear in the T.A.T. are expressed mainly as a desire for having the members of his group look up to him, and w h y being an officer in the DeMolay and in his class at business school is im­ portant to him. The crucial role of the status drive in determining Mack's general ideology was first indicated in the analysis of his remarks concerning vocation and income. There it seemed clear that for him "going u p " meant

804

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

going up in a hierarchy; in his mind the existence of dominant groups and submerged groups was "natural" and, far from being concerned with chang­ ing this state of affairs, his aim was to have membership in the groups that were dominant. This is something different from the ordinary, everyday desire to improve one's lot in a sociological sense. It seems that here again Mack's thinking about group relations is dominated b y the rigid categories of "strong" and "weak." In the light of the foregoing personality analysis we may say that, once again, Mack brings to his interpretation of group rela­ tions images and attitudes which have remained unchanged since their genesis in the childhood relations with his father. That one was weak and the other strong was then the salient fact, and the persistence of this idea is a part of the fixation upon the traumatic situation of childhood. Since Mack could not con­ ceive of himself opposing the irresistibly strong father, his attempt at a solu­ tion was to convince himself that his father was "good" and so to align himself with him. This corresponds exactly with Mack's present approach to group relations. He does not oppose any group that is, in actuality, strong; instead, he argues that the strong ones are the good ones, and even while ad­ miring and being subservient to them he overcomes weakness through gain­ ing a sense of participation in their power. This last is, of course, one aspect of the general attitude which we have termed authoritarian submission, and which we have previously seen to be an outstanding feature of Mack's manifest personality. T o say that this atti­ tude rests upon an attempt to overcome weakness through identification with power is to mention only one of its major sources. In so far as authori­ tarian submission is a means for overcoming weakness it stands as a kind of defense against the underlying homosexual submission and passivity; it re­ mains to be pointed out that this surface trend offers at the same time gratifi­ cation for these very same needs. In glorifying strong groups and individuals —"father figures"—he is expressing the need for a father's love and support and guidance, for a God who is "strictly man, greater than any on this earth, one that would treat us as a father would his son." Whereas most channels for the expression of this need are closed because they pass too close to weakness, it can in certain circumstances come into the open and be gratified: Chiefly when the strong man or strong group is strong enough, strong enough so that there is a chance for participation in real power and strong enough so that submission can be readily excused. If one should ask w h y Roosevelt, who was almost universally experienced in this country as a father figure, was not happily accepted and admired by Mack instead of being rejected as a "dictator," the answer would seem to be that he was not strong enough: he "would come off second best in a contest with Winnie," while as for Gen­ eral Marshall, "nobody could alter his position." 7

How authoritarian submission promotes political conservatism and moral 7

This point has been elaborated in Chapter XVII.

GENETIC ASPECTS O F T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

805

conventionalism in this subject has been described in sufficient detail in Chap­ ter II. Lacking a firmly internalized superego, a result of the failure to achieve a basic identification with the father, Mack looks outside of himself for guidance as to what to do and what not to do, and turns naturally to the authorities that seem strongest and most commonly accepted. He cannot, however, admit that this is the case, but clings to the illusion that he has a stubborn nature and is a man to make his own decisions. This last suggests that Mack's relations with his authorities are not entirely harmonious, that he is not altogether comfortable with the arrangements that he has made. This is no more than we should expect from a consideration of the sources of his authoritarianism. It springs originally, as we have seen, from hostility toward his father. This hostility led to submission based on fear and, although submission offers other rewards as well, the element of fearful neces­ sity still has an important role in Mack's attitude toward authority. It is this circumstance that gives his adherence to conventional standards the aspect of rigidity; since they have never been fully integrated with the ego, it is neces­ sary to adhere to them strictly lest they be thrown overboard altogether. Mack's hostility against minority groups and other groups and individuals is almost always justified b y him on moral grounds. And the morality to which he appeals is that of the external authorities to which he is subservient. His manifest aggression is, so to speak, in the name of authority. He arranges things so that his conscience and his deepest antisocial impulses operate in collaboration. But if we ask what is his conception of the outgroup and w h y it provokes him so we are led back to the same sources that gave rise to his conceptions and attitudes concerning ingroup authorities. Outgroups are hated, as we saw in Chapter II, for being selfishly and ruthlessly aggressive. (That outgroups are also " w e a k " may be a logical contradiction, but it is not a psychological one; Mack's thinking about social and political matters is dominated by unconscious processes and, hence, cannot be expected to con­ form with the rules of logic. ) The power-seeking features of the outgroup, no less than the admirably strong aspects of the "good" ingroup, can be understood as derivatives of the infantile imagery of the father. Since Mack dared not oppose his father but could only submit to him, it became necessary to convince himself that the father was good. But this did not dissipate the original hostility against the father. Nor did Mack attempt to handle it by turning it against himself; one of the outstanding features of his case is the relative absence of self-criticism. W h a t he did was displace the hostility onto outgroups; or better, the frustrating, punishing, persecutory features which had to be denied in the father were seen as originating in outgroups who could then be hated in safety, because they were not strong in actuality, and in good conscience, because the traits ascribed to them were those which the 8

8

Cf. Freud's discussion of "exemption from mutual contradiction" as one of characteristics of unconscious processes.

the

8o6

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

ingroup authorities would condemn. Thus it is that each "good" trait that the father is said to have is the opposite of a "bad" trait which belongs to the image of the J e w : while the father's "greatest contribution was denying him­ self pleasures to take care of us kids" the Jews are not "interested in human­ ity," while the father was renowned for his "honesty," one has to be careful of Jewish clothiers. At the same time, when it comes to the one trait in the father which Mack is almost inclined to criticize, that is, social withdrawal, one finds that it too looms large in the imagery of the J e w : they refuse "to mingle and become a part of our people," "they would rather be alone." If the Jews have thus to bear the brunt of Mack's ambivalent feelings toward his father, there might be some comfort for them in the fact that his feelings toward them are also somewhat ambivalent. It may be recalled that Mack's explanation for what he supposes to be Jewish pressure on Congress and for the fact that Jews have been "fully repaid" for their part in the war effort is that "they are businessmen," and we know that he has nothing but admira­ tion for businessmen, especially those who represent a "concentration of wealth in a certain class," i.e., "the big capitalists." Unfortunately, however, it is very doubtful that the Jews could ever benefit from the positive phase of Mack's ambivalence, for their supposed inability makes them more dan­ gerous to him. The separation of the good father image from the bad is an essential of Mack's personality adjustment and he could no more see "good" in his image of the J e w than he can see "bad" in his father. As far as our material goes the only outlets for the expression of aggression that Mack has is through his ethnocentrism, that is, through authoritarian aggression against various kinds of outgroups. There is, however, one other manifestation of underlying aggression which may afford some vent for his feelings, and that is cynicism. This prominent tendency in our subject has been described in Chapters II and VII. It seems clear enough now that its major source is the bottled-up resentment with which the present analysis has been so largely concerned. W e must understand, however, that in cyni­ cism the destructiveness is directed against the self as well as against the world. It is not only that the subject's own aggressiveness is projected onto other people, who are then accused of being acquisitive and warlike, but con­ tempt for other people seems to be closely related to contempt for himself. In Mack's case—and this probably holds generally for authoritarian personali­ ties—the self-contempt derives from his sense of weakness and this, as we have seen, is the aftermath of his surrender to his father. This surrender can­ not be wholly excused, and as long as he cannot permit himself to feel ag­ gressive toward those who are actually strong, there will be a nagging re­ minder that he, in reality, is weak. He tries to free himself from this thought 9

9

On the topic of cynicism Sanford, Conrad, and Franck (108) have published findings based on a questionnaire similar to those employed in the present study.

GENETIC ASPECTS OF T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

807

by projecting the contemptibleness onto mankind, and thus there is some basis for saying that he hates others because he hates himself. To complete the picture it is necessary to return now to the topic of Mack's dependence. The sense of deprivation that followed the loss of his mother, and the growing feelings that because of his weakness people might leave him out or take advantage of him, seem to have generated in him a general attitude of acquisitiveness and, more specifically, a feeling that somebody ought to give him something. The highest praise of mother, father, sister, or fiancee is that they gave or will give to him, and one of the major character­ istics of "bad" people is that they are selfish or "not interested in humanity." It is not difficult to infer that his concern with justice is primarily concern with getting something. A man who can speak sentimentally of justice in one breath and almost in the next speak of barring Hitler's victims from this country on the ground that they are "Europe's misfits" is hardly employing the term "justice" in its basic sense. But apparently his acquisitiveness en­ counters his conventional moral standards and has to be reacted against. He is very careful to assure us that he has "repaid" what he got from others, and he is moralistically temperate in stating his objectives with respect to income. The importance of this conflict about acquisitiveness for Mack's social out­ look lies in the fact that it supplies the basis for another accusation against outgroups. T h e y are said to be "materialistic" and "money-minded." This seems to be in part a projection, since outgroups are accused of doing exactly what he and his own group do but would like to deny, and in part a mere complaint about the fact that the world goes its own w a y without paying much attention to him and his wants. A remarkable feature of Mack's dependence is that although it has been rendered ego-alien and as an unconscious force leads to the misjudgment and rejection of other people, so much of it still finds expression in behavior. (This has been brought out in the above discussion of underlying depend­ ence.) This is testimony to his outstanding facility in rationalization, some­ thing that is made possible, as it seems, by his unwillingess to look at himself. This brings us to a place where we must consider Mack's stereotypy, a characteristic of his thinking that is highly pronounced and, clearly, of the greatest significance for his prejudice. In one sense, his stereotyped thinking about social phenomena seems to be related to his general attitude of antiintraception and to be dependent, in part at least, upon the same underlying conditions. It might be said that one reason w h y Mack's explanations of social phenomena are so primitive and oversimplified (for example, differences among ethnic groups are categorical and due to differences in blood strain) is that he is unable to make any use of social or psychological theories of determination. This can hardly be due to a lack of intelligence or of informa­ tion, for an examination of his interview leaves a strong impression that with regard to those factors he is above the average for college students. A stronger

8o8

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

argument could be made for the view that his is an educational deficiency, that he simply has not been subjected to instruction about man and society. But this is such a widespread phenomenon in this country that it can hardly be used to explain w h y Mack stands out from the group. Besides, he could have made some use of the social and psychological viewpoints that are available, but he chose not to. And, for that matter, the fact that anti-intraceptive education is so widespread has itself to be explained, and w e can well believe that factors of individual psychology have an important role to play. In Mack's case at least there is a strong suggestion that he cannot reckon with either the sociology or the psychology of other people because he cannot examine the conditions or determinants of his own behavior. Ideas or observa­ tions that would be necessary to lend breadth or depth to his view of the world or of himself cannot enter the picture, because they would arouse too much anxiety. It is as if—to put it somewhat dramatically—he can see only what he has seen before and learn only what he already knows. In our con­ sideration of Mack's anti-intraception we were given reason to believe that he has to avoid introspection or attention to human factors in order to main­ tain his sense of being tough-minded. The fuller analysis of his personality shows that his problem is much more serious: he has to deal with a variety of strong unconscious impulses which are not integrated with the ego and which he feels—not without good cause—might get out of hand. In short, the task of maintaining his repressions imposes a heavy burden upon him. This state of affairs has been described, in previous chapters, as ego weakness, and Mack's case offers an excellent illustration of this concept. The problems with which he was faced as a child—problems centering around the loss of his mother and the necessity for making an adjustment to the "distant" father —were too much, they were more than the undeveloped ego could handle. Primitive defenses, chiefly repression and countercathexis, were necessary; and since that time, the ego has had to devote so much energy to maintaining these defenses that it could not develop normally. It remains narrow and con­ stricted, in danger of being overwhelmed by emotional impulses from within or authoritative commands from without. Since the inner impulses are more to be feared than the outer authorities there is rigid adherence to the stand­ ards of the latter, but since these authorities are not accepted in any funda­ mental w a y this adherence could be given up altogether in circumstances that made it safe to do so. Since the traumatic experiences of childhood have not been integrated with the ego, the categories with which the child struc­ tured the world have persisted, in more or less unmodified form, to dominate contemporary thinking. Since there is little that is truly inside the personality, there can be little tolerance of inner conflict and little self-criticism; instead there is an attitude of hostile watchfulness toward a world that is largely alien.

GENETIC ASPECTS O F T H E A U T H O R I T A R I A N PERSONALITY

C.

809

T H E C O N T R A S T I N G CASE OF L A R R Y

W e may now turn to the case of Larry. A final appraisal of Mack and a judgment of the implications of his case can better be made after the two cases have been compared. At the time of recording Larry's interview, the interviewer made the fol­ lowing observations: Larry is conventional, conservative, well-mannered, deferent, quiet, and a con­ formist. Overtly he could be described as a passive, feminine type. He is a good example of the weak, unadjusted man who reads Dale Carnegie and becomes wellmannered, friendly, articulate, outgoing, but empty. In appearance, he is slight, short, becoming bald-headed, rather feminine in gen­ eral. He is openly dependent, highly articulate, and highly involved in the interview, making great effort, and appearing to enjoy it very much, remarking so especially at the end and being concerned with the general nature and purpose of the study. In spite of his highly conservative politics and his big-business personal goal, there is something very naive and unworldly about him. T h e clinical section of Larry's interview follows. (What were you like as a child? ) "I seldom got any spankings. I was very active and played a lot of games. I don't want to brag, but I was well liked, like by the neighborhood women, who said I was a nice boy, if you know what I mean. That was until I was about 10. But outside the home, like in school and the neighborhood, away from home, I was more mischievous. I got into little difficulties. My brother, who is two and a half years older than I, and I were always together. W e were fighting, jealous of each other, then friendly, going to the show or something. He was huskier, more athletic; I was always small, still am. My brother was more studi­ ous, conservative, wouldn't take chances, quiet. I admired him for this, for being a good big brother; for having a nice build, being nice looking, having good judg­ ment; I admired him a lot, but I always maintained my own independence." (Early experiences? ) Age 3—an uncle passed away. "I remember his body in the house; it stayed there all day; then the hearse came and took it away. He used to hold me on his knee; I liked him a lot. I was the baby of the family. And his wife was especially nice. She used to pet me and play with me a lot. Then, another time— I guess about age 3 also—I remember wandering into the bull pen on the farm; and then the bull came for me, and the hired man just barely saved me, and I was really scared to death. I remember my mother's being there nearby and how scared she was too. Another memory I have, age 3 or 4, I remember how my brothers would catch rabbits on the farm. The rabbits would get into a lot of long pipes that we had in the back yard and my brothers would force the rabbits out with long poles and catch them as they came out the other end of the pipe. They would either knock them over the head as they came out, or sometimes they would catch them alive. What impressed me particularly was being able to touch a wild animal, and it couldn't run away, and I would rub its fur. Then, at the same period, on the farm, I have another memory, of sitting on a horse which belonged to my brothers and being held on it, half afraid and half jubilant over riding."

8io

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

(Larry is extremely effortful here and apparently has thought about these things considerably. They come out fairly easily.) (Experiences with father?) "I remember at age 1V2 my father whipped my oldest brother very severely and my mother took all the children and went into town to separate from my father. I remember we went to the lawyer's office and had to stay there overnight because there was nowhere else. The next morning my father came in and found us, and he and my mother settled their differences. That's the only dif­ ficulty that I've ever known between them. There's never been an argument since, they've gotten along swell. I've had a wonderful home. (Is father very severe?) He wasn't strict in the sense of many rules, but when he told us to do something, we had to do it. W e got few whippings, but when we did, they were plenty bad. (What about you?) I didn't get as many as my brothers did. I'd maneuver out of them. I didn't get any after the age of 12. I remember my brother got one even when he was 15. That was when I learned how to maneuver out of things—I just kept out of his way. When I was younger, I did whatever might avoid his punishment. My mother spanked us more often, but not so severely. W e feared our father through our mother, that is, we feared she'd tell him and he'd punish us. Her main threat was not 'I'll spank you,' but 'I'll tell your father.' Her own spankings were so mild that we almost enjoyed them." (Fears?) "I was afraid of the dark till age 16 or 18, my last years of high school, but I overcame it. I don't fear animals, except snakes, which I still fear and dislike." (Nightmares?) "I had them, but I don't recall any particular ones." (Larry brought up nightmares himself, asking if that were a fear.) "One fear I had was in a big farmhouse we lived in when I was a kid, and it creaked in the wind, and I'd lie awake for an hour or more, thinking someone was there and being afraid. I remem­ ber lying awake sometimes most of the night; sometimes I'd go into my mother's bed. "I still have unpleasant dreams; I don't know if they're nightmares. One was that my heart was stopping; or that I was sick and wouldn't get well. One was that my leg was getting amputated; I'd have to feel it just to see that it was still there. That was probablyon account of the war, though. Recently I dreamed I was awake, in bed, and someone was just about to grab me. I couldn't move or yell; I was just completely paralyzed there, but at the last minute I woke up. Or I'll dream that I can't see people or writing around me; it's like being blind. They can see, but I can't quite make things out." (Adolescence?) "I went through it smoothly into manhood. I didn't notice any great change in my life. (Sex?) No great problem. I thought about girls all the time, as boys will, and I looked at them. I started going out with them at about 1 5 . 1 liked them a lot and associated with them at school and in the neighborhood. You know, you have the usual sexual desires, but you don't let them bother you. (Sex morals?) 1 feel a girl should remain a virgin until 21 or 22 anyway. If she expects to marry soon after that, she should wait until after marriage, but if she is a career girl or doesn't want to get married, then an affair with an unmarried man is O.K. if they keep it quiet and secluded so the moral standards of others are not lowered. She should pick out one fellow to have a sex relation with, and not carry on with several." (This is another example of Larry's highly articulate and theorized views on a subject.) (You?) "Not until after I came out of the hospital, when I was 23 or 24. Since then I've had several affairs, lasting a few weeks or a month. I won't marry until I have more security. She almost has to be a virgin, though not necessarily. I lost respect for the women I slept with. I know that's selfish, but I guess that's the way most fellows are."

GENETIC ASPECTS OF T H E A U T H O R I T A R I A N PERSONALITY

81 I

(Ideal wife?) "She shouldn't work, no career. She should stay at home, love me, raise a family, not expect too much in the way of fine clothes and a good time. She should have a good reputation, be attractive, not taller than I, nor too short, say z or 3 inches shorter; she should be intelligent and a college graduate; congenial, easy to get along with, sympathetic, a good mother, stick with me through thin and thick, even if I get sick. She shouldn't drink to excess, but drinking moderately is all right. She shouldn't get too friendly with other men—you know how some married women put their arms around other men, and things like that—but she should be friendly with men. She should have a good home background, come from a good family. Wealth is immaterial." (Ideal husband?) "He should give her happiness, through security, home, car, enjoyment and entertainment; money to travel, and so on. He should be a good father to the children, shouldn't give the wife any worries; he shouldn't get drunk, and he should be faithful to his wife." (Good father?) "He should be devoted to his children, give them the proper clothing, food, education; he shouldn't spoil them, give them cars in high school, and like that; but be good to them; he should take them on vacations; discipline them in a kind but firm way, teach them the proper morals when they are young, and give them the right environment." (What were you good at in school? ) "History and economics. I wasn't very good or very bad at anything. I had a C plus average. I didn't work hard in high school; I just slid along. I liked sports, and I played basketball for four years in high school, although I was too slight and light to get very far. Languages were especially dif­ ficult, and math. Then I went to junior college for a year; then I got sick and was in a sanitarium for four years. I got out, worked, and I've been back in school for a semester now. I'm living at a cooperative house." iVIost of the outstanding features of Larry's personality seem to belong to one or the other of two syndromes: the one centering around dependence, passivity, and feminine identification, the other around subservience to an internalized but relatively narrow and restricting superego. Both of these patterns are more pronounced in this subject than in most unprejudiced men. Whereas some acceptance of dependence, passivity, and femininity appears regularly in men who score low on the scales, Larry's "softness" would seem to be fairly extreme by any standard. His conservatism, conven­ tionalism, and authoritarian aggression—trends which in his case can be at­ tributed mainly to the superego—are sufficiently pronounced so that he exhibits a number of features which are found more commonly among high than among low scorers. He actually scores high on the PEC scale, and there is reason to believe that his liberal sentiments with respect to minority issues are of fairly recent origin. The contrasts between Larry and Mack are never­ theless marked. The fact that the two men are similar in certain respectspassivity and conventionalism have loomed large in the discussion of Mack's case—should help us to see what circumstances made the crucial differences. Numerous manifest traits of Larry's can be grouped on the basis that they express a general pattern of dependence, passivity, and feminine identifica­ tion. He quite openly expresses his desire for understanding and support, and

8l2

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

his readiness to accept the material help which he expects will be offered to him. He wants to be liked, and to this end he is prepared to inhibit aggression and to be generally pleasing in his relations with others. More than this, he wants pleasure and comfort and relaxation—and he wants to be assured of a bountiful and dependable source of supply. He has a basic "taking in" attitude toward the world. W h a t prevents him from being grasping, it seems, is his conviction that there is plenty for everybody. This conviction even permits him to be generous. He wants everybody to have plenty and to be happy—himself included. W h a t holds for material supplies holds also for people: he is ready to take them in too, that is, to be identified with them and to share their feelings, just as he is ready to give out his own feelings. This attitude leaves him sensitive to rejection, bur at the same time able to sympa­ thize with those whom he conceives as downtrodden—an essential feature of his positive attitudes toward minority groups. Relatively free from the idea that softness might leave him open to attack, he is able to indulge in tendencies which in men like Mack are automatically associated with dan­ gerous weakness: he can experience the human, emotional aspects of things; he can be subjective and introspective, enjoy fantasy life and "philosophiz­ ing," admit having fears, anxieties, and doubts. Consistent with all this is the fact that he can have close relationships with women, whom he conceives to be not very different from himself. These trends are on the surface in Larry; they are directly expressed in his overt behavtor. The contrast with Mack lies in the fact that in him trends of this very same kind operate below the surface and he is very concerned to deny and counteract them. W h a t is it that has made the difference? Most important, it would seem, were the differing circumstances connected with the childhood relationships with the mother. It was in this area that Mack was subjected to severely traumatic experiences, whereas Larry's early relation­ ship with his mother was close and for the most part highly gratifying. Indeed the mother looms as the central figure in Larry's childhood. There is reason to believe that she took good care of him and that he became strongly attached to her. The attitude of love-seeking was carried over into his rela­ tions with other women, whose love he sought to obtain and to hold by being a "good boy." It seems that he is still bent on obtaining the kind of gratifica­ tion he received as a child, and that to a considerable extent he succeeds in doing so—through having found modes of behavior that are more or less acceptable socially. (Mack, for his part, was forced to repress his dependent needs in childhood, and so was not able to find suitable modes for their expres­ sion; hence, he remains comparatively frustrated, unhappy, and self-pitying.) Larry is not, however, altogether secure with respect to the needs under dis­ cussion. He did not receive enough gratification in childhood, nor does he receive enough now, so that he can take love and support for granted. He is still susceptible to frustration and sensitive to rejection. The circumstance of

GENETIC ASPECTS O F T H E A U T H O R I T A R I A N PERSONALITY

813

there being much but still not enough gratification would account, in large part, for Larry's identification with his mother in childhood. Identification was a means for getting close to her and holding on to her, and of protecting himself from having to feel rejected and hostile. It seems, however, that the identification is a comfortable one, and that it must have been based more upon love than upon fear. An additional reason w h y Larry is able to be comfortable and relaxed with his feminine identification lies in the fact that his mother was to a suf­ ficient extent strong and protective. W e are told that when the father was too hard on one of the boys, the mother took all the children and went to see her lawyer. She thus made it plain that she was not afraid to oppose the father and that she was a real source of protection. Larry could be on the side of this woman, be identified with her, without feeling that he was plac­ ing himself in a hopelessly weak position. This is in crucial contrast to Mack and many other prejudiced men, who cannot possibly come close to or be identified with the mother, no matter how "sweet" or "devoted" she might be, because she is conceived as too weak or inconsequential. Apparently, it is easier for a boy to identify himself with a feminine role, which he associates with the weakness and suffering of the underdog, when the weakness is not seen as hopeless nor the suffering as intolerable. But if Larry's passivity and amiability is mainly a derivative of his child­ hood dependence on the mother, it has at the same time another function within the personality. It serves as a defense against his underlying aggressive impulses. Several of his responses in the interview and to the Projective Questions seem to show a particular concern with the inhibition of aggres­ sion, e.g., after describing the good time he would have if he had only six months to live, he adds "all this without hurting anyone"; and "a feeling that I have hurt someone" is one of the moods or feelings most disturbing to him. His concern with "true comradeship" and his solicitude for persecuted peo­ ple suggest that, to some extent at least, he loves in order that he might not hate. The hypothesis of underlying aggression is supported by the T.A.T., which gives evidence of "strong underlying hostile impulses." These im­ pulses are'directed both against women and against men. Hostility against women is aroused by rejection or the threat of it, and can be understood as an aspect of the mother-dependence discussed above. (This is different from Mack, whose aggression against women is aroused by the fear that they might drag him down to their level.) Hostility against men is fused with antisocial rebellion, and the conflict between these tendencies on the one hand and the demands of conscience on the other is much more intense than is common among low-scoring men. Here, it appears, Larry is expressing attitudes built up on the basis of experiences with his father. There is nothing in the inter­ view material to indicate that the father was unusually provoking, but he certainly enforced his will, administered some whippings, and was cast b y

814

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

the mother in the role of feared disciplinarian. This would be reason enough w h y Larry should have hostile and rebellious feelings. More than this, the T.A.T. offers the strong suggestion that Larry reproaches his father for not loving him enough, and that part of the interview in which Larry tells what a father should be seems to be in keeping with this suggestion. But what is particularly important, Larry must also have loved his father and become to some extent identified with him. This would account for the fact that rebel­ lious aggression goes against Larry's conscience and leaves him feeling guilty and remorseful. It is to ward off such feelings that he must praise his father, remain subservient to his family's ideals, and exhibit other conservative tend­ encies more characteristic of high-scoring men. This brings us to the most crucial differences between Larry and Mack. The two subjects differ in the quality and intensity of their aggression and in the w a y of dealing with it. Larry takes responsibility for his aggression; though it is not conscious now, it seems to have been conscious at one time so that he could actually imagine himself taking revenge in one w a y or another upon his father. W i t h Mack, as we have seen, the aggression appears to be out of touch with the rest of the personality; it is something which is entirely disclaimed, but which might suddenly explode in a blindly impulsive w a y . W e have at­ tributed these aspects of Mack's aggression to his extreme fear of the father. W i t h Larry this fear seems not to have been so great. He tells us that he was afraid of his father's punishment, it is true, while Mack does not admit such fears; but Larry acted as if he were afraid of being merely whipped while Mack acted as if he were afraid of being torn limb from limb. There seems to have been two reasons for this: first, Larry's father was in an objective sense less dangerous; he was more human and understandable; and second, Larry had his mother to support him; she did not come off so badly in her quarrels with the father, and though "she would tell father" if Larry did not behave, she would protect him if the father was unjust. These differences in the real situations with which the two subjects had to deal seem to have determined also their differing w a y s of handling their aggression. Whereas in Mack it is immediately repressed and displaced onto outgroups, in Larry it is turned against the self, giving rise to guilt feelings and self-depreciation. It is this state of affairs in Larry that makes it impos­ sible for him to indulge in wholesale condemnation of other individuals or groups; there is a readiness to take blame himself, to suspect that the fault might lie within him. This is the work of a fairly normal conscience, a con­ science built up through identification with the father as well as with the mother. Larry was willing to accept and to internalize their punishment or disapproval because he received enough love to make it seem that his sac­ rifices were worthwhile. In the case of Mack, the father has remained "out there," a source of actual danger, rather than become an inner source of guilt or conflict; instead of striving to live up to principles in order to feel

GENETIC ASPECTS OF T H E A U T H O R I T A R I A N PERSONALITY

815

loved and free of guilt, Mack acts like a man who has made a bad bargain; he feels that he has somehow been "gypped" and it is mainly fear that keeps him in line. But Larry can hardly be regarded as a model of personality integration. There is too great a discrepancy between what he feels he must be and what he believes himself to be capable of. Since he is still dependent on his par­ ents for love and support, he must constantly exert himself lest he "fall from grace" and lose their good will. And since his underlying aggressive tend­ encies are not fully integrated with the ego, it is necessary for him to maintain careful defenses against them. These defenses include masochism, passivity, and oversolicitude for possible victims of aggression. Thus it is that his posi­ tive attitudes toward minority groups are based in part upon neurotic trends. But this does not mean that these attitudes are unstable. It would be as dif­ ficult to induce Larry to attack a minority group member (just because he belonged to such a group) as it would be to get Mack to see that there might be some evil in himself or in his group. It would take a series of severe disappointments to divert Larry from his present course; he would have to be shown that it is not true that virtue and good work lead to the rewards of love and material support and then, instead of becoming overtly aggres­ sive, he would probably suffer a depression. It must be noted, however, that Larry is capable of further growth. The fact that he is willing to look at himself and to inquire into his motivations indicates that he may achieve a higher degree of personality integration. And should he continue to gain understanding of himself, we should expect his understanding of the world to increase. W e should not expect Larry to become militantly outspoken in the inter­ ests of his democratic beliefs, nor would he be likely to assume any leader­ ship in a moment of acute crisis. He is too weak, that is to say, he finds it too difficult to be overtly aggressive, for that. His tendency, rather, would be to try in an inoffensive w a y to smooth troubled waters, to get everybody to "cooperate"—a contribution not to be altogether despised. Larry is a rather ordinary young man. His case, though not typical of our low scorers, seems to show that among the determinants of relative freedom from prejudice are a willingness to accept one's own softness and to take responsibility for one's own "badness." But, as the results from our clinical sample as a whole have shown, accepting one's softness does not re­ quire that one be as soft as Larry or that one overadjust to it as he has done; and one can certainly take responsibility for one's own "badness" without remaining caught like Larry in the dilemma of parental dependence, with its underlying hostility and overlying guilt feelings. Turning back now to Mack, it would appear that therapy in his case would have to consist, first of all, in showing him that the sources of his frustrations and unhappiness are mainly in him. (Only after attaining this insight could

8i6

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

he approach a true appraisal of the conflicts and dislocations within society.) He would have to learn to accept more of his own softness and to come to terms with his own aggression. Since, however, the sources of these trends lie, as we have seen, very deep within the personality it is doubtful that any­ thing short of individual therapy would effect any important change in him. W o u l d individual therapy work? Since he is a relatively mild case and since he showed in his interview that he is able to make a positive transference to an older man, it probably would—but it is highly doubtful that he would ever seek it. But if it seems unlikely that his personality will change, there is good reason to believe that his behavior can be controlled. Indeed he can be too easily controlled, and therein lies one of the major troubles. There is little in his make-up to render him resistant to fascist propaganda or to fascist leadership. He too, in his own w a y , is weak and afraid to be overtly aggres­ sive. He could never on his own initiative be an aggressive leader, but given strong direction from above he could pass it along to those who, in an organ­ izational sense, were below him. He would be unlikely on his own initiative openly to attack a minority group member, not because of conscience but because of fear that he might get hurt or be disapproved of; but given the safety and influence of a crowd or the backing of someone he regarded as an authority, he could be violently aggressive. However regrettable from the democratic point of view this susceptibility to external control might be, the fact remains that it offers the best basis for preventing his antidemocratic tendencies from expressing themselves in action. The appeal should be not to his sympathy or his conscience, but to his fear and submissiveness. He must be convinced that arrayed against the overt expression of his prejudices are the law, overwhelming numbers of people, numerous conventional authori­ ties and prestige figures. If those who stand for democracy want to win him to their side, they must do more than show him that they have high ideals and realistic plans for social improvement; they must convince him that they also have strength. Such a program, unfortunately, involves an essential para­ dox: in inducing him to behave in accordance with democratic principles, one is likely to strengthen his authoritarianism and, hence, his antidemocratic potential. One could not, therefore, undertake so to influence the con­ temporary behavior of individuals like Mack unless one exerted as much effort toward insuring that antidemocratic leadership did not gain the as­ cendancy in the future.

•

C H A P T E R

CRIMINALITY

AND

X X I

ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS: A STUDY OF PRISON INMATES William R. Morrow

A.

INTRODUCTION 1.

THE

PROBLEM

If, as the foregoing chapters have indicated, failure in superego integra­ tion, inability to establish emotional relationships with others, and overcompensatory reactions to weakness and passivity are among the important sources of potentially fascist trends within the personality, should w e not expect that a group of prison inmates would score particularly high on our scales? This, at any rate, was the thought which led us to consider our sub­ jects from the San Quentin Prison as a key group. The most extreme failures in superego integration are found in the psy­ chopathic personality (see Chapter X I X ) , a type of character structure which has been given an important role in criminality b y many authorities, e.g., Karpman ( 6 1 ) , Lindner ( 7 4 ) , and Glueck and Glueck ( 4 4 ) . Traits which some writers assign to criminals in general, e.g., egocentricity, absence of sense of guilt, inadequate emotional control, are often regarded as aspects of the psychopathy syndrome. Inability to establish emotional relationships with other people is probably a mark of psychopathy, though it is a trait often assigned to the delinquent personality in general, e.g., b y L o w r e y ( 7 6 ) . That the inordinate longing for status and power, the readiness for aggres­ sion against weaker or relatively defenseless people, and the demands for immediate recognition so common among criminals usually spring from underlying weakness, passivity, and homosexuality has often been noted, e.g., b y Aichorn ( 4 ) and by Alexander and Healy ( 6 ) . These considerations are in accord with the well-known role of criminal types in fascist movements; they are the "plug-uglies" who are assigned the task of terrorizing minority group members, active labor unionists, liberals, and radicals. 1

1

This study was made possible by the extended cooperation and assistance of Dr. David G. Schmidt, Chief Psychiatrist, San Quentin, California, and his staff. 817

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

8i8

PERSONALITY

At the same time, however, it was considered that there might be certain types of criminals who, exhibiting trends quite different from those noted above, would obtain relatively low scores on our scales. Thus in the "normal criminal" of Alexander and Staub ( 7 ) and in the "antisocial offender" of Sanford ( 1 0 3 ) rebellion against the status quo seems to be an important feature. This suggested that we might expect to find in some of the San Quentin subjects certain manifestations of a trend which in our major sample had appeared to favor low scores on the scales. Finally, in the "presocial offender" described by Sanford, the need for. love and the sense of love deprivation are outstanding features, and it was considered possible that in some cases these trends might outweigh the displaced hostility that is basic to prejudice. There was no information concerning the frequency with which these anti-authoritarian and love-oriented patterns appear in the general pop­ ulation of penal inmates, though it seemed fairly certain that it was small compared with that of the authoritarian personality trends noted above. 2.

SAMPLING AND ADMINISTRATION

The sample of inmates on whom the questionnaire statistics are based was selected as follows. The prison psychiatric department provided, upon re­ quest, a sample of the inmate population subject to the following conditions: ( a ) A sampling of offense-groups should be obtained, roughly in proportion to their ratios in the total inmate population. ( b ) Inmates beyond maximum age of 5 5 should be excluded, ( c ) Feebleminded inmates should be excluded. ( d ) As far as possible, inmates with less than eight years of schooling should be excluded. In addition to these restrictions, about twenty of the question­ naires obtained were subsequently excluded because: ( e ) they were incom­ plete (eight or more items left unanswered); or (f) they belonged to Negro or Jewish inmates; or ( g ) they belonged to inmates in the prison psychotic ward. These exclusions left a working sample of n o , on which the statistics were obtained. 2

3

4

The inmates filled out the questionnaire (Form 4 5 ) in groups of six or eight 2

The ratios of different offense-groups in the questionnaire sample are as follows: "check-writing" 40%; "robbery," "burglary," and "theft" 28%; "homicide" 1 1 % ; "sex offenses" 2 1 % . The corresponding ratios for the prison population (1945) are as follows: "check-writing" 1 4 % ; "robbery," "burglary," and "theft" 54%; homicide 7%; "sex of­ fenses" 1 1 % . The chief difference between the questionnaire sample and the prison popu­ lation is that the latter includes 26% fewer cases of "check-writing," and 26% more cases of "robbery," "burglary," and "theft." The E- and F-scale means for these two offensegroups in the sample are not significantly different. (See Table 5 (XXI).) A l l of the ratios given in this note, it should be remembered, refer only to the "present" offense; many inmates have committed previous offenses in different categories. 3

One subject included in the sample violated this condition; he obtained a WechslerBellevue I.Q. of 48. Actually, sixteen subjects included in the sample (including the feebleminded subject referred to in footnote 3) violated this condition. 4

8lQ

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

at a time, in the prison psychiatric department. Instructions given were the same as for other groups, with one addition: An attempt was made to get across the idea not only that anonymity would be maintained, but also that this task had no relation to prison routine or authority. Such verbal reassur­ ance could not, of course, alter the general atmosphere of the prison, which stresses compulsion and conformity. And it cannot be denied that such an en­ vironment is conducive to agreement with many of the conventional, au­ thoritarian values represented in the questionnaire items. That this factor had a relatively minor effect upon the responses, however, is indicated by the wide inter- and intra-individual differences in answering the questionnaire. These differences appear in the fairly wide dispersion of scores obtained for most items considered separately, in patterns of agreement and disagreement for all except a few ultra-high scorers, and above all in some patterns of pre­ dominant disagreement (i.e., low scorers). There is also validating interview material. It deserves emphasis, moreover, that submission to surrounding au­ thoritarian pressures is itself an index of authoritarian trends in the per­ sonality, of inability to maintain individualistic values in the face of counterpressure. It is probable that items were sometimes misunderstood and answered in­ correctly on account of external distraction, i.e., noise and crowded condi­ tions. For inmates of low educational status, the possibility of misunderstand­ ing would naturally be increased. It was discovered in follow-up interviews that some inmates had in fact misunderstood some items, and had answered them in a manner opposite to their intentions. This type of distortion appears to have been a minor (i.e., only occasional) factor, however. Fifteen of the inmates were interviewed. Of these, eight scored high, four low, and three had scores placing them in what is, for most groups studied, the middle range. To avoid overcomplicating the picture, the interviews of these "middles" are not included in the discussion. Subjects were selected for interviews on the basis of E score (high or l o w ) , offense-group (to get some sampling of each major g r o u p ) , intellectual level (average or better, as estimated roughly from the data on the front page of the questionnaire and from the language u s e d ) , and the suggestiveness of their responses to the Projective Questions. A further selection was imposed by the fact that a few of the inmates sought for interviews were in the sick ward at the time or could not conveniently be seen because of conflicting prison routine. The interviewees did not come voluntarily to be interviewed, but were summoned by the psychiatric department. The examiner tried as best he 5

6

5

This anonymity was violated to the extent necessary to follow up certain inmates in interviews. It will of course be preserved here. T o connect the names given to inter­ viewees here with the numbers used in Part IV, see K e y on the bottom of Table i ( X X I ) . This was before the prison I.Q. test data had been made available to us. 6

820

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 1 (XXI) IDENTIFYING DATA FOR INTERVIEWEES IN THE PRISON INMATES GROUP

Age

Pseudonym

a

Marital Status

Family Class Status

Years of Schooling

I.Q.

C

Pre-Prison Occupation

Pseudodeaocratic 126

Cook

Ronald

30

Divorced 3 times

X

9

Robert

32

Separated

LM

12

Eugene

28

Single

LL

10

115

Wilbur

42

Married

LL

0

86

Truck d r i v e r

' Clarence

63

Widower

LM

3

94

Farmer; s o l d i e r pensioner

Floyd

23

Single

LM

11

125

I r r e g u l a r odd jobs

Adrian

30

Single

LU

«

122

Homosexual p r o s ­ t i t u t e ; occa­ sional c l e r k

Buck

32

Divorced twice

LM

Jim

28

Single

LL

ii

in

Messenger; clerk

Don

42

l s t wife died: 2nd w i f e divorced

1M

12

128

Salesman

Dick

26

Divorced; now engaged

UL

12

112

Clerk

Art

31

Married"2nd time

UM

14

130

Commercial a r t i s t

1 1 5 ( e s t . ) Grocery manager

Fascist

low

83

Plumber

"Cattleman"

Scoring

a

A s o f November,

b

T h e s e r a t i n g s a r e e s t i m a t e s by the examiner, u s i n g Lloyd W a r n e r ' s c a t e g o r i e s : "Upper Upper," "Lower Upper," "Upper M i d d l e , " "Lower Middle," "Upper L o w e r , " "Lower L o w e r . •

1945.

KEY FOR CONNECTING NAMES GIVEN TO INTERVIEWEES IN THIS CHAPTER WITH NUMBERS USED IN PART I V : Ronald: Clarence: Jim:

M651A M664B M619

Robert: Floyd: Don:

M656A M658 M620

E u g e n e : M662A A d r i a n : M661A Dick: M621A

W i l b u r : M662B Buck: M664C Art: M621B

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC

Present

Offense

Previous Delinquencies

Typical

821

TRENDS

Self-characterizations

Murder during gang robbery

Numerous t h e f t s and b u r ­ glaries

Robbed "as a business"; "1 a l w a y s get married s p e c t a c u l a r l y . "

Killed mistress quarrel

Check-writing:

Was "a good boy"; " h a r d - w o r k i n g . . . . self-made...business-success. "

in

robbery

Check-writing

Eight drunk s e n t e n c e s ; b a t t e r y : robbery

"I l i k e t o f i g h t " ;

K i l l e d landlord in knife fight

None

One o f t h e "poor people" whom "the Greeks l i k e t o p u n i s h . "

Attempted r a p e ( g i r l 12)

"Molesting" c h i l d r e n : attempted r a p e ( c h i l d )

Was "a good boy"; "a f o l l o w e r " ; by t h e people i n p o l i t i c s . "

Gang r o b b e r i e s

Drunk-and-disorderly: s e v e r a l Army AWOL's

"Everything I do i s an act"; "my industriousness j u s t doesn't exist": "only one help I ' v e g o t . . . m y f a t h e r . "

Robbery with cap pistol

Numerous drunk and (homo­ sexual) "soliciting" sentences; o t h e r s

"Men i r r i t a t e m e . . . b y . . . a s u p e r i o r a t t i t u d e " ; " I ' v e got t o have a God"; "my f a t h e r haunts me. "

Check-writing while drunk

Fraud; s t a t u t o r y rape (girl 13); " f a i l u r e to provide": "molesting" own c h i l d r e n

"Money i s t h e main o b j e c t " , "you don" t t h i n k I'm a sex maniac, do you?"

While drunk, clubbed e l d e r l y woman t o death

S e v e r a l t h e f t s : t o buy n e c e s s i t i e s f o r mother

"The o n l y happiness we r e a l l y know o f i s . . . here on e a r t h " ; "I l o o k on God a s mostly t h e goodness in a l l peoples.

Bank r o b b e r i e s ( a l o n e ) : t o pay m o t h e r ' s d e b t s

None

"Helping o t h e r s a l l my l i f e , i t seems": "beset by a l l s o r t s o f emotional problems."

S t o l e auto w h i l e drunk

None

"I n e v e r did l i k e t o argue"; "when we were s e p a r a t e d . I got a l i t t l e w i l d . "

Check-writing while drunk

Check-writing while drunk

Doing an " a u t o p s y c h o a n a l y s i s " o f own "Oedipus complex" t o improve s o c i a l adjustment.

"I'm a l i t t l e

CThis column g i v e s t h e f u l l - s c a l e I.Q, s c o r e o b t a i n e d on a W e c h s l e r - B e l l e v u e a d m i n i s t e r e d by an inmate working i n t h e p r i s o n p s y c h i a t r i c department.

test

wild."

"framed

822

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

could to dissociate himself from prison authority. Some of the interviews suffered, like the questionnaire sessions, from external noise and interruptions. But except for one interview (with Wilbur, a high scorer), which for lack of space had to be conducted in an office where another person was work­ ing, it is believed that these factors did not seriously interfere with rapport or with smooth conduct of the interview (as compared with interviews held in freer circumstances). 3. PLAN OF DISCUSSION

As elsewhere in the book, the general order of presentation is from sur- ' face attitudes to successively deeper dynamic factors. The bulk of the dis­ cussion is concerned with interview material, although in each section relevant questionnaire statistics are given. The concepts developed earlier in the book, especially in Chapters IX-XIII, are here applied systematically to a group of key importance for understanding fascism, namely criminals. The more adequate interviews obtained for this group permit detailed exemplifica­ tion of differentiating variables, combined with case studies of individuals who are followed as such throughout the chapter. An attempt is made to indicate in what respects the inmates are similar to other groups studied, and also what features seem to distinguish them. To help keep the interviewees in mind as individuals, Table i ( X X I ) , which summarizes a few salient facts about each one, is presented. 7

One notable w a y in which the prison group is distinguished is the fact that some of the high scorers express openly fascistic attitudes. Three of the high-scoring interviewees differ sufficiently from the others in this respect to warrant special consideration. For each general topic, therefore, the inter­ viewees are discussed in three groups: pseudodemocratic high scorers, fascists, and low scorers. For variables in which there is no notable difference be­ tween the two kinds of high scorers, some quotations from the fascists are often included under discussion of the pseudodemocratic high scorers. The distinction between these two differently organized types of mentality among the interviewees emerged empirically; it is developed inductively as various aspects of the fascist syndrome are taken up in successive sections of the chapter. The term fascist (as distinguished from pseudodemocratic, potential fascist) is used here to characterize anyone who expresses open hostility toward minority groups and endorses the use of force where "necessary" to suppress such groups; and who explicitly favors a "strong" government to protect business power against demands of labor unions and progressive political groups—even to the point of suppressing them b y force. 7

The twelve interviewees considered in this chapter were a part of the total sample which formed the basis for the quantitative analysis presented in Chapters IX-XIII. This fact no doubt accounts in part, but only in part, for the similarity of the clinical results to be reported here and those which emerged from the analysis of our clinical material taken as a whole.

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC

B. 1.

TRENDS

823

ETHNOCENTRISM

G E N E R A L QUESTIONNAIRE STATISTICS

AND

THEIR SIGNIFICANCE

A statistical summary of E-scale results for the prison group is presented in Table 2 ( X X I ) . The prison inmates obtained a higher group mean on the TABLE 2 (XXI) RESULTS ON THE E SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES

High Q u a r t i l e Mean/Person

Item 5. 10. 15. 20. 24. 28. 32. 36. 40. 45.

(Zootsuiters) (Negro r i g h t s ) (Foreign i d e a s ) (Negro foremen) (Jewish businessmen) (Marry a Jew) (Negroes l i v e ) (Jews a l i k e ) (Jewish neighborhood) (World o r g a n i z a t i o n )

Total mean/person

61.34

Mean/person item

6. 13

Range

5.5-7.0

Standard Deviation: Reliability:

6.17 6.86 5.90 6.79 5.69 5.07 5.72 6.52 6.03 6.59

Low Q u a r t i l e Mean/Person

D.P.

Over-all Mean/Person

3.22 2.70 3.11 2.78 2.63 1.30 1.67 2. 70 1.78 5.93

2.95 4. 16 2. 79 4.01 3.06 3.77 4.05 3.82 4. 25 0.66

5.18 5.26 4.78 5.16 4.06 3.20 3.49 4.63 3.92 6.38

27. 82

33.52

46.06

2.78

3.35

1. 6 - 3 . 6

4.61 1.6-7.0

1.28

.65

9.

E scale (45)—4.6 per item—than did any other group tested.

Although there are a number of extreme high scorers, there are no extreme low scorers, and the low end of the frequency distribution is truncated. This truncation produces the lowest Standard Deviation for the E scale (Form 4 5 ) distribu­ tion found in any group studied. In terms of E-scale item means, the bulk of the differences between the inmates and other groups is accounted for by the inmates' high means on non-Jewish items—a result to be discussed later. These gross findings point immediately to an important conclusion. The general run of criminals are not to be thought of as genuine rebels who act according to some principle, however dissident, and whose conflict with au­ thority is accompanied by some consideration for the weak or oppressed. 9

10

8

9

1 0

See Table 17 ( I V ) . The four lowest scores, in terms of mean per item, are 1 . 6 , 1 . 8 , 1 . 9 , and 2.0. See Table 17 ( I V ) .

824

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

On the contrary, they would appear to be full of hate and fear toward under­ dogs. Themselves disfranchised, prisoners and social outcasts, a kind of ulti­ mate outgroup, they are yet unable to identify with other outgroups. This is in accordance with the common observation that most inmates do not iden­ tify with other inmates, but make moralistic distinctions between themselves and "ordinary criminals." The predominant tendency is for each inmate to be "an island, entire in itself." One of the high-scoring interviewees, Eu­ gene, expressed this isolationism succinctly in his general attitude to the "race problem": "Em strictly for havin' all of 'em segregated." A second general result is that the (Form 4 5 ) E-scale reliability of . 6 5 is somewhat lower than that for other groups, This can probably be attributed in part to misunderstanding of items and incorrect recording of responses, related to inadequate education and to environmental distractions. More of the reduction, however, is probably traceable to two statistical characteristics of the group results. One is the relative truncation of the lower end of the distribution. It is well known that cutting off either extreme portion of a bivariate distribution (including, of course, a split-half reliability distribution) tends to reduce the correlation. Secondly, the particular split of E-scale items used in computing reliability is such that one of the halves—the A i t e m s includes precisely the five items on which the prison group means are most distinctively higher than those for other groups. The A set, moreover, in­ cludes the three items with the poorest D.P.'s (see Table 2 ( X X I ) ) . W i t h these "handicaps," a reliability coefficient as high as . 6 5 would seem to be all that could be expected (see Chapter I V ) . The pattern of E-scale item means for the group is interesting (see Table 2 ( X X I ) ) . A very high mean was obtained on Item 4 5 , which states that Amer­ ica must maintain complete independence in any world organization. Al­ though this proposition always yields a high mean, the unusually high value for the inmates suggests that low scorers in prison may submit almost as much as high scorers to sufficiently strong nationalistic propaganda. This item would appear to lend itself particularly well to projection of the most severely frustrated strivings of prison inmates—their need to be free of re­ straint. Aside from this statement opposing world organization, the three items with the highest means (numbers 5 , 1 0 , and 2 0 ) have one thing in common: each expresses strong status anxiety with respect to outgroups per­ ceived as submerged, namely "zootsuiters" or Negroes. The significance of this feature is indicated in the following discussion of interview material on Negroes (the only truly submerged outgroup specifically inquired about). 11

2. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING NEGROES: A SUBMERGED OUTGROUP

a.

HIGH SCORERS.

The content of anti-Negro ideology seems to be related

to the fact that Negroes are almost universally perceived as a very submerged 1 1

See Table 17 (IV).

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

825

outgroup—as contrasted with an imagined "dominant" outgroup such as Jews are thought to be. In the interviews, the principal traits ascribed to Negroes by high scorers are uninhibited sexuality, "laziness," "dirtiness," crude aggression, asocial acquisitiveness (petty thievery), pathological (in­ fantile) lying, and exhibitionism. In a word, Negroes are held to be char­ acterized by "untamed instincts," which keep them "primitive" and "child­ ish." This imagery is partly expressed in questionnaire Item 3 2 : Negroes are "lazy, ignorant, and without self-control." The most conventional of the prejudiced interviewees, Robert, summarizes this idea in general terms: "They have more of a primitive nature . . . just want to exist as the cannibal type of man." The fascists tend to be more picturesque: "They're very closely linked with the jungle. They're built for it" (Floyd). Or, Negroes "originated from the apes" (Buck), and are "still half-African savage, no matter how dressed up they get" (Adrian). 12

Implicit in these statements is the hereditarianism that pervades so much of potentially fascist thinking. One of the most persistent preoccupations of the prejudiced interviewees has to do with the allegedly unsocialized sexuality of Negroes: "There is more animalism in them. . . . (Animalism? ) Well, a bitch dog runs down the street and five dogs jump on top of her. . . . Like the Latin race, they're hot-blooded" (Ronald). One of the fascists, though less graphic, seems more bitter: Negroes are "bestial, like animals. Wonder they don't have seasons for their heat" (Floyd). Another fascist affirms that Negroes are "very prolific" (Adrian). More specific anxiety is expressed about sexual approach to "white women" by Negroes: "One thing I can't stand is to see a white girl with a nigger" (Ronald). "In here, when they have shows, the colored boys holler out about white women on the screen, 'Oh, what a babe!' . . . That don't set right with me" (Eugene). "Under no circumstances," of course, should any member of "the white race . . . marry into the colored race" (Clarence). "Don't think a white person should marry one" (Wilbur). The other traits stressed vary in specific content. T h e y have in common some reference to asocial instincts, and to Negroes' alleged failure to develop superego restraints and ego-ideal drives. Thus Robert, who has struggled so hard to "make good" in business, is much concerned over the "laziness" of Negroes: "I don't think they try to satisfy their ego." Then, pulling back—apparently because this phrasing touches a conflict between Robert's own drive to get "up there" and his need to mask this power-seek­ ing behind a pretense of "service"—he qualifies: "Not their ego, but their 1 2

Throughout the chapter, more than one quotation is generally given to illustrate each point. This is done not merely to multiply illustrations but because each interviewee is followed as an individual case study, on which some material is presented in each section.

8 6 2

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

fellow man. . . . T h e y don't have a goal in life." It is Robert also who ex­ presses distaste for Negroes' alleged failure to conform to cultural ideals of cleanliness: " T h e y don't wash themselves as cleanly." Other characteristics assigned include the following: Asocial acquisitiveness: "The majority of them have sticky fingers. They can't let things alone" (Clarence). Aggressiveness: Negroes are "troublesome," always starting trouble. . . . They get smart, start a lot of fights. . . . They always try to cause so much trouble—fight, trying to be big shots" (Eugene, who admits to a long record of getting in petty "trouble," especially "fighting" when drunk). Patho­ logical lying: "You can't depend on him. . . . He'll lie to you every chance he gets" (Buck, one of the fascists, whose protocol was discovered on checking with his social history chart to be filled with boastful lies on a grand scale). Being oververbal and grossly exhibitionistic: "Chatter like a bunch of apes when you get three or four in a crowd. Strut around like peacocks. . . . Take a look at their clothes" (Floyd, another fascist, who speaks in abrupt, blurted sentences and might be called "underverbal," is exceptionally vain and preoccupied with his appearance, and even admits that, "Everything I do is an act"). The prejudiced interviewees' attitudes toward Negroes, as distinguished from their stereotypes of what Negroes are like, betray intense status anxiety —a fear lest "the black" rise up and challenge the right of "the white" to suppress him. Negroes must constantly be kept "in their place," i.e., sub­ merged, in order to save the high scorers from feeling severe anxiety. This status fear appears both in invidious comparisons of Negroes vs. whites, and in direct insistence upon Jim Crow policies. The following expressions are typical: "I don't believe in associating with them. I believe they should have their own schools. I don't believe we should have to eat with them" (Clarence). "I figure they're black and I'm white. . . . I won't work with them. . . . Let them stay in their place" (Eugene). Negroes "should stay in their place . . . not mix with whites" (Wilbur). Robert wants to be "tolerant" by reducing discrimination in employment and living standards, but "by that I don't mean that we should inter­ mingle"; "there should be a separate section of town" for Negroes; and we "ought to do away with public office-holding" by Negroes. Ronald complains: "The hardest thing for me to stomach is (Southern Negroes coming North) and taking advantage of opportunities. . . . They try to get themselves into a spot, not because they want it but just to annoy other people." He goes on to describe an incident in the Negro section of a midwestern city, in which he forced a Negro to move from the "spot" next to him on a street car, was arrested by a Negro policeman, and subsequently fined. He expresses resentment against "the overbearing attitude they get when the odds are all in their favor." Ronald's bitterness toward the "overbearing attitude" of Negroes also illustrates another feature commonly found in prejudiced subjects: an inabil-

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

827

ity to conceive of genuine equality. This anxiety-laden blind spot leads to some curious distortions by the prejudiced interviewees: "(Negroes) feel themselves better than the white person" (Clarence). "They think they're better than we are" (Eugene). More fully elaborated: "When white people give them a little rope, they just think they are a little better than whites . . . take a bit too far advantage if you give them a chance" (Wilbur). Despite the highly antidemocratic attitudes outlined above, 5 of the high-scoring interviewees present the type of pseudodemocratic facade de­ scribed in Chapters III and XVII. T o convince themselves and others that they conform to the democratic values of "The American Creed," they try to disguise or deny their authoritarian hostility. T h e y show reluctance to approve openly that violence against Negroes to which their inner anxieties predispose them. "They're human, just as we are. . . . I don't believe we should hold racial hate" (Clarence). "There's a few good ones (who) go out of their way not to cause trouble" (Eugene). Robert would even like to equalize some opportunities for Negroes—up to a certain point—so that they may be encouraged to suppress passive wishes and acquire a "goal in life." It is as if Negroes symbolize for Robert his own suppressed desires to be more passive and pleasure-seeking, desires that he feels compelled to inhibit so as to drive himself to "get up there" and prove his masculinity. Even Ronald admits "there are a few good ones"; and when asked what might have to be done if Negroes continue to demand more equality, he wistfully restrains his vigilante impulses: "It isn't so much what will have to be done as that nothing will be done under our democratic system." W h e n pushed further, he sums up an attitude implicit in many of the quotations so far—the high scorers' ultimate pessimism as to any real solution of group tensions: "Well, there's a problem I don't think will ever be solved." Wilbur, however, shows a kind of transition stage between pseudodemo­ cratic facade and open fascist readiness to abandon pretense of democracy. On the one hand he insists, "I have nothing against them if they stay in their place." But if Negroes organize to demand equal rights, "plenty would have to be done . . . battle just like with the Japs." Underdogs' demands for equality seem to arouse in Wilbur a persecutory fear of being overwhelmed, so that he feels driven to "fight back" in paranoid desperation. b. FASCISTS. The three fascist high scorers, Adrian, Buck, and Floyd, reveal essentially the same kinds of anti-Negro stereotypes, with even more intense status-anxiety. In addition, they show two interrelated characteristics that are more openly antidemocratic: undisguised hate combined with explicit readiness to suppress the outgroup by physical force "if necessary."

8z8

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

Buck rages: "Goddam nigger, he's no good at all. . . . I don't want any near me. . . . They ought to be kept in their place. Shouldn't let 'em come over here in the first goddam place! . . . Floyd is even more virulent: "Ignorant 1. . . What ought to be done, but won't be done, is to ship 'em back to Haiti or to Liberia. (What may happen if they continue to encroach on white men?) There'll be bloodshed if it keeps up!" Adrian's protective pattern of submissiveness prevents this blustering type of expression of his tremendous hate. But he leaves no doubt as to his approval of violent fascist suppressions: Negroes "keep their place and that's that. ( W h a t if the Negro doesn't keep his place?) He does keep his place. (But if not?) T h e y learn their place." Further probing elicits the assertion that if Negroes should insist on seeking political representation, there would have to be "another civil w a r " to suppress them. Adrian makes clear the symbolic equivalence for him of Negroes and other submerged groups: (Should Negroes work in the same factory with whites?) "Yes, because if they're working in a factory with whites, they're poor whites anyway." c. Low SCORERS. Despite the unusually high means obtained by the prison group on the three items expressing status-anxiety toward submerged groups, these items have fairly low means for the low quartile and therefore have quite high Discriminatory Powers (Table 2 ( X X I ) ) . This indicates the relative freedom of most low scorers from strong anti-Negro prejudice. Of the 4 low-scoring interviewees, however, none were found to be entirely free of prejudice against Negroes. But their attitudes are distinguished from those of the high scorers in several ways. In the first place, they are much less hostile and far less rigid in such preju­ dice as they do disclose. In particular, they exhibit less status-anxiety toward Negroes. Three of them emphasize that "there should be no discrimination in jobs"; the other, Jim, expresses guilt feelings over his present prejudice on this issue (see below). On the basis of an individualized attitude toward people, these men tend to be more willing to accept Negroes as friends and equals. Thus Don, who was brought up in a Southern state, declares that he chooses friends "mostly on the basis of the individual, not the race." Dick, raised in another Southern state, describes two Negro doctors whom he en­ joys "talking to." He hesitates "as far as having close friends goes," but de­ cides that "that would be all right, too, if they had the same education I had." (Art's and Jim's views on this matter will be indicated in ensuing paragraphs.) All four protocols, however, contain evidence of some barriers against com­ plete freedom of social relations with Negroes. The clearest barrier, sub­ scribed to in some degree by all four, is that they "don't believe in intermar­ riage." But even here these men are more relaxed and flexible than the high-scoring inmates. T h e y typically ascribe to external social pressure the main basis of their own social distance in this respect:

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

829

This barrier is a custom "brought down from years and years in history" (Dick). "I am thinking mostly of the children" who might he "socially ostracized" (Don). "It isn't socially accepted" (Art). The barrier is not regarded as rigid and eternal: "If I'd been raised in New York City (instead of in the South), I might have felt different" (Dick). In countries where intermarriage is generally accepted, it is "okay—not myself, perhaps; but I certainly wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it" (Don). (How would you feel about intermarriage if it were generally accepted socially?) "I don't know. It isn't now. . . . I never thought about it" (Art). Most of these men would appear to have genuinely democratic values and yet, as mentioned before, none of them is entirely free of anti-Negro prejudice. One reason for this is suggested by a feature of their ideology it­ self. This is a tendency to discount somewhat the seriousness and extent of antidemocratic oppression; a reluctance to assign blame in intergroup con­ flict—especially reluctance to identify and to blame those who are more powerful for antidemocratic attitudes or actions toward those who are weaker; and a tendency to adopt a "harmonizing" attitude that urges both sides to be "reasonable" and to avoid impatient extremism—as if both sides were equally at fault. Inferentially, it is as if these men experience a conflict between democratic values and the fear of actively resisting the antidemo­ cratic behavior of "respectable" groups "on top." One w a y of justifying an inability to mobilize aggressiveness toward what is strong and estab­ lished is to "play down" conflicts between stronger and weaker groups, by a kind of false impartiality. Thus, Art declares: "The (Negro-white) prob­ lem is highlighted out of all proportion to what it is." Unable actively to resist conventional antidemocratic sanctions (though he refers to having known a few Negroes casually), he prefers not to "conduct m y social life with them—only from one standpoint: It is not socially accepted." This ex­ plains w h y the "impartiality" is called false: it seems to give w a y , under pres­ sure, to submission to antidemocratic status-quo values and policies. In order to justify this appeasement and maintain self-respect, such a person may turn around to blame the outgroup for being a source of "trouble"—as if it caused the trouble by not submitting quietly. The fact that democratic rights are being denied to the outgroup may be conveniently glossed over or denied. Thus, Art declares: Negroes "have equal rights with me, (but) many of them have set themselves apart." Asked to elaborate, he pulls back to a more "impartial" position: "I don't feel that they have set themselves apart; publicity has set them apart." "Publicity" is sufficiently anonymous so that he can avoid blaming anyone at all. . . . Thus it is clear that even the lowest scorers in the inmate group are not free of "high" trends. W h e r e definite rejection of Negroes is expressed by the low scorers, they show a readiness to examine their own attitudes with some degree of intraceptive and self-critical objectivity. An example is Dick's statement that, "If I'd been raised in N e w York City (instead of in the South), I might have

83O

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

felt different." Jim illustrates this trait more clearly. He verbalizes open guilt over having undemocratic attitudes toward Negroes, and describes these attitudes objectively as a psychological part of himself. "I have a kind of natural, instinctive dislike for working with them. M y mind tells me that's wrong, not f a i r . . . but I just feel that w a y . " Jim sees the conflict as in himself, and conceives the solution as requiring a change not in the outgroup (as the high scorers tend to do) but in the attitudes of himself and the ingroup: "It's certainly unfair according to all human concepts. W e just seem to have a natural antipathy toward them that will eventually have to be worked out, because a person can't help being born a Negro any more than a white man can a white man." Implicit in this last observation is another feature of unprej­ udiced thinking in this area: these men seem to have an ultimate optimism as to the solution of intergroup conflict—it will "eventually have to be worked out." Further: "As far as coming to the time when they won't be segregated, I think that would have to come n a t u r a l l y . . . . I believe it's becoming solved more and more" ( J i m ) . Like other low scorers, these men tend, when they do attribute certain character traits to Negroes, to offer sociopsychological explanations for such traits in terms of environmental pressures. (As might be expected, this is inti­ mately linked with their ultimate optimism, just as the prejudiced men's hereditarianism is associated with their ultimate pessimism.) This capacity for sociopsychological thinking is usually combined with a readiness for empathy with the outgroup member's inner feelings. Thus, Dick: "If (a Negro is) kept under supervision, suppressed, naturally he's not going to have any initiative, not going to care." 3.

IDEOLOGY CONCERNING J E W S : A "DOMINANT" O U T G R O U P

SUPPOSED

a. HIGH SCORERS. Anti-Semitic stereotypes differ markedly from the quali­ ties ascribed to Negroes. Specifically, they seem to reflect the notion of Jews as a "dominant" outgroup. One of the questionnaire items (number 2 4 ) which clearly differentiates high and low scorers, condemns Jews for monop­ olizing business (see Table 2 ( X X I ) ) . This expresses the core of the preju­ diced men's typical imagery of "the J e w " and their attitudes toward the latter. Jews are seen as embodying to a singular degree what seems to be a central value-complex of our culture. This set of values revolves around ac­ quisitiveness and drive for "success" conceived in terms of "getting on top" and staying there—that is, compulsive drive for status and power. Every high-scoring interviewee gave spontaneous fantasies about extreme acquisitiveness as a supposed Jewish trait. The following are typical examples: "They like to be where there's money and take all the money and hang on to it" (Wilbur). "You put (a Jew) on a rock and he'll make money. . . . He's thrifty and

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

83 I

tries to get ahead" (Clarence). Jews have a "special drive" and "have always been after money and capable of making it" (Robert). This drive is imagined to lead to Jewish dominance and power: "I guess they run most of the things in this country," and "They run an awful lot of politics" (Eugene). "I believe that the Jews control a lot of the money in this country" (Ronald). Jews have "put themselves up there, where what they say counts" (Robert). This power is secured, so the fantasies go, b y combining acquisitive drive with "clannishness": Jews are thought of as "stickin' together" (Eugene); as being "self-centered" and acting so that "when one Jews gets in, first thing you know there are about fifty of them" (Ronald); as being "good mixers among their own people, but don't mix much with other people" (Clarence). It is noteworthy that none of the pseudodemocratic inmates ascribed to Jews a single id (primitive instinct) trait, of the sort described above in the anti-Negro stereotype. This striking difference in fantasies about an out­ group imagined to be "dominant," as contrasted with an outgroup perceived as "submerged," was a matter of the spontaneous emphasis of the inmates themselves. The prejudiced men's attitude toward J e w s also differs clearly from their attitude toward Negroes. Their attitude toward J e w s seems to be associated with the image of Jewish dominance combined with exclusiveness. This atti­ tude centers around fantasies of victimization by Jewish power, and a fear of being overwhelmed by that power. Here the personalization of ideology is even more striking than in the anti-Negro attitudes. Thus, Eugene: "Say I have a grocery store. They'll come in and start a bigger one." They "get in a small town" (Eugene was raised in a small town) and "take over the grocery stores." Or Ronald: "You put a Jew in an office. First thing you know, you haven't got a job. You've got five Jews instead. . . . They act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool." Of special interest is the anti-Greek ideology of Wilbur. He shows the usual anti-Semitic fantasies, but without as intense feelings as those character­ izing his anti-Greek ideology, which serves a similar function and is more focal. This fact appears to have been precipitated by a specific experience with a Greek landlord. Following an argument over the rent, the landlord evicted Wilbur's family while W i l b u r was at work. W i l b u r sought him out in a rage, started a fight, and gave him a fatal wound (leading to Wilbur's imprisonment). Wilbur's emotional conflicts (to be discussed later) pre­ vented him from merely rejecting the particular individual. Instead he de13

1 3

Cf. the discussion in Chapter XVI of the functional character of anti-Semitism.

832

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

veloped rigid delusions about "the Greeks," imagining them as "all alike" and as having deliberately "come over here" to "punish the poor people, pay low wages, make you work too hard," etc. Significant is the fact that the prejudiced men's anti-Semitic resentment seems to have an ambivalent aspect, to be combined with a secret envy of, and longing to be accepted into, the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. Ob­ serve in the following examples the reluctant admiration of and implied wish to share in "Jewish power": "God knows they're good businessmen, but all for the Jew" (Adrian). " 'Course they've got to stick together, but why at the expense of others" (Ronald). "Smart people, ain't they?" (Buck). "Still, if they can do it . . ." (Eugene). "Trouble is, they're so goddam clannish . . . won't mix and mingle like other people" (Floyd). More positive (surface) identification with "Jewish" drive to "get up there" is illustrated in Robert, who seems to have experienced a severe struggle to internalize this same goal in the face of desires to relax and enjoy life (see p. 8 5 8 ) . W i t h a kind of inverted anti-Semitism, he expresses ad­ miration for Jews' "knack to earn money, to control something," and for their having had "the foresight and drive and ambition to get there." His envy is plain: "I think it would be better if some white men had something put on their backs to get that drive." Floyd, a fascist who expresses contempt for himself for never having held a job for more than a few weeks at a time, stresses Jewish "industriousness" which he consciously envies: "They believe in working for what they get Talk to a little Yid kid, and he is studying for what he's gonna be ten years from now." Despite the antidemocratic hostility implicit in their anti-Semitic fantasies, the same five men again maintain a pseudodemocratic facade. T h e y ward off attention to their own hostility as such b y focusing rigidly on "what is wrong with the outgroup." Hence, it is often possible for them to believe that they are "strictly not preju­ diced" (Robert); to declare that Jews have "got to have some place to live-can't run them out of the country" (Clarence); or that "however, I don't think they should be persecuted" (Ronald); or assert that "I don't have no trouble with a person (such as a Jew) if he don't bother me" (Wilbur); or that "I guess they're all right, I never had no run-in. They stay in their place" (Eugene). Although these men may feel that perhaps Hitler faced a "real problem . . . with this domineering t y p e " who "possibly controlled Germany quite a bit through big business" (Robert), they reject Nazi persecution of Jews as brutal and unwarranted. The pseudodemocratic character of this facade is seen not only in the hostile stereotypes of Jews but also in responses to questioning about "what might have to be done if Jewish control goes too far?" For example: "There might be no way to get them out except by revolution"

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

833

(Ronald). Wilbur reveals, rather pathetically, a similar pogrom mentality in his attitude toward "the Greeks": "If they don't stop (punishing the poor people), there's going to be more American people in the penitentiary." He feels "they" ought to be sent back to Greece. b. FASCISTS. The anti-Semitic stereotypes of the three fascists are fairly similar to those of the pseudodemocratic high scorers. T h e y focus on acquis­ itiveness as well as clannishness and monopolization of power. The fascist subjects stress a further trait attributed to Jews, however, which is not men­ tioned by the other high scorers, viz., excessive sensuality. Buck refers especially to sexual obsessions and homosexuality among Jewish men: (What are Jews like? ) "Most all of them Jews talk about sex mostly, or beatin' a guy out of his money. . . . (What do they talk about sex? ) About what they're gonna do when they get out, or they're gonna get a tonight." . . . Floyd, whose ambivalence is peculiarly clear-cut, complains that Jews "won't inter­ marry." An underlying orientation toward Jewish men is suggested by his phras­ ing: "Some of their women are really all right" (italics supplied). . . . Adrian does not himself introduce the topic of Jewish sensuality but does verbalize such fantasies quite readily: (Are Jews somewhat different sexually?) "They are more amorous than other people. Yes, and I know whereof I speak! More passionate, more romantic. Not that I like it, but they are." 1 4

Like the other high scorers, the fascists reveal a fear of being victimized by Jewish power, along with an ambivalent wish to be accepted into the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. As in their anti-Negro ideology, the fascist inmates' attitudes are distinguished by undisguised hate and by explicit readi­ ness to suppress the outgroup by physical force. This goes along with open approval of specifically fascist aggressions against underdogs. Buck feels that Hitler "done the right thing" to the Jews, who are "lower than a goddam snake." In this country "they'll have to watch out if they want to eat." . . . Floyd grimaces with disgust as he speaks of "that harsh guttural voice." If Floyd had been in Hitler's place, "I'd have done the same thing he did!" . . . Adrian is again too ingratiating to bluster in this way, but is quite open as to his authoritarian hostility: (Is dislike for Jews increasing? ) "No, just the opposite, and I deplore it personally!" He is willing to support fascist persecution in the form of arbitrary deportation of all Jews in America-"send them all to Palestine"-even though he feels compelled to "disapprove of the (Hitler) took to rid Ger­ many of the Jewish problem. Because they did monopolize industry, and something had to be done." And "the Jews are just as apt to monopolize industry in this coun­ try." While he justifies persecution of Jews for being allegedly too aggressive and powerful, Adrian also "wanted to let the Japs go into Manchuria" because the Chinese are "not aggressive enough!" "They have enough resources and could be a great nation if they had the aggressiveness of the Japs."

means

This contradiction throws into relief a further aspect of fascist ideology that can be described as ideological opportunism. By this term is meant a disregard for ethical principles and truth-values, which are replaced b y 1 4

Profane term meaning to have fellatio performed upon oneself.

834

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

opportunistic manipulation of ideas and "facts" in the service of Realpolitik ends. The contexts in which such opportunistic thinking appears are charac­ teristically those involving dominance-submission conflicts. The aim of such opportunism is to maintain identification with those on top—whoever they are, whatever they represent—and to avoid at all cost the anxiety of being identified with those below. There is an essential indifference to content, i.e., indifference to any goals of human happiness. Power for power's sake is the ultimate end; ideological opportunism is one of the means. Such oppor­ tunism appears also in the thinking of pseudodemocratic high scorers, but in more disguised forms. (See Chapter X V I I . ) Another facet of Adrian's opportunism is revealed b y a superficial shift in his identifications which occurred "after the war began in Europe." His explicit sympathy with the aggressions of fascist Germany and Japan was modified, as American opinion became crystalized against the Axis. He ra­ tionalizes that Hitler's aggressions during the war "seemed to be more a matter of conquest than protecting against communism"; and "I certainly didn't expect (the Japanese) to go beyond China." That Adrian experienced no change in heart but only a superficial realignment so as to avoid conflict with a more dominant ingroup (America), is suggested by his present explicit approval of all aggressions by the Axis nations carried out prior to their open war with the stronger Allied powers. Floyd's ideological opportunism is even clearer. He summarizes (and plainly approves) the "harmony" technique exploited by German industrialists, through Hitler, to "solve" class conflict: Hitler's "object wasn't the Jew. He wanted a scapegrace (sic) to get the different classes and provincials together, to fight one thing To get together instead of having all this bickering and split power. (Was his cause just? ) In the eyes of the German people, yes. (In your eyes? ) Every man for his own country." Buck, besides supporting Nazi persecution of Jews, exhibits an interesting mode of ideological opportunism in his behavior toward the interviewer. The first three inquiries about his views on "the Jewish problem" and "the most characteristic Jewish traits" elicited only pseudodemocratic denials of hostility. For example: " T h e y got a right to make a living as much as any­ body e l s e . . . . T h e y got a w a y to make money is all I know. More power to 'em is all I can say. . . . I don't know much about 'em." But with the fourth question he apparently sensed that he would not be punished for expressing hostility and might (judging from the interviewer's noncommittal attitude) even gain approval for having the "right" view of things: (Can y o u tell a J e w usually?) "You're damn right I can tell 'em as soon as I talk to 'em." From this point on, Buck drops his facade and exhibits intense aggressiveness toward Jews, c. L o w SCORERS. The low scorers tend to reject anti-Semitic stereotypy as such. Thus Dick retorts that "it doesn't hold true" that there are any "char-

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

835

acteristic Jewish traits"; for "the Jews, in my opinion, are not a race but a religion." Jim declares: "I don't see w h y they should be picked out as being any different from anyone else." More positively, these men actively con­ demn anti-Semitism. "When a person gets too far off the base about the Jews or Negroes, I am liable to step in and tell him off" (Don). Art interprets the hostility concealed behind pseudodemocratic anti-Semitism; his own equalitarian ideology is apparent: "I have often heard the expression, 'Some of my best friends are Jews.' Well, hell, some of my best friends are people! It sounds like you are making a concession to them." It is of interest that Art's father is described as "a rabid Jew-hater." Further, in contrast with the narrow, personalized mythologies that domi­ nate the thinking of the high scorers, these men exhibit a broader perspective. They seem to show a greater capacity for surveying human relationships in a detached w a y , which at the same time reveals compassion and respect for other human beings. One form this takes is empathy with Jews' psychological problems as an outgroup and a tendency to construct sociopsychological interpretations of anti-Semitism. Jim remarks that Jews may be "inclined to be egotistical"; and at first a typical anti-Semitic projection is expected, until he goes on to clarify his meaning: "Not exactly a trait, but I think a good many of them feel that they're discriminated against. I think, in view of that, that they strive harder than most people do, and as a race they stick together and cooperate with each other to a large extent." This is quite unlike Ronald's complaint that "they act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool." Don believes that "if they have any objectionable features" as a group (which he doubts), it is because they are "stepchildren of history" in the sense of having been restricted to certain occupations and living conditions. Art is more explicit: "The Jews way back in history were other than Christians, and were limited (by the Christians) in their spheres of endeavor. . . . So they became sharpies in the money department as a defense mechanism. . . . So they had attributed to them those traits that are most despicable: craftiness, greed about money, etc." Art says that he is inclined to regard the Jews' "reputation for sharp dealing" as unfounded, but "I don't know whether it is true or not." The important point is that the matter is not vital to him: he is not driven by inner conflicts to an insistence on projecting ruthless acquisitiveness onto Jews. Dick is more at a loss for ideas to account for anti-Semitism. He can only suggest that it is "just brought down from history." C. 1.

POLITICO-ECONOMIC G E N E R A L QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTITUDES STATISTICS

A statistical summary of results from the PEC scale for the prison group is presented in Table 3 ( X X I ) . On this scale, the prison group obtained the highest mean, 4 . 6 8 , of all groups taking Form 4 0 or 4 5 except the Service

8 6

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

3

PERSONALITY

TABLE 3 (XXI) RESULTS ON THE PEC SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES

Item 3. 7. 11. 14. 17.

(Labor unions) (American Way) (Government c o n t r o l ) (Ford and Morgan) (Economic s e c u r i t y )

Total mean/person Mean/person/item

High Q u a r t i l e Mean/Person

Low Q u a r t i l e Mean/Person

5.93 6. 80 5.30 6.07 4.93

2.74 5.22 2.67 3.33 3.04

3.19 1.58 2. 63 2.74 1.89

4.16 5.87 4.52 4.94 3.90

29.03

17.00

12.03

23.39

5.80

3.40

2.41

5.4-7.0

Range Standard Deviation:

1.0-4.0

D.P.

Over-all Mean/Person

4.68 1.0-7.0

.96

15

Club M e n . It would seem that criminals tend in general to be conservative in their politics. W i t h respect to the PEC scale quartiles, Table 3 (XXI) reveals that not only is the high quartile mean fairly high, but the low quar­ tile mean is definitely higher than in other groups—so high as to indicate that there could be few if any extreme low scorers on the PEC scale. As a matter of fact, only one inmate (out of n o ) obtained a PEC score of 5 , i.e., 1 . 0 per item. The two next lowest scores were, respectively, 2.2 and 3.0 per item. It is not surprising, then, to find that the average D.P. for the PEC scale is only 2 . 4 1 , the lowest for any group which took Forms 4 0 or 4 5 . (See Table o ( V ) . ) Moreover, the correlation between the E and PEC scales for the prison group is only . 1 4 . H o w can these results—the inmates' general conservatism, and the low correlation between E and PEC scores—best be explained? First, as to the general conservatism, interview material suggests that antidemocratic emo­ tional attitudes play an important determining role. Another factor, partially "caused" b y such attitudes, which may favor conservatism, is the lack of an informed and adequate frame of reference within which to evaluate politicoeconomic events. This phenomenon, the general significance of which has been discussed in Chapter XVII, seems on the basis of interview material more extreme in the inmates than in most other groups. Such a lack could be influenced partly b y prison isolation, but also b y disinterestedness deriving from preoccupation with private emotional conflicts as well as from the low educational level of many of the inmates. 16

" See Table 8 ( V ) . The relationship between lack of an informed and adequate frame of reference, on the one hand, and receptiveness to reactionary ideas on the other, has been discussed particularly by Cantril ( 1 7 ) . 1 6

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

837

Since the reliability and validity of the PEC scale depends upon at least a minimal information and interest on the part of the subjects, the factor just discussed might help to account also for the low correlation obtained between PEC and E scores. Another factor that would reduce this correlation is the truncation of both distributions at their lower ends—i.e., the near-absence of very low scores. In addition, two special features of some high-scoring inmates might have helped to lower the E-PEC correlation by lowering their scores on certain items. One is superficially liberal attitudes among some high scorers (exemplified in interview material). These would seem to be related in part to reality factors such as marginal socioeconomic status, greater first­ hand experience of economic insecurity, and so forth. The lack of genuine­ ness in these attitudes is revealed in their personalized-persecutory tone, and in a readiness for antidemocratic approaches to politico-economic conflicts. A second special feature is the greater frequency among these high-scoring inmates of openly fascist politico-economic attitudes. Not only are these not measured directly by the PEC scale (see Chapter V ) but to the extent that they are consistently fascist, they actually tend to lower scores on PEC Item 1 1 . For while fascists share the conservative antilabor, pro-business approach, they differ from traditional laissez-faire conservatives in desiring "strong" government control (not, of course, social control over business, but control by business over labor). The pattern of specific PEC item means and D.P.'s is consistent with the above interpretations of general conservatism among the inmates and of the slight relationship between PEC and E scores (see Table 3 ( X X I ) ) . The reactionary implications of Item 7 (American w a y ) are probably not easy to grasp without a rather positive liberal-internationalist political orientation. This item, as might be expected, has an exceptionally high mean and a rather low D.P. On the other hand, Item 1 7 , condemning economic security, would be expected to have a relatively low mean because it touches the personal experience of both high- and low-scoring inmates; and this factor should also lower its D.P. These expectations are borne out. Finally, Item 3 , urging stronger labor unions, should discriminate most clearly between high and low scorers: it presents in a fairly pure form the issue of political liberalismconservatism and little sophistication is required to understand what it implies. This PEC item is in fact the most differentiating of all. 2.

INTERVIEWEES GENERALLY

The interviews tend to confirm the supposition that most of the inmates are politically uninformed. The above-average intelligence and education of most of the particular inmates interviewed makes this fact even more strik­ ing. In addition to revealing general ignorance and confusion in discussing politico-economic affairs, a number of the interviewees directly admit their ignorance and lack of interest in this area.

838

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

"I don't know about politics. I never studied that much and I never talk about it. . . . I don't think much—only what I hear over the radio" (Wilbur). "That's some­ thing I don't know nothing about: politics" (Eugene). "I'm not a political-minded man" (Robert). "Don't know much about" the Roosevelt New Deal (Floyd). "I never did pay much attention about political things" (Buck). "I pay very little attention to it"; "I don't understand those things, but I prefer to do what the Republicans do, whatever that is" (Adrian). "A subject I never gave a lot of atten­ tion to" (Dick). There are nonetheless important differences among the interviewees in their degree of political awareness (or lack of i t ) , as well as in some of their general attitudes. 3. H I G H SCORERS

Differences between the politico-economic attitudes of the low-scoring interviewees and those of the pseudodemocratic prejudiced interviewees are not clear-cut. Four of the 5 pseudodemocratic men—Robert, Eugene, Wilbur, and Ronald—exhibit some pro-labor attitudes, though these are not consistent. For instance, in late 1 9 4 5 or early 1 9 4 6 , all of these men believed that wage increases were justified by high prices and by the ability of employers to pay more wages. Each of them, however, revealed indecision as to how far trade union activity should go, especially where strikes might be involved. Typical is Robert's view that "the unions demand just a little more than they have a right to." All of these men condemned political activity by organized labor. In varying degrees, however, they support some social security legislation. Robert even endorses such measures as public health insurance and the gen­ eral idea of government economic planning. But all of them oppose such equalizing restrictions as wartime salary limitations. Clarence, on the other hand, is consistently reactionary. He seems to sup­ port the more hard-boiled policies of big business. Objecting strenuously to trade union activity and identifying with employer "toughness," he declares with satisfaction: "If a man can't make a profit in his business, he'll close it down." He complains that "it's the corporation they blame all the trouble on." Ronald asserts a similar view: "I believe in free enterprise. I believe that business should be able to conduct their own business." Clarence, Ronald, and Eugene, despite their own (pre-prison) submerged economic status, ex­ press marked status anxiety toward politico-economic outgroups and a perse­ cutory fear of being overwhelmed b y such groups becoming dominant— specifically, organized labor, "the Communists," and Russia. (Recall the problem of status-anxiety toward Negroes, and the fear of being over­ whelmed by the latter if they should succeed in rising nearer to democratic equality.) Clarence is afraid that "if labor keeps getting more power we'll be like Russia. That's what causes wars! . . . You take the C.I.O. The majority of the C.I.O. is communism (sic)! . . . Anyone who believes in communism ought to be deported!"

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

839

Ronald complains that labor unions are "so strong now that they're trying to run the government." Eugene fears that our government could become threatened by "the strikes" but even more by Russia: "We're going to have to look out for Russia. . . . I think sooner or later we're going to go to war with them." For 4 of these men (all except Robert), there is definite evidence that such liberal attitudes as they do express may be undependable. For these attitudes seem to be based not on genuinely democratic principles but on the same kind of personalization of ideology that was seen in their racism. On one side are fantasies of actual or threatened victimization, in which politicoeconomic processes are oversimplified into an imagined, purely personal con­ flict between forces of "good" and forces of "evil." Thus, Clarence's attitude toward unions seems to be determined b y his fear of criticizing business power and by an overcompensatory "rugged individualism": "I've worked all m y life and I wouldn't let no organization tell me when I worked and when I couldn't." His ambivalent attitude toward what he calls "the best form of government" is equally devoid of any reference to issues, and reflects a "good man, bad man" theory of society: "Of course, sometimes we get rotten politicians." . . . Ronald's paranoid interpretations of political events are suggestive of the kind of thinking we came to expect from Hitler and Mus­ solini. His first response to inquiry about his political views is that " W e ' v e got a persecutor in California for governor." Declining to explain this, he goes on instead to attack President Roosevelt as another "persecutor." He tells of how his father was "pushed out of a job" b y the N.R.A. Then, making it clear first that "I don't believe in communism," he complains that "there's so many little people who never have anything." This prefaces another per­ sonal story—of his grandmother's inadequate old-age pension, from which he concludes that the law ought to be changed to grant more liberal allow­ ances. (He objects, however, to public health insurance because "there are plenty of private insurance companies.") Asked his opinion of the then cur­ rent 30 per cent wage increase demands, Ronald again personalizes the matter by referring bitterly to high prices in the prison canteen. He attributes these to prison "graft" and hints darkly at various people "getting theirs." Prompted to return to the question, in one breath he denounces unions, rejects the idea of any government controls over business, and concludes that b y "agree­ ment" with business "the government should arrange higher wages without the union." This is an unwitting description of the "impartial," big-businesscontrolled fascist state. It is consistent also with his feeling that while "democracy is the best type of government," it is "inefficient." Intimately linked with feelings of victimization by "forces of evil" are similarly personalized attitudes to the "forces of good," viz;, submissivedependent leader worship. This is well exemplified by Eugene's conception of President Roosevelt as a paternal hero who single-handedly saved Amer­ ica: "Just everything good about him. Took this country out of a rut. He

84O

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY 17

took guys on the street without a job and put them in the C.C.C. In other words, he's just tops, that's all." . . . Wilbur, who is one of "the poor people," also admires Roosevelt in a personalized w a y because "he fixed it so that people could have jobs and get food for their families." Neither of these men shows any conception of the New Deal as a social reform movement induced by mass democratic pressure. Wilbur expressed as follows his concern (in December, 1 9 4 5 ) over high prices and relatively low wages: "They're trying to cut the little fellow off." On the face of it this sounds like a strong identification with the economically oppressed. Such an identification is rendered suspect, however, by the personalization of W i l ­ bur's attitudes toward Roosevelt and b y his lack of any generalized demo­ cratic philosophy. His persecutory anti-Greek delusions and general ethno­ centrism increase this suspicion. It is not any economic circumstance but "the Greeks" which "punish the poor people, pay low wages, make you work too hard." This suggests that Wilbur's reaction to economic frustra­ tions could easily be diverted into the fascist pattern of vigilante attacks against scapegoats. A final comment on the dependability of Robert's somewhat liberal views may be permitted. Doubt is raised on this point first b y the authori­ tarian hostility of his racism, but also b y his behavior at the close of the inter­ view. Consistent with his seemingly universal reputation in childhood and youth as a "good boy" (according to social service reports), Robert sub­ missively asks the interviewer, "Do you think I have the right view on things?" He repeatedly rejects the interviewer's explanation that it is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" but of individual evaluations, and insists on being given "the answer." This excessive need to conform with "the right views" implies a lack of internalized values and a readiness to change his opinions to accord with "the right views" of "the right people." Such a "detachable" ethic does not augur well for his ability to resist fascist ideology. 4.

FASCISTS

The politico-economic ideology of the fascists is consistently reactionary. It also differs from the "politics" of the pseudodemocrafic high scorers in the same general w a y that the fascists' racism was seen to differ from the pseudodemocratic men's racism. This is, namely, in being openly antidemocratic. The fascists show an explicit readiness to use force against labor, toward whom they reveal intense status-anxiety. T h e y also display contempt for ideals of equality; the concept of an elite, implicit in the thinking of the pseudodemocratic inmates, is made articulate by these men. Floyd's contempt for working men and his persecutory fantasies about unions show the violent anxiety of these attitudes. He fears that "we are going to be ruled by a lot of clowns, by a lot of labor unions. (How do you mean? ) Look at all these 1 7

Eugene was in a C.C.C. camp for a year.

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

841

working stiffs, that don't know anything else but how to drive a nail. . . . They try to run things, because a few hundred thousand of them get together. (What ought to be done about it? ) Straighten them out, show them where they belong. . . . Take away their charters. . . . Abolish them." Strikes should be handled by "refusing to employ them or fine them." Characteristically, Floyd wants to "get tough" with other nations, feeling that "we deal too loosely with other powers. (Which ones?) Oh, Russia, England—communism on the whole. I don't like any place where free enterprise is not." . . . Adrian, whose contempt for "poor whites" has been noted earlier, states openly that "I really don't believe in democracy." Again: "I think the powers should be in a few hands. I'm not a democrat." He makes clear the antidemocratic meaning of his obsessive fear of "communism": "I've never seen a Communist who came from the right strata of society." His readiness to support authoritarian aggression is not limited to approval (see pp. 8 3 3 - 3 4 ) Nazi and Japanese-fascist aggressions: "I'd like to do to the Bolsheviks what the Bolsheviks did to the Russians" (i.e., the Czarists). . . . Buck is less articulate but leaves little doubt as to his elite identifications: he "never did figure much about" labor unions, because "you can't make no money unless you have guys workin' for you 1 expect in ten years or so I can retire. As long as I got the money, I can go out and buy cattle and make it (i.e., money)." His readiness for fascist aggres­ sion is plain: "Christ, we licked those other countries and now we're gonna feed 'em. . . . I think we ought to let 'em starve, especially them Japs. . . . Lucky I don't have any relations killed in this war, I'd go out and kill me some Japs!" 0

1

These men are consistently fascist in their longing for a "strong" antidemo­ cratic government, to maintain monopolistic "free enterprise" by force if necessary against the challenge of democratic equalitarianism. The underly­ ing wish to submit to antidemocratic "strength" and "leadership" is implicit in the pseudodemocratic ideology of the other high scorers. In the question­ naire, it appears most clearly in Item 3 0 (see Table 4 ( X X I ) ) , which hints that "force may be necessary" to preserve the status quo. This item is quite discriminating even though its group mean is lower than that for most items. V e r y few low scorers agree with it. T w o other items reflect similar attitudes much more indirectly, and discriminate either poorly (Item 2 3 ) or insig­ nificantly (Item 2 2 ) (see Table 4 ( X X I ) ) . But the idea is expressed more directly b y the fascist inmates. The aspect of authoritarian suppression was illustrated in the previous paragraph. The Fiihrer idea is also made explicit by these men: Thus, Adrian: "I believe in government control because . . . if we know some­ body's at the helm, we can't have revolutions and things." He longs to go "back": "I still believe in the Old Order, and I believe we were happiest under Hoover and should have kept him in"; "I'll always thumbs down anything new!" "I have never forgiven France for her Revolution, or Mexico." . . . Buck's authoritarian men­ tality requires no political sophistication to reach a similar conclusion. Concerning government controls, he has this to say: "You got to have somebody at the head of things to keep it organized." . . . Floyd's cynical approval of Nazi "coordina­ tion" was described earlier in discussing racism. These men's racism can be isolated only by artificial analysis from their

842

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

"politics." The examples given above for ideological opportunism in the race attitudes could serve almost equally well to exemplify politico-economic opportunism. Here are some additional examples, however, which do not directly involve racism: Floyd's preoccupation with "toughness," power, and "efficiency" for their own sake-without respect for human aims or purposes-drives him into a striking self-contradiction. His submissive respect for business power leads him to say of government controls over business: "Modified form, approve of. Too stringent, no." But in the next breath his need for "strength" combines with his political confusion to produce this contradictory attitude toward O.P.A. price control (in December, 1 9 4 5 ) : "If they had an iron glove underneath their kid glove, be all right. They fine a guy (only) $ 1 0 0 for makin' $ 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . " . . . Buck, who is intel­ lectually duller than Floyd or Adrian, reveals directly the egocentrism behind his ideological opportunism. He evaluates public policies in terms of benefit to his local ingroup (in this case his home state): "Hell, at that, I was strong for Roosevelt. One thing he done for that state, he put that dam there. W e didn't need the war, though!" . . . Adrian's views on inheritance taxes betray a similar_egocentric motivation: "I think I would have had more money under (Hoover), too, and I don't believe in inheritance taxes. If I earn $100,000 by the sweat of my brow, I ought to be able to leave it to whomever I please. I really don't believe that all men are created free and equal." (At the age of 3 1 , Adrian has by his own admission earned less than $2,000 in his lifetime "by the sweat of my brow," aside from the returns of homosexual prostitution.) 5.

L O W SCORERS

None of the low-scoring interviewees obtained a low PEC score, and all of them displayed rather conservative attitudes when interviewed. Art and Jim are less conservative than Dick and Don. The latter two conceive themselves as ambitious young entrepreneurs in an expanding economy—a fact which definitely affects their politico-economic views. These individual differences will be somewhat neglected, however, in favor of what the four men show in common. Their present orientation is by and large conservative, although they seem to be less power-oriented than the high scorers and more willing to reconcile conservatism with democratic values. T h e y ap­ pear to share the traditional belief in an expanding capitalist economy, con­ ceived as largely self-governing and as "individualistic" rather than monop­ oly-dominated. T h e y show some willingness to carry out "free enterprise" principles by controlling or nationalizing monopolies that destroy "economic freedom." Typical is Jim's view that "I'd much rather see private industry control things than the government," but "in big organizations, monopolies . . . I think (the government) should control them." Dick expresses the same idea: "If a business gets out of hand, (government) should take it over. But if the business is run okay, they should keep hands off." These men's conservatism poses a dilemma for their democratic values.

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

843

Faced with the conflict between business and labor, they are caught between their inclination to identify with labor and their conservative fear of resisting status quo power. This leads to the same gesture of impartiality which appeared in Art's views on "the Negro problem." Art says, "I don't like to divide people into classes." W h a t he seems to mean is that he is reluctant to "see" existing conflicts between business and labor. For to "see" such con­ flicts exerts an implicit pressure to take sides; specifically, for a democrat such as Art, on the side of the underdog. But this arouses his anxiety about carry­ ing through democratic resistance against established power. He protects himself from such anxiety by trying to deny the existence of economic power conflicts. This denial can only mean implicit support of the status quo and consequent resentment of what he perceives as "troublemakers" who stir up his anxiety by resisting the status quo. Thus he objects to the C.I.O. Political Action Committee because "I don't believe they should . . . set themselves off as a class." About the then current 30 per cent wage increase demands he declares: "Whether they are right or wrong is unim­ portant. The important thing is that they are grouping together." But Art is made uneasy by the fact that "grouping together" involves resisting powerful employers, and concludes: "As far as these demands, or uncalled-for strikes, they have set back their own cause." . . . Don is also upset by the then current strikes, which "should be settled as quickly as possible, one way or the other" (Italics supplied.) By thus opposing conflict as such and ignoring issues, Don tries hard to maintain an appear­ ance of impartiality; he pictures both employers and employees as giants and as equals. "I believe both labor and business sort of ignore the little fellow." More generally, "I am against special interests and pressure groups." But the illogicality of this position combines with the difficulty of avoiding sides, to push him into attacking labor and implicitly supporting the employers: "I am sort of bitter about this strike business. . . . I feel labor should have more responsibility." . . . Dick becomes even more conservative in his fear of "agitation": "I admire unions, but they shouldn't agitate. . . . They shouldn't try to get more money, but should help people more (by trying) to keep prices down." Of the then current strikes, he decides that the employers should pay the wage demands if they can, but hints that they probably cannot "afford to." . . . Jim's views seem to express a kind of transition stage. Fundamentally conservative in his laissez-faire orientation, he is nonetheless concerned that "politics are not really controlled by the people." More­ over, his conception of an ideal society reflects a tendency to identify with the economic needs of all people: "An ideal society would provide employ­ ment for all able-bodied citizens, and it would also take care of all those that weren't able to work, as well as the aged, and it would give every family a home and a car and a salary in sufficient quantities so that they might enjoy the privileges that we are aware of." Yet, despite his recognition that "the majority of the people do come under . . . labor," he is made a little uneasy by the militancy of some C.I.O. unions"The A. F. of L., I 'm in favor of it very much. The C.I.O., formerly I wasn't in favor of it, but as time goes on, the people seem to accept it more and more. . . . The (C.I.O.) unions in the beginning used pretty high-handed methods." His final conclusion hints at an inner struggle to accept C.I.O. resistance to established power: "But perhaps the end will justify the means." The above examples indicate that these men suffer from inner conflicts in

844

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

relation to authority and power, which are similar to the power conflicts of the high scorers. Their difference from the high scorers seems to be mainly a matter of degree. The democratic identifications of the low scorers are stronger. Their ability to resist authoritarian power is somewhat greater, and aggressiveness toward unjust authority seems closer to conscious acceptance. Their relative freedom from ethnocentrism renders them less susceptible to fascist pressures. D. 1.

M O R A L S AND RELIGION

G E N E R A L QUESTIONNAIRE STATISTICS:

THE F

SCALE

Since questionnaire results on some of the F-scale items, as well as corre­ sponding interview material, are introduced in this section, it may be helpful at this point to present the general statistical findings for the F scale. Item means and D.R's are given in Table 4 ( X X I ) . The over-all group mean per person per item for the F scale is 4 . 7 3 , the highest mean obtained for any group studied. This provides further support for the implications drawn from the E-scale results, viz., that the types of criminals most frequently found in a state prison are antidemocratically repressive toward themselves as well as others. Moreover, there are no extremely low scorers and only a handful of moderately low scorers: The low quartile range of F scores, in terms of mean per person per item scores, extends from 2.0 to 4 . 1 , with a mean of 3 . 7 . This suggests that nearly all forms of criminal behavior tend to be incom­ patible with the kind of liberalism reflected in very low scores on the F scale. The F-scale reliability coefficient of . 8 7 is satisfactory. That it is consid­ erably higher than the E-scale reliability of . 6 5 may be attributed in good part to the fact that the F scale is three times as long, so that factors like attenuation of the lower end of the distribution affect the reliability much less. The E-F correlation is . 5 9 , somewhat lower than that obtained for other groups. This might be interpreted as due mainly to the factors responsible for the inadequate E-scale reliability, discussed in Section B of this chapter. Similarly, the very low F-PEC correlation of . 2 3 might be attributed mainly to the factors discussed in Section C, regarded as impairing the validity of the PEC scale for the Prison Group. 2. H I G H SCORERS

In discussing the prejudiced inmates' moral-religious ideology, attention is centered upon their moral repressiveness toward themselves and others. Discussed more briefly are feelings of distrust-victimization toward people, and submissiveness to religious authority. It has been indicated above how these men's ideology is distorted b y con­ ceiving broad social processes in narrow, personalized terms. By contrast,

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

845

as the rest of this chapter attempts to show, they tend to impersonalize rela­ tionships which a healthy person might be expected to personalize, namely, personal relationships with other individuals and with themselves. In fact, it has been repeatedly indicated in this book that the failure to become solidly identified with other people and with one's real self is the basic cause of receptiveness to authoritarian ideology. Such ideology, instead of being an objective appraisal of social reality, tends to resemble a fantasy world in which unconscious impulses and fears are projected in personified form. The tendency to impersonalize human relations takes an ideologized form in anti-instinctual moralism which has two aspects: authoritarian hostility toward "moral outgroups"; and moralistic repressiveness toward much of one's own feelings and impulses. Moralism has been exemplified earlier in discussing anti-Negro ideology. Examples from the questionnaire results include items expressing moralistic condemnation of "zootsuiters" (Item 5 ) ; rejection of people with "bad manners, habits, and breeding" (Item 1 2 ) ; and authoritarian aggression against "sex criminals" (Item 2 5 ) , "immoral, crooked, and feebleminded people" (Item 3 4 ) , and homosexuals (Item 3 9 ) . (See Tables 2 (XXI) and 4 ( X X I ) . For all questionnaire items referred to in the remainder of the chapter, see Table 4 ( X X I ) unless otherwise specified.) A related item reflects obsessive fears of contamination by "so many different kinds of people" (Item 1 8 ) , who may symbolize dangers of instinctual con­ tagion. All of these items are clearly discriminating except for Item 1 2 , which yields one of the highest over-all means in the F scale. A possible inter­ pretation is that Item 1 2 is especially calculated to appeal to the eagerness of most inmates to be accepted again b y "decent people." Similar moralism appears in the interviews with prejudiced inmates. In some of these men, the moralism has a religious coloring. For example, Clarence asserts a rigid dichotomy between "good Christians" and "bad non-Christians": "The Christian tries to live a Christian life, and others go out and rob and steal, drink, carouse around, do a little of everything." When Clar­ ence became a professional soldier, this meant for him living a "clean life." Wilbur has an equally moralistic conception: Being a Christian means "not to swear, use bad words, or down the other fellow," and "to behave and do right, live a clean life." Wilbur regards atheists as "pretty bad people." Robert, too, emphasizes sub­ mission to extrahuman absolutes: "Christians are people that at all times strive to do what is right, and abide by God's word." The religious formulation is, however, incidental to the moralistic ap­ proach to life. This manner of thinking appears as a general characteristic in various personality topics yet to be discussed. Here are some examples of antisexual righteousness in the prejudiced men. Clarence moralizes that "I don't think it's a very good subject to teach" children, for "they learn it soon enough." He speaks with approval of the fact that "when I was a kid . . . if you met a girl on the street, you'd blush." . . . Likewise, Wilbur,

THE AUTHORITARIAN

86 4

PERSONALITY

TABLE 4 (XXI) RESULTS ON THE F SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES

High Q u a r t i l e Mean/Person

Item 1. 2. 4. 6. 8. 9. 12. 13. 16. 18. 19. 21. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 29. 30. 31. 33. 34. 35. 37. 38. 39. 41. 42. 43. 44.

(Obedience and r e s p e c t ) ( W i l l power) (Science) (War and c o n f l i c t ) ( S u p e r n a t u r a l power) (Cheerful things) (Bad manners) ( D i s c i p l i n e and d e t e r m i n a ­ tion) (Born w i t h u r g e ) ( I n f e c t i o n and d i s e a s e ) (Honor) (Rebellious ideas) (Germany) (Devoted l e a d e r s ) (Sex crimes) (Weak and s t r o n g ) (Undying l o v e ) (Astrology) (Force t o p r e s e r v e ) (Prying) (Earthquake) (Immoral p e o p l e ) (Wild sex l i f e ) (Talk l e s s ) (Plots) (Homosexuals) (Artists) (No sane, normal p e r s o n ) (Familiarity) (Suffering)

Total

mean/person

Mean/person/item

Standard Deviation: Reliability:

.87

. 86

D.P. _ O v e r - a l l

45 81 93 68 44 92 85

6.66 6.62 6.00 6.17 5.93 5.38 6.14

5.75 4.93 3. 64 4.82 3.43 2.79 5. 68

0.91 1.69 2.36 1.35 2.50 2.59 0.46

6.69 5.24 6.66 5.52 6.52 5.76 5.59 5.86 6.28 6.79 5.72 5.10 6.07 4.00 4.83 6.07 6.69 5.97 5.14 4.38 6.41 5.17 4.79

4.50 3.07 64 46 39 32 57 32 2. 64 4.07 3. 25 1.86 4. 2 1 2. 25 2. 64 3. 25 5.36 2. 82 2. 21 2.36 4. 1 1 3.93 2. 04

2.19 2.17 2.02 3.06 1.13 0.44 1.02 3.54 3.64 2.72 2.47 3. 24 86 75 19 82 33 15 93 02 30 24 75

5.51 4.07 5. 68 3.91 07 48 45 49 24 75 4.69 3.44 31 07 37 62 5.94 4.45 45 08 42 34 95

174.15

110.31

63.84

141.86

5.80

3. 68

2.13

5.4-6.8

Range

Low Q u a r t i l e Mean/Person

2.0-4. 1

4.73 2.0-6.8

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

847

asked what things annoy him most in others, expresses concern about "doing things before little children that you shouldn't," "doing anything out of the way to a little nine-year-old girl." . . . Ronald is alarmed by the "sexual perversion that you'll find in this country today: it's pretty bad. (Q.) . . . fellatio . . . sodomy." Robert's focus is somewhat less extrapunitive but reveals an equally externalizing attitude toward his own sexuality: Sometimes, he admits, "I have let myself slip, let my carnal self get away from me"; but in general he feels that he has "always lived up to" his mother's precept that "a woman is the most perfect thing in the world." Similar nonreligious moralism appears in

nonsexual contexts.

Eugene believes that "good persons . . . won't smoke or drink," and is "going to lay off drinking." His moralistic hostility against Negroes for "fighting" and "causing trouble" has already been described. . . . Ronald finds himself disturbed by "petty habits" involving nose, muscles, or skin, such as "snorting," "twitching their shoulders," or "my wife's habit of picking at things with her fingernails." He is also upset by "greed": "I can't stand anyone who will take something without thinking about the other person." And he makes repeated references to "polite­ ness," complaining that "it's changed around here (in the prison) now—getting so many of these young kids, zootsuiters: don't have any tact at all." All 5 of these high-scoring men express generalized moralizations about money or work or both. Several of them show inhibitions about enjoying money: Its importance is in having "just enough to get along on"; beyond that "it can bring a lot of unhappiness" (Eugene). "If it's not too much money, it can give you happiness. If it's too much, it won't." "To me the only thing you need money for is to satisfy your basic needs: food, clothing, shelter" (Robert). . . . Work for the sake of "discipline" and "control" is exalted by all but Ronald: "I don't think you enjoy things as much when you work for them" (Robert). "I think it's a special privilege for a man to have some special handicap: it gives him a special drive" (Robert). "Work don't hurt no people. These child labor laws, I believe, are makin' more trouble than anything else" by preventing children from working to keep themselves "out of trouble" (Clarence). Asked how he and his wife are most alike, Wilbur declares: "Well, she don't like to run around so much and I don't either. W e both like to work." Eugene, although he adds other similarities, says the same thing of his mother and himself: "She likes to work and so do I." . . . This antipleasure sub­ mission to work and hardship as desirable is expressed also in questionnaire Item 44, which exalts the value of "suffering." This item has a fairly high Discriminatory Power. The moralism just described appears to be an anxious attempt by these men to keep instinctual impulses repressed and externalized. Their anxiety toward their own impulses is suggested b y their responses to the projective question, " W h a t desires do you often have difficulty in controlling?" Their answers reveal efforts to separate their impulses from their conscious selves and to avoid awareness of inner feelings by focusing on external behavior

848

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

and situations. Three "desires" thus externalized recur with monotonous regularity: "drinking;" "fighting" or "temper"; and "when I'm out with a lady" or "intercourse." It is not necessary to rely on inference in stating that the prejudiced men's conscience is externalized and therefore undependable. Evidence for this appears in their violations of their own moralism. 18

Clarence's moralism about sex and drinking m a y be contrasted w i t h his history of three separate offenses of attempted rape on pre-adolescent girls after getting them drunk. H i s insistence on the virtue of h a r d w o r k , and o v e r c o n c e r n about people w h o "rob and steal" is quite interesting in v i e w of the prison medical e x a m ­ iner's opinion that he w a s " w r o n g l y d r a w i n g A r m y compensation f o r y e a r s " on a claim of tuberculosis, and thus avoiding w o r k . . . . T h e o n l y gross moral violation revealed in W i l b u r ' s i n t e r v i e w p r o t o c o l is his p a n i c k y homicidal attack u p o n his landlord. Despite his defensive paranoid rationalizations about this, he gives evidence of r e g a r d i n g it, in another c o m p a r t m e n t of his thinking, as "immoral" in his o w n terms: "Don't think I w o u l d be in so m u c h trouble if I lived up to the c h u r c h . " . . . R o b e r t , w i t h his moralistic "respect" for " w o m a n " as "the most perfect thing in the w o r l d , " has let his "carnal self get a w a y " f r o m him in relation to "the most perfect thing": W h i l e ostensibly still "in love" w i t h his w i f e , he engaged in a violent affair w i t h an e x t r e m e l y promiscuous w o m a n w h o m he finally shot in a quarrel. A n d despite his insistence that one must w o r k for things as a condition of " e n j o y i n g them," he served an earlier prison term for "enjoying" several hundred dollars' w o r t h of f o r g e d checks. . . . Ronald's condemnation of "greed" m a y be c o m p a r e d w i t h his long r e c o r d of thefts and g a n g robberies w h i c h he engaged in, b y his o w n description, "as a business." A l s o after c o n d e m n i n g "sexual perversion" and especially homosexuality, he confessed to having had fellatio p e r f o r m e d u p o n him occasionally in prison, but denied that this w a s homosexuality b y disclaiming a n y emotional involvement in it. . . . Eugene's moralism against "drinking," "fight­ ing," and "causing trouble," and his statement that he "likes to w o r k , " stand in contrast w i t h his long history of "trouble," including eight jail sentences f o r drunkenness and one f o r battery, frequent fights, an earlier term for r o b b e r y , and the present term for a series of f o r g e d checks.

Relevant h e r e a r e some suggestive statistical data for the 2 3 inmates whose present term is f o r a sex offense (rape, "molesting" children, etc.). The l o w ­ est E score obtained b y a n y s e x offender is 3.4 p e r item; the E-scale mean f o r all sex offenders is 5 . 1 p e r item, as compared with the general group mean of 4 . 7 . This high degree of ethnocentric hostility toward outgroups is of particular interest, when it is considered that these men themselves are gener­ ally scorned as an outgroup b y other inmates. But of even greater significance 19

1 8

In contrast, of the 7 inmates whose E scores fall in what would be the low quartile for most other groups (below 2.6 per item), none gives this type of response. Instead, all of them express inner conflict—especially over passivity strivings—e.g., "the impulse to say 'to hell with it' when confronted by a difficult problem." This is excluding one sex offender who scored 2.7 per item on the E scale, but w h o was discovered in an interview (not reported here) to have answered the questionnaire rather carelessly. H e indicated on questioning that on three E items (and several other items) he had inadvertendy recorded " — 3 " where he had intended " 4 - 3 . " 1 9

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

849

is the fact that two-thirds of these men ( 1 5 out of 2 3 ) agree with Item 2 5 , which states that "Sex crimes . . . deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse." Half of them ( 1 2 out of 2 3 ) agree with Item 3 9 , which expresses punitive hostility toward homosexuals. Three-fourths of them ( 1 7 out of 2 3 ) agree with Item 3 5 , which reflects projective fantasy preoccupations concerning the prevalence of " w i l d " sexual "goings-on." All but 2 ( 2 1 out of 2 3 ) sex offenders agree with at least one of these items; 1 6 agree with two items; 7 agree with all three items. These findings provide further evidence that moralism often involves a desperate attempt to keep one's own repressed impulses under tight control. T w o of the interviewees (Clarence and a middle scorer not reported here) deny their (repeated) sex offenses, and insist that they were "framed." It is possible that they actually believe the memory distortions by which they seek to maintain a precarious self-respect. Prison authorities report that the majority of sex offenders deny their offenses, and, further, that such offenders are generally self-righteous and "good." Evidence has accumulated in this volume to show that impulses which are moralistically condemned in others symbolize the feared impulses of the moralizer himself. Corresponding, on the other hand, to ethnocentric fears of being abused by fantasied "dominant" outgroups such as Jews, are feelings of distrust, victimization, and cynicism toward the world. Some examples have already been mentioned, such as Wilbur's feelings of being victimized by "the Greeks"; and the personal bitterness of Ronald (a recidivist) toward the governor of the state as "a persecutor"—associated with his resentment at not having been released because of the parole system's "nine thousand restrictions. . . . It stinks." Analogous are Clarence's delusions about having been "framed" by "the people in politics" (his defense-rationale against remembering his sex offenses). Clarence expresses succinctly his suspicious conception of the world as a jungle: "Nowadays it's get the other fellow before he gets you." He seems to want to avoid the neces­ sity of having to trust others, by avoiding dependence on anyone; thus the main value of having a lot of money is that a person "don't have to depend on anybody or anything." Associated with this diffuse distrust of people is a fear of "prying," resentment against people's "not being able to attend to their own business" (Ronald), against "a guy trying to butt in my business" (Eugene). . . . Robert, whose life goal is to "own three stores," feels especially abused by "spongers . . . these so-called shoppers who . . . pick over all the and pick out the one on the bottom." This suspiciousness is expressed in several questionnaire items, such as those betraying a cynical view of "human nature" as inherently warlike (Item 6 ) , fears of "prying" (Item 3 1 ) , and fantasies about secret "plots" which "con­ trol our lives" (Item 3 8 ) . The last item, which reflects the victimization theme most directly, has much the highest Discriminatory Power. A further aspect of the high scorers' moral-religious ideology is their de-

850

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

pendence and submission to authority in religion and morals. Such basic sub­ mission is in striking contrast with their exaggerated fears of having to submit to domination by outgroups—Jews, Negroes, labor, "Reds," Russia, etc. Authoritarian submission in the moral-religious sphere is expressed in three main ways. In every prejudiced interviewee, as the foregoing discussion has emphasized, there seems to be a submissive self-negating overconformity to externalized, conventional moralism. This requires no further elaboration here. A second aspect is the submissive emphasis on unquestioning belief in re­ ligious authority. Questionnaire Item 8, which is clearly discriminating, expresses the core of this attitude: Everyone should submit "without ques­ tion" to the "decisions" of "some supernatural power" in whom he has "complete faith." In the interviews, the three most conventional high scorers are definitely traditionalists in religion. Robert reiterates the point that "I believe pretty strongly along the lines of the Bible." Both Clarence and Wilbur declare categorically that they have never ques­ tioned any of the (fundamentalist) religious teachings of their parents. . . . Re­ ligion is more remote for Eugene, who confesses that "I don't know" the Ten Com­ mandments or Christ's teachings. But he states that the most important thing in religion is "belief . . . in Jesus Christ, the Bible," and "I've always believed in it." Even Ronald, who says that he no longer "believes," reveals that his is not the integrated philosophy of "a staunch free-thinker" who has no need for external props of "faith." Rather, he suffers from a hollow cynicism, and longs to surrender himself dependently to "God." The most important thing in religion, he declares, is "belief." "I think that belief in anything—that's the thing that holds you to­ gether." More personally: "It seems as if I want to believe in the Supreme Being, but try and keep it suppressed." The source of this conflict is suggested later in discussing Ronald's relations with his father. The third aspect of authoritarian submission in religion on the part of these men is their submissive relationship to their deity, conceived as a dominating "supreme" power. God is "someone a lot bigger and stronger than anyone on this earth (Robert), who "rules all things" (Clarence), and whose "word" in the Bible one is called upon to "live up to" (Wilbur) and "abide by" (Robert). Ronald's longing for such sub­ mission has just been mentioned. It is of interest that Eugene, who never knew his father, is the only one of these men whose conception of God appears to be quite blank: "Just believe in it and that's about all." The prejudiced men's repression of a large part of their selves, their intel­ lectual-emotional submissiveness in the moral-religious sphere, their antiintraceptive narrowing of inner freedom—all these trends weaken their intel­ lectual strength. Loss of conscious awareness of so much of one's self tends to undermine one's confidence in human ability to understand the world in general, and to render one. susceptible to various forms of mysticism—espe­ cially mystical interpretations of human behavior. These trends are thus con-

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

ducive to agreement with such questionnaire items, all clearly discriminating between high and low quartiles, as those stressing the limitations of human understanding (Item 4 ) , admitting belief in astrology (Item 2 9 ) , and assuming a mystical-hereditarian (externalized) explanation for some people's "urge to jump from high places" (Item 1 6 ) . The general tendency toward mysti­ cism and intellectual defeatism appears as a formal characteristic of many quotations from the present high scorers. 3.

FASCISTS

Certain attitudes implicit in the approach of the pseudodemocratic high scorers break through explicitly in the fascists. T o begin with, the authori­ tarian hostility toward people implicit in moralism appears in the fascists as open hate and contempt for people, directed especially toward moral-outgroups. The attempt to bolster up self-esteem by identifying oneself with an (hereditarian) elite, is also more openly expressed by these men. Floyd shows the hatred for people in its most extreme form, when asked what things irritate him most in others. "Just that they're people! (How do you mean?) Oh, the majority are ignorant, close to animals as anything else. I mean dumb animals! (Can you elaborate on that?) They haven't got sense enough to see things as they are, they are easily swayed, crude, uncouth, they are like a pack. Show 'em a leader and they will go anywhere." . . . Buck's authoritarian hate is not "system­ atized" into an explicit ideology like Floyd's, but his interview protocol is filled with expressions of hate and contempt for "shimmy women" and "goddam ch— —"; for "j o happy idiots," "sex maniacs," "goddam syphilitic people" (homosexuals); "people that go around stealin'"; other inmates—"Hell, you can't have real friends in here. . . . Stab you in the back. Can't trust many of them"— and everyone else regarded as outside "my own class of people." . . . Adrian is too deferential to use the same strong language as these men, but his antidemocratic hatreds seem clear. His contempt for "people who never had anything" and for workers generally has already been mentioned. Interesting is his emphatic dichot­ omy between men and women, and his authoritarian hostility toward both. It is men who evoke his deepest anxiety and hate: "A lot of people irritate me, a lot of men irritate me by what I think is a superior attitude that women don't usually have"; "all men are more or less supercilious." Having self-protectively identified himself with what he conceives as the submissive-dependent role of women vis-a­ vis men—"I identify myself with the dependent kind" of woman—Adrian adopts an essentially paranoid attitude toward all men in terms of this identification: "I don't think men respect women, or anything about women, the way they ought to. . . . Women aren't inferior to men. If anything, they are superior!" (The possi­ bility of equality is alien to his thinking; the only choices he knows are to submit or to dominate, to be superior or inferior.) Yet, in his role as would-be aristocrat, Adrian shares the same chauvinistic attitudes toward women which (in his paranoid submissive-"feminine" role) he ostensibly criticizes. As a persecuted "woman" he protests that "women make better business women than men do"; but as an aristo­ crat, "I don't approve of women in business." He even mentions an episode in which he was strongly condemned by a woman for his "supercilious" attitude toward her and toward women who work.

852

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

The lack of a genuine conscience is scarcely even concealed b y a moralistic facade in the fascists. T h e y display an externalized, undeveloped superego. One aspect of this is an absence of inner guilt over violation of values; no ethical values have really been incorporated into the self. W h a t superego activity exists is almost entirely limited to fear of external punishment or social ostracism. Buck suggests in almost so many words that his superego is merely an external mystical "power": "There must be some power over us to punish us. . . . He's sure givin' me hell, bein' in here." This "hell" is not the torture of a guilty con­ science. On the contrary, Buck explains that being in prison "hurts my pride" and "hurts my business," when "I could be out there makin' money all the time." The cause of his delinquency (a long trail of bad checks, passed on an extended spree with a woman) is for him purely external: Lying about many details, he bemoans that "a man of my intelligence let some damn broad put me behind bars." . . . Floyd, too, shows no signs of actual guilt over his long record of delinquencies. On his admission to prison he is described by an interviewer as feeling "that his present series of violent robberies doesn't mean a thing." To the present examiner, he mentions these as "just something that happened." He is reported to have said on admission: "We heard about others getting caught but couldn't believe we would." . . . Adrian attributes his various delinquencies to drinking: "That's all my trouble is." According to the initial prison interview report, "he does not feel that he has any serious problem except a tendency to get very drunk when discouraged." Adrian's conscience, too, is organized chiefly around fears of ostracism and of punitive agencies mystically assigned to an "intangible something" outside himself: "I do believe in retribution. W e pay right here. I've proved that in my own life. W e think we can get away with things. It's an illusion." (Adrian has spent "most of my life" in jails, prison, or "on probation.") With respect to ostracism: "I have always been greatly concerned with what other people thought about me." As will be elaborated later, he is especially apprehensive over rejection by his father, who "haunts me" and whose approval is required to allay Adrian's anxiety: "I'm always wondering if he would approve of this or approve of that." 20

A second aspect of the fascists' undeveloped superego is its domination by the pleasure principle. T h e y are quite unable to postpone gratification. Unable to pursue any integrated long-term achievement goals, they are at the mercy of an imperious oral-demandingness. Describing with much braggadocio his sharp dealings in cattle trading (actually, he lost a sizeable inheritance by mismanagement and drunken neglect), Buck be­ moans openly that ordinary ways of doing business are "too damn slow for me." (Recall his anti-Semitic projection about Jews' "beatin' a guy out of his money.") Admittedly, "money is the main object. . . . Can't buy nothin' without money. . . . Can't buy whiskey." These attitudes are part of an essentially egocentric conception of reality. The following is one of many similar remarks made b y Buck in his discussion of politico-economic affairs: "I never paid no attention to that ; get me out of here and out on that damn Buck obtained a Wechsler-Bellevue Full-Scale I.Q. of 83.

2 0

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

853

range is all I want." . . . Similarly, Floyd states that the $ 5 9 a week he received on his last job (which he held for a month) was "too slow" because "I started from scratch." "Had to acquire everything: clothes, quarters, the fundamentals." Detail­ ing on admission to the prison some of the robberies and orgies of his gang, Floyd explains that "We had to have money to operate on". W e spent $40 or so for our dinner parties." . . . Adrian admits that from infancy he "usually got my way." "In fact, all I ever had to do was cry about anything." At the several boarding schools where his father placed him after his mother's death (when he was 5 ) , "I was incorrigible, left school when I pleased. I overdrew my charge account . . ." His self-centered definition of reality is made explicit: "When things don't person­ ally concern me, they just don't exist for me." Implicit in these men's weak conscience, their infantile-demanding im­ pulses, and their egocentric view of the world, is a trait which governs their entire behavior. This is their extreme (personal) opportunism. The disregard of principle in their personal behavior corresponds with the ideological opportunism of their racism and reactionism. The personal opportunism is usually expressed in the service of infantile attitudes of omnipotence, and of trying to deny personal weakness. Buck's pathological lying has been mentioned. As for his other offenses, he has served time for obtaining money on false pretenses, and for failure to provide for his children. He was arrested on one occasion for "molesting" his own children (girl then age 2 - 3 , boy age 4 - 5 ) , but it is reported the charges were dropped be­ cause the children were too small to testify. . . . Floyd's delinquencies are less dramatic, but equally capricious. They include two jail sentences for disturbing the peace; an Army record of alternating between the guardhouse and repeated A.W.O.L.'s until he was discharged; and a series of armed gang robberies under­ taken as an easy way of making a lot of money "to operate on." Relevant here is Floyd's stated desire to marry a "wealthy woman," who should have "fair physical attractions" but whose personality he will "take as it comes." . . . Adrian's delin­ quencies include his self-styled "incorrigibility" at boarding schools (truancy, re­ peatedly overdrawing his charge accounts, etc.); numerous jail sentences for drunkenness and homosexual prostitution; and robbery. "I had probation, it seems to me, most of my life." He supported himself mainly by prostitution, and by his own statement "never had any (sexual) relations with anyone that didn't have money connected with it." He admits that some men attract him more than others, but "I never let preferences stand in the way. . . . The only thing I was ever in­ terested in was the rent." The essentially frantic nature of these men's approach to life suggests a desperate inner emptiness and lack of moorings. This hollowness may pro­ vide part of the basis for their wish to submit to "strong" political "leader­ ship." Further, any religious leanings of these men might be expected to express cravings for authoritarian submission. This would be expected to differ from the religious authoritarian submission of other high scorers in two interrelated aspects. As in other conflicts in the fascists, the craving for religious submission might very well be explicit rather than implicit; and since dominance-submission conflicts are involved, this craving might be

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

expressed with open ideological opportunism. It happens that Buck "never did think much about religion," but Adrian and Floyd reveal these very characteristics clearly. Floyd's opportunism takes the form of highly egocen­ tric (as well as confused) "criteria" for belief, with no apparent interest in considerations of evidence or truth-falsity. Floyd states that before he was shot (almost fatally) in his last gang robbery, he was "reaching for something" and "wanted" to believe in God. (He had never had any religious training; his father was a free-thinker, and he had never known his mother.) But "I just couldn't feature that a human being, an intelligence, could be obliterated so easily." Having been thus let down "personally" by the God he was "reaching for" (in that his delinquency led to disaster), he could no longer "believe." . . . Adrian's religious training consisted of very early exposure to the Christian Science of a governess and living in Episcopal boarding schools from the ages of 8 to 1 5 . At 15 he tried to submit to what for him seemed clearly to represent religious totalitarianism and voluntary self-emasculation: "I very seriously went into the Church of Rome at 1 5 " to become a priest—not because of any specific religious convictions, but "because I believed and still do . . . that the Catholic Church is the only true church," since "she was the church founded by Christ." "She was the first" and therefore "the other churches had no real excuse to break away." His fascistic inclinations are stated openly: "I respect her as a political organization. I think it would be better to have everything under one head. It would save dissension." Adrian's father forcibly interfered, however, to prevent his entry into the priesthood. Adrian drifted until he became "very interested in Christian Science" with quite practical motives: "I'm not positive I believe in Christian Sci­ ence, but there's much in it that seems to help me I don't try to apply Christian Science to physical things . . . but my worries, mental things-there's where it helps me most." In anticipation of parole, he wrote to two Christian Science practitioners for aid in lining up a job (a prerequisite to being granted parole). When both of them criticized him for "trying to manifest a job" instead of relying mystically upon "the Divine Employer," Adrian was "never so disgusted in my life." But Adrian admittedly has "got to have a God" to submit to, "So what do you think I took up!" The answer is "Hinduism," which "teaches you discipline" such as "cut­ ting down on cigarettes." Adrian summarizes his approach to his latest ideological "manipulandum" in this way: "It's practical. That's the main thing." 4. LOW SCORERS The moral-religious ideology of the low-scoring interviewees is quite dif­ ferent from that of the prejudiced men. They are relatively free of moralism, and sometimes verbalize explicitly antimoralistic sentiments. Thus, for Art religion has "nothing to do with keeping laws, except the Golden Rule." Highly objectionable to Don is the idea of religion as "abiding by a certain set of rules." Probing reveals no sign of rejection in any of the 4 low scorers toward atheists or non-Christians. They speak of religion primarily in terms of ethical values. Religion is "whatever spiritual qualities you have within yourself" ( A r t ) . This orienta­ tion is embedded in more individualized relationships to themselves and other people, as compared with the high scorers' impersonalization of such rela-

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

855

tionships. Different features of this ethical approach are stressed by each. Jim expresses most clearly the aspect of nurturant-afEliative attitudes toward people: "I look on God as mostly the goodness in all peoples. . . . If everyone . . . carried out the principles that religion expounds, it would be a better world. (How do you mean? ) To treat others as a person would wish to be treated himself, and to help those less fortunate than oneself, and to be a part of the community or society that one is in, to take an active part in it, and being kind and generous, and to more or less have a high regard for your fellow human being." Art, too, conceives of God, not as a person, but "more a power of good. . . . God is a force." Another aspect is the emphasis on full expression of the individual person­ ality and "happiness on earth." Don declares that his concept of a hereafter was nicely expressed by a girl-friend who said that "if she believed in a hereafter it would mean developing one's unde­ veloped talents." For Jim "the only happiness that we really know of is here on earth; so why not try to enjoy the people and things on this earth, rather than a life somewhere else." Further, a rich inner life is a religious value. Religion "gives you some access to your thoughts" (Dick). Prayer is conceived not as a mode of securing gratification of personal desires or of paying obeisance to a parent-substitute God. Rather, prayer is something which in and of itself "can help a person" (Dick); which "helps form what you're to be" (Don); "a personal thing that happens when the lights are out before you retire. Not 'I want something or other,' but consciously putting into words so as to place whatever you are look­ ing for into a positive plane" ( A r t ) . Opposed to the prejudiced men's authoritarian submission in moral-religi­ ous matters is the insistence upon individuality in the credos of the low scorers. "Religion is a personal thing. . . . Religion is as individual to me as my finger­ prints, or as yours are to you" (Art). Dick explains his change from a Baptist to a Christian Scientist partly in terms of his objection to the teachings of a Navy chaplain, and especially the chaplain's efforts to "force us to come to church . . . I believe it's a man's personal affair." It happened that Dick "got hold of a Christian Science textbook, liked the ideas . . . the idea that they had an explanation for almost everything that happened." (Contrast Dick's emphasis on "ideas" and the implied internalization of Christian Science, with Adrian's externalized, oppor­ tunistic-manipulative approach.) Dick adds another value, however, which sug­ gests some of that antiweakness drive that is usually typical of high scorers: "And another idea—they claimed that if you try to attain a goal, nothing can stop you." It will be recalled that those who "believe" show submissiveness toward a God who is essentially dominating (whose "word" they must "abide b y " ) and punitive (toward those who violate his " w o r d " ) . The low scorers, on

8 6

THE

5

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

the other hand, show an optimistic and trusting dependence toward a God conceived as kind and nurturant. Although spoken of as "kind of an infinite being" rather than directly anthropo­ morphic, God is "something there you can turn to in case you need someone to turn to" (Dick); "someone to cling to in times of emergency or stress" (Jim). Actually, "I don't know if there is a God," but the most important thing in religion is "a genuine belief and a faith that things would always turn out all right" (Jim). Religion involves "a belief, without academic proof, of a higher power—of some­ thing you can depend on, of dependency" (Art). The ultimate optimism hinted in these statements is consistent with findings about low scorers generally. However, the lack of inner self-reliance implied by their dependence on a supernatural power resembles certain trends found to be more typical of high scorers generally. This latter aspect is consistent with the fact that none of the low-scoring interviewees scored extremely low on any of the questionnaire scales.

E.

DEFENSES A G A I N S T

WEAKNESS

1. H I G H SCORERS

Defenses against weakness seem to be especially pronounced in the prej­ udiced inmates. All of the high-scoring interviewees show deep-seated fears of weakness in themselves. The meaning of weakness to these men seems to be tied up with intense fears of nonmasculinity. T o escape these fears they try to bolster themselves up by various antiweakness or pseudomasculinity defenses. These can be grouped into four general themes, each of which may be expressed in a certain formula: ( i ) Power-strivings: "I am not on the bottom, I am one of those on top"; or, "I do not weakly submit, I domi­ nate and control, I have power." ( 2 ) "Toughness": "I am not weak, I am strong"; "I am not soft, I am tough"; "I am not passive and feminine, I am active and masculine." ( 3 ) Flight into heterosexual activity: "I am not homo­ sexual, I am heterosexual"; or "I do not love him, I love her." ( 4 ) Paranoid reactions: "I do not love him, I hate him because he persecutes me"; i.e., "I do not feel submissive-homosexual desires, I feel aggressive resentment toward men because they persecute m e . " 21

The questionnaire item which reflects defensive masculinity attitudes (spe­ cifically, "toughness" and power) in purest form is number 2 6 , which stereotypically divides the world into "the strong" (ingroup) and "the weak" (outgroup). This item has the highest D.P. in the F scale. Other items con­ taining antiweakness themes are those exalting "will power" (Item 2 ) , "dis­ cipline" and "determination" (Item 1 3 ) , an exaggerated notion of "honor" 2 1

The formulae (3) and (4) are adapted from Freud

(40).

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

§57

(Item 1 9 ) , as well as items already mentioned in another context, especially 1 4 (PEC), 2 3 , 3 0 , and 4 5 ( E ) . The relative emphasis placed on different aspects of masculinity facades, in relation to the fears underneath, differs from individual to individual. Therefore, instead of proceeding variable by variable, we shall discuss the weakness-antiweakness complex separately for each inmate. Robert has centered his efforts to "prove" his "masculinity" around compulsive status-power strivings. He declares that from an early age "my greatest desire was to be somebody in life. . . . I wanted to be a success in business . . . and sometimes worried whether I would. . . . The future goal that I have set up is to own at least three . . . stores of my own . . . I was on my first store at the time of my arrest." This concern with status and power gives meaning to his anxious fantasy that Negroes "don't have a goal in life" but "just want to exist" and his envious stereotype of Jewish "drive and ambition to get there." Robert projects this compulsive power-drive onto others and reveals his inability to imagine any alternative to dominance or submission: "Every man has a certain ego that he has to satisfy. You like to be on top. If you're anybody at all, you don't like to be on the bottom" (Italics supplied.) The submissive dependence behind Robert's power-seeking is shown in his attitudes toward friends and family. ( W h a t do friends offer a person?) "To me, friends offer satisfaction to myself that I've been doing a job well done, that I'm satisfying those people of their expectations. . . . (Q.) Well, I was referring to the business viewpoint." (Note the impersonalized use of people as primarily an external prop for what Robert calls his "ego.") His main satisfaction with his younger brother was "the satisfaction he gave my ego. . . . He's patterned his life after mine. He's in the business, too." Robert further expresses pride that "my folks have always classed me as a success in the business." The deference toward the examiner ("Do you think I have the right view of things?") has been mentioned before. Robert's power drive has apparently not stopped his fears of femininity, of heterosexual impotence, and possibly of latent homosexuality. Underlying identification with a feminine role is suggested by his own admission that "up until the time I left home, ( m y mother) always referred to me as her best daughter." The possibility of conflict over latent homosexuality is raised by several cues: e.g., by Robert's insistence, despite instructions not to bother with details, on exhibitionistically giving to the examiner (a man) a minutely detailed account of his first experience of intercourse; and b y indirect "con­ tact" with other men via a hostile affair with a highly promiscuous woman. This last behavior, which finally broke up Robert's marriage, suggests a common type of defense against homosexual wishes, viz., compulsive flight into heterosexual relationships which are extremely impersonal and hostile. Ronald's ego-alien weakness is more transparent than Robert's. Mentioned

858

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

earlier was his unsatisfied dependent longing for authoritarian religious belief as "the thing that holds you together." Similar extreme dependence is shown in his conception of "friends" as "someone that you can . . . talk to about your troubles, and vice versa" and "know that he's there at all times, and if you need any help at any time." Also, like Robert, he asked the exam­ iner to reassure him at the close of the interview that he is not "too radical" in some of his ideas. This "too radical" was apparently a euphemism for "too aggressive" toward outgroups. Ronald has a history of severe chronic bedwetting until the age of 1 2 , for which he has no explanation to offer beyond an externalization of the symptom onto "my kidneys." He has no idea w h y his enuresis suddenly stopped at the age of 1 2 . That bed-wetting may have represented in part a passive mode of sexual gratification is suggested by his homosexual conflicts. Earlier mention has been made of his righteous condemnation of "sexual perversion" including, explicitly, fellatio. He de­ nies that he has ever "felt any desire of any kind" for homosexual relations, yet subsequently admits to having several times had such relations with a fellow inmate. He implicitly denies any "real" homosexuality in this (blam­ ing it exclusively on prison sex deprivation), and says that he had no special reaction to the experiences except to lose respect for the other man. Ron­ ald's paranoid "toughness" toward Negro men might perhaps be a defense against homosexual excitement aroused by them. Ronald's promiscuous heterosexuality, including several impersonalized, unusual marriage cere­ monies, may also be understood as an attempt to deny homosexual impulses. "I always get married spectacularly"—e.g., "in a taxicab" or "my partner in a dance walkathon—married on the floor—no love, but received money for it from the spectators." Both weakness and compensatory "toughness" seem to be combined in Ronald's thefts and gang robberies carried out "as a business." The chief prop of Eugene's defenses is a facade of toughness. He has repeatedly been involved in petty trouble, especially by fighting when drunk. "I've got quite a temper," and "I like to fight once in a while . . . usually when I'm drinking." Moreover, "I'm proud of my people," the "Scotch-Irish," whose most prominent characteristic, according to Eugene, is that "most of them like to fight." W h e n the examiner points out that this is precisely what Eugene resentfully says about Negroes, he differentiates on the basis that Negroes "go around looking" for fights, while he himself merely "likes" to fight (and does so frequently). The psychological reason w h y he likes to fight and has "quite a temper" seems to be largely uncon­ scious; he "can't explain it." He explains, however, that Negroes "go around picking trouble" because they've "got an inferiority complex" and "try to be big shots"—which may be a projection of his own inferiority feelings and the "big shot" w a y he tries to compensate for them. The situations which evoke Eugene's temper suggest possibly more specific causes, namely homosexual

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

859

impulses, against which his impulsive aggressiveness may be a paranoid defense: "I was with a girl at a bar, and a g u y got a little out of line . . . talkin' dirty—not to her, but he was talkin' loud. . . ."; or "maybe some g u y calls me a name." Eugene himself associates his propensity for "trouble" with fear of heterosexual adjustment: "I'm just a little too wild to get married. I'm scared of it." Clarence shows more obvious signs of ego-alien "weakness," and has less effective defenses against it. The army, he declares, "makes a man of you," but it did not succeed in overcoming Clarence's fear of rising above a private, because that would have meant "too much responsibility"— 1 although "I'm pretty good at takiri orders." Discharged for tuberculosis, he drew government compensation for seventeen years and then lived "on the county." According to the prison physician, Clarence "claimed he still had T.B., b u t . . . we failed to find any evidence of any active T.B. whatever. . . . W e felt that he was wrongly drawing government compensation for years." This avoidance of work contrasts strikingly with Clarence's moralistic glorification of the disciplinary value of hard work. Moreover, to the prison physician Clarence appeared "very neurasthenic and enlarged on minor and rather normal aches and pains; was very feministic." He did not marry until he was 3 8 , to a woman 39, toward whom he was apparently quite submissive. Although " w e weren't much alike in any w a y . . . we got along good" be­ cause "I let her have her own w a y . Takes two to start an argument." It was only a few months after her death, eleven years later, that he was arrested for "molesting" four girls, ages 8 to 1 0 , who testified that he felt of their genitals. Such behavior could well be a panicky attempt to deny homosexual impulses b y "proving" heterosexual masculinity. Clarence claimed that the girls made up the entire story just to "get even" with him because he "wouldn't give them candy." Three years later, he was again arrested on a charge of getting two little girls drunk and attempting intercourse with one of them. He escaped conviction on these two occasions, but two years later the half-sister (age 1 2 ) of one of the last two little girls was picked up b y the police at Clarence's home. This time he was convicted of attempted rape. Clarence seems to have denied this episode to himself b y developing a system of persecutory delusions: He protests that he "worked for the people in politics in order to clean up the city," and that when his candidates were not elected the police "went after" him. This paranoid reaction is consistent with the interpretation that his heterosexual delinquency was a defense against homosexual panic.

Wilbur has also worked out a rigid system of paranoid delusions, but shows less obvious signs of underlying weakness than Clarence. For him, as for Robert and Ronald, friends mean primarily dependence; they offer "help in lots of needs, sickness, money—well, a friend can just help you in most any w a y . " He indicates that, like Clarence, he has a very submissive relationship

86o

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

to his wife: His wife manages finances, gives the discipline to the children, and, when he and his wife disagree, "I usually do just what she asks me to do." In view of his reactions to the landlord, Wilbur may well have experi­ enced a deep threat to his masculinity and possible homosexual panic directed toward a "persecuting" father figure, when he and his family were evicted following a controversy. He felt compelled to "fight back" in desperation; he sought out the landlord, who happened to be of Greek descent, and attacked him fatally. Apparently unable to face emotional conflicts stirred up by this episode, Wilbur stereotypically impersonalized the relationship by imagining himself as an unfortunate victim of "the Greek people, who like to punish the poor people." These men are distinguished not only b y the intensity of their conflicts about weakness, but also by a special feature of their defenses against weak­ ness in themselves: In addition to the pseudomasculine attitudes which they share with prejudiced men in other groups, the high-scoring inmates express antiweakness themes overtly in delinquent behavior. This behavior has a superficial appearance of being an uninhibited expression of basic impulses. But closer observation reveals that the acts referred to are by no means free or expressive; they have an aspect of desperate compulsion, and can be understood as a defensive attempt to deny weakness. This defensiveness actually conceals intense inhibitions (as is shown elsewhere in this chapter) against genuine heterosexuality and against straightforward aggression against real authority and parent figures. It seems as if these men's uninternalized conscience combines with especially intense disturbance about weakness to produce delinquency, as an extreme type of antiweakness defense. Such actions are perhaps even more unrestrained in those interviewees we have called openly fascist. 2.

FASCISTS

The antiweakness defenses appear in more extreme form in the fascists, with more unconcealed anxiety about inner weakness. Buck's deep fear that he may be a "sex maniac," his delinquent heterosexual behavior toward a 13-year-old girl and toward his own small children, have been discussed. Further hints of an obsessive fear of homosexuality are given in his reply to the questionnaire item asking what are the worst possible crimes. Besides rape and murder, Buck lists homosexual intercourse per anum. In the inter­ view, he reveals graphic fantasies suggesting preoccupation with "any man that abuses any part of another man's body. . . . I could never see (he refers in profane language to sodomy and fellatio). Buck exhibits vain blustering in almost complete disregard of reality. He repeatedly interrupted the in­ terview to protest, inappropriately, that "I can make money as well as the next g u y . " His emotional involvement in these unreal fantasies is sug­ gested by his asking the examiner, "Do you think I can make i t ? " ; and

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

861

by his interview explanation of his response " w o r r y " to the questionnaire item asking " W h a t might drive a person nuts?": " W e l l , I'm worryin' here, I gotta make it now, or I'm not gonna make it. I'm gettin' pretty old. Well, not o l d - b u t it can't be done by foolin' around in the penitentiary." His greatest ambition, he declares, is to "buy more cattle, more land." Buck, as will be recalled, "made it" by leaving a trail of bad checks up and down the state. Floyd says "I laugh at homosexuals," and he agrees very much with the questionnaire item that "homosexuals . . . ought to be severely punished." His promiscuous sexuality has already been described. Nonetheless, his feminine identifications are almost conscious. Asked on the question­ naire what great people he admires most, he lists "Salome, Madame DuBarry, Mata Hari." In the interview, he reveals that what he identifies with is their opportunistic rise from feminine submergence to positions of power. "Yeh, they did their share. ( H o w do you mean?) I am particularly fond of women. . . . I like a woman who is capable. . . . DuBarry came up from a courtesan to be the indirect ruler of the country." Floyd's feminine-submis­ sive-homosexual identifications appear also in his attitude toward his "crime partner," to whom he is deeply attached. Note the peculiar context in which status considerations irrelevantly intrude: "He's 3 0 , but I guess we are intel­ lectual equals if nothing else." And observe the preoccupation with physical relationships, with a consequently inappropriate response: ( W h a t sort of person is he?) " W e l l , he is short and heavy and light. I'm tall and lean and dark. W e ' r e physical opposites." Floyd is so preoccupied with his dependent role toward the other man that even further probing fails to elicit any real description of the latter's personality: ( W h a t sort of a g u y is he?) "The best. (Can you give an example?) If he says something, he means it. And the thing that I thought most about him: the night—well, we walked into a police trap. The other fellow ran off, but he tried to come back and get me. . . . He's loyal." Thus, Floyd's devoted "lieutenant" relationship to his crime partner possibly enabled him indirectly to gratify submissive-homosexual wishes, at the same time as he was bolstering his masculinity as a "big oper­ ator" engaged in armed robberies. For Adrian, the feminine-submissive-homosexual identifications require no inference. Since leaving school, he has lived as a homosexual prostitute, and "I look at all things from a feminine viewpoint." There is abundant evidence that his homosexuality is an acting-out of hate-filled power conflicts. Not only do "men irritate me b y what I think is a superior attitude," but "I never did like homosexual affairs The actual physical act always repelled me and still does." It is as if Adrian is driven by some inner compulsion to "prove" to men again and again, b y ingratiating effeminate behavior, that he is submissive and self-emasculated. He "could pet all night." But since he "found you can't get away with that," he submits further by doing "just whatever they want to." Adrian's resentment against such utter submission

86z

THE

AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

is expressed in opportunistic exploitation of the men who "kept" him: "I wasn't interested in anything except clothes and the rent." Frequent disagree­ ments arose "about money—I never had as much money as I thought I ought to have. I'd always threaten to leave and go somewhere else. I usually got my way." The underlying wish to turn the tables and dominate the very men to whom he submitted is plain: "I ruled those roosts. ( H o w do you mean?) I cooked what / wanted to cook and did what / wanted to do." Adrian's "feminine viewpoint" is thus fundamentally sexless and loveless. He presents an extreme caricature of the facade which helps greatly to dis­ tinguish certain high-scoring women (see Chapter X I ) : exaggerated effem­ inacy of manner, ingratiating coyness, flirtatiousness, excessive attention to dress, ostentatious display of physical weakness with vague hypochon­ driacal complaining and appeal for pity, etc. The cynical exploitiveness hidden behind this facade is further exemplified in his favorite heroes of fiction—"Becky Sharp, Madame Bovary, and Ivy Lashton. . . . I don't admire anything in any of them. You asked me who I liked the best. Because they were all decidedly—what do you call it?—designing women." The power motif is even clearer in his identification with Mary Baker Eddy, whom he regards as "neurotic" and "I don't have much faith in (her) personally," but "I admire (her) immensely" as a "shrewd business woman." Even Adrian, with his self-emasculated homosexual submission, made a stab at compensatory "toughness" in his present offense. W h i l e drinking in a bar, "I read in True Detective Stories about a girl who got herself up a bunch of hoodlums and raised herself a lot of hell. . . . And I figured if a little tiny thing like this girl could, I could." He proceeded to pick out from the customers at the bar the man who seemed "the most mean looking and cor­ rupt," and suggested they do a robbery together. "I didn't intend to play the active role." "I thought he would do the dirty work but he wouldn't. So I had to." The man got Adrian a cap pistol and, by standing outside, gave him the moral courage to enter a store, where he held up "a very big man" and escaped with the cash register contents. Referring to this incident in dis­ cussing Hitler, Adrian himself formulates its fascistic implications: "I'm no leader, but I can follow. . . . Though I led when I had that gun, didn't I? . . . W h e n you make people lead you, that means the same thing, doesn't i t ? " Implicit in the "moralism-immorality" and "weakness-antiweakness" com­ plexes of the pseudodemocratic high scorers, is a feature that becomes ex­ plicit in the fascists, namely, externalized self-contempt. This is termed externalized because what is despised is not regarded as really a part of the self but as somehow alien or accidental, something for which the subject does not really accept responsibility. Floyd's self-contempt is expressed in such remarks as "Only reason (anyone is) unemployed is they're lazy like me," and " M y industriousness . . . just doesn't e x i s t . . . just a black horse." He speaks of this as if it were an isolated trait unrelated to his personality as a whole—an ac-

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

863

cident of heredity "from the other (maternal) side of the family." Floyd says he was as a child "a typical fresh Irish kid. . . . Snot-nosed they used to call it"; "I didn't grow up"; "Everything I do is an act." . . . Buck, even in the same breath in which he blames all his troubles on "some damn b ," de­ clares that "I'm kind of ashamed; I'm the only black sheep in the family." Mention has been made earlier of his concern that "You don't think I'm a sex maniac, do y o u ? " and "Do you think I can make i t ? " (i.e., money). This anxiety, combined with Buck's previous sex offenses, his gross financial mis­ management and fabricated financial exploits, suggests intense, externalized self-contempt. Adrian exhibits the most profound self-contempt of all. He describes himself as "spoiled," "selfish," "neurotic," dominated by "moral laxness," etc. Further, "I get along very well with old maids. I guess I'm kind of an old maid in my mental make-up." About homosexuality: "The whole subject is repulsive to me now. I'd just as soon forget I ever lived that sort of life." This last statement was made just before a short-lived parole, in which he quickly reverted to drinking and to homosexual prostitution. 3.

L O W SCORERS

As mentioned before, the low-scoring interviewees, too, show some signs of conflicts about "weakness," but usually with this difference: Such conflicts are in these men more ego-accepted, instead of being denied b y the antiweakness pretenses appearing in the prejudiced men. The greater capacity of the low scorers to face these emotional problems seems to facilitate more constructive attempts at solving them, especially through persistent achieve­ ment-strivings (not a quest for external success only, but a striving to satisfy inner standards of self-expressive attainment). Related to this is a more general feature of their approach to life: the development of selfexpressive interests that seem to be more than escapist distractions or ways of gaining status. Likewise, these men's more relaxed attitude toward mas­ culinity (as compared with the prejudiced men) seems to have permitted them to develop soft-passive-feminine character traits and sublimated ex­ pressions of love-oriented homosexual impulses (not the ego-alien, hostilesubmissive homosexual conflicts of the prejudiced men). Art's "weakness" has been expressed primarily in his search for a nurturant mother figure on whom he could be dependent. W h e n frustrated in this, he "arranged" to get himself into prison by writing bad checks and taking no precautions against being caught—in order to satisfy his dependency needs by using the prison as "mother." This is his own interpretation—worked out by consciously trying to understand his behavior in retrospect—by "autopsychoanalysis." Art also verbalizes openly his "feeling of inferiority." His compensatory ambition is expressed in striving to satisfy inner values, to dem­ onstrate his inner "abilities and capacities," to an extent that seems neurotically insistent: "I don't like to think of limits . . . on my own abilities and capaci-

864

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

ties." Deeply admiring his mother's "intellectual ability," Art was "very con­ scientious" in school and "was disappointed one time when I got a 'B' instead of all 'A's.' " Having been "imbued" by his mother "with the idea that m y body was a precious possession and that I should take care of it," he trained himself rigorously as "an athlete" and set a world's record while still in high school. A leg injury at this time interrupted his further athletic career and prevented his entry into Annapolis; he was in bed with a cast on his leg for nine months. Significantly, during this period of enforced, and com­ plete, dependency on his mother (and to a lesser extent an older sister), Art "broke training" by "smoking for the first time in my life" and also "started drinking." It was as if, unable to accept this dependence and deprived of an important part of his male ego identity as "an athlete," he needed to assert his independence of maternal moral precepts and to prove that he was a "big g u y . " . . . Art prefers "fine art" to his (and his father's) vocation of commercial art. The former arouses real enthusiasm in him: "I'm immensely happy in that type of work . . . tremendously interested in it." His main interests are (as he describes them) explicitly intellectual and aesthetic. Jim has a more disorganized background. His father, after years of vio­ lently maltreating the entire family, deserted them when J i m was 1 3 . The main burden of supporting the family now fell upon Jim. Although he had done well enough in school to skip a grade, he now played truant for two semesters, while struggling along on a paper route, odd jobs, and relief allot­ ments. The mother reports that when a doctor urged that she eat more fruit for the sake of her health, Jim sometimes went without eating in order to buy fruit for her. It was during this period that he engaged in several petty thefts; he was arrested once, but the case was dismissed. Not long after the father returned, following an eight-year absence, Jim began to work for him. But when the father "scolded and nagged him one day," according to the mother's report, "he refused to work for his father any more." This may help to explain Jim's apparent resistance to the two employers he has had: the one private employer he worked for (as a messenger-clerk, for about fifteen months) reported a generally uncooperative work adjustment. Also, J i m was discharged from a C.C.C. camp for refusing to work (no details avail­ able). In contrast with this resistance to father-figure authorities, is be­ havior suggesting a quest for a "good father" who might deserve his love: a government relief investigator refers to Jim's "disposition to stay with a man much older . . . than himself. This man . . . supposedly took an interest in ( J i m ) and was attempting to lend every aid at his disposal . . . was somewhat of a drinking man, but according to ( J i m ) , during (Jim's) stay with (him) he stopped drinking; and so the living together was considered mutually bene­ ficial." In prison, where Jim has been given increasing responsibility, his work adjustment is reported as "excellent." W h e n last seen, he was working as a kind of counselor to other inmates coming to the psychiatric department

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

865

for advice. He declared that most of them seemed to feel much better after releasing their feelings to a sympathetic person (such as himself), and ex­ pressed the feeling that he himself had grown in self-insight and maturity as a by-product of listening to other inmates' problems. Meanwhile, his earlier expressed wish to achieve success as a "business executive" has given w a y to a desire to do some sort of personnel work when he is paroled. The conventional "drive for success" motive has played a larger role in the thinking of Don and Dick, even though this seems to be integrated into an internalized value-system. From the time Don's parents were divorced, when he was 1 2 , he has been fully self-supporting. Through high school he lived with a group of other youngsters who were also working, and somehow found time to play in the school band and on the football team. Meanwhile, having earned the grades necessary for entering college, he had saved $ 4 , 0 0 0 with the intention of working toward a medical degree. A three-year siege of meningitis "busted" this goal. His subsequent work-history, he says, has been "more or less accidental." Going to work in his stepfather's busi­ ness, Don became a salesman. This has been his main occupation, for a period of some years as manager of his own business, in which he was "very successful." His primary goal was "security," which he lost when he began to loan money heavily to his mother, and finally to steal for her—an episode to be described later. Since being in prison, he has seriously developed a boyhood hobby of photography, which he now plans to continue as a vocation in partnership with his son-in-law. As an inmate he has worked into a position that involves photographic work with some supervisory capacity. Photography represents "a form of salesmanship—meet people and analyze them"; it has a "terrific future" as a result of technical advances accomplished during the war. Don's other interests include a va­ riety of sports and reading a great deal. He is described in the initial prison psychiatric interview as "one of the most talkative inmates to cross this inter­ viewer's desk," as showing "a genuine curiosity" and continually "interrupt­ ing the interview to ask questions . . . regarding prison life, inmates, and characteristics of various officials." Through the interview with Dick there seems to run the theme of being what he calls "too easy-going" (suggesting open passivity as an inhibitory defense against expressing aggression). He "never did like to argue with any­ one." (This may well be related to his fear of "agitators" and his anxiety that unions "shouldn't agitate.") Thus, Dick avoided having "any fights with other kids." Later, when his parents objected strenuously to his marrying a girl with whom he was in love, because she had a crippled leg, he "didn't argue —just listened to them and told them my side. I couldn't agree with them." Apparently unable to withstand their pressure, he subsequently married an­ other girl while he was in the Navy. Despite continuous conflict, they stayed together seven years for the sake of their child, and then separated. Dick

866

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

then "broke loose" from some of his inhibitions and "got a little wild . . . doing a lot of drinking" which led up to the present term in prison. (More of this later.) Dick might have been better able to sublimate his inhibited aggres­ sions if his early ambition to become a doctor had not been blocked b y finan­ cial difficulties: he "used to dream I was a doctor delivering babies and cutting people open." W h i l e in prison, however, he has developed a thor­ oughgoing interest in watchmaking as both vocation and hobby. It is inter­ esting to speculate whether the focus on close detail in such work may serve as a compulsive means of holding down certain (aggressive) feelings—per­ haps allowing less (indirect) expression of those feelings than medicine, but nonetheless a highly sublimated form of control. It is of interest that Dick has learned watchmaking during his spare time from "one real close friend," who is a sex offender. His accepting attitude to the latter contrasts with the prejudiced men's hostile righteousness on such matters. At the same time, the question may be asked whether this friendship involves some indirect satis­ faction of latent homosexual impulses, as was suggested for Jim's close friend­ ship with an older man. Such impulses are hinted in a slip that Dick made in describing his childhood friendship with the crippled girl whom he later wanted to marry: "She always used to come to me for advice. . . . If a boy asked her for a date, she would come to me to ask whether /—or rather she should go out with him." (Italics supplied.) F.

HETEROSEXUALITY 1.

H I G H SCORERS

As was to be expected from their antisexual moralism, their anxious imagin­ ings about the "animalism" of Negroes, and their intense fears of sexual approach to "white women" by Negroes, the prejudiced men show an im­ paired ability to combine sexual and tender feelings toward the same woman. Moreover, they exhibit signs of underlying resentful disrespect for women generally. These men tend to keep both sexual and hostile feelings toward "respectable" women partly split off from conscious awareness. T h e y do this by making a rigid distinction between two stereotypes, in terms of which they classify all women: "pure," "sweet" (unsexual) women (like "mothers"), and "bad" (sexual) women. Toward "pure" women there are superficial gestures of respect; the artificiality of such attitudes suggests that they may be based on defenses which hold down sexual and aggressive feelings underneath. This inference is partly confirmed by expressions of open disrespect and hostility toward "bad" women, along with imperson­ alized sexual attitudes toward them. Further confirmation appears in some direct break-throughs of hostility to "pure" women, and in the fact that all heterosexual relationships tend to be distant, stereotyped and either domi­ nating or submissive-dependent. (See Parts III and I V . )

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

867

In one form or another, this pattern appears in every prejudiced inter­ viewee. Robert formulates succinctly the stereotyped notion of two kinds of women. His mother, he declares, taught him "something that stuck with me all my life, that a woman is the most perfect thing in the world"; he reveals the split-off resentment behind this seeming respect by adding, "that is, the right kind of woman." His sexually frigid wife, whom he calls "the sweetest wife in the world," apparently represented the "perfect thing" stereotype. W h a t Robert admired most about her, he indicates, was her submissiveness toward him: "that she was willing to do whatever I did." Their life together is revealed, in his descriptions, as a constant round of mutual accusations of spending money carelessly, jealousy on her part over his going out alone, and "every little thing . . . she'd immediately run to mother and stay all night." She filed suit for divorce on discovering an affair he was having with a waitress, who seemed to represent "the other kind" of woman. The latter relationship was characterized by extreme hostility, exploitation, and dis­ respect. The woman was quite promiscuous with other men, Robert says, during the affair with him. Further, "she was often drunk, and liked to battle and fight and argue and fuss. . . . Once this woman climbed a pole and got in my window, and another time she threw whiskey through the window at me in bed." On discovering his former prison record (for f o r g e r y ) , she began to blackmail him. He finally shot her (unpremeditatedly) in a vio­ lent quarrel. Clarence and Wilbur describe a still more distant, empty relationship to their wives than does Robert, with the difference that they rather than their wives were the more submissive. Although Clarence had "quite a few" ex­ periences with prostitutes, he remained unmarried until the age of 3 8 . H e was attracted to his wife, he says, mainly by such external features as "her looks and manners." " W e weren't much alike in any w a y " and were "a little different in taste about things. (Q.) Most anything!" But Clarence and his wife "got along good," by virtue of his submissiveness: "I let her have her own w a y . . . in most anything." Shortly following his wife's death, Clarence, who as a boy would "blush" if he "met a girl on the street," began to "molest" young girls, getting them drunk and attempting rape on them. . . . Wilbur's relationship to his wife has likewise been that of a subordinate. He indicates that she managed the finances, the children, and usually made the family decisions. W h e n they disagreed-e.g., "she likes to stay home on Sun­ day and I don't"—Wilbur would "usually do just what she asks me to do." A few minutes later in the interview, however, when asked in what w a y s he and his wife are alike, he says: " W e l l , she don't like to run around so much, and I don't either." A further, equally external "commonalty" is that "we both like to work." Ronald's sexual history is more colorful. In addition to a number of "onenight relationships," he has been married three times—each time quite briefly.

868

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

W i t h the first wife "the sex relationship was more enjoyable," he declares, "because there was nothing deep between us." (Italics supplied.) He left the second wife after a week, because "I just got tired of her"; although he "went back to her after seven or eight months" and stayed with her for a short time until the police caught up with his trail of robberies. The third wife was "pure"—a business woman who "didn't know anything about life. . . . W e didn't get along too good sexually, because she was land of on the frigid line." But whereas Ronald had been unable to feel tender toward more "sexual" women, this frigid "purity" seemed to attract something in him. He decided that he was "actually in love with her, and I still am," although "I don't know if she was in love with me. . . . I'd like nothing better than to go back to her."

Eugene's sexual relationships have been "mostly here or there." One lasted six months and was characterized by frequent "disagreements." "She tried to get me to quit drinking, and I wouldn't and didn't." There was much mutual jealousy, Eugene indicates, with charges such as "in a nightclub, she might keep staring at another g u y . " Also, sometimes "I'd make a date to take her some place and not show up." The inhibitory respect for fe­ male "purity" is expressed in Eugene's statement that "I have a bad temper when I'm drinking, except toward a woman," and in his report of how some of his fights start-e.g., going out of his w a y to pick a fight with a stranger at a bar, for "talking dirty" near Eugene when he was with a girl. 2.

FASCISTS

The fascists reveal a heterosexual orientation which is even more exter­ nalized, contemptuous, exploitative, and dichotomistic than that of the other high scorers. Buck scarcely disguises his contemptuous use of women as mere physical objects. "I always thought," he declared, after having de­ scribed his own rather promiscuous sexual activities "that was meant to be tampered with." He shows an obsessive bitterness toward prostitutes and "loose" women, with whom he indicates he has had a good many ex­ periences. Likewise he expresses resentment of his first wife's efforts to ob­ tain financial support for their children. His second wife he curses as being extremely promiscuous during their marriage; and as mentioned before, he blames "that damn " entirely for his present situation. Also mentioned before was his statutory rape of a neighbor's 13-year-old girl, because he "had to have some sex" and "it was there to get." Toward "good" women, however, Buck manifests an inhibitory respect. He "never did try to play around with" his first wife before marriage, because "she comes from a pretty good family." Nor did he have intercourse before marriage with his second wife, who "seemed pretty respectable." He later decided, after fall­ ing out with her, that "she was playin' good to get me to marry her." Buck formulates his stereotypic dichotomy between "good" and "bad" women in

CRIMINALITY

AND ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

869

a phrase: "Funny as hell—I always marry , my brothers all got good women." Floyd, who was only 2 1 at the time he was apprehended, refers to "a few" passing heterosexual relationships "here and there," typically with "a married woman as usual." He describes as an example "one (who) was about 2 2 years old, married, beautiful, dumb." But, like Ronald and Robert, Floyd seems to require frigidity in a woman before he can feel respect and be­ come attached to her. As reported in the prison case file, "his principal inter­ est has been a supposed passionate devotion to one who is almost sexless." This was again a married woman, whom he wanted to marry if she would divorce her husband. W h e n she "rediscovered her loyalty" to her husband, however, Floyd "got fed up from her sheer stupidity." N o w he wants to marry a "wealthy w o m a n . . . preferably anywhere between 28 and 3 0 . . . (of) fair physical attractions" whose personality he is satisfied to "take as it comes." Specifically, he is "looking forward" to marrying a Jewish actress "I got my eye on," whom he claims to have met once at a party in Hollywood. Her appeal for him he characterizes as only "physical." ( W h a t else?) "I don't know. She's just 'it,' that's all." This appears to be stereotypic fantasy express­ ing inverted anti-Semitism about "their women," who as Floyd says in re­ ferring to the Jewish actress "are really all right"; he admittedly has not "communicated" with her and doesn't know what her feelings toward him might be. Adrian's few heterosexual relationships have been with women "all older than me, and they weren't anything but physical." "I never get romantic or emotional over a woman." W i t h women as well as men, "I never had any relations with anyone that didn't have money connected with it." This applied to the business woman of 3 0 to whom he was married for a few weeks at the age of 1 8 : "she had money and I didn't." Like the frigid "pure women" to whom other prejudiced men seem to become attached, she was "cold as a clam sexually." After an annulment, Adrian continued to correspond with her (as he still does also with his childhood governesses) for over a decade, "until she got married a year ago"; although (or because) "she treats me like a two-year-old." Adrian's deep-seated inhibitions against expressing genuine sexuality are revealed directly in response to a question whether he has any present heterosexual fantasies: "I don't have fantasies in the sexual sense. . . . I am a lot more sentimental than I am sexy." 3.

L O W SCORERS

All 4 of the low-scoring inmates reveal definite disturbance in their heterosexual adjustment. Specifically, they appear to suffer conflicts based on unsatisfied love-dependency longings directed toward women as mother figures. These longings are associated with reciprocal love-nurturance toward women. A t the same time, these men show ambivalence toward women that

870

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

is near-consciously inhibited (instead of being split off and denied b y moralistic dichotomies, as is the high scorers' power-ridden ambivalence to women). Such ambivalence seems in their case to stem primarily from frus­ tration of the love-dependency longings rather than from fear-hate, domi­ nance-submission conflicts as in the case of the prejudiced men. Moreover, in contrast with the latter's underlying contempt for women, the low scorers show greater basic respect for women as individuals and as essential equals. Their relationships with women stress common values and interests. Art partially interprets his "dependency complex" himself. As the re­ sult of his "autopsychoanalysis" during his present term in prison, he spon­ taneously refers to this problem in the first minutes of the interview. All of the women with whom he has been intimate, he points out, have been older than himself, "business women, wage-earners, and providers," like his mother. He "simply transferred m y dependency on m y mother" to " m y wife" and then "onto the (prison) authorities." After getting himself fired from his job, he made only half-hearted efforts to secure another one, until his first "wife as provider and support was no longer a tolerable condition consciously." Then he "got plastered" and wrote some bad checks as "un­ consciously a w a y of transferring dependency." After a six-months jail term, she took him back. He was "repentant, but soon got plastered and did it again." This time she divorced him, though apparently on friendly terms. Art reports complete amnesia for his second wife, a woman twelve years older than himself, whom he also put in the position of supporting him. He lived with her only a short time when this situation became intolerable to him: another check-writing episode then landed him in prison. Unlike Buck, who led the authorities a merry chase before being caught for his check-writing, Art "knew I was going to get caught" and had uncon­ sciously "arranged" to "transfer m y dependency" to the prison "mother." . . . Despite Art's conflicts over "dependency," in describing his first mar­ riage he emphasizes shared experiences and expressed genuine respect for his former wife: She was "an artist also, and a really thoroughgoing indi­ vidual. She had a tremendous amount of scope, both intellectually and in­ dividually. . . . I liked her interests, her intellect." He is self-critical of his role in the marriage: "I wasn't in love with her . . . though I wouldn't admit it to myself. . . . Though I was very fond of her. . . . At that time I was too self-centered to be in love with a n y o n e . . . . I did admire and respect and like her. . . . Today, I think we could have a better chance of making a go of it . . . because I have grown up sufficiently." Art's second wife continues to correspond with him, despite his "amnesia," and he is grateful for her "loyalty." Her letters, he says, indicate that she stresses "social functions" and the like, which are "of little consequence to me." Although they plan to reunite, he says that he will not remain with her if their interests and at­ titudes should prove uncongenial.

CRIMINALITY

AND

ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

871

Art's continued "amnesia" for his second marriage suggests that he has b y no means resolved the conflicting feelings involved in his "dependency complex." Jim's offense illustrates more directly, if gruesomely, the nega­ tive side of such an ambivalent attachment. His history includes one ex­ tended sexual affair in high school with a girl a year older than himself. W h e n she finally broke off the affair because of his poor prospects (he was struggling to support his mother), he became very despondent and, according to the mother's report, attempted suicide with gas (the mother stopped him). This turned-inward aggression suggests reproachful inhibited hostility toward the girl for withholding love and frustrating his love-dependency needs. Both the emotional dependence and the inhibited hostility are revealed in one of Jim's prison "Progress Reports" when he speaks of "life goals": "Sec­ ondly I would like more than anything on this Earth to meet the girl of m y dreams. . . . I desire to provide for her and take care of her with Love and Charity in m y heart and with a real understanding of whatever little faults she may have. W e all have many defects, but it takes a good man to minimize the defects in others and search his own conscience for whatever bad thoughts dwell in him. W h e n I do meet the one girl for me, I shall explain all m y past life to her, because I do not believe that happiness can be based on lies." (Italics supplied.) It is interesting that Jim was "out with an older woman with whom he was drinking (as reported in the prison case file), when at the age of 2 0 he stole an auto for the night. (This led to a year in a reforma­ tory.) His inhibited, oral-dependent hostility to ambivalently regarded mother-figures was expressed directly in his present offense, committed at the age of 2 1 . According to the case record, he "attacked a woman, 5 0 , out for a walk . . . hit her on the head with a club, causing two skull fractures which resulted in her death. The victim's body showed also that he kissed and chewed her breasts. . . . She was totally unknown to him." This act was committed while Jim was very drunk and apparently in a dazed, fugue-like state—i.e., while his defenses were weakened to permit a direct expression of near-consciously inhibited impulses: subsequently he seemed to become at least partially amnesic for the episode. Don, too, shows signs of strong emotional dependence toward loved and respected women. His first wife's death "was quite a blow. I never recovered from it, until I got this jolt" (i.e., the present incarceration); "I'm getting over it now." He "got along fine" with his second wife, "until I got involved in Mother's affairs," which broke up the marriage. Don refers here to his series of bank robberies to obtain money for his mother in her neurotic involvements; these will be discussed in the section on parents. "I have al­ ways felt guilty about it towards m y wife." Although "I was fortunate in being perfectly mated to m y wife—sexually, that is," Don admits directly what might be expected from his continuing overattachment to his mother (see below, page 8 8 5 ) : "I have always been rather inhibited about sex."

872

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

Dick, whose "Mother was much more free about (sex) than Father" and with whom he was "pals more than Father," also verbalizes sexual inhibitions directly in discussing his former wife: "She's very hot-blooded and Fm just the opposite. . . . Sexual intercourse once a month would be okay for me." Parental pressure had prevented his marrying the boyhood sweetheart to whom he had been engaged (because she was crippled). Dick had then "mar­ ried the first white woman I saw," on three weeks' acquaintance, after return­ ing from overseas, because he was "lonesome." This didn't work out "worth a darn." In particularly they "argued about how to take care of the child, mainly . . . she always nagged the kid—wanted to use force on the kid." W h e n they finally broke up, Dick escaped "into the Marines" where, disconsolate, he "got into the habit of doing a lot of drinking." W h i l e drinking with a girl-friend, he "picked up a car" (like J i m ) and drove with her to Reno, where he "got married again while drunk." T h e y sold the car. In the after­ math, Dick made civil restitution for the theft and had the marriage annulled; he is making additional restitution in prison. Meanwhile, when the crippled girl "back home" had "found out I was married," she too had sought emo­ tional consolation by doing "the same thing: married the first man who came along. It turned out equally badly" and also ended in divorce. Now, she and Dick are corresponding again and plan to marry on his release—at last with parental approval. His attitude toward her seems to be genuinely nurturant: "She always used to come to me for advice. At a dance, I was about the only person she would dance with. And we studied together." At the same time she seems to represent for Dick (who is in other ways, too, more conventional than the other low-scoring men) a somewhat inhibitory mother figure with conventional moral values, on whom he can depend to "steady" him: she is "sort of refined. Not wild—steady. . . . Quiet, settled, doesn't get mad or express her views. . . . V e r y particular who she associates with." 4.

SUMMARY

The contrasting sexual orientations of the prejudiced and unprejudiced interviewees suggest certain crucial personality differences. The unprej­ udiced men seem to seek, above all, love—which they also have some capacity to give. Despite frustration and conflict their approach to life is influenced by basic respect for themselves and other people. This makes for democratic identifications with other people, and for an inclination to identify with underdogs. The prejudiced men, on the other hand, seem to feel basically rejected and to have almost given up hope of experiencing genuine love. T h e y speak as if they dislike and fear themselves as well as others. Their main energies seem to be devoted to defending themselves against any sense of weakness, chiefly by striving for external status and power and "proofs" of masculinity. The result is a power-oriented character structure driven to attack outgroups as symbols of their own suppressed characteristics.

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC

G.

ANTI-INTRACEPTIVENESS

TRENDS

873

AND CHILDHOOD

1. H I G H SCORERS

All of the material so far presented supports what was stated earlier: that the high scorers anxiously avoid letting themselves think and feel freely, especially about psychological matters. For such inner freedom might lead them to "see" things they are afraid of in themselves. So they externalize their feared impulses, weakness, and conflicts with other people, onto outside situations and events and onto scapegoats. T o the extent that these men let themselves feel their real feelings and impulses at all, they tend to keep them undifferentiated and to experience them as alien, as coming from out­ side their conscious self. Above all, what seems to be the emotional origin of their deepest conflicts—namely childhood and relations with parent figures —tends to be split off by them and regarded as discontinuous with their adult personality. Thus, Robert declares that, "As far as home environment, I've had the best." He was "a good child" and "a good boy up until the age of 1 6 . " It was his "carnal self," he believes, that made him commit a few forgeries and thefts at the age of 18 and later engage in the hostile affair which led to his present term in prison. He regards these actions as quite "accidental," with no rela­ tion to life-history conflicts such as ambivalence toward parentally coerced "goodness." Wilbur even more clearly denies to himself the childhood roots of his present personality and behavior: ( W h i c h one influenced you more—your uncle or your a u n t ? ) " W e l l , that which I have today is that which I have made of my own self. (Q.) Well, as far as givin' me my own disposition, . . . I more learned it since I have been on my own." Asked what he was like as a child, his answer is moralistically empty of personal content: He was "just a working boy . . . never in no trouble." Eugene, like Robert, was "pretty good up to the time I was about 1 7 years old—never in trouble, never smoked or drank." He sees no connection be­ tween his submission to self-suppressive "goodness" in childhood and youth and his long history of "trouble" since then. He "can't explain" his violent "temper" or frequent drunken "benders." Concerning his gambling, he declares mystically that "I haven't got that in m y blood." Clarence, too, describes himself in childhood as "a good boy" who "didn't run wild" but "started to work" at a very early age. Not only does he deny any causal connection between this moralistic childhood self-suppression and his later avoidance of work ( b y probably "wrongly drawing government 22

2 2

Wilbur's parents separated when he was an infant, and he never knew either of them. He was raised by an uncle and an aunt.

874

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

compensation for years") and attacks on little girls; his panic makes him deny, b y means of paranoid delusions, that he ever exhibited such behavior. In Ronald's case the splitting off of crucial aspects of childhood is more equivocal. For instance, he does criticize the severity of childhood disci­ pline b y his father: " T h e y say, 'Spare the rod and spoil the child,' but I don't think it worked out in m y case." It is shown in the next section, how­ ever, that Ronald is unable to carry through this criticism in a principled w a y but only in a paranoid-victimization context and b y capricious rebellion. 2.

FASCISTS

The fascist inmates reveal a similar "split" between childhood and later personality. Adrian shows some "break-through" of childhood conflicts in what sounds at times like the beginnings of insight. But this is negated by lack of emotional realization and by failure to accept responsibility for his own personality. Instead he feels only cynical, ego-alien self-contempt, with no real interest in changing what he despises in himself. Thus, Adrian ob­ serves at one point that " m y selfishness is something I can almost blame ( m y father) for. His attitude and that of the whole family led me to believe that I was . . . the whole universe." In a later discussion, the cynical nature of this superficial "insight" is clearer: "All I want to know is how to put the best into this life. I should say get the best out, not put in, since I am selfish." Adrian's "explanation" for parental "influence" on deeper impulses behind his symptoms is mystically hereditarian: "If I ever did anything wrong, it was the Latin in me, which is the side I have more of an affinity for—my mother's side: I look more like them." Floyd also avoids identifying with his own personality development as a life-experience process. Instead, he adopts hereditarian explanations: "All the inheritance is from the male side of the family for some reason or other. Except for my industriousness . . . that just doesn't exist. . . . I guess I just got that from the other side of the family." Buck, when questioned rather persistently b y the examiner as to what he was like as a child, just "doesn't know." Asked which of his parents had the most influence on his personality, he becomes very defensive, assuming falsely that the examiner must be moralizing about his delinquencies. Ignoring the examiner's efforts to correct this misunderstanding, he persists in his own obsessive moralism: Both parents, he protests, "always tried to teach me the right thing"; being in prison is "not m y folks' fault." 3.

L O W SCORERS

More characteristic of the "low" interviewees, with whatever partial in­ hibitions, is a general readiness to accept the causal continuity between present emotional problems and childhood emotional conflicts with parents. This has been previously exemplified in Art's self-interpretation of the effect 1

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

875

of his dependence toward his mother upon his marriages and upon his delinquence. Similarly, Don volunteers that "in prison this is the first time that I haven't been beset by all sorts of emotional problems" centering around "my mother and father." No such striking single quotations are available for Jim and Dick, although the "inner continuity" of their lives is implicit in some of the discussion of parents, to be presented shortly.

H.

ATTITUDES TO 1.

PARENTS

H I G H SCORERS

Certain critical aspects of the prejudiced inmates' ideology—"racial," po­ litico-economic, and moral-religious—have been explained as attempts to deny personal dispositions by displacing them onto things outside. Their ideology seems to express fearful oversubmissiveness to authority and power, "antiweakness" facades, and displaced hatred of imaginary power figures (e.g., J e w s ) ; as well as desperate fear of their own impulses, especially sexual aggression toward "respected white women." These men's unconscious, split-off anxieties may in turn be traced to deeper sources, namely fearridden attitudes to parents. All of them reveal, above all, a loss of inner integrity b y self-negating oversubmissiveness-out-of-fear to parental author­ ity. Such an attitude is shown especially toward the parent who is regarded as "stronger," typically the father. This submission is betrayed b y a striking inability to criticize parents' basic values; by inhibitions against making principled criticisms of parental harshness; b y acceptance of suppression imposed by parents; and by stereotypic overidealization of parents. The last feature seems to be an anxious attempt to suppress hostility b y showing the opposite—awed "respect." The false quality of this "respect" is revealed by its empty cliches, referring mostly to external stereotypes such as the parents' status, the "sacrifices" they made for the family, etc. Positive feelings tend to be oriented not toward "lovable" personal qualities of parents but rather toward what parents have "done" for them, or "given" to them; i.e., they reflect an exploitative dependence-for-external-things. Self-negating submis­ sion and dependence toward parents may well be the ultimate origin of that "weakness" in themselves which these men so frantically try to deny. But fear prevents their resentment from leading to real self-assertion or to inde­ pendence of their parents or other established authority. Sometimes they express feelings of victimization toward parents and other authorities (recall Ronald's "persecutor for a governor"). But these feelings are overpersonalized: the prejudiced men cannot really criticize antidemocraticness as such; instead, they feel themselves singled out—as individuals, as "the poor people" or 23

2 3

The statistical comparison of high- and low-scoring interviewees generally, with respect to attitudes toward parents, is reported in Chapter X.

8 6 7

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

whatnot—for "persecution." Their furtive resentment of parents and other authorities can be expressed only in pseudo rebellion, often delinquent or fascist; and in prejudice against mythically "dominant" groups such as Jews, who symbolize the hated parental power and values—i.e., by "growling" de­ fiantly while expressing the very authoritarianism "growled" against. There are signs that, to bolster their weakened masculinity and independence, these men have tried to identify with the external aspects of the resented parents—i.e., parental authoritarianism, status and power, especially that of the father. This involves, not solidly internalized character traits, but only vicarious participation as a "lieutenant" in the parent-leader's strength. This narcissistic identification is also a w a y of disguising masochistic sub­ missiveness to the parent-leader. A further consequence of the prejudiced inmates' submission to parents is splitting-off of sexual impulses toward the first heterosexual figure, the mother. These are kept split off by developing reverence for the mother's imagined asexual "purity." By emphasizing the mother's "sweetness" and "goodness," she is in fantasy deprived of sexuality. Such distortions help to protect these men against their own feared sexual impulses, and provide a basis for their later inability to fuse love and sex. Their fear of Negroes' approach to "white women" may well be a projection of their own repressed impulses toward the mother. Several questionnaire items indirectly reflect submissiveness to parental authority and denial of any hostility to family figures. These include an overemphasis on "obedience and respect for authority" (Item i ) , rejection of "rebellious ideas" (Item 2 1 ) , condemnation of those who do not feel "love, gratitude, and respect" for parents (Item 2 7 ) , and rejection of any hostile impulses toward "a close friend or relative" (Item 4 2 ) . W h i l e these items are differentiating, even the low quartile means on them are rather high. It may be suspected that prison has stirred up considerable guilt over rebellion and hostility, in both low and high scorers. Robert's submissiveness is underlined by his insistent repetition that he was "a perfect son to my parents, a perfect brother to m y sisters and brothers." His mother is the "most terrific person in the world to me," and he is quite unable to evaluate her objectively: "I truthfully can't say she has any definite shortcomings." Yet his conception of her is empty and distant. Probing as to what sort of person she is draws a complete blank, except for references to her antisexual moralism (about "woman" as "the most perfect thing") and her "self-sacrificing" gratification of dependence: "I think she has devoted her life to making her mate ( m y father) and her children very happy. Has never taken much interest in outside social affairs; is concerned with her fam­ i l y . " Even this "devotion" is regarded with mixed feelings: "I don't really think she has any (shortcomings)—except maybe too wound up in her home and didn't take more interest in social affairs." Robert overidealizes his father

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

877

in an equally empty w a y as "very good—I couldn't ask for a better father.'' He then proceeds furtively to "undo" this praise by expressions of feeling victimized: "He was a little strict at times," and "I haven't had everything I might have wanted from him." (Note the dependence-for-things.) "I would have liked to have a nicer home, better position." His underlying submission, however, impels him to pull back and "apologize": "Possibly at the time I couldn't realize" the reasons for punishment, and "all in all, I was very happy to be one of his boys." Most interesting are Robert's comments about his father's economic status: "Not a successful businessman. . . . Instead of im­ proving himself, I think he went down a bit. . . . Since I got out of school, he's always worked for wages." Thinking of the family's frequent moves which deeply upset his mother, Robert has "often tried in later years to analyze m y father's wanderlust." Robert decided that in moving so often, his father was "apparently seeking business success." In this respect, " M y mother," who "always referred to me as her best daughter" because "I've al­ ways tried to do everything to make her happy"—(note the submissive feminine identification)—"has remarked that I'm just the opposite of him." According to Robert, his mother in no w a y criticized the father's obsession with external status; she objected only that he did not "stay put" in seeking it and was not "successful" enough. But this seems to have provided a ra­ tionale for Robert, while submitting to his father's notion of economic "suc­ cess" as the end-all of existence, to assert: "To me, looking back now, he's not the type of a man that I want to pattern m y business after." Robert's ambiv­ alent ego-ideal of "business success" is, so he likes to think, "the opposite" of his father's ideal. This might help to explain the inversion of his anti-Semitism, in which he expresses mainly envy of Jewish "drive and ambition to get there," with only furtive signs of his hostility against "the J e w . " "The J e w " perhaps symbolizes less his father directly than it does a superficially differ­ ing father-ideal toward which Robert's resentment is even more repressed than toward his actual father. This father-ideal is difficult for him to rebel against even by w a y of displaced resentment against the symbol of "the J e w , " because under moralistic pressure from his mother he is deceived into think­ ing that his submission to this ideal is itself an assertion of independence from his father's values.

Ronald's resentment has broken through more openly. After the divorce of his parents when he was 3 , he lived with his (paternal) grandmother. He was " t a u g h t . . . that ( my mother) had deserted m y father and brother and I." Upon his father's remarriage, Ronald went, at the age of 7, to live with his father and stepmother. From the beginning there seemed to be "a mutual understanding between m y brother and myself that we didn't like her." Her position as only a secondary mother figure seemed to enable Ronald to express resentments toward her directly. His stepmother, he says, "didn't take any interest at all" and "resented us": " W e always felt that we were in the

878

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

w a y . " A hint of possible homosexual fixation on the father is suggested b y jealousy that his father "was more interested in her than in me or my brother." Ronald expresses much disappointment in the father, and feelings of being victimized by him: The father "ivas dependable, but he changed"; "worked his w a y up . . . then drinking caused him to go down." "He never shirked at the idea of anyone helping him, especially financially.... I know he used some of my grandmother's money to buy real estate with. And I know he lost it, and it didn't seem to bother him." The father gave Ronald an allowance of only fifteen cents a week, which Ronald still resents: "I'll never forget that." For the most part, however, he blames his stepmother for being "never satis­ fied" and "greedy." Even here, his guilt makes him pull back, as if sensing that he may be projecting onto her some of his own feelings: " / thought she was greedy. 'Course it might have been for other reasons—wanting to save something." Most striking is his almost complete displacement of hate for the father's harsh discipline, onto the stepmother. Telling how his father "didn't believe in sparing the rod" and "laid it on pretty thick," he declares: "The hard part about it was that my stepmother would tell him that m y brother or I had done things, and he wouldn't give us a chance to explain." Ronald actually "ran off twice," but "it didn't cause me to hate him. I held it mostly against her." (Just as Ronald now "holds it mostly against" those of lesser status and weak position, not those who represent real power.)

Wilbufs parents died in his infancy. He was raised by an aunt and uncle, with whom his main satisfactions, he says, were limited to "board and room, a place to sleep." The aunt was a "good woman" (i.e., " p u r e " ) . Specifically, she gratified Wilbur's dependency-for-things; she was "good to the children: clothed, fed, took care of us when sick." "I couldn't think of any" faults in her, except perhaps that "she would never like to go no place—stayed at home all the time" (like the woman W i l b u r later chose to m a r r y ) . He is unable to make his "idealization" of his aunt meaningful by any details; she was "just a good woman," "good to me." He "never did" confide in her. Wilbur's monosyllabic answers to the examiner's inquiry indicate that his childhood was dominated by the harsh rule of his uncle, whose regime he was ap­ parently too submissive to think of questioning. He says that his uncle whipped him several times a month: (Did you ever question whether he was right about it?) "No." The uncle, he declares, "treated me okay," but from a very early age "made me work pretty hard. (Q.) Sun-up to sun-down. (Q. How did you take that?) W e did what the elders told us to. (Q. Did you ever question that?) Well, I never questioned." W i l b u r was able to rebel only when he could create a persecutory rationale by feeling singled out: "Only one disagreement—he wanted me to do more work than his own children." Wilbur reacted to this rationale with explosive defiance—still submissively unable to criticize his uncle's authoritarianism as such—by abruptly leaving home at the age of 1 5 . W i t h all this, W i l b u r in another context describes

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

879

his uncle as "pretty easy to get along with." Then, in almost the next breath he reveals that "he would stay away at night and drink, sometimes come home drunk. M y aunt went off in a corner." Wilbur indicates that he didn't dare to think seriously of criticizing the uncle or of protecting the aunt: ( W h a t was your reaction?) "Didn't think much about it." Clarence, too, describes his (real) father as "easy to get along with." W h a t he admired most about the father was "the w a y he treated me. (Q.) Never did abuse me or scold me." Later, Clarence betrays the reason for his freedom from physical discipline, namely, his own cowed submission to stern parental authority. Although the father would "tell us what we should do, what he wanted us to do, and what he expected us to do," "there wasn't much (disci­ pline) to exercise," simply because "we just did what they said." A moment later, Clarence unwittingly reveals the parental intimidation that forced such utter submission from him: bemoaning the independence of children today, he declares that if he had ever answered his parents back the w a y he thinks children do now, "I wouldn't be able to sit down!" Clarence has justified his parents' intimidation of him by adopting the same general philosophy of authoritarianism: "Children didn't run wild in those days like they do nowadays. . . . If they have to whip them, I believe in whipping them. I don't believe in sparing the rod and spoiling the child." This submissive acceptance of parental authoritarianism helps to explain Clarence's inability to evaluate his father objectively: he "didn't know (my father) had any weaknesses." His description of his mother is equally superficial and moralistic: "She was a nice, easy-going woman—good mother." W h a t he admired most about her, he states, was the " w a y she handled me—always tell me how good I was." Clarence's distant, stereotyped attitude to his mother is further suggested b y his purely physical conception of the w a y in which "I take after m y mother more than my father. (Q. In what w a y s ? ) Well, in my complexion. (Q. W h a t about personality traits?) That I couldn't answer." After Eugene's father "ran away when I was 2 years old," his mother went to work as a waitress and "took care of me all my life." Thus she was both mother and father to Eugene. His remarks about her suggest the fear which forms the basis of his "idealizing" her—namely a desperate dependence on her to "do things" for him: (Note the similarity in phrasing with Eugene's submissive-dependent "idealization" of Roosevelt, who "did things" for Eugene via the C.C.C.). "She's good. In fact, the best. In other words, she's just tops with me. . . . Does everything for me she can. Writes me all the time. (Q. W h a t do you admire most about her?) Just about everything. (Q.) Well, I guess her being so good and friendly to everybody, especially me. (Q. What's an example?) Well, always trying to do everything for me. V e r y seldom go uptown without bringing something back for me. (Q. W h a t else?) W h e n Father went away, Mother took care of me all her life, where she could have put me in a home some place. She always stayed with me in

88o

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

trouble." This dependence, this fear of loss of support, may have been a powerful force driving Eugene to submit to his mother's righteous regres­ sion. She is described as having taught him not values but absolutistic moral rules: "She always taught me the difference between right and wrong, the things I should do and shouldn't." Her moralism, as he describes it, smoth­ ered any chance of answering the implicit hostility behind it, because the hos­ tility was veiled by a fog of self-righteousness: She would characteristically "just bawl us out" in a w a y that "made it seem like it was hurting her more than it did us." "She'd look hurt," with the result that "it just hurt. I never sassed her back or said a mean thing." The implied struggle to hold a desire to "sass her back" is illustrated further in a striking contradiction. The only thing Eugene can imagine that might have prevented his long record of "get­ ting in trouble" is strict moral repression by his mother: "To tell the truth, I don't think she was strict enough with us." As evidence for this, he mentioned that he sometimes "came home later than I was supposed to." A minute later, unaware of the contradiction, he declares: "She was pretty strict about that being home on time!" Eugene submitted to his mother's moralism by being "pretty good, up to the time I was 1 7 years old." His subsequent "trouble"—gambling, drinking, fighting, and sexual promis­ cuity—suggests a belated reaction against this submission. Meanwhile, the hostility which her "hurt" moralism made him suppress causes him to feel guilty and therefore obligated to "do things" for her. Asked what his main satisfactions were in the relationship with his mother, this guilt evokes the inappropriate response that "I guess I haven't made her very happy, but when I'm out there and going straight, I'll always take care of m y mother. . , , I feel I've never treated her like I really should."

more

2.

FASCISTS

The 3 fascist men show, in more extreme form, essentially the same pat­ tern of attitudes to parent figures as do the other prejudiced men. Es­ pecially notable is their fearful submission to the father, in which homosexual aspects are hardly even disguised. Buck verbalizes fairly directly his fear of sexuality in relation to his mother: "I'd kinda feel embarrassed if m y mother ever brought up a subject like (sex)." His conception of her seems to be exclusively that of an agent to "do things" to gratify his dependence: "She was a hard-workin' lady, took care of us kids." In fact, when asked what were his main satisfactions in his relationships with his parents, his response is limited to the purely external fact that "they gave me most anything I wanted." As for his parents' per­ sonalities, Buck's orientation toward the external leads him to ask: "You mean the people they associated with?" He cannot go beyond the most super­ ficial references to their external roles, such as giving things to himself, being "hard-working" or a "businessman," "got drunk," "gave orders," etc.

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC

TRENDS

88l

This inhibitory block against any personal relation to them is consistent with the absolute submission which his father forced upon him. Buck "never did see any weaknesses in him." His blind acceptance of his father's "rightness" about everything explains w h y : His father, he protests repeatedly, was "gen­ erally right when he says something," "always trying to show us the right view of things," "always right in the things he said." Buck "always figured I had it comin' " when he was "licked," and in his fright "knew right from wrong right a w a y " as an absolute distinction never to be questioned. Hence his father usually needed only to "give us one look and we'd know what he meant." Buck's fear leads him to say that his parents "never argued . . . even when he (the father) got drunk." A moment later he naively reveals the reason for the lack of arguments, with no apparent awareness of the contradiction: "Mother didn't say anything." "If they did" have any disagreements, "they never did let us kids know." This denial is followed a few sentences later by a description of how sometimes "Dad would go into a rage and walk away . . . and Mother would go into a room and cry; but she'd get over it right a w a y . " Of particular interest, in connection with Buck's fantasy that "most all of them Jews talk about sex mostly . . . about they're gonna (have fellatio per­ formed on them) tonight," are some remarks about the w a y s in which his father (symbolized by J e w s ? ) used to "talk about sex." The only sex in­ struction Buck had, he declares, consisted in his father's frequent warnings to "watch out for these ch " in order not to be exploited. In another context he relates how his father began, during his middle 'teens, to give him money for the express purpose of visiting prostitutes. Whether truth or fantasy, this is highly suggestive. It is not difficult to imagine that Buck may have been sexually overstimulated, rather crudely, by his father. After Floyd's parents separated in his infancy, he rarely saw either of them. Until he was 7 he was raised by a foster mother who boarded children. From age 7 to 1 4 he lived with his father and a newly acquired stepmother, until he was sent away to boarding school. Floyd describes himself as grossly neglected by the foster mother: "Those people always had something to do from dawn to dusk, and as a kid I never had anything to say." He "didn't get along too well" with the other children. Discipline was "more corporeal than anything else . . . for any infraction of her so-called rules." The stepmother h e scornfully resented as "just another woman, I guess," "just somebody that was there," and as "mean" and rejective toward himself as "that other woman's child." He jealously contrasts her with his father as different "in every way. She wasn't his equal in anything—intellectually." This phrasing raises a sus­ picion that Floyd wanted to replace his stepmother and adopt the same "lieu­ tenant" role toward his father as he seems to have adopted toward his crime partner. Indirect evidence for this hypothesis is to be found in his "mixed-up loyalty" to his real mother, suggesting definite identification with her feminine role: "I wish she had a husband, and that's the pitiful part of it—a woman

88z

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

shouldn't be alone." There is much further evidence of Floyd's intense, if am­ bivalent homosexual father fixation. He describes his father as a "very, very fine man, intelligent, understanding. Excellent father . . . in every w a y . . . a man everybody in the community looked up to." As to what he admires most about his father, he "couldn't singularize on that. Just all of him." The one shortcoming which he can think of in his father is aggressive abruptness in criticizing: " W e l l , he was o u t s p o k e n . . . . If he thought you were no good or doing something wrong, he didn't hesitate to tell you." But Floyd's fear of his father compels him to justify even this: "That's as much of an asset in w a y s . " In fact, Floyd cannot mobilize sufficient aggression toward his father to make a single criticism of him, not even of the father's virtual abandon­ ment of him during the first seven years of his life: "Just always been away, that's all." He denies that his father ever punished him unjustly. A significant reason for Floyd's anxious splitting-off from conscious awareness of all negative feelings toward his father may be similar to the preoccupation of Eugene toward his mother—fear of complete abandonment. This is suggested by Floyd's description of the quarrels between his father and stepmother. These were "very sharp, and their remarks were lasting and bitter, like, ' W e never should have taken him home.' And Father would be confused. . . . Then he would punish me, once very hard; then he would talk to me until I went to sleep." This dependence, as well as further signs of homosexual at­ tachment, would seem to be expressed in the following remarks: "There's only one help I've got, and that's my father"; although "he's never been close to me," he "has stood by me. . . . This affair has brought us closer to­ gether than before"; and "he has written me a beautiful letter." Adrian's case reveals in rather pure form the dynamics of a power-ridden type of inverted Oedipus complex: fear-driven homosexual submission to a hated father, and underlying identification with the mother's role as sub­ ordinate. His mother, who died in her early twenties when he was only 5, seems to have been a very infantile person with "no sense of humor." She neglected Adrian entirely except for flaunting her sexuality in his face, and then terrifying him by her " w a y of punishing me." She was "a very beautiful woman," "very vivacious," "came out in society . . . spent most of her life going out to dinners. . . . She mostly ignored me, but she always came to show me how she looked before she went out. . . . Except that my nurse said I was this or that, she didn't seem to know personally what I was about." Her punishments, "usually for something petty" such as "stealing fudge off a shelf," were capricious and deeply traumatic: "She locked me in dark closets —scared me to death," or "threatened to give me to a neighborhood woman whom she said was a witch." Yet the fearful dependence of a little child apparently forced Adrian to repress the hate such treatment must have ex­ cited: for in the same breath in which he reveals her self-centered cruelty, he idealizes her and is unable to criticize her for these things. ( H o w did

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

883

you feel toward your mother when she punished y o u ? ) "I loved m y mother. I was very crazy about my mother. (Did your mother ever punish you un­ justly?) No. She lost her temper unjustly. She was very vacillating—up one minute and down the next; never knew what she was going to do next. Peo­ ple just had to stay out of her w a y when she was that w a y . " Questioned about her weaknesses or faults, Adrian declares: "In m y memory, she just doesn't have any faults." His mother's intimidation alone might be thought to have discouraged Adrian's heterosexual development. But fear of a stern father appears to have combined with this to "stampede" Adrian into complete homosexual submission to the father and adoption of the mother's manipulative techniques. The father, who died several years ago, was a military officer who was "not the least bit demonstrative. . . . He dis­ approved of any show of emotion of any kind." Adrian was awed b y "his consistency." "He was a stickler for rules. . . . I thought of him as a sort of tyrant." Yet, though he seemed "hard as nails with everyone else," he was "very easy with me," because "if m y father punished me, (my mother) was so upset that it didn't go." Adrian describes specific episodes that would seem to have encouraged a fearful "feminine" attitude toward the father: "In­ cidentally, whenever she cried, I cried, t o o . . . . She often threw tantrums, and father just put on his hat and went out, which only made her all the madder. And I would always c r y with h e r . . . . I always felt when he scolded her, he was scolding me." Adrian indicates that from earliest infancy he adopted his mother's techniques for manipulating the father: "I hollered . . . usually got my w a y . In fact, all I ever had to do was c r y about anything, and he'd do whatever it was that upset me." "And remember," says Adrian in explaining his father's coddling him as the father coddled Adrian's mother, "that I look like m y mother." Note the continuing father fixation: "I missed him very much when I was at the boarding house.. . . W h e n I was sick, I used to . . . daydream about his coming to see me. . . . I've saved all my letters to him. . . . He very dramatically returned all my letters, like to an old love. I loved m y father very much." Quite unable to assert any genuine inner independ­ ence, Adrian's furtive resentment broke through his weak superego in the form of delinquent rebelliousness: "I became such a w o r r y to him . . . left school when I pleased. I overdrew my charge accounts, and he was ill." This was followed b y an endless succession of delinquencies as an adult. " W h e n he died," however, "and when I realized I could never see him again," Adrian began to feel intense shame over his delinquencies and to feel even more deeply submissive to his father: "I put him on a pedestal now he wasn't on for me as a child He haunts me: I'm always wondering if he would approve of this or approve of that. . . . His judgment was always r i g h t . . . . And when I hear opinions expressed, I wonder if they would be his opinion." Adrian has even made a belated stab at catching up with father-masculinity identi­ fications. Before his short-lived parole, he asserted that he was through with

884

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

his "repulsive" homosexuality, and that although he would have been "happier as a woman," he had "more determination than I am given credit for" and "can live a man's life, since this is a man's world." As we have seen before, his "determination" lasted for only about two weeks. 3.

L O W SCORERS

In contrast with the high scorers' submission, the low-scoring inter­ viewees exhibit more underlying independence toward parents, especially toward the father. This includes some capacity for objective evaluation of parents, as well as some ability to resist parental authority on the basis of principle. In each case the preferred parent is definitely the mother, who is loved and respected as an individual. At the same time, each of these men reveals a deep ambivalence toward the mother, which is (almost consciously) inhibited, but not denied by masks of overidealization and reverence. The ambivalence appears to center around frustrated love-dependency longings. It is this primary love-orientation, however, which forms the basis of genuine liking for people and for democratic identifications. And to the extent that these men carry out identifications with underdogs and show resistance to status quo injustice, a basis was formed in early assertions of independence as underdogs in relation to parental authority. Their failure to carry out such identification fully may be due to inhibitions against asserting full in­ dependence from parents. By his "autopsychoanalysis," Art has made partly conscious his "Oedipus complex"; or, as he says he prefers to call it (denying specifically sexual feel­ ings toward his mother)—his "dependency complex," later displaced onto mother substitutes. After the death of the father when Art was 9, several factors combined to intensify this complex. His sister and (paternal) halfbrother went to stay with relatives. This left Art alone "at home with Mother, who had an advertising job." Their relationship, he indicates, was quite close, but with himself in a dependent role (though with reciprocating nurturance) toward his mother-provider: "I stayed at home and cooked the meals and did the housework." She apparently overstimulated his sexual fan­ tasies, in a w a y that made it harder for him to overcome the mother fixation, b y glorifying his body as a "precious possession." And when he was "about 1 4 " she presented to him "the business of childbirth and conception . . . in a very cold-blooded w a y " (note the almost-conscious ambivalence toward the mother) including an arrangement for him to watch several childbirth operations surreptitiously. Withal, Art's image of her stresses inner, psy­ chological values: "An intellectual and a very well-educated person. Her principal gift seems to be that of perception. And a musician—pianist— . . . not b y trade but certainly by nature." Her frailties include "a psychological disturbance as great as mine. Fortunately didn't cause her as much trouble, but certainly caused her as much anguish." The mother's emotional support

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

885

seemed to help Art assert considerable independence of his father: e.g., ex­ plicitly rejecting the latter's anti-Semitism; evaluating him with some criticalness as "spoiled" by his "rich parents" as "an only child"; criticizing his disci­ pline as having "not much consistency"; and rejecting his father's discipline when it seemed unfair, in which case "you got nothing but a lot of argument from me." The mother was in some ways a better model: her discipline "de­ prived us of privileges" but "had more effect" because of her greater consist­ ency—"she meant what she said." The father's capriciousness, as a masculine model to identify with, seemed to confuse Art's conception of his own egoidentity. For instance, in pursuing the career of artist and having to compro­ mise b y becoming a commercial artist, Art was following his father, who "of course was fostering any particular art ability I had." But "curiously enough, I don't think I have any particular art ability" though "no one else thinks it is either ordinary or mediocre." Instead, "I think I could become a good musi­ cian, pianist" (like his mother); although he admits on questioning that "I don't play the piano at all." Art even makes explicit his conflict over in­ ternalizing the father as a masculine model: though the father "championed m y causes. . . . I didn't like m y father as champion—preferred m y mother as champion." Art recognizes that his father was "temperamental," "running away from something, too . . . managed to dissipate a rather large fortune" by drinking and gambling which caused "considerable domestic strife: I didn't like it." Yet having himself "started drinking," done some gambling, chafed against "commercializing" his artistic bent by getting fired from sev­ eral jobs, and "transferred m y dependency" onto prison by check-writing —Art senses that he has "probably got some of ( m y father's) extravagant qualities." Don's life, too, has been dominated b y a neurotic overattachment to his mother. His underlying love-dependency has been masked, however, by his reciprocal role of nurturant protector to his mother. In pre-adolescence he became actively involved in the "bitter quarrels" between his parents con­ cerning the father's "going with women." He took the mother's side, strongly criticizing the father, who repeatedly "licked m y pants off" for intervening. "At the same time, I tried to bring them back together; they still care for each other." But his efforts at mediation were unsuccessful: his parents were divorced when he was 1 2 , and from then on Don supported himself, living with several other boys. (One wonders if Don's experience of being squeezed between his two adult giants partly determines his opinion that "both labor and business sort of ignore the little fellow.") Years later, in the mother's third marriage, her husband "took her" for a great deal of money, which he lost in a succession of wildcat schemes. Eventually she went into debt, mortgaging the old family farm. Don, having tried in vain to persuade her to divorce the man, and inhibiting conscious wishes to kill him, borrowed heavily to keep her in funds. He then carried out a series of

886

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

bank robberies ( b y himself) to make these debts good, and to continue supplying money to his mother. On the last one, after a wild automo­ bile and foot chase b y a bank manager, he let himself be caught rather than shoot the unarmed man with his loaded gun. Don recognizes that his mother is "governed b y emotional biases," b y "willingness to accept and believe too much . . . generous to a f a u l t . . . not too practical, forbearing to a fault . . . not assertive enough." But he respects her deeply as "quite a per­ son" who "has taken up something every year of her life She has recently learned to play the accordion; she studied music all her life." Don's egoidentity, like Art's, seems to be confused with respect to mother-versus father-identifications: he feels that he takes after his father in not being "governed by emotional biases as Mother is." This conflicts sharply with his statement that prison is "the first time that I haven't been beset by all sorts of emotional problems." Ambivalence toward his mother's "emotional biases" is indicated by his first, abrupt response to questioning about his mother's weaknesses: "Let's call it emotional and let it go at that." Jim's involvement with his mother is still deeper, with respect to both love-dependency feelings and nurturant protection of her, as well as strong hostility close to the surface. Conflict with the father is also more violent. Jim has been very close to his mother, as to an intimate sweetheart: "I could talk to my mother about any subject under the sun. No embarrassment there. I was interested in the same things. . . . Both of us are a little sensitive in temperament, kind of quiet. I think we both like a certain amount of solitude. I used to like to take her out to dinner, to the theatre quite often." During the depression, as he struggled against poverty to support his mother, she says that he was "a prince, and went without eating himself to buy fruit for me." Jim is able to criticize her as "not social enough b y herself too much" and as "having a little temper," but he formulates his near-conscious ambivalence: "It's a little difficult to find weaknesses in one's mother. . . . W e usually tend to overlook a mother's weaknesses. . . . I find it difficult to find very many frailties." At another point J i m indicates unmistakably the process of con­ sciously struggling to inhibit, by what he calls "insight," resentments toward his mother. Citing, in response to questioning, an occasion on which she had spanked him impulsively for something that wasn't his fault, he declares: "At the time I resented it. Today I don't. I know she did things the best she could. I didn't have enough insight then." Of the father, who deserted the family for eight years during the 'thirties, Jim says: " M y dad used to get drunk quite often, and he would beat ( m y mother) p h y s i c a l l y . . . . He's a little crude, so­ cially. He's very happy-go-lucky. He likes to fish. He's very egotistical, I think a little too much so. V e r y stubborn in argument. If he believes a thing, w h y that's it. He probably has an inferiority complex which he never admits to himself." The mother expresses the view that Jim was reduced to "a hope­ less state of mind . . . due to his father's hardness and cruelty." But note

CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

887

Jim's love-oriented wish to believe that his relation to his father was none­ theless "a very friendly relationship. He was pretty much of a pal. W e liked to go places together, fishing, play cards, etc. W e had a lot of good times." (Recall Jim's close relationship with an older man whom he persuaded to stop drinking, and who was in turn kind to him.)

Dick, too, was closer to his mother than to his father. "I always like to putter around the house with Mother. Mother and I were pals more than Father. . . . I confided in Mother a good deal. (What's an example?) Well, sex. Mother was much more free about it than Father." Nonetheless, Dick's conception of her is more "moral" and conventional than that of the other low-scoring interviewees, and reflects some dependence-for-things: He de­ scribes her as a "good housekeeper, always interested in the kids' welfare. Liked to putter around the house." He admired most in her "the fact that she's always looked after the kids the best she could, and kept a very nice household and dresses nice. Personal appearance always kept up to snuff. Doesn't smoke and doesn't drink." Dick is also unable to criticize her di­ rectly: (Weaknesses?) "Well, might say my dad is her principal weakness. He can talk her out of most anything. . . . (Other weaknesses?) B y golly, I don't know. I can't think of a one." His hostility toward her for her greater strictness, as compared with the father, is not difficult to infer: "Dad tried to" exercise the discipline, "but he was too easy-going, so Mother did. . . . Never had a whipping. She used to take privileges a w a y . . . for not coming home on time. That was the main thing. . . . I got a wild streak for about six months before I went into the service. First got the use of a car then. Neglected my studies for picnics and dates in the evenings." (One may wonder if this was not in protest against his mother's moral strictness). As for the father, who "always found something to laugh at—very easy to get along with," Dick mentions his main weaknesses as violations of the mother's strictness: "Might say he's a sucker for anybody's sob story," and "pretty lenient with his kids . . . would let us play hookey, would let me have the car a bit too often; too easy with money for us kids," whereas the mother was a "little more careful about money." (Recall that Dick's fiancee, the crippled girl "back home," is "not wild—steady"; she might be a mother figure who could help him to inhibit resentment against his mother's strict­ ness.) I.

"CRIMINALITY" I N H I G H A N D L O W SCORERS 1.

GENERAL

W h a t relations may exist between "criminality" and the antidemocratic trends? T w o kinds of data 'are available: mean scores on the scales for sub­ groups composed of legally defined offense categories, and certain interview material. Table 5 (XXI) presents the E- and F-scale means for the legally

888

T H E AUTHORITARIAN TABLE 5

PERSONALITY

(XXI)

MEAN E- AND F-SCALE SCORES OF THE PRISON INMATES, GROUPED ACCORDING TO OFFENSE

Number o f Cases

E Scale Mean/Pe r s o n / Item

F Scale Mean/Person/Item

44

4.45

4.76

31

4. 63

4. 39

Murder

12

4.31

4.33

Sex

23

5.02

5.33

110

4. 61

4. 73

Offense

Group

Check-writing Robbery,

burglary,

offenses

theft

defined offense categories—murderers, robbers, etc. None of the differences between means of different offense groups are statistically significant. As for the relevant interview material, the heterogeneity of offenses combined with the small number of cases would seem to discourage general conclusions. But perhaps if an appropriate level of generalization can be found, a brief re­ view of this material might be rewarded with further insight. Such a review is now presented, considering the interviewees one by one. 2.

H I G H SCORERS (INCLUDING

FASCISTS)

Complete details are not available as to the exact circumstances of each of the interviewees' offenses and their attitudes toward these offenses. None­ theless the material obtained is highly suggestive. Robert's murder of his hostile, despised mistress was the climax of a flight into sexual promiscuity which has been interpreted as an unconscious at­ tempt to quiet fears of nonmasculinity that his wife's frigidity may have intensified. Ronald's habitual gang robbery "as a business" appears to have represented an easy w a y of obtaining money as well as an effort to "prove" himself a "big operator." Eugene's delinquencies consist of a long history of "trouble": getting easy money by check-writing, gambling, drinking, and especially fighting, of which he is both proud because of its manliness and ashamed because of being "a little wild." In contrast with his submissiveness to his moralistic mother, by being "good, up to the time I was 1 7 years old," this behavior sounds like a belated protest of "masculinity." Wilbur's mur­ der of his landlord following eviction, and his development of paranoid anti-Greek delusions, appears to have been a desperate defiance of an emas­ culating father figure, in order to reassert his own threatened masculinity. Clarence's sexual assaults on children, with his accompanying paranoid de­ lusions of being "framed by the people in politics," seem to be attempts to

' CRIMINALITY A N D ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS

889

"prove" masculinity and suppress homosexual panic. Buck's statutory rape of a young girl and molesting of his own small children probably have simi­ lar meanings. His drunken check-writing spree with a despised prostitute seems to have been an attempt to bolster his masculinity by means of hetero­ sexual promiscuity and "big-shot financier" behavior. Floyd's gang rob­ beries were undisguised attempts to be a "big operator," to be "tough," and to gain easy power. Similarly for his disturbing the peace by drunken brawls, and his repeated A r m y A.W.O.L.'s, which characteristically involved a spree with "a married woman as usual." Adrian's cap-pistol robbery was, by his own statement, an attempt to "prove" that he could "lead." He himself attributes this act in part to some glandular treatments he had just completed a week before, which he feels made him "more masculine." The one feature which all of these offenses have in common is that they represent attempts to "prove" something. W h a t they seek to "prove" is toughness, strength, power, all of which signify "masculinity.'" More sig­ nificantly, they are attempts to deny something, namely, what to the sub­ ject means psychologically "weakness" and "nonmasculmity"—-whether this be nonheterosexuality, impotence, homosexual impulses, submissiveness, de­ pendence, softness, or passivity. In a word, the high scorers' crimes express the emotional complex that seems to dominate their lives: desperate fear of their own "weakness," which they try to deny by a facade of masculinity. Thus what superficially looks like direct, uninhibited expression of im­ pulses in these men, turns out to be a cover-up for intense inhibition and fear. 3.

L O W SCORERS

Art has himself interpreted his check-writing, in which he made no efforts to avoid getting caught, as an unconscious attempt to transfer his ambivalent dependency from his wife onto the prison "mother." He ascribes the origin of this complex to his attachment to his mother. Don's bank robberies for his mother express a similar mother attachment, in which his own lovedependence is closely associated with nurturance toward his mother. Nearconscious ambivalence is verbalized toward the emotional biases b y which her behavior is governed. Jim's clubbing of a middle-aged woman and then kissing and chewing her breasts—all carried out while drunk and in a dazed, fugue-like state, with later partial amnesia—suggests a direct expres­ sion of primitive mother-oriented ambivalence. His earlier theft of an auto for a joy ride with an older woman may well have been related to the same general conflicts. Dick's theft of an auto to drive a woman to Reno to marry, while both were drunk, seems to have been part of his near-con­ scious search for consolation, after the frustration of his love-dependentnurturant desire to marry the crippled girl "back home." Each of these men's offenses suggests different aspects of a common con­ stellation which dominates their lives: longing to be loved b y and to love

89O

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

a mother figure who will both "mother" them and let them "father" h e r with near-conscious ambivalence to women, caused by frustration of this striving.

The crimes of the high and low scorers thus seem to express their different central strivings or life-themes: antiweakness defenses versus ambivalent quest-for-love. T h e y do not appear to be differentiated, with respect to the manifest violence of their offenses. It seems that the same legal offense, and the same degree of violence, may spring from quite different underlying per­ sonality structures; accordingly, as other writers have noted ( 5 1 , 1 0 3 ) , the legal offense per se is a poor index of susceptibility to rehabilitation. There is a strong suggestion, however, that low scorers offer considerably more prom­ ise of rehabilitation than do high scorers. This follows from the apparent greater capacity of the former to establish genuine relationships with other people; just as their criminal behavior seems to have followed upon frustra­ tion of the need for love, or upon some crisis in their love relationships, so would the establishment of new relationships offer the basis for changed be­ havior. In the high scorers, on the other hand, relationships based primarily upon love would seem to be very difficult of achievement; rather, we should expect new relationships in their case to conform with the old pattern of dominance-submission, something which, though it might induce conform­ ing behavior for the moment, would in the end only strengthen those per­ sonality structures which are basic to their criminality—and to ^heir fascist potential.

C H A P T E R

PSYCHOLOGICAL LATION

TO

ILL

X X I I

HEALTH

POTENTIAL

IN

FASCISM:

RE­ A

STUDY OF PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PATIENTS Maria

A.

Hertz

1

Levinson

INTRODUCTION

If differences in ideology are significantly related to personality differences, then one would expect ideology to be related also to various kinds of mental disturbance. It is the contention of modern psychiatry that the experiences and behavior of mentally disturbed persons differ only in degree from those of normal people, and that the disturbances which any given individual de­ velops depend in very large part on his personality structure. Indeed, most of the concepts of modern psychology of personality were first developed on the basis of material from psychologically unhealthy people. The reasons for this were similar to the reasons, given below, which prompted the present study of ideology and personality in psychiatric patients. In the first place, it is usually easier to describe and to explain the more pathological personality patterns than the more "healthy" ones. "Healthy" people, to be sure, also have problems, i.e., areas in which their adjustment to outer and inner stresses is not entirely smooth. T h e y have, however, to a large extent "solved" these problems. T h e y have succeeded in sublimat­ ing or successfully controlling their primitive impulses and, to the extent that inner problems still exist, they are able to achieve life situations which help to minimize their conflicts and anxieties. Those who need therapy, have, on the other hand, whether they are aware of the need or not, failed to achieve the proper balance, and the nature and degree of their imbalance is usually plain to be seen. The primitive impulses break through in more or less undisguised forms, the defensive struggles against them can often be 1

The writer wishes to thank Dr. Karl Bowman, head of the Langley Porter Clinic, for making the Clinic facilities available. She also is indebted to Dr. Robert E. Harris, Chief Psychologist, for his generous support and numerous helpful suggestions, and to various members of the Clinic staff for their aid and cooperation. 891

892

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

clearly observed, and the conflicts with the environment are often still in progress. Thus, the "elements" and adjustment mechanisms of the personality are here more clearly discernible than in psychologically healthy individuals. In the second place, an advantage in using the psychiatric clinic as a labora­ tory lies in the fact that here, more than in the usual research interview, peo­ ple are willing to disclose the more intimate details of their lives. Thus, studies on patients who are strongly motivated to tell the truth about them­ selves may help to validate the methods used for the study of other groups. Thirdly, the present investigation sought an approach to the very dif­ ficult problem of the relation between ideology and the dimension of psy­ chological health-ill health. Are people with psychological disturbancessevere enough to make them seek psychiatric help—more prejudiced or less prejudiced than other groups of people? W h a t is the general relation between neurosis and psychosis, on the one hand, and ideology on the other? Are par­ ticular patterns of ideology significantly related to any of the common psychiatric diagnostic groups? In an attempt to answer these and other questions, 121 psychiatric pa­ tients were studied by means of our questionnaire and other methods. Data bearing on such factors as intelligence level, education, type of complaint, and psychiatric diagnosis were obtained from the Clinic records. In addition, 1 6 cases were studied intensively by means of interviews and the Thematic Apperception Test, and all material previously collected by the Clinic workers was brought into the picture. A majority of the subjects also took a standard­ ized test known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. In analyzing and interpreting these data, concepts and findings from the other areas of the study as a whole were employed to the full. B.

T H E N A T U R E OF T H E SAMPLE

The subjects, 7 1 women and 5 0 men, were all patients at the Langley Porter Clinic in San Francisco, a state institution for the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders. Violent cases and cases for permanent commitment ares not admitted. At the time of the study reported in the present chapter, the inpatient department had three wards (about 4 5 beds) for patients requiring temporary hospitalization. Most of these cases can be classed as severe neu-» roses or mild psychoses. The majority of the patients are treated in the out-r patient department, where adults are seen regularly for therapeutic inter­ views and various psychological procedures. The hospital facilities are open to everyone, regardless of income. Fees range from $ 0 (gratis) to $ 2 per interview and are graded according to ability to pay. In terms of income, occupation, and residence, most Clinic patients could be said to fall into the urban lower middle class, though in some cases the lower class or the educated middle class are represented. Most upper-

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

893

class and upper middle-class individuals who wish psychiatric help go to private psychiatrists. One may ask to what extent patients, of whatever social class, who seek help from a public psychiatric clinic are different from those people with psychological disturbances who do not seek such help. One important trait distinguishing the two groups is acceptance of psychiatry and of the idea that one's illness might have important psychological sources. This is true particularly of many persons who come to the Clinic of their own accord or at the instigation of relatives or friends. Almost as large a proportion of the patients, however, are referred by social agencies or by physicians to whom they have usually turned because of physical symptoms. Most of these peo­ ple have little or no idea about psychiatry and many drop out of treatment after a few interviews have shown them that their "mind" is involved. Another selective sampling factor is the admission policy of the hospital. The outpatient clinic arranges at least one interview for every person apply­ ing, except in cases which should properly be handled by other agencies. The outpatients are selected therefore only on the basis of their wishing psychiatric help from a clinic. The inpatient department, on the other hand, is so small that only a limited portion of applications can be considered. The only cases admitted are those requiring immediate attention, those present­ ing special diagnostic problems, and those which could best profit from temporary hospitalization. The judgment regarding prognosis rests, of course, on age and the nature of the disturbance, but also to a large extent on such factors as the patient's cooperativeness, desire to be helped, degree of insight, intelligence, and education. The staff's judgment as to whether the patient is a particularly worthwhile person also plays a role. This latter judgment rests in part on the personal impression the patient makes, that is, on his conformity with middle-class or upper middle-class standards of dress, occupational and educational level, and speech, manners, and so forth. The Langley Porter patients are referred from a great variety of sources: many kinds of agencies, army, navy, physicians, private individuals. About 2 0 per cent of the ap­ plicants are self-referred; this group contains many college graduates and other younger people who feel that they can be helped in making better life choices and who are extremely receptive to psychological procedures. For these combined reasons the Langley Porter Clinic patients are on the whole younger, more intelligent, better educated, and more receptive to psychological procedures than the general population. In selecting subjects for the present investigation, an attempt was made to get a random sample of the Clinic population, exclusive of those who were under 2 0 years of age, Jewish, non-white, or foreign-born. Questionnaires were given to all ward patients who were able to cooperate and to the 7 subjects of a special research study on stomach ulcers. In the outpatient de2

2

A few subjects slightly younger than 20 were actually included in the final sample.

894

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

partment, most cases were selected on a random basis by approaching all patients coming into the waiting room on certain days and by having ques­ tionnaires administered b y Clinic staff members who were instructed in the principles of random selection. Most subjects filled out the blanks on the spot. A few (less than 5 per cent) refused altogether. Some took the questionnaire home; of these, more than half returned the completed forms. Care was taken to preserve the anonymity of the subjects, and this further increased willingness to cooperate. Unfortunately, there is no exact record of what proportion of the blanks distributed were returned. It is estimated that the return was 8 5 to 9 0 per cent. Thus, although degree of cooperativeness played some part in the selection of subjects, this factor was probably no larger than in many other groups studied. The sample is probably fairly representative of the Langley Porter Clinic population as a whole, within the limits stated above. The 5 0 men and 7 1 women selected for study may be further characterized as follows: Age. A majority were between 2 0 and 4 0 years—very few being under 20. Sex. There were more women than men, due to the greater number of women patients in the Clinic as a whole. Most results were computed for men and women separately. Marital status. Of the men, 5 8 per cent were married, 3 6 per cent unmar ried, and 6 per cent divorced. In the case of the women, 6 2 per cent were married, 3 1 per cent unmarried, and 7 per cent divorced. Of the men who were married or who had been married, 5 6 per cent had children, 4 4 per cent had no children. Of the women who were married or who had been married, 6 7 per cent had children, 3 3 per cent no children. Education. Records were available on 4 6 of the men and 6 6 of the women; These records are probably not entirely accurate, since many people with little schooling try to conceal this fact. On the whole, however, the figures are well confirmed b y inspection of the data on occupation. The majority 'of the group had completed high school, all had completed grammar schooL and some had college educations. In computing averages, 1 year was added to the number of grades completed when there was additional vocational training such as nursing, business college, music conservatory, and so forth*' The mean number of years of schooling for the men was 1 2 . 2 , for the women I2

-5-

Intelligence. Usable intelligence quotients were available on only one-third of the group. The only scores considered were those obtained by means of the Wechsler-Bellevue Test of Adult Intelligence. Among these, the onljfc subtests included were those judged as most probably valid, that is, as no* much affected by temporary disturbance due to the neurotic or psychotic condition. Since all cases showing wide discrepancies between two subtests, and many others with low scores, were excluded, the obtained average I.Q>

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

895

of 1 1 5 (for men and women combined, N = 3 7 ) seems spuriously high, the true average for the group probably being closer to n o . This agrees pretty well with an estimate made by the Chief Psychologist regarding the Langley Porter Clinic population as a whole. It is slightly but significantly above the average of 1 0 0 for the population at large.

Parents' birthplace. A considerable number of subjects had foreign-born parents. In the case of the men 7 0 per cent said both parents were born in the U.S., 1 2 per cent gave both parents as foreign born, 1 6 per cent had one foreign-born parent, and 2 per cent gave no answer. In the case of the women, there were 6 5 per cent with both parents born in the U.S., 1 8 per cent with both parents foreign born, 1 3 per cent with one foreign-born parent, and 4 per cent gave no answer. Income. The data here (obtained on the questionnaire) are very incomplete because a great many subjects left the question unanswered or put "none"— either because of a sense of privacy or because they were temporarily unem­ ployed due to their illness. In the case of the women the data are less com­ plete than for the men, because on some of the questionnaire blanks used there was no question about husband's income. For the 3 3 men who indicated their income, the figures are as follows: under $2,000 $3,000 $4,000

$ 2 , 0 0 0 a year: 1 8 per to $ 2 , 9 0 0 a year: 4 2 per to $ 3 , 9 0 0 a year: 2 8 per or above, a year: 1 2 per

cent cent cent cent

Of the women, only 1 9 reported their own income and 2 9 gave the hus­ band's income. None of the women earned $ 4 , 0 0 0 or more; only 5 husbands earned $ 4 , 0 0 0 or more. Most of the stated incomes fell between $ 2 , 0 0 0 and $3,900.

Occupation. Of the 5 0 men, 2 2 per cent classed themselves as unemployed, students, etc., 4 1 per cent could be classed as skilled workers, 2 1 per cent as white collar, and 1 0 per cent as professional workers. There were one un­ skilled worker and two seamen. Of the 6 0 women who gave an occupation, 58 per cent were housewives', 2 3 per cent clerical or sales personnel, 8 per cent held other nonprofessional jobs, 5 per cent had professions, and 6 per cent were students. Religion. Many religious denominations were represented in this group. They are discussed more fully in relation to political and social ideology, as revealed by the questionnaire, in Chapter VI. About one-half were Protestants and one-fifth to one-fourth were Catholics; the rest were agnostic or declined to state a preference. Politics. W i t h respect to political group membership the men were dis­ tributed as follows: Blank, undecided, 1 6 per cent; Republicans, 2 4 per cent; Democrats, 5 4 per cent; Socialists and Communists, 6 per cent. The women

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

86 9

were grouped in the following w a y : Blank, undecided, 2 5 per cent; Re­ publicans, 1 7 per cent; Democrats, 5 4 per cent; Socialists and Communists, 4 per cent. These socioeconomic characteristics of our group were similar to those of several other groups in the study as a whole. Attempts to compare our sample with other clinic groups with regard to socioeconomic characteristics and psychiatric diagnostic groupings would have been rather difficult and was not necessary for our purpose. Since the Clinic draws its patients from a wide variety of sources, and attempts to serve as many applicants as possible, regardless of ability to pay, the Langley Porter population as a whole and our sample in particular is probably fairly characteristic of groups of patients from similar public psychiatric clinics in large American cities.

C.

S T A T I S T I C A L R E S U L T S FROM T H E

QUESTIONNAIRE

The scales used included the 10-item E scale from Form 6 0 , a 28-item F scale, and two different PEC scales-a 5-item one and a 12-item one. Onethird of the questionnaires had been collected when the new and improved Form 4 5 was completed, and it seemed advisable to use it because it had better statistical properties, and because better comparisons between the Langley Porter group and other, nonpsychiatric groups could be made. The main concern in the present chapter is with the characteristics of subjects scoring high and of subjects scoring low on the E scale. The sta­ tistical properties of the E scale, for the Langley Porter groups of men and women are shown in Table 1 (XXII). TABLE 1 (XXII) RELIABILITY DATA ON THE E SCALE FOR PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC MEN AND WOMEN Men(N*50)

Women(N*71)

.75

.84

Mean ( t o t a l ) Mean ( P a r t A) Mean ( P a r t B)

3. 67 3.92 3.42

3.65 4. 23 3.06

S.D. S.D. S.D.

1.59 1.78 1.70

1.60 1.81 1.64

4. 1 1

4.21

Reliability

(total) ( P a r t A) ( P a r t B)

Mean D.P. Range

1. 0 0 - 6 . 20

1.00-7.00

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

897

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

The reliability of the scale is as high as that found in most other groups, and the mean D.P. is somewhat higher. (The mean scores show the Clinic men and women to be slightly—but not significantly—less prejudiced than the average for other groups.) The mean scores (men: 3 . 6 7 ; women: 3 . 6 5 ) are close to the figures obtained by averaging the results for all groups studied (Chapter I V ) . The means for men and for women are practically the same. That both men and women score higher on Part A (the non-A-S part) of the scale than on Part B is consistent with findings in other groups. In gen­ eral there is very little in the E-scale responses of the Langley Porter group that would distinguish them from most of the other groups studied. As we have shown above, the Clinic sample was somewhat selected for age, intelligence, education, and cooperativeness. All these factors are cor­ related to some extent with ethnocentrism. Therefore, the average ethno­ centrism score of psychiatric patients in general or of all "neurotic and psychotic persons" in the general population could be expected to be some­ what higher. 3

4

D.

RELATIONSHIP OF ETHNOCENTRISM T O PSYCHIATRIC CLASSIFICATIONS

VARIOUS

W e undertook first to investigate the following questions: ( 1 ) Is ethno­ centrism related to the two major psychiatric groupings, "neurotic" and "psychotic"? ( 2 ) Is it related to any of the specific psychiatric classifica­ tions? W i t h these questions in mind, E scores were compared with the of­ ficial psychiatric diagnoses assigned by the staff psychiatrists. Psychiatric diagnoses were available for 1 1 4 out of our total of 1 2 1 subjects. Of the re­ maining 7 cases, 2 had not yet been diagnosed, 5 had been given question­ naire forms without the usual identifying code number so that it was not possible to look up the appropriate files. Table 2 (XXII) shows the proportion of subjects falling into various psychiatric classifications. These classifications represent the official diagnoses entered by the Clinic staff into the subjects' case records. The definitions of the psychiatric categories and the manner in which they were assigned will be discussed in the next section. Twenty-four per cent of our diagnosed group had been classed as psy3

See Chapters V , VII, and X V for results obtained from the Langley Porter Clinic group by means of the PEC and F scales and the projective items. See Chapter VIII for the relationship of ethnocentrism to intelligence; Chapter IV for ethnocentrism and education; Chapters I, XII and X V for resistance of high scorers to psychological procedures and explanations. Further support is given by the fact that a group of psychiatric patients (largely non-self-referred and emphasizing organic causes of their problems) in a Veterans' Administration hospital obtained a mean of nearly 5.0 on both the E and F scales (unpublished material of D. J . Levinson). 4

T H E AUTHORITARIAN TABLE 2

PERSONALITY

(XXII)

INCIDENCE OF VARIOUS PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSES IN THE SAMPLE OF PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PATIENTS* No.

Percentage

Psychoses: Schizophrenia Manic d e p r e s s i v e Other psychoses

15 10 2

13.2 8.8 1.8

Total psychoses

27

23.7

34 2 20 3 6 1 3

29.8 1.8 17.5 2.6 5.3 0.9 2.6

2

1.8

71

62.3

3 2 7 4

2.6 1.8 6.1 3.5

16

14.0

Psychoneuroses: psychoneurosis mixed Reactive depression Anxiety s t a t e Anxiety h y s t e r i a Hysteria Hypochondriasis Psychasthenia (obsessive-compulsive neurosis) Obsessive-compulsive ruminative s t a t e Total neuroses

Other

disorders: Psychopathic p e r s o n a l i t y Alcoholism Ulcers Miscellaneous

Total o t h e r

disorders

b

OPD as a whole (percentage)

9.2 5.2

43.6

B

N is 1 1 4 ; of these 2 9 % are inpatients, 6 5 % outpatients, and 6% (u cases) are from the research project in psychosomatic medicine.

b

0 P D = outpatient department.

chotic, 6 2 per cent as psychoneurotic. The remaining 1 4 per cent w e r e con­ sidered to have "other disorders" such as "psychopathic personality," "alcoholism," and so forth. For our purposes, only those categories were included which appeared with some frequency. Thus, among the psychoses w e have included only schizophrenia and manic-depressive psychoses. The remaining 2 cases, 1 "epiplepsy with psychosis," 1 "undiagnosed psychosis,' have been placed together under the heading "other psychoses." >

The cases appearing together under the heading "other disorders" include? ( 1 ) 7 male patients suffering from stomach ulcers w h o had come to t h e

PSYCHOLOGICAL

ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

899

Clinic not for psychiatric help but to serve as subjects in a study in psycho­ somatic medicine. These cases were officially classed as "mixed neurosis," but were so different from the group here classified "psychoneurosis, mixed t y p e " that they were considered separately for the purposes of the present in­ vestigation; ( 2 ) several cases classified as "psychopathic personality" and "al­ coholism without psychosis"; ( 3 ) 4 cases, grouped under the heading "miscellaneous." These include 2 cases diagnosed "schizoid personality," 1 case of "primary behavior disorder," and 1 "post-trauma tic personality dis­ order." Our list of diagnostic categories covers only the main headings (or names of disorders) used for psychiatric classification. Often these were the only categories assigned. Usually, however, the cases were further described in terms of their particular symptomatology (e.g., psychoneurosis, mixed; anxiety and depressive features; or schizophrenia, paranoid t y p e ) . The num­ ber of cases from our sample in each of the resulting finer subgroups was too small to be considered here. No figures on the distribution of the various groups in the Clinic popula­ tion as a whole were available for comparison with our figures. In Table 2 (XXII) we have included a few figures covering the outpatient department alone. These show that our group contains more psychotics and psycho­ neurotics (and consequently fewer cases falling into the "other disorders") than the outpatient clinic as a whole. This is to be expected, because 2 9 per cent of our group came from the inpatient department where most cases have a diagnosis of psychosis or neurosis. In making the formal diagnoses, the physicians were supposed to follow the official list of mental disorders, set up by the American Psychiatric Associa­ tion. (Condensed Form of New Classification Adopted by the Committee on Statistics and Approved by the Council, December 2 7 , 1 9 3 3 . ) The classifications in this list are based on symptomatology rather than on personality dynamics. Thus, a "psychoneurosis" is a mental disorder in which the main symptoms are hysterical, compulsive, or anxiety manifestations. In the absence of such symptoms, many peculiarities of behavior, e.g., sexual perversions, alcoholism, delinquency, would not be considered "neurotic," but would be categorized as "primary behavior disorder," "alcoholism," "psychopathic personality." In most of our cases, a preliminary diagnosis was assigned by the patient's psychiatrist. In a conference with the director of the department (outpatient or inpatient) an official diagnosis was then worked out on the basis of the case history presented by the physician. W e had no w a y of actually measur­ ing the reliability of the psychiatric diagnoses. It is our guess, however, that there was considerable unreliability. One source of unreliability probably lies in the categories themselves, which are rather broadly defined. Also it is

OOO

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

often unclear whether a case should be classed as a "mixed neurosis" or whether one type of symptom stands out sufficiently to warrant a diagnosis such as "hysteria" or "hypochondriasis." Then also, there is sometimes the question of which symptoms are the predominant ones. The categories, then, leave a great deal to the subjective judgment of each physician. And it is possible for the physicians to use the classification scheme in various ways, according to their predilections and theoretical orientations. Thus, unreliability of the classifications is no doubt further increased b y the fact that the Langley Porter Clinic, at the time of the present research, had a great number of therapists varying greatly in training, experience and theo­ retical outlook. T h e y ranged in training from supervised medical students to staff psychiatrists with many years of experience. In theoretical orientation they included strictly (Freudian) psychoanalytic, Jungian, and other dy­ namic and nondynamic points of view.

Because of these sources of unreliability, one would expect to find only slight relationships between the psychiatric diagnostic categories and other variables. Furthermore, on theoretical grounds one cannot expect very clearcut relationships between categories based entirely on symptomatology rather than on personality dynamics, and variables like ethnocentrism which seem to be directly related to certain dynamic factors. Lastly, the division of our total group into several small subgroups according to sex and diagnosis further decreased the chances of obtaining significant statistical relationships with ethnocentrism. The relationships that were nevertheless obtained seem even more significant in the light of these considerations. The total group was divided into 8 subgroups, on the basis of sex and E quartile. The proportion of each subgroup having any given psychiatric diagnosis was then obtained (Table 3 ( X X I I ) ) . Thus, the percentage of low quartile women diagnosed as schizophrenic can be compared with the proportion of schizophrenics in any other quartile or in the total sample. In addition, the same percentages were computed for the two halves of the E distribution (Table 4 ( X X I I ) ) . (This was done by combining the figures for the low and low middle quartiles, on the one hand, and those for the high middle and high quartiles, on the other.) This increased the number of cases in each subgroup and made it possible to obtain more dependable critical ratios for the differences between high and low groups in terms oi the incidence of various diagnoses within them. Many cases, in addition to being roughly classified, were further describee according to finer differentiating features. Because of the small number oi cases, the additional features of only the largest single group, namely, the neurotics, were tabulated. Table 5 (XXII) shows the percentage of neurotic in each quartile who had been diagnosed as presenting various additional "fea­ tures." It should be remembered that these percentages are not based on th
r P r x

> X

> o V

s H

%

Disorders:

Psychopathic person­ ality Alcoholism Stomach U l c e r s Miscellaneous Total

K!

n x o r

H

> 18.2 36.4

8.3 16.7

1 5-. 4 1 5.4

54.5

4.2 2. 1 14. 6 4.2 25.0

100. 1 100. 1

100.0

100.0

99.9

8 .-3 8.3

16.7

8.3

-

-

--

6.3 6.3

-

5.6

-

5.6

100. 1 100. 1

7. 1

-

-

7. 1 14.3 100. 1

-

1.5 1.5

-

3.0 6.0

100. 1 1 0 0 . 0

2.6 1.8 6. 1 3.5 14.0 100.0

> n (Z) NO

o

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 4 (XXII)

PERCENTAGE OF THE UPPER AND OF THE LOWER HALVES OF THE E-SCALE DISTRIBUTION FALLING INTO VARIOUS PSYCHIATRIC CATEGORIES Men Low Half High Half N = 24 N = 24 Psychoses: Schizophrenia Manic d e p r e s s i v e Other p s y c h o s e s Total psychoses Psychoneuroses: P s y c h o n e u r o s i s mixed* Reactive depression Anxiety s t a t e Anxiety h y s t e r i a Hysteria Hypochondriasis Obsessive-compulsive Obsessive-compulsive ruminative s t a t e a

8.3 4.2

12.5 8.3

14.6 8.9

15.7 12.2 3.1

12.5

20.8

23.5

31.0

29.2 33.3

12.5 4.2 20.8

22.0

4.2

4.2

-

4.2

50.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 5.9

18.8 6.3 9.4 6.3

Total neuroses Other disorders: Psychopathic p e r s o n a l i t y Alcoholism Ulcers Others Total other d i s o r d e r s a

Women Low Half High Half N = 34 N = 32

66.7

45.9

4.2 4.2 12.5

8.3

20.9

70. 4

62.8

3.1 2.9

25.0

33.3

2.9

3.1

5.8

6.2

I n only 2 cases are the differences between the high and low halves statistically significant. For the "psychoneurosis mixed type" there are significantly more low-scoring than high-scoring women (C.R. = 2.4; 2 % level). There are significantly more high-scoring than low-scoring women with "anxiety state" (C.R. 2.1; 5% level). :

total number of cases in each quartile but only on the number of psycho­ neurotic cases in each quartile. Not all cases had such finer descriptions and many cases had more than one of these features. Therefore, the vertical columns in Table 5 (XXII) do not add up to 1 0 0 . Table 6 (XXII) gives the same results as Table 5 (XXII), but for the upper and lower halves of the E distribution rather than for the four quartiles. The relation between ethnocentrism and psychiatric diagnosis, as sum­ marized in Tables 3 - 6 (XXII), may now be considered under two main headings: ( 1 ) ethnocentrism in relation to neurosis vs. psychosis, and ( 2 ) ethnocentrism in relation to specific diagnostic categories.

>< n

TABLE 5 (XXII)

B O

f o 2 o >

PERCENTAGE OF NEUROTIC PATIENTS IN EACH E-SCALE QUARTILE SHOWING VARIOUS NEUROTIC FEATURES

Low N=8

Low Middle N=8

MEN High Middle N=7

High N=4

Low N=14

Low Middle N=10

WOMEN High Middle N-6

High N=14

Depressive

50.0

12.5

28.5

-

50.0

10.0

33.3

7. 1

A n x i e t y and phobias

25.0

-

28. 5

50.0

64.3

30.0

50.0

7. 1

-

50.0

Obsessive-compulsive Neurasthenic Hysterical

conversion

Hypochondriacal Psychopathic Schizoid Paranoid Homosexual ( o r p e r v e r s i o n )

-

25.0 25.0

12.5

12.5 25.0

16. 6

-

10.0

-

7. 1

-

33.3

14.2

16.6

-

16.6

7. 1

-

10.0

-

14.2

-

7. 1

20.0

-

25.0

-

-

7. 1

-

-

-

-

-

50.0

7. 1

-

-

f

f

as w > c -i

as

- >o -

7. 1

S

w H I—
f >

o

55

NO

o

THE

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 6 (XXII)

PERCENTAGE OF NEUROTIC PATIENTS IN THE UPPER AND LOWER HALVES OF THE E-SCALE DISTRIBUTION SHOWING VARIOUS NEUROTIC FEATURES Men Low Half High Half N = 11 N = 16

Women Low Half High Half N = 20 N = 24

Depressive

31.3

18. 1

33.3

20.0

A n x i e t y and phobias

12.5

36.2

50.0

20.0

-

18. 1

4.2

5.0

-

12.5

5.0

9.1

4.2

5.0

6.3

4.2

5.0

-

20.0

-

-

8.4

-

25.0

18.2

4.2

10.0

Obsessive-compulsive Hysterical

conversion

Hypochondr i a c a 1 Psychopathic Schizoid

12.5

Paranoid

6.3

Neurasthenic Homosexual ( o r

1

perversion)

5.0

ETHNOCENTRISM IN R E L A T I O N T O NEUROSIS A N D PSYCHOSIS

In our total group, there was a preponderance of psychoneurotics over psychotics, the ratio being 6 2 : 2 4 per cent. Table 4 (XXII) shows that this ratio is somewhat greater in the low than in the high half of the E distribution. The trend appears even more markedly in Table 3 (XXII), especially in the figures for the women. There are practically no psychotics, but a relatively very large number of neurotics in the low quartile, with the proportion of psychotics increasing, that of neurotics decreasing, in the low middle and high middle quartiles. The largest number of psychotics is in the high middle quartile, but relatively few are in the high quartile. The same trends appeared in the male and female groups. Several hypotheses can be offered to explain the drop in the proportion of psychotic subjects from the high middle to the high quartile. One hypothesis is that the drop is caused entirely b y certain factors of sampling. It can be argued that the proportion of psychotics in the high quartile would actually be equal to or even higher than that in the high middle quartile were it not that many of the very high-scoring individuals were eliminated from the group through certain external circumstances. W e know from experience at the Clinic and from work with other groups that high scorers are in general less cooperative, because they are relatively more suspicious and more afraid of any infringement of their privacy. Thus, they often left unanswered parts of the questionnaire dealing, for instance, with income or father's income and

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL

FASCISM

005

other "private" topics, even when their anonymity was assured. By these and similar means high scorers avoid dealing with topics which might remind them of problems and emotions they are trying to keep in repression or which might expose their weaknesses to others. It is probable, therefore, that a great many extremely prejudiced people could never be induced to go to a psychiatric clinic for help. Perhaps this holds particularly for those ethnocentric individuals who are most disturbed, that is, for those with psychotic or near-psychotic disturbances. If it is true that there are relatively many potential high scorers among severely psy­ chotic patients, the relatively low incidence of psychotics in the high quartile could be caused b y the fact that the Clinic excludes violent psychotic cases and many of the cases with very poor prognosis. Lastly, there were a few ward patients who were either too disturbed to fill out a questionnaire properly or who refused to do so. But there were not enough cases like this to explain entirely the decrease of psychotics from the high middle to the high quartile. Another line of speculation, to which we shall return later, is that prejudice in its extreme degree may be an expression of certain ego-defenses which the person has invested with a great deal of energy, because without them he would suffer a psychotic breakdown. Per­ haps the high scorers are very similar to our "high middles" except for some­ what greater ego-strength and better working defenses. Another hypothesis is that the decrease in the proportion of psychotics from the high middle to the high quartile is a true one, and that it can be ex­ plained by certain features of the psychotic process itself which would tend to produce middle rather than extreme scores. In support of this hypothesis some observations on psychotic clinic patients should be mentioned here. Several of the psychotic subjects were interviewed, and it was found that only one of them had even some slight knowledge of current events and of the social issues of the present. Even this one case, a professional person, was concerned mainly with abstract ideology and never talked in terms of po­ litical reality. It seemed as if these psychotic subjects—all mild cases in their first psychotic episode—were emotionally too removed from social reality to pay much attention to it or to form any strong and consistent ideology about it. Apparently this did not produce enough inconsistency of response to have much lowering effect on scale reliabilities, but enough to produce various deviant patterns and unintense responses, resulting in "middle" scores. A related hypothesis would be that the tendency toward "middle" E scores in our psychotic group was due in largest part to certain special, tempo­ rary factors arising out of the circumstance that these patients were all in acute psychotic episodes—or had just recovered from one. Here, too, we have some supporting observations. One patient, for instance, responded only in terms of + i and — i . W h e n released from the hospital, greatly improved

9

o6

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

and free from delusions, the patient said in an interview that he thought his constricted responses had been due to his extreme lack of self-confidence at the time, which prevented him from expressing himself in a more definite fashion, and that he might respond differently now. Another subject, who at the time suffered from paranoid delusions and who showed great hostility towards his hospital environment and resentment toward the test procedure, answered only in terms of + 3 and — 3 (further emphasized by exclamation marks, underlinings or negativisitic comments). Such a pattern of responses would also lead to a score closer to the mean than the subject's actual attitude would warrant. Temporary characteristics of the illness itself may be important in some cases, but it is the author's impression that they are not likely to influence the E scores of most subjects to any considerable extent. The subjects who at the time the scale was administered were very much out of contact with reality usually refused to participate or produced records which could be immediately recognized as invalid. These either had many omissions or bizarre comments, or they showed that the person was not able to follow the directions properly. Assuming that the trends obtained with the present small sample are valid, the data show a negative relationship between psychosis and strong opposition to prejudice, a positive relationship between psychosis and mod­ erate prejudice, but a relatively low incidence of psychosis among the ex­ tremely high scorers. T o explain this trend we favor the following hypothesis, which fits in with many of the findings discussed in previous chapters and which is sup­ ported also by the clinical findings to be discussed later: Strong opposition to prejudice, as measured b y the E scale, appears to be related to certain per­ sonality structures which, under stress, are more likely to lead to psycho­ neurotic than to psychotic disturbances. This hypothesis will be discussed in more detail later in the present chapter. 2. ETHNOCENTRISM IN R E L A T I O N T O DIAGNOSTIC CATEGORIES

SPECIFIC

Our sample does not contain enough cases, in each of the more frequent diagnostic categories, to draw very specific conclusions. On the whole, how-r ever, it appears that ethnocentrism is not correlated very highly with any given psychiatric syndrome, at least as the latter was defined at Langley Porter Clinic. There were both high and low scorers among the schizo­ phrenics, manic depressives, anxiety states, hysterias, obsessive-compulsives, and, of course, "mixed neuroses." However, certain quantitative relationships between E and psychiatric diagnosis, as well as qualitative differences, between high and low scorers within the same diagnostic category, were found.

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

907

The quantitative relations may be considered first, ( i ) The low scorers, especially those in the low quartile, were concentrated mostly in the "mixed neurosis category," and distinguished most often by depression and conscious anxiety, and sometimes by neurasthenic features. This was particularly true of the women. The difference between percentages of women with mixed neurosis falling into the high and low halves of the E-scale distribution is statistically significant above the 2 per cent level of confidence (Table 4 ( X X I I ) ) . ( 2 ) There were many more high-scoring than low-scoring women classified as "anxiety state." This difference is significant above the 5 per cent level of confidence (Table 4 ( X X I I ) ) . The trend is less marked in men, where many low scorers were considered "anxiety states." As will be seen below, important qualitative differences exist between the high- and lowscoring men with anxiety state. ( 3 ) Seven of our subjects were men with stomach ulcers, taken from a research project in psychosomatic medicine. Not one of these made a low score. One had a low middle score, but turned out to be strongly prejudiced against Negroes, although not in regard to other groups. T w o were "high middles," and four fell into the high quartile. This is a very marked trend, though of course not conclusive because of the small number of cases. However, this result is interesting because the modern psychoanalytic theory concerning the dynamics of ulcer has much in com­ mon with the dynamic formulations about the character structure of highly prejudiced men, as advanced in this book. This theory emphasizes underlying dependency which is held in repression by counteractive defenses, a mascu­ line facade, much drive for activity, and so forth. W e may now consider the qualitative differences between high and low scorers in the same psychiatric category. a. "MIXED NEUROSIS." This seemed to be the most frequent single diag­ nosis of our low-quartile women. It also occurred in one-third of the "low middle" women. There were eleven low-scoring and only three high-scor­ ing women with the diagnosis "mixed neurosis." Among the low scorers, eight reported feelings of depression and inferiority, mood swings, crying; the rest complained of tiredness and/or dysmenorrhea and difficulties in social relationships. One case had other physical symptoms—probably on an hys­ terical basis—and inhibitions in group situations. Of the three high-scoring women, none reported depressed feelings, two denied all psychological diffi­ culties. One was a psychopath, who also complained of menstrual difficul­ ties. She was brought in by her husband for drinking, spending money ex­ cessively, and going out with men from bars. She did not feel any need of help. T w o were psychosomatic cases: one an extremely tense young woman who had had a thyroidectomy and denied psychological problems; the other originally came in for a chronic (psychosomatic) skin rash, but soon ad­ mitted sexual (marital) maladjustment of long standing. W h e n the cases of stomach ulcer are not included, there are fewer men

9 0

8

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

with the diagnosis "mixed neurosis." But the trend is similar to that in the women, with 2 5 per cent and 3 3 per cent in the two lower groups, only 1 5 per cent and 9 per cent in the two higher quartiles. There were three cases of "mixed neurosis" in the low quartile, one in the high. T w o of the three low scorers were reported as suffering from neurotic depression. All three seemed to be soft, openly dependent characters whose difficulties had been precipitated by rejection by a love object. This was recognized by the sub­ jects and brought out in the first interview. The one high scorer in this category was depressed but also showed obsessive-compulsive and anxiety symptoms. The anxiety centered on the idea that he might harm himself and his baby. It had appeared suddenly and left him subject to recurrent attacks. b.

ANXIETY STATE

Women:

Of all single categories, this one contains the largest percentage of high scorers ( 2 8 per c e n t ) - n o low scorers, with few cases in the middle quartiles (C. R. between percentage falling in the high and in the low halves of the E distribution is significant at the 5 per cent level). Five high scorers were classed as "anxiety state," and two very similar ones were classed as "anxiety hysteria." Five of these seven suffered from "spells" of tension, ir­ ritability, or hyperventilation symptoms often including dizziness and faint­ ing There was characteristic hypochondriacal concern, fear of death, of heart attack, and so on. T w o women were afraid they would harm their children during the spells; one actually had choked her children on such occasions In the picture of the two cases which did not have "spells, the hypochondriacal preoccupations with physical symptoms stood out and were combined with some depressed affect, in one case with schizoaffective reaction. There were no low scorers in this category. Men- The numerical trend was less clear here, with a slightly greater pro­ portion of cases in the low and low middle quartiles. There were four low scorers three high scorers. One of the low scorers suffered from hyper­ ventilation symptoms and fainting spells in certain situations of friction with a brutally aggressive father. The other three were similar to the low-quartile cases classed as "mixed neurosis," except for clinically more marked anxiety, with signs of much self-dissatisfaction, depression, social and sexual malad­ justment, work disturbances, and some schizoid withdrawal. T h e three high scorers showed physical anxiety symptoms with little conscious content. In one case this was coupled with much hypochon­ driacal concern, and in another, with some paranoid trends involving anxiety dreams and fear of attack by a certain person. T w o of the three attributed the onset of symptoms to accidents. c.

SCHIZOPHRENIA

Women:

There were high- and low-scoring schizophrenics. None of the high-quartile women fell into this group. The "high middles" that were

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

000

classed as "schizophrenia" did not fall into any of the schizophrenic "types" ( e g hebephrenia, paranoia). T h e y showed paranoid, catatonic, obsessivecompulsive, and other features. The difference between the high and low scorers seems to be similar for men and for women. The high scorers appear to be very infantile, constricted, narrow personalities, often classed as "schizophrenia, simple type." Among the "high middle" women, several sudden post-partum psychoses of withdrawal in previously schizoid or com­ pulsive + schizoid personalities, were found. The low-scoring schizophrenics were more of the hypersensitive, introspective sort, with relatively much interest in their own and others' psychological lives, and with relatively much insight into their own illness. W i t h regard to paranoia, the following observations have been made. Our group did not include any cases diagnosed as "true paranoia," but it included several schizophrenics (and others) with paranoid ideas. Among these were high low and middle scorers. However, the paranoid symptoms of the low scorers appeared to be qualitatively different from those of the high scorers in that the low scorers more often combined ideas of being persecuted with severe inferiority feelings-"others are threatening, rejecting, or ridiculing me because of m y symptoms, because I am inferior." The "devil" is not only threatening from outside, but is largely perceived as inside the person. The high scorers, on the other hand, tended towards more highly projective types of fantasies, sometimes accompanied b y bragging, self-aggrandisement, and self-righteousness. Consciously, at least, the "devil" or evil forces were seen as only outside. d OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE NEUROSIS. There were only i man and 4 women in this group. The man fell into the high-middle quartile on E. Of - the 4 women, 2 were low, 1 was high middle, and 1 was high. One of the two obsessive-compulsive cases appearing in the low group was just on the borderline between the low and low-middle group and had an F score slightly above the mean. The other case, an all-round low scorer, showed no typical obsessive-compulsive pattern, but had a phobic tendency and much conscious anxiety and feeling of inadequacy. The 2 high-scoring women ( 1 high middle, 1 high) were both classed as "obsessive-compulsive ruminative state because of particularly rigid preoccupations, and constant ruminative thinking of schizoid quality. Extensive data are available only on the high-scoring case, a fifteen-year-old girl with preoccupations of a sexual character. She was worried because of fantasies about intercourse and pregnancy. During her stay at the hospital most of her conscious anxiety and ruminative thinking were centered about her physiological functions, particularly constipation, and imagined somatic changes (enlargement of abdomen). From the above description it can be seen that a number of psychological trends differentiate the ethnocentric from the non-ethnocentric patients,

OIO

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

regardless of formal classification. These and other trends will be studied more directly, and interpreted in relation to our general theory, below. E.

ETHNOCENTRISM IN R E L A T I O N T O T H E MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY I N V E N T O R Y

The question of possible relationships between ethnocentrism and psychi­ atric diagnoses was approached in a preliminary w a y also by means of a test procedure known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (from now on referred to as M M P I ) . This is an improved inventory of the Bernreuter type which has been validated against psychiatrists' diagnoses of care­ fully studied cases. It contains several scales, each made up of items which differentiate statistically between patients showing a given clinical syndrome —such as conversion hysteria, paranoid conditions, or schizophrenia—and the general population. It was thought that the test scores might provide more valid and more reliable criteria than the diagnoses that had been made of our subjects by many different physicians with varying orientations, training, and experience. Test results were available for 3 4 men and 4 8 women, that is, for 6 8 per cent of our total group. Because of the fact that men and women had to be treated separately, the number of subjects is far too small to lead to conclusive results. Comparison of average scores on the various MMPI scales for the four E quartiles, and preliminary inspection of individual and group test profiles, failed to show large or consistent relationships between E and psychiatric syndromes as measured by this inventory. The results show a few trends suggesting that further research along the same lines might be well worth while. The following are the names of the scales and brief descriptions of the principal psychological or psychiatric dimensions they are supposed to measure. The descriptions are condensations of those given in the far more detailed test manual. For a description of the test and its interpretations see Hathaway and McKinley ( 5 0 ) . 1. Hypochondriasis—Scales I (HCh) and II (Hs). Both scales purport to measure the degree of abnormal concern about bodily functions; many of the symptoms mentioned are vague or belong among the list of common physical expressions of anxiety. Scale I is more valid be­ cause it is less highly correlated with Sc and also contains an age correction. 2.

Hysteria ( H y ) . A preliminary scale, measuring the degree of similarity between the subject ( S ) and patients who have developed conversiontype hysteria symptoms.

3.

Depression (D). "Measures depth of clinically recognized symptom

PSYCHOLOGICAL

ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

911

complex, depression." "A high score indicates poor morale (of the emotional type) with a feeling of uselessness and inability to assume the normal degree of optimism regarding the future." 4.

Hypomania ( M a ) . "Measures the personality factor characteristic of persons with marked overproductivity of thought and action."

5. Psychasthenia (Pt). "Measures the similarity of subject to psychiatric patients who are troubled by phobias or compulsive behavior." Mild degrees of this tendency may "be manifested merely in a mild de­ pression, excessive worry, lack of confidence or inability to concen­ trate." 6.

Paranoia (Pa). The preliminary scale, differentiating normals from a group of clinic patients characterized by suspiciousness, oversensitivity and delusions of persecution with or without expansive egotism. Their diagnoses were usually paranoia, paranoid state or paranoid schizophrenia.

7.

Schizophrenia (Sc). Preliminary scale measuring similarity of subject's responses to those of patients who are characterized by bizarre and unusual thoughts or behavior.

8.

Psychopathic Deviate—Scale I (Pd). Measures "absence of deep emo­ tional response, inability to profit from experience and disregard of social mores." (Revised) Scale II (Pdr) contains in addition a rather large group of items expressing a feeling of estrangement from the self and others, and is more highly correlated with Sc than is Scale I (Pd).

9. Mf . Measures masculinity or femininity of interest pattern. r

The scales are arranged in such a w a y that the means are 5 0 with Standard Deviations of 10. Deviations from 5 0 in the direction of o are usually disre­ garded. Scores around 7 0 (i.e., 2 S.D. above the mean), are usually consid­ ered of borderline significance, scores above 8 0 as high. Elevations to 6 0 can be regarded as clinically significant when occurring in individual profiles in which most scores are close to 5 0 (or below). Individuals with sufficient degrees of maladjustment to seek psychiatric help usually score high ( 2 S.D. above the average) on more than one of these scales. Recent clinical experience with the inventory seems to indicate that profiles or patterns of scores have more diagnostic significance than the single scores taken by themselves. In general, cases falling into the psychoneurotic group have their maximal scores on the HCh, Hs, Hy, D, and Pt scales (with secondary elevations on any of these), whereas psychotics on the whole have profiles with peaks on D, Sc, Ma, Pa, Pd, and Pd . Slight borderline elevations on the "psychotic" scales occur frequently in a great variety of conditions without clinical evidence of psychotic manifes­ tations. At present, their significance is not quite clear. Harris and Christian­ sen ( 4 8 ) , in a study on the effect of short psychotherapy, have found that patients showing elevations on the psychotic scales and Pd, but without r

9

I2

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

clinical evidence of psychotic tendencies, responded less well to psycho­ therapy than others who did not have such scores. Means for each of the MMPI scales were computed for each E quartile, with men and women being treated separately. These means are shown in Tables 7 and 8 ( X X I I ) . The number of cases in each of these subgroups was so small that no measure of variability was computed. However, profiles for individual cases were drawn for high and low quartile. T h e y showed great variability with regard to magnitude of score as well as to type of profile. This means ( 1 ) that differences between means would have to be very large to be statistically significant, and ( 2 ) that even significant differ­ ences between means for single scales would be hard to interpret, if one takes the view that only profiles, and not single scale values, have much psy­ chological meaning, ( a ) On the whole, the low scorers made somewhat less abnormal scores, (b) This was especially true for the men on the scales Hypochondriasis I, II and Depression, and for men and women on Psychasthenia, Paranoia, and Schizophrenia. The low-scoring women were some­ what higher on Hysteria; the low-scoring men on Femininity of Interests. Because of the nature of the differences mentioned under ( b ) , it was thought necessary to determine whether some of these trends were caused by pres­ ence of psychotic cases in the group, especially since there were somewhat more psychotics among the high half (especially "high middles"). W h e n the means for nonpsychotic subjects were computed separately, the average pat­ terns and differences remained much the same. Because the number of cases was again reduced by this procedure, and also because the patterns for high and high-middle scorers and those of low and low-middle scorers were similar in most respects, the figures for the two low quartiles and the two high quartiles, respectively, were combined (Figure 1 ( X X I I ) ) . The average profiles for the high scorers—especially for the men—re­ semble most closely the "severe neurotic" pattern described by Harris and Christiansen in their study of the effects of brief psychotherapy; whereas the means for the low scorers resemble a more mildly neurotic pattern. The "severe neurosis" pattern, in which HCh and/or Hs, H y , and D stand out as a pattern, with definite secondary elevation in Pd and with Pa, Sc approach­ ing significance, but below the means for the first four scales, was found to be correlated with relatively poor prognosis for brief psychotherapy (of the sort administered at Langley Porter Clinic). One difference between our high's average pattern and Harris and Christian­ sen's poor prognosis pattern lies in the prominence in their group of second­ ary elevated scores on Pd I, II. In our group there is little difference on these scales between our high- and low-scoring women and, for the men, the high scorers exceed the low scorers only on Pd II. In the Harris and Christiansen study a question was raised concerning the

FIGURE 1 ( X X I I )

AVERAGE MMPI PROFILE FOR NON - PSYCHOTIC PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS FALLING INTO EACH HALF OF T H E E - S C A L E DISTRIBUTION

Ma Scales

Pt

TABLE 7 (XXII) MEAN SCORES ON THE SEVERAL SCALES OF THE MMPI FOR SUBJECTS FALLING INTO EACH QUARTILE AND INTO EACH HALF OF THE E-SCALE DISTRIBUTION Nonpsychotic Male P a t i e n t s

Scales

HCh

Hs

Hy

54

66

65

56

60

66

High m i d d l e (N = 7)

59

71

69

High (N = 9)

68

74

71

55

62

66

Quartile Low (N = 3 ) Low middle

(N = 7)

Mean (HCh, Hs, Hy, D)

Mean (Ma, Pa, Sc)

Total Mean

Ma

Pt

Pa

Sc

Pd

Pdr

Mfr

67

65

70

58

67

59

63

72

63

63

64

73

55

60

56

60

62

61

66

64

57

61

90

61

76

69

75

63

70

63

72

68

70

84

54

73

61

67

60

66

59

74

61

67

71

58

63

57

62

61

61

68

63

59

62

73

64

68

D

Half Low h a l f (N = 1 0 ) High h a l f (N = 1 6 )

64

73

70

86

57

74

65

70

61

68

61

TABLE 8 (XXII) MEAN SCORES ON THE SEVERAL SCALES OF THE MMPI FOR SUBJECTS FALLING INTO EACH QUARTILE AND INTO EACH HALF OF THE E-SCALE DISTRIBUTION Nonpsychotic Female P a t i e n t s

Scales

HCh

Hs

Hy

D

Ma

Pt

Pa

Sc

Low (N = 10)

53

59

72

71

52

58

59

58

Low middle (N = 6)

64

67

74

66

58

60

58

62

High middle (N = 7)

54

55

67

71

62

65

62

65

Quartile

Mean (HCh, Hs, Hy, D)

Mean (Ma, Pa, Sc)

Total Mean

Pdr

Mfr

60

65

47

64

56

59

70

71

46

68

59

63

61

62

49

62

63

61

54

68

65

65

Pd

59

70

69

75

56

68

67

71

63

67

Low h a l f (N = 1 6 )

57

62

73

69

54

59

58

60

64

67

46

65

57

61

High h a l f

57

64

68

73

58

67

65

69

62

65

52

66

64

64

High (N = 1 1 ) Half

(N = 1 8 )

Ql6

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

psychological meaning of elevations on such scales as Ma, Pa, and Sc in the absence of clinically discernible psychotic trends. Therefore the items on each scale were (arbitrarily) grouped into subscales, each of which was de­ signed to measure some common general attitude. None of the subscales for the so-called neurotic scales (HCh, Hs, D, H y ) differentiated between the poor and good prognostic groups. The subscales that did differentiate came from Pd and Ma, Sc, Pa. Their content revealed a common "feeling of being victimized," a "tendency towards perceiving one's problems as imposed from outside and resulting in a feeling of lack of control of senses and motorium." The difference between the neurotic and psychotic scales—apart from items referring to specific symptoms (e.g., delusions)—seems to lie in the relationship of the ego to the world, and to the body. Perhaps the finding that our high scorers are somewhat higher on the psychotic scales may be interpreted in the same w a y . It would certainly fit in with trends described earlier in this book, e.g., the tendency to externalize and project unacceptable impulses, ideas, and affects. However, in order to test such an interpretation, an analysis of our data in terms of the HarrisChristiansen subscales would have to be made. This was not thought worth while mainly because of the small number of cases in our sample. Further study along these lines should prove rewarding. One very unexpected result was that the high-scoring men obtained ex­ tremely high scores on the depression scale, whereas clinically the low scorers, and especially the low-scoring women, showed the greatest tendency towards neurotic depressive symptoms. On the MMPI, the low-scoring women did not make particularly high D scores. (See also the discussion of the clinical material in Section G of the present chapter.) These apparently contradictory results suggest that the D scale does not measure the same psychological tendencies as were observed clinically in our low scorers, who characteristically suffer from subjective depressions, feel­ ings of inferiority and failure. Therefore, the items of the D scale were ex­ amined and put in groups according to content. Out of the 6 0 items, only 2 3 clearly referred to the kind of feelings reported b y our low subjects, these were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Signs of inferiority feelings, easily hurt, unhappy, self-criticisms. Opposition to cruelty and aggressiveness, lack of extrapunitiveness. Submissive reactions in social situations. Admission of uneasiness in social situations. Lack of energy, and work inhibition. Rejection of religious ideas (possibly).

The other 3 7 items referred to: impairment of mental functioning and of body functions; brooding and "worrying"; perception of the environmental forces as threatening or mistreating the subject; and general expressions of

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

917

"not feeling well," "don't care about anything." Many of these items, per­ taining as they do to very vague and nonspecific ideas, are clinically more consistent with anxiety or with anxious rumination of the more obsessivecompulsive variety than with neurotic depression. This leads to the supposi­ tion that "depression" as measured by this scale is not a unitary process; that there may be qualitatively different types of depression which occur in indi­ viduals with different personality structures. F. PERSONALITY T R E N D S A S REVEALED BY P A T I E N T S " S T A T E M E N T OF PROBLEM" IN T H E FIRST PSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW The attempt to relate ethnocentrism to type of psychological disturbance, using only the conventional psychiatric classifications, produced some sta­ tistical trends, but it did not in itself allow inferences about personality dynamics in high and low scorers. The particular problem posed at the be­ ginning of the present chapter seemed to call for extensive clinical material. Therefore, a greater proportion of subjects from the total Clinic group, than from other groups in the study as a whole, were studied b y means of inter­ views and T.A.T.'s. However, due mainly to limitations of time, it was not possible to study intensively a large proportion of subjects from the high and low quartiles. This proportion was further decreased by the inclusion of some "middles" in the group to be interviewed. This was done for reasons of availability and out of special interest in certain individual cases. The total number of fairly complete case studies, including T.A.T. and interviews covering ideology as well as personal data and history, was 2 1 — 1 1 men and 1 0 women. These subjects represented a great variety of clinical pictures. Some types of cases, particularly needed for purposes of comparison, such as high-scoring obsessive-compulsives, high-scoring paranoids or low-scoring men with stomach ulcers, were not represented. Due to the limited number of cases interviewed and to the manner of their selection, no quantitative statements as to the relationships of ethnocentrism to personality structure, type of disturbance, and genetic factors can be made from our case material by itself. Most of the interviews gathered at the Clinic were, however, in­ cluded in the larger sample of interviews employed in the quantitative anal­ ysis reported in Chapters IX through XIII. In the absence of a sufficient number of case histories on psychiatric patients for quantitative comparisons, the material gathered b y the Clinic staff and recorded in the patients' charts was examined for its usefulness for the present purpose. This material turned out to be very variable in amount and quality. Only in rare instances was sufficient material recorded in the charts to permit relatively complete dynamic formulation of the case. Each physician's notes varied with regard to length, completeness, amount,

918

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

and type of interpretation included in the recorded material. Also, the ma­ terial from later contacts between patient and physician was obviously colored in uncontrollable amounts and directions by the patient's relationship to the therapist, the latter's personality and approach (number and kind of ques­ tions asked), and by the therapeutic process (e.g., increasing insight). One part of the case records appeared relatively less variable in most of these respects. This was the first psychiatric interview in which the patient stated his reasons for seeking help at the Clinic. Here, the patient, confronted with an unknown but friendly clinic worker, was invited by a very general question to state his problem. The response was often recorded in the pa­ tient's own words and often included the worker's observations regarding emotional concomitants. Here, then, was a sample of rather spontaneous behavior in response to a more or less constant situation and relating directly to the patients' problems. This material was thought particularly suitable for a comparison of high and low scorers with regard to their views of and atti­ tudes toward their psychological disturbance and its possible causes. \ 1. SELECTION OF M A T E R I A L

A patient first entering the Clinic is usually interviewed by a psychiatric social worker, and later by a physician. The social worker's "intake inter­ view" is recorded in an approximately standard order of topics, starting with social status, then "patient's story," followed by a few inquiries about "past history" and ending with an appraisal of the patient's understanding of and attitude toward the clinic service. In some cases of referral from other hospi­ tals and agencies, a referral letter giving a similar but less standardized account takes the place of this interview. After a patient is admitted for clinic care, he sees a physician who usually begins by asking the patient to tell about the condition for which he seeks help. Often, the physician also asks how long the condition has existed and whether there are any other problems. After this there is usually an attempt at taking a case history. The section preceding the questions as to past history is headed "chief complaint" and varies from a verbatim account of the patient's story, with behavioral description, to a list of the main symptoms. In selecting our material, the part of the intake interview (or referral letter) headed "patient's story" and the physician's first notes of "chief com­ plaints" were read. Whenever the two duplicated each other, the one that was more complete or that contained more of the patient's own words was used. Whenever one record contained a statement missing in the other, that statement was included along with the other material. Material relating to past history or other topics was included only when the record seemed to indicate that the patient brought it up spontaneously when asked about his symptoms, without a preceding question from the interviewer. These sec­ tions of the case records, usually only a paragraph in all, were transcribed

] ;

i | \

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

919

verbatim along with the patient's sex, questionnaire scores, and official diagnosis. These interview samples were obtained for all subjects falling into the high and low E quartiles. Analysis of the data showed certain striking differences between the state­ ments of the high and low scorers regarding type of complaint and general attitudes. T o describe these differences a number of categories—very similar to some of those described in Chapter IX—were defined. All cases were then rated on these categories (variables) by independent raters who knew only the subject's sex and interview samples, but not the diagnoses or the ques­ tionnaire scores. The variables thought to be differentiating between high and low scorers in their intake interviews are described below. These descriptions were in­ cluded in a manual that was employed by the raters. For each category we here note the variants which were presumed to be associated with high and with low scores on the E scale, but this information was, of course, withheld from the raters' manual itself. 5

2.

THE SCORING M A N U A L : DESCRIPTION OF

VARIABLES

There were seven categories, some broader and more interpretable than others. T h e y are defined in terms of behavior cues and should be regarded as various expressions of more general underlying dynamic trends. Thus, the variables overlap (in content) to a certain extent. I. Emphasis on Somatic Symptoms. As was to be expected from earlier findings (Chapter XII) it appeared that in the story of their complaints more

high than low scorers tended to put the main emphasis on somatic symptoms. The majority of persons neurotic enough to seek psychiatric help have some psychogenic somatic complaints. Patients vary both in amount and severity of these somatic symptoms and in the subjective importance these symptoms have for the patient. There was a considerable number of low scorers who had somatic problems, but these tended, for the most part, to state their problems in terms of faulty adjustment or emotional difficulties. Some of the high scorers, on the other hand, showed a particularly strong preoccupation with body processes, and anxiety about the integrity of bodily and nervous functioning. In some cases this focus on the physical aspect seemed related to fear of admitting the existence of psychological problems, which carried the connotation of "being crazy." Attributing the symptoms to something physical could, in some cases, be due less to anxiety about the body itself than to the need for a device for removing a deficiency from the threatened 5

The material from the research on stomach ulcers interviews; instead there were very condensed research was questioned regarding certain precipitating factors. these interviews those statements which seemed relevant

did not include regular intake interviews in which the patient W e took from the records of to our scoring categories.

020

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

ego. (Probably, however, the two motives usually occur in the same persons, mainly in those with obsessive-compulsive character traits, or in certain men with particularly strong castration fears.) The raters were instructed to use the following criteria in deciding on presence or absence of the trait. Presence: Patient may state numerous problems, including physical and psychological ones. Main emphasis is put on physical symptoms when these are: ( i ) mentioned as the main trouble; ( 2 ) mentioned first; ( 3 ) emphasized in some other w a y , as, for example, when other problems are stated only after the interviewer had brought them out. Absence: Patient puts main emphasis on a psychological disturbance: ( 1 ) disturbance of mood; ( 2 ) in interpersonal relations; ( 3 ) impairment of work adjustment; ( 4 ) specific conflicts (about drinking, homosexuality, enure­ sis . . . ) ; ( 5 ) more specific fears; ( 6 ) compulsions. II. lntraception. This trait has been discussed in earlier chapters (VII, XII, XIV, X V ) , where it was seen to be a common correlate of low scores on E. It may be recalled that it expresses the tendency to think in terms of psychological experience. This involves a certain familiarity with one's inner life (especially in its content aspect) and a corresponding readiness to per­ ceive others in the same terms (psychological insight, understanding). Presence: The patient is aware of the fact that he has problems of a psy­ chological nature (not purely physical problems). In addition, he states these problems with some appreciation of their psychological content. Patient complains of specific difficulties: specific fears, conflicts, or envir­ onmental problems; conflicts about sexual or aggressive impulses, problems in interpersonal relations. Sometimes the statements include the description of certain situations which seem connected with the symptoms. In this case the emphasis is not so much on the situation as the cause, but there is some insight into the psychological significance of the situation for the patient. (Not merely: "I feel this w a y when I do heavy work; when something or somebody bothers me." Statement has to have more specific psychological content.) Absence: ( a ) denial of any psychological difficulty; ( b ) emphasis is not on the content of the problem (conflict with family member; struggle with certain impulses, etc.) but rather on the "malfunctioning" itself (the lack of mental energy, inability to concentrate, to think, to do this or that). The complaints are made in general vague terms: "I don't get along with people," "I don't feel well," "I am nervous." Statement often seems to imply the idea of "a machine part" having broken down. Often the "machine" is the body, sometimes "the mind," "the head," "nerves." Often it includes the idea of "going crazy." Sometimes the statement of the problem appears more specific (e.g., "can't do such and such w o r k " ) but the main thing about it is the idea that "one

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

921

cannot do one's duty" (for instance, as a good wife or mother) due to this unwelcome illness. The concern is not so much with the task itself or the feeling of failure involved in the present inability to carry it out, but rather with the violation of conventions and morals. But there is little awareness of specific conflicts, fears, frustrated desires, or life failures.

III. "Ego-alienness" Presence (goes with

high score); The symptoms and the patients' atti­ tudes toward them give evidence of particularly strong repressions. The repressed problems and also some of the symptoms have a strong ego-alien quality. Certain impulses, problems, and even some symptoms are experienced as completely "foreign" to the self. T h e y cannot be accepted or admitted. T h e y "belong to the body," or they are the "breaking through" of a com­ pletely unacceptable part of the personality. The person "cannot understand what makes me do that." There is fear of something "devilish inside" that overwhelms the normal accepted self. Fear of "losing control." Examples: "Fear I'll kill someone during one of my spells; fear I'll lose my mind." W h e n certain impulses have broken through and have been expressed in behavior, this ego-alienness is expressed sometimes in moralistic statements and self-accusations ("Can't understand how I could do this"). Another criterion might be the blandness of the interview, stemming from the patient's inability to admit socially unacceptable impulses, either because of repression or because of fear of disapproval from the interviewer. Absence: The symptoms are experienced as belonging to one's personality and life history. There may be severe conflict over some impulses, but the latter are admitted to consciousness and understood as part of one's self and life experiences. There is relative frankness and freedom from "moralism." In the case of obsessions, compulsions, delusions, and other psychotic manifestations, which usually have some ego-alien quality, the rating will have to be based on the relative emphasis on the ego-alienness itself ("Some­ thing makes me do it; someone influences me; can't control it," etc.), or on the degree to which the content of the symptom is consciously divorced from or related to the patient's past or present inner life.

IV. Externalized Theory of Onset and Causation of the Illness Presence (goes with high E scores): Attempts at externalization of symptoms by: ( a ) denying any and all precipitating factors. Tensions,

the de­ pressions, etc., appear "without any reason at all." "It just appeared." ( b ) dating the illness back to a very definite event or moment: an operation, a "spell," a death, a particular day—sometime during the last few weeks or years. "Before that I was well . . . happy . . . ." ( c ) making no attempt to relate the illness to one's past, especially not to childhood. No spontaneous references to childhood unless specifically questioned, during this first inter­ view. Absence: Spontaneously, or when asked about onset, states that the prob-

9

2 2

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

lems have been present "for a long time"—for years, always or since child­ hood, but perhaps in milder form.

V. Spontaneous Mention of Unhappy Childhood or Family Relationships Presence (goes with low E scores): Patient spontaneously refers to his unhappy childhood. Often elaborates in great detail on a history of frustra­ tions (often with a clearly masochistic attitude). Complains of parents' pres­ ent or past attitudes and is critical of them. Absence: No spontaneous reference to childhood. Childhood, if discussed at all, is pictured as "happy and normal." No criticism or other sign of hos­ tility towards family members is expressed (except in "spells" and psychotic episodes), in spite of admission of friction. Sometimes there is clearly com­ pensatory great concern for family members and their welfare.

VI. Cues Referring to the Patient's Character Structure Obviously the interview fragments cannot be used to construct complete pictures of the subject's personality structure. It was found, however, that they often contained some important hints as to the nature of this structure. Formulation of categories listed below was, of course, guided by the con­ cepts found most useful for distinguishing high and low scorers in the rest of the study. But only those categories were included which would be applied to the particular interview material at hand. The raters were asked to state for each case whether cues from List A or List B predominated in a record, or whether the record was "neutral" (meaning he could discern equally as many cues from " A " as from " B " or none at a l l ) .

List A

(goes with high degree of ethnocentrism): 1. "Countercathectic" defenses. Men: counteraction against passivity. Women: Anal reaction-formations. No mention of a love object or re­ lationship (other than spouse). 2. Extrapunitive or impunitive. If self-criticism occurs, it is couched in moralistic terms, "I am bad, have done wrong." "God is punishing me." Tendency either hysterically to dramatize certain physical symptoms, spells, etc., or to minimize all complaints of a psychological nature. 3. Externalized superego. Religion: God is seen as an external judge of one's action. Illness is a punishment from God. Or religious standards are part of the conventional ideology. Religious reasons are given for refraining from divorce or suicide. 6

List B ("low" characteristics): 4. Absence of "countercathectic" defenses: Direct expressions of orality: dependent character traits; eating, drink­ ing, drugs. Dependency problems, nurturance. Open admission of weak* Further research on impunitiveness is indicated. Here it seemed preferable to classify it "high;" it was "low" in Chapter XI (p. 4 0 6 ) .

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

923

ness, passivity, femininity in men. Love-seeking attitude. References to rejections by specific love-objects. Sublimations: form an important part of the ego; references to achieve­ ment. W h e n symptoms interfere particularly with patient's work, this is stated in such a w a y as to suggest concern with the particular work he is doing. Emphasis on ideals. Concern with helping others, society; artistic activity and interest. 5. Intrapunitiveness, masochism: "I was mistreated as a child." Identifica­ tion with suffering; self-criticism ("I am a failure"). 6. Internalized superego: guilt feelings, true depressions, religious ideas as part of the inner life of the person.

VII. Predominant Types of Symptoms List A 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9.

("high"): Physical anxiety symptoms and other emotional equivalents: "hyper­ ventilation syndrome"; dizziness, sweating, tingling sensations, numb­ ness, tachycardia, breathlessness, fainting, tremors. Anxiety has no con­ scious content. Emotional outbursts, tantrums and "spells," in women. Hypochondriacal fears: fear of death, heart attack, etc. Hysterical conversions. "Rigid compulsive rumination": repetitious complaints, self-accusa­ tions, self-reassurances, "thinking around and around in a circle." Depersonalization (sense of estrangement from self and world) in a person who emphasizes that heretofore he had had no tendency toward timidity and withdrawal. Suspiciousness, fear of people or aversion to people is stated in some­ what externalized terms: " T h e y irritate me," "I can't stand them. T h e y make me nervous." (To be distinguished from hypersensitiveness and withdrawal when described in a more intraceptive w a y . ) Psychopathic tendencies, not in the sense merely of unconventional behavior (as the term is sometimes used) but rather in the sense of a really defective and not sufficiently internalized superego. Antisocial and destructive behavior, callousness, emotional shallowness. Stomach ulcers in men, especially in subjects who emphasize their masculinity. 7

List B: 10. Depressed mood, hopelessness, lack of self-confidence, verbalized feel­ ings of inadequacy, suicidal ideas, guilt. Often patients complain of 7

This item was included in the manual used by our raters; but later analysis of case material suggested that there may be more frequent hysterical conversions in low scorers. The trends are as yet not clear. Perhaps there is also a sex difference here. T w o of the low-quartile men had conversion symptoms.

924

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

"depression," but the "true" depressions as described above have to be distinguished from the more schizoid type of mood disturbance. Tiredness. "Neurasthenia." Dismenorrhea. Conscious rejection of feminine role by women. In men, expression of traits opposite to the culturally emphasized masculine pattern. Withdrawal, timidity, shyness, sometimes coupled with feelings of unreality or with physical anxiety symptoms or hys­ terical conversion. The patient's attitude toward all these "weaknesses" is to some degree accepting. Conscious anxiety and conflicts. 3.

THE

M E T H O D OF Q U A N T I F I C A T I O N

Inspection of the statements of complaint led to the impression that the high and low quartile groups were clearly differentiated with regard to the variables just discussed. In order to check this impression in a more rigorous manner, it was decided to use a method of "blind ratings," similar to that used on the interview, T.A.T. and Projective Question Test material (Parts II and III). At least two judges who are not acquainted with the subjects (and in this case did not know which were high and which were low scorers) independently rate each subject on certain characteristics. These ratings can then be compared with other data on the subjects. The problem of blind ratings has been discussed in other chapters dealing with interview scoring and projective questions. If these ratings turn out to be highly correlated with some trait of the subjects (in this case ethnocentrism) on which the judges had no information, it is very probable that relationships between the former and latter traits exist in reality and could be demonstrated by other methods. (This holds only if the rating procedure is so controlled as to pre­ vent the raters from utilizing cues other than those to be experimentally tested.) There are, however, various possible pitfalls inherent in the rating method. Such "errors of measurement" could arise, for instance, from material which did not contain sufficient information from which to judge the subject on a certain trait. Other errors might arise from the manner in which the characteristics were defined and described for the judges; from the ability of the judges to apply the instructions to the material to be judged —depending in turn on the judges' training, theoretical bias, and personality— and from other factors. Use of a rating technique, therefore, requires not only the determination of certain relationships between the ratings and other data, but also a careful consideration of various factors which could have influenced the results either in the positive or in the negative direction, a. T H E RATERS. The two primary raters were staff members of the major study and will be referred to as raters (or judges) A and B. In addition to much clinical training and experience, these two raters had a strong psycho-

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

925

analytic orientation. Both were familiar with all concepts, hypotheses, data, and results of the total study. Both had had opportunity to interview highand low-scoring subjects, and were therefore acquainted with the behavior and material usually obtained from such subjects in interview situations. Each of the judges independently rated each record on all seven cate­ gories and then assigned an "over-all" intuitive estimate of "highness" or "lowness." After these primary ratings had been completed, 7 independent raters (they are referred to hereafter as the control raters, their ratings as control ratings) were used, each rating one category only. Six of the control raters were clinical psychologists (of these, 1 was a senior clinician, 5 junior clini­ cians at the level of internes, working at the Langley Porter Clinic). T h e y were not acquainted with the concepts and data of the over-all study. This was important for reasons to be discussed below. One of the more narrowly defined categories (Onset and cause of illness are explained by subject in externalized terms) was rated by our office secretary who had had no formal training in psychology or psychiatry, but who had much intuitive psycho­ logical insight and who had absorbed a great deal of the research material and hypotheses. The 7 judges varied greatly in age, training, and theoretical orientation. 8

b.

T H E RATING TECHNIQUE.

The instructions for the control raters were

as follows: The material to be rated consists of "Statements of Complaint" by Langley Porter Clinic patients in a first intake interview or in the first interview with a therapist. Only the section "patient's story" or "chief complaint" was included. The inter­ views are here reproduced verbatim, although a few have been slightly condensed by the writer. Each numbered paragraph refers to one case. There are 26 men, 33 women. . , . , Each case is to be rated on one variable (or syndrome) as described in the manual. Each rater will be assigned one variable and will not know about other variables until he has completed his ratings. The ratings are to be made in terms of presence ( V ) or absence ( - ) of the trait. A few of the variables permit of a "mixed" judgment. Assignment of such a mixed (M) rating should be avoided if possible. But occasionally it may have to be used. Sometimes (due to the fragmentary way in which some of these interviews are recorded) there will be insufficient material to rate. In this case mark ( o ) . Each primary rater ( A and B ) first rated each record in terms of all seven individual categories. T h e y knew which categories were expected to be related to high or to low ethnocentrism. T h e y therefore tried to assign each record a "high" or "low" rating for each category. Often a record did not contain enough material to permit the rater to reach a decision on a given variable, e.g., a given topic was not discussed, or there were few cues permits W e wish to thank Dorothy Bomberg, Janet Gist, Carole Home, Virginia Patterson, Dr Claire W . Thompson, Anne Vollmar, and Elaine Wesley Barron for the patience and care with which they carried out, on short notice, the task of doing the control ratings.

9

z

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

6

PERSONALITY

ting inferences regarding character structure. In this case no rating was assigned. W h e n there were about an equal number of cues pointing in the high and in the low directions, a "mixed" rating was assigned. The raters then went over the records a second time, trying to guess m each case whether he subject had made a high or low score on the E scale The guesses were to be based on the decisions reached regarding the individual categories. However, no mechanical formula was set up to convert the individual ratings into "over-all" ratings. The raters arrived at the latter by a new rating process in which any or all of the categories could be used and weighted as the rater S a

T w o types of data were obtained from this rating material: ( i ) Interrater scoring agreement for each category and for the over-all ratings. ( 2 ) Relationship between ratings and scores on the E scale. These wrll now be discussed. 4.

T H E RELIABILITY OF THE

MEASURES

W h e n several persons agree considerably more than half of the time that certain subjects in a group do, others do not, possess a given trait, the chances are good that these various raters knew what they were supposed to look for had a similar conception of the trait, understood this concept and could clearly recognize something in the interview data to which this concept could be applied; and that personality, training, and other differences be­ tween the raters influenced the ratings only to a relatively small degree. All rating notations (high, low, presence, absence, omission, mixed)^ were converted into "high," "low," and "neutral" scores. E.g., a rating of pres­ ence" on variable I - M a i n emphasis on subject's physical complaints-was considered a "high" score, "absence" a "low" score; "mixed notations and omissions were considered "neutral" scores. Scoring reliability was then obtained by computing the percentage of times 2 raters had assigned the same scores to the same records. Whenever both raters had assigned exactly the same score (high, low, or neutral) to the same record, this was considered one agreement. W h e n one of the raters had given either a high or a low, the other a neutral score, tins was considered one-half an agreement. W h e n one rater gave a high score, the other a low Sus was counted a full disagreement. The number of agreements, divided by the total number of records rated, yielded the percentage agreement between 2 raters. There were very few instances in which both judges gave a neutral score. . , „ Table Q ( X X I I ) shows the percentage agreements between Raters A and D as well as the scores on which these figures are based. All of the percentage agreements, except one (category III, " l o w s " ) , are above o statistically higher than could have been obtained by chance ( 1 per cent level). Raters A and B agreed best, 9 1 per cent, on variable V (Subject spon7

TABLE 9 (XXII) THE AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO RATERS IN ESTIMATING A SUBJECT' S STANDING ON THE E SCALE FROM AN ANALYSIS OF HIS INTAKE INTERVIEW PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PATIENTS: MEN AND WOMEN COMBINED (N = 5 9 : High s c o r e r s : N = 2 8 ; Low S c o r e r s : N = 3 1 ) 8,

I n t e r r a t e r Agreement No.scored Low (L) No. s c o r e d High (H) No. s c o r e d N e u t r a l (N) No. of Agreements P e r c e n t Agreements Actual S t a n d i n g ( l ) R a t e d (2)Rated H (3)Rated N ( 4 ) R a t e d H ( 5 ) R a t e d L ( 6 ) R a t e d L (7)Hlgh (8)H and L (9)High (I0)H and L or Combined or Combined by Both by One; N H by on E by One; N by Both by One:^L Low Low by Other by Other Both Scale by Other 5 3

2 24

1 2

1

2 9

7 4

2 3

1 1

18

14 3

11 2

1 1

High Low

13 4

8 2

V. Spontaneous mention o t unhappy High c h i l d h o o d and f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s Low

23 15

2

High Low

10 3

7 2

2

High Low

18 4

4

High Low

15.4 4.8

6.3 1.7

O v e r - a l l r a t i n g o f highness o r lowness on E S c a l e

High Low

21 4

Single Variables: I . Main emphasis on s o m a t i c complaints

High Low

II.

III.

Intraception

Ego-alienness

IV. E x t e r n a l i z e d t h e o r y of o n s e t and c a u s e s

VI. Cues r e g a r d i n g c h a r a c t e r structure V I I . Predominant type of symptoms

Mean agreement on t h e v a r i a b l e s

-

-

15 3

5 2

High Low

15 1

High Low

-

-

-

23 28

51

82. 1 90.3

86.4

5 14

23 22

45

82. 1 71.0

76.3 .

3 4

22 26

48

78.6 83.9

83.1

21.5 20

41.5

76.8 64.5

70.3

21 24

45

75.0 77.4

76.3

-

.

-

5

10

3 6

2 2

9

2 8

-

2 2

1

-

89.3 91.9

90.7

1

25 28.5

53.5

13

2 2

2 20

5 4

20 26

46

71.4 83.9

78.0

1 1

3 4

1 19

1 3

22.5 25.5

48

80.3 82.3

81.4

1.4 1.9

1.4 2.4

0.9 14.0

2.6 6.3

22.2 24.7

79.3 79.7

79.5

-

-

2 10

d u m b e r o f agreements f o r a g i v e n v a r i a b l e i s t h e sum of t h e v a l u e s , o p p o s i t e t h a t v a r i a b l e , i n Columns 1 . 3 . and 5 .

928

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

taneously and explicitly mentions unhappy childhood and family relation­ ships). This result was to be expected because this variable is so unambiguous and requires little subjective evaluation. Besides, most subjects did not bring up this subject when first asked about their symptoms. The next highest agreement was reached on the "over-all" guess regarding the subject's standing on ethnocentrism; then came Intraception, Types of Symptoms, and Character Traits, with agreements around 8 0 per cent. The average agreement for all seven variables was 80 per cent. There are several possible reasons w h y the over-all rating had so high a reliability. One reason is that the instructions prohibited "neutral" ratings in this instance. Another is that the category "over-all" highness-lowness, is a broad one, and the raters are thus given the opportunity to utilize a great variety of explicit or nonexplicit cues and impressions; that they should do this was favored by the fact that both A and B had had experience inter­ viewing high and low scorers, possibly developing thereby a "feeling for" a general "high" or "low" personality factor. Analysis of the ratings assigned by the two judges showed that rater B had a relatively greater number of omissions (meaning "I can't tell from the data given") whereas rater A had tried hard to come to a decision, even when the data offered only one subtle cue. As can be seen from Table 9 ( X X I I ) , what lowered the agreements between A and B were usually instances in which one rater gave a neutral score; there were very few cases in which one gave a high, the other a low rating. Because the ratings of A and B were so similar, and because of B's con­ sistently greater number of neutrals, which lowered all reliability (and validity) figures somewhat, only rater A's ratings were compared with those made by the 7 control raters. Table 1 0 ( X X I I ) shows the percentage agreements between the ratings by A and those made b y the 7 control judges, each of whom rated only one category. As the control raters made no "over-all" guesses of highness or lowness on E, no agreement with A's over-all rating could be obtained. In­ stead, a composite "high" or "low" score for each subject was derived from the 7 control ratings of single variables. A rating of "high" on a given variable was counted as one point, a "neutral" rating was given % point, a "low" rating, o points. B y adding the points for each subject, scores ranging from o to 7 were obtained. All subjects receiving such a composite score of 4 or more were then classed as "high," those with scores below 4 as "low." The agreement between A's "over-all" rating with these composite ratings is shown near the bottom of Table i o ( X X I I ) . The composite high-low score agreed with A's over-all estimate of high­ ness or lowness 8 5 per cent of the time. Practically the same figure was obtained when comparing A's and B's over-all guesses. The average agreement between A and the control raters for the single

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

929

variables was only very slightly lower ( 7 7 per cent) than the average agree­ ment between A and B ( 8 0 per cent). On the whole, the reliabilities obtained were quite acceptable. In general, those variables which had the highest reliability when the ratings of A and B were compared also had a relatively high percentage agreement in the comparison between A and the control raters, and conversely with the variables of relatively low reliability. The two categories in which this relationship was almost reversed were: categories I (Emphasis on Physical Symptoms) and II (Intraception). The reliability of the former ranked sec­ ond best in the case of A and the control raters, about fifth in the case of A and B. The reliability of the latter ranked sixth with A and the controls, second best with A and B. The relatively low agreement between A and B on category I was caused not so much b y disagreements but by a relatively large proportion of "neu­ tral" scores (omissions) on the part of B (see Table 9 ( X X I I ) ) . While the control raters and A felt able to judge the presence or absence of certain cues in the record, rater B frequently felt that the subjects' attitudes toward their symptoms were not sufficiently brought out in the interviews. The relatively low agreement between the control rater and A on Intra­ ception was due mainly to a larger number of disagreements. The control rater was in this case particularly dissatisfied with her ratings, feeling that she did not have a sufficient grasp of the concept of intraception nor enough acquaintance with the cues by which the trait could be recognized. In the case of A and B the concept and manifestations of intraception had been made the object of special study and played an important part in their thinking. Rater A thought that her ratings of any given case—on over-all highnesslowness and on all other variables—had been more influenced by her impres­ sion of the subject's intraceptiveness than by any other cue. It is reasonable to assume that this difference in training is the cause of the difference in reli­ ability between the two sets of raters. This becomes even more probable when the reliability figures are compared with the agreements between rat­ ings and actual E score. Here, A's and B's ratings of presence or absence of intraception were related to high and low E score (in the expected direction) 80 to 83 per cent of the time, while the control rater's judgment agreed with E only 6 5 per cent of the time (see Table i 2 ( X X I I ) ) . The highest reliabilities ( 9 1 per cent and 9 5 per cent) were obtained for variable V (Patient Mentions Unhappy Childhood, etc.). It is clear that there is not much room for disagreement here. The lowest reliabilities were obtained for variable III (Ego-alienness). Here the agreement between A and the control rater was only 6 5 per cent, tjiat between A and B 7 0 per cent. The former figure barely meets the stand­ ard of acceptable reliability of measurement. There was an unusually large discrepancy between A's and the control rater's estimate for the high scorers,

93o

THE AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

TABLE 10 (XXII) THE AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN A SINGLE RATER (A) AND SEVEN OTHER RATERS IN ESTIMATING VARIABLES IN INTAKE INTERVIEWS PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PATIENTS: MEN AND WOMEN COMBINED (N = 59)

Variable I. Main emphasis on somatic complaints

Actual Standing on E Scale

Rated H by Both

High Low

12

II. Intraception

High Low

18

III. Ego-alienness

High Low

IV. Externalized theory of onset and causes

High Low

14

High Low

26 17

VI. Cues regarding charac­ High ter structure Low

11

Spontaneous mention of unhappy childhood and family relations

VII. Predominant type of symptoms

High Low

Agreement between A's over­ all H-L rating and composite score based on ratings of 7 independent raters, each High rating a single variable Low Averages

High Low

Rated H by One; N by Other

Rated N by Both

22

21

16.0 5.7

2.9 1.9

0.7 1.3

PSYCHOLOGICAL

ILL H E A L T H

AND

POTENTIAL

FASCISM

PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PATIENTS: MEN AND WOMEN COMBINED (N = 59)

Rated L by Both

Rated L by One N by Other

No. of Agreements H and L H and L Combined Respectively

Percentage Agreement

Total Percentage Agreement

6 20

4 1

18 + 4 = 22 25 + 1 = 26

48

78.6 83.9

81.4

1 1

20 + 1 = 21 20+1.5=21.5

42.5

75.0 69.4

72.0

15 2 15

2 3

12 + 3 = 15 21+2. 5=23. 5

38.5

53.6 75.8

65.3

1 10

2 7

16 + 4 = 20 18+5.5=23.5

43.5

71.4 75.8

73.7

1 11

27 29

56

96.4 93.5

94.9

1

2 16

5 7

14 + 5 = 19 20+4.5=24.5

43.5

67.9 79.0

73.7

1 18

2 1

24 23

47

85.7 74. 2

79.7

23 27

50

82. 1 87.1

84.7

45.5

75.5 78.8

77.2

2 22 1.9 15.0

2.3 3.0

21. 1 24.5

93 I

932

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

there being only 5 4 per cent agreement. This figure is the result of a rather large number of disagreements between the two raters. The control rater said that she was quite unsure of her ratings because she felt that the inter­ view material reflected more the physician's than the patient's attitude toward the complaints. Also, she conceived of "ego-alienness" as something unfavor­ able from the mental hygiene point of view and was therefore more often willing to score "absence" of the trait than "presence." Possibly the most important factor, which lowered both sets of reliabilities, is the relative broadness with which this variable was denned, including few behavioral criteria but leaving much to the rater's intuition. W i t h the exception of variable III, the ratings for all variables, as well as the over-all estimates, proved to be reliable measures. 5.

RELATIONSHIP B E T W E E N R A T I N G S A N D

ETHNOCENTRISM

SCORE

The idea of the present rating method is the following: If the "blind" ratings of a given trait correlate significantly with another trait about which the raters had no information (in this case ethnocentrism), it is likely that the two traits are correlated in reality. The relationships to be described below are probably valid because we have eliminated many of the factors inherent in the rating process which could have influenced the results. There are, however, many factors inherent in the rating method which can still influence the "blind" ratings in such a w a y that statistical relation­ ships of two traits are artificially raised or lowered. The possibility of arti­ ficially high correlations is present particularly when several traits are rated at the same time. Here, the rating of one trait can easily influence the ratings of other traits. This factor (called halo effect) could have influenced the ratings of judges A and B. It was primarily for this reason that control raters, each of whom was trained to pay attention to and to recognize only one of the seven single traits, were used. The ratings of ( 1 ) over-all highness and lowness, and ( 2 ) of the single traits, were related to ethnocentrism in the following manner: For a given trait, we counted the number of subjects in the high E quartile who were judged to be "high" by the raters. To these were added half of the high-scor­ ing subjects receiving a "neutral" rating. This sum, divided by the total num­ ber of high scorers in the group, yielded the percentage of high scorers rated in the high direction. B y the same procedure the percentage of low scorers rated in the low direction was obtained. The weighted average of these two percentages was then computed; this indicated the percentage of subjects related "correctly," that is, the percentage whose ratings were re­ lated to E score in the expected w a y . a. T H E OVER-ALL RATINGS. Table 1 1 (XXII) gives the agreements between the subject's standing on E and A's ratings. Rater A's guesses as to highness and lowness agreed with the subject's actual E score 86 per cent of the

TABLE 1 1 (XXII) THE AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN RATER A' S ESTIMATE OF HIGH OR LOW ETHNOCENTRISM, BASED ON ANALYSIS OF INTAKE INTERVIEWS. AND ETHNOCENTRISM AS MEASURED BY

h3 en «!

THE E SCALE PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC PATIENTS:

2 > r P r

No. o f Agreements

High Low

15

6 23

7 3

18-1/2 24-1/2

43

66. 1 79.0

72.9

5

Intraception

Hish Low

24 5

2 22

2 4

25 24

49

89.3 77.4

83.1

Ego-alienness

High Low

23 9

2 20

3 2

24-1/2 21

45-1/2

87.5 67.7

77.1

X

High Low

17

7 10

20-1/2 19

39-1/2

73.2

66.9

O

1

4 14

High Low

27 17

1 13

0 1

27 13-1/2

40-1/2

96.4 43.5

68.6

Cues r e g a r d i n g c h a r a c ­ ter structure

High Low

19

7 3

22-1/2 24-1/2

47

80.4 79.0

79.7

5

2 23

Predominant t y p e o f symptoms

High Low

25 6

1 23

2 2

26 24

50

92.9 77.4

84.7

Over-all

High Low

25 5

3 26

0 0

25 26

51

89.3 83.9

86.4

Averages

High Low

complaints

IV. E x t e r n a l i z e d t h e o r y o f o n s e t and c a u s e s V. Spontaneous mention o f unhappy childhood and family r e l a t i o n s

VII.

Total Percentage Agreement

Rated N

somatic

VI.

Percentage Agreement

Rated L

I. Main emphasis on

III.

No. o f Agreements Combined

Rated H

Variable

II.

Actual Standing on E S c a l e

r> x o r o

MEN AND WOMEN COMBINED (N = 59)

H >

r H

61.3

83.7

X

>

o H H

> > en

TABLE 12 (XXII)

£

THE AMOUNT OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN ESTIMATES OF ETHNOCENTRISM, BASED ON RATINGS OF SINGLE VARIABLES FROM INTAKE INTERVIEWS, AND ETHNOCENTRISM AS MEASURED BY THE E SCALE Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men And Women Combined (N = 59) No. Rated L

No. Rated N

No. of Agreements Combined

Total Percentage Agreement

Actual Standing on E Scale

No. Rated H

High Low

22 9

6 22

0 0

22.0 22.0

44.0

71.0 78.6

74. 6

High Low

15 8

12 22

1 1

15.5 22. 5

38.0

55.4 72.6

64. 0

II. Intraception

High Low

19 13

5 17

4 1

21.0 17.5

38. 5

75. 0 56. 5

65.3

III. Ego-alienness

High Low

9 6

14 18

5 7

11.5 21. 5

33.0

41. 1 69.4

55.9

HiKh Low

21 7

4 15

3 9

22. 5 19.5

42.0

80.4 62.9

71. 2

High Low

26 19

2 11

0 1

26.0 11.5

37. 5

92.9 2t.l

63.6

High Low

12 5

11 18

5 8

14.5 22.0

36.5

51.8 71.0

61.9

High Low

22 id

6 21

0 0

22.0 21.0

43.0

78. 6 67.7

72. 9

High Low

17.71 9.1i

7.7 17.4

2.6 3.9

19. 0 19.4

38.4

67.9 62.5

65.0

Variable Composite Ratings Single Variables: I. Main emphasis on somatic complaints

IV. Externalized theory of onset and causes V. Spontaneous mention of unhappy childhood and family relations VI. Cues regarding character structure VII. Predominant type of symptoms Means a

No. of Agreements

Percentage Agreement

Composite rating based on ratings by 7 independent raters on the variables listed. A "High rating" received 1 point, a "Neutral rating" % point; 4 points or more constituted a composite "High" score; everything below 4 a "Low" score.

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

935

time. For the high scorers alone the agreement was 89 per cent, for the low scorers 8 4 per cent. These figures show again how closely ethnocentrism is related to personality factors, although the relationships are b y no means perfect. The remaining problem now is: How did raters A and B arrive at their rather accurate guesses about ethnocentrism from a short paragraph of inter­ view material dealing almost exclusively with the subjects' complaints? Did they base their guesses mainly on the variables described in the manual, or did they inadvertently use other cues, such as type of language used and other cues that have not been made explicit but which they learned to associate with highness or lowness while interviewing subjects with known ethno­ centrism scores? The results obtained from the control raters, who had had no such previous experience with high- and low-scoring subjects, should help to decide this question. These results are shown in Table 1 2 (XXII). As discussed above, a composite "high" or "low" score was computed, based only on the ratings of the seven single variables by the different raters. This composite rating agreed with E score 7 5 per cent of the time, indicating a statistically significant relationship. This figure is 1 1 points lower than the validity figure obtained by rater A. Some of this difference could undoubt­ edly have been ehminated by more extensive training of the control raters regarding the concepts and the cues in the material they had to use. Never­ theless, in view of the control raters' unfamiliarity with the over-all theory, and their knowledge of only the single variable being rated in each case, their achievement of 7 5 per cent accuracy takes on added significance. Prediction of ethnocentrism score (high or l o w ) from clinical material was made more accurate ( 8 6 per cent for rater A ) when the rater had more train­ ing, was acquainted with the concepts and materials of the total study, and could form a picture of the subject b y looking for a whole pattern or syn­ drome of responses. b. T H E SINGLE VARIABLES. For purposes of this discussion all results for each of the single variables have been summarized in Table 1 3 (XXII). This table shows: ( 1 ) Percentage agreements between rater A and each control rater; ( 2 ) Percentage agreements between raters A and B; ( 3 ) Percentage agreements between A's ratings and E score; ( 4 ) Percentage agreements betwen each control rater and E score.

Variable I: Main Emphasis on Somatic Complaints Rather than on Psy­ chological Problems. Among the reliabilities between rater A and the con­ trol raters, this variable had the second highest, 8 1 per cent. Among the reliabilities between raters A and B this variable ranked only about fifth best ( 7 6 per cent). This relatively low, but still acceptable agreement between A and B was caused not so much b y disagreements but by a relatively large number of "neutral" scores (omissions) on the part of B.

TABLE 13 (XXII) SUMMARY OF DATA FROM THE RATING OF INTAKE INTERVIEWS A. RELIABILITY: PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT AMONG RATERS FOR SEVEN VARIABLES B. VALIDITY: PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RATINGS AND SCORE ON THE E SCALE Psychiatric Clinic Patients: Men and Women Combined (N = 59)

Variable I. Main emphasis on somatic complaints

A. Reliability B. Validity Actual Standing Percentage Agreement: Percentage Agreement: Percentage Agreement: Percentage Agreement: Control Raters and on E Raters B Rater A and Rater A and Control Scale Raters and A E Score E Score High Low

78.6 83.9

81.4

11. Intraception

High Low

75.0 69.4

III. Ego-alienness

High Low

55.4 72.6

64.0

83. 1

75.0 56.5

65.3

Cj H

87.5 67.7

77. 1

41. 1 69.4

55.9

o so

76.3

73. 2 61.3

6§.9

80.4 62.9

71.2

%

89.3 91.9

90.7

96.4 43.5

68.6

92. 9 37. 1

63.6

73.7

71.4 83.9

78.0

80.4 79.0

79.7

51.8 71.0

61.9

85.7 74.2

79.7

80.3 82. 3

81.4

92.9 77.4

84.7

78.6 67.7

72.9

High Low

75.5 78.8

77. 2

79.3 79.7

79.5

83.7 69.3

76. 1

67. 9 62.5

65.0

High

82. l 87. l

82.1 90.3

86.4

89.3 83.9

86.4

71. 0 78.6°

66. 1 79. 0

72.9

83. 1

89. 3 77.4

76.8 64.5

70.3

73.7

75.0 77.4

96.4 93.5

94.9

High Low

67.9 79.0

High Low

Averages Over-all rating

IV. Externalized theory of onset and causes V. Spontaneous mention of unhappy childhood and family relations VI. Cues regarding character structure VII. Predominant type of symptoms

W w

82.1 71.0

76.3

72.0

78.6 83.9

53.6 75.8

65.3

High Low

71.4 75.8

High Low

Low

a a

84. 7

a

b

74.6b

percentage agreement between Rater A's "over-all rating" and a composite score based on 7 independent ratings by control raters. ^Percentage agreement between E score and composite rating.

> a 3

CO

o

I a

. P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

937

There was a significant relationship between variable I and ethnocentrism. According to rater A, 6 6 per cent of the high scorers emphasized their physical complaints, whereas about 7 9 per cent of the low scorers failed to do so. The control rater's figures are lower: 5 5 per cent for the high scorers, 7 3 per cent for the low scorers. In addition, case studies indicated that this variable is important for differentiating subjects high and low on E. T o be sure, there were some cases of low scorers with tendencies toward conversion symptoms or other psychogenic somatic disturbances. But such symptoms, together with marked anxious concern about bodily integrity was characteristic of high scorers. This anxiety is often extended to the function­ ing of the nervous system or "mind." Thus, high-scoring patients complain and have anxious concern about headaches, various sensory disturbances, loss of memory, nervousness, and "going crazy." There is also a tendency on the part of the high scorers to develop somatic rather than psychological symptoms. Many of these somatic symptoms, on closer examination, turn out to be expressions of repressed affects. Thus, the tendency to develop and to focus on somatic complaints can be considered part of the defensive activity of the high scorer's narrow ego, which shuts out extensive parts of the in­ dividual's inner life and, as an additional defensive measure, causes rejection of any thinking in psychological terms and, instead, an emphasis on thinking in terms of physical causation. Thus, variable I may be an expression of the same processes which underlie variable II, and, in a sense, all the other variables as well.

Variable II: Intraception. This variable had the highest reliability with raters A and B ( 8 3 per cent). Among the agreements of A with the control raters, this variable ranked only sixth ( 7 2 per cent). As noted above, a differ­ ence in training between raters A and B on the one hand and the control rater on the other is probably the cause of the difference in the reliabilities of the two sets of ratings. The fact that A's and B's ratings agreed more closely with E score ( 8 3 per cent) than did those of the control rater ( 6 5 per cent) is probably to be explained in the same w a y . From these data it appears that ( 1 ) adequately trained raters can arrive at very reliable ratings of intraception, using patients' statements about their complaints in a first psychiatric interview; ( 2 ) intraception is highly corre­ lated with lack of ethnocentrism. The latter proposition is supported b y a great deal of evidence from other material presented in this volume, in con­ nection with the F scale, the Projective Questions, and particularly the Thematic Apperception Test and the interviews. In the Clinic the difference between high and low scorers on intraception became very clear when any kind of psychotherapy was attempted. Some of the high-scoring subjects whom w e interviewed were almost unable to accept the notion of psychological causation of their disturbances, and it took a great deal of time to make them see some very obvious connections

THE

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

between their symptoms, on the one hand, and some anxiety-producing factors in their life situation and events in the past, on the other. The low scorers either knew these more obvious connections before coming to the Clinic (often reporting about their inner and outer lives with a great deal of awareness of their own and other's psychological processes) or were quick in grasping the therapist's interpretations. Many of these latter patients, at least at first sight, appear to be especially good subjects for psychotherapy. T h e y are cooperative, perceptive, and give excellent histories. But often it is difficult to effect changes in their symptoms because of their characteristic defenses: isolation of affect and intellectualization. It is as if they ^'can afford" to know more about their inner lives because, among other things, their egos, used to admitting impulses, have developed certain intellectual w a y s of dealing with drives and emotions. Variable III: Ego-alienness. This variable had the lowest reliabilities. The agreement between A and the control rater was only 6 5 per cent; the agreement between A and B was 7 0 per cent. The control rater, as noted above was quite unsure of her ratings and expressed misgivings about the w a y in which the variable had been defined. Indeed, it seems likely that the breadth of the category and the absence from it of behavioral criteria lowered the reliability of both sets of ratings. Thus it happened that the control rater tried mainly to judge ego-alienness from the degree of conscious acceptance or rejection of the symptoms as revealed by the interview. Raters A and B also included in their judgments the nature of the symptoms themselves, regardless of the patient's expressed attitude toward them. Thus they judged the presence of predominantly psychosomatic symptoms, or of vague anxiety without content, as more ego-alien than conscious conflicts or feelings of failure. As was to be expected, the control rater's judgment did not agree very well with E score ( 5 6 per cent). Rater A's ratings, however, showed a fairly high relationship ( 7 7 per cent). Examination of the data revealed that some of the low-scoring patients, who on the basis of this variable were judged to be ethnocentric, showed psychotic manifestations. Such manifestations actually have much more ego-alien quality than the neurotic symptoms which generally predominated in our group. The variable probably works better for the high- than for the low-scoring group.

Variable IV: Externalized Theory of Onset and Causes of the Ill­ ness. The reliabilities here are quite g o o d - 7 4 per cent for A and the control rater, and 7 6 per cent for A and B. Rater A's agreement with E is her lowest ( 6 7 per c e n t ) ; the control rater agreed more highly with E ( 7 1 per cent). In general the variable seemed to work better for the high scorers. It is possible that this has to do with the fact that more "neutrals" were scored for this category than for any other, and there were a few more "neutrals in the low-scoring group. The large number of neutral ratings seemed to be

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

939

due to the circumstance that not all subjects talked about (or were even asked about) the onset of their illness in this interview but confined them­ selves to describing their present difficulties. The high scorers more often brought up the onset and causes of their symptoms because they felt as if these symptoms had come about mysteriously "all of a sudden" on a certain day and that "everything had been quite all right before. This is another example of the high scorers' unfamiliarity with their inner lives their need to be like everyone else, and their strenuous efforts at keep­ ing less acceptable impulses and emotions completely out of consciousness. W h e n these impulses finally do break through in the form of symptoms, they are felt as ego-alien intruders, which appear "suddenly and often "without any reason at all."

Variable V: Spontaneous Mention of Unhappy Childhood or Unhappy Family Relationships. The least ambiguous category, and therefore the one receiving the highest agreement scores ( 9 1 per cent and 9 5 per cent) is variable V. Here the rater simply had to state whether the patient spon­ taneously mentioned unhappy childhood or family relationships. The rela­ tionship between this variable and ethnocentrism was found to be very close in the case of the high scorers ( 9 3 per cent, 9 6 per cent) but not in the case of the low scorers ( 4 4 per cent, 3 7 per cent). This result seems connected with the fact that, in general, few subjects mentioned anything about their childhood in the intake interview, which dealt primarily with the patient s symptoms. Practically none of the high scorers did so. Whenever such a reference was made, the subject was usually a low scorer on ethnocentrism. The figures for this variable, for the low scorers, are actually spuriously 1 0

The results here agree with the general finding of the study as a whole that low scorers freely admit friction with and negative feelings towards their families, and in general are more aware of and more frank about conflict and affect The high scorers gave smooth, bland histories and had idealized pictures of their families. This would rarely allow them to admit feelings of unhappiness and loneliness in childhood such as arise from sibling jealousy and disappointment in parents. Such feelings were often reported in the interviews of low scorers at the Clinic.

Variable VI: Cues Referring to the Patient's Character Structure. 1 he reliabilities here were 7 4 per cent (rater A with control rater) and 7 8 per cent (for rater A with rater B ) . These agreements are statistically quite accept­ able Rater A also achieved quite high agreement with E score ( 8 0 per cent) while the control rater's agreement with E was only 6 2 per cent. The control rater's judgments of the low scorers showed much higher agreement ( 7 1 percent) than did her ratings of the high scorers ( 5 2 per cent). Her reliability was also lower for the high group. This could be related to the fact that the manual gave more detailed and concrete instructions and examples for the

940

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

"low" characteristics than for the "high" ones. This probably penalized the control rater much more than rater A, because the latter was already very familiar with the concepts and their application to interview material. It seems likely that the control rater's judgments would have shown much greater relationship to E had she had more training (in applying psycho­ analytic concepts in general and the present variables in particular). The syndrome of traits to be included in rating variable VI, were discussed in the scoring manual above (Section F, 2 ) . T h e y included:

For high scorers 1. countercathectic defenses: re­ action formations, projection, particularly anal reaction forma­ tions for women, counteraction of passivity for men 2. lack of concern with love-objects 3. extra- and impunitiveness 4. externalized superego

For low scorers 1. other defenses: particularly sub­ limations into artistic, intellec­ tual, humanitarian interests and activities 2. oral-dependent-love-seeking at­ titude; nurturance, concern about being rejected 3. intrapunitiveness; masochism 4. internalized superego

These variables, of course, are identical with some of those used in the study of personality by means of the questionnaire and clinical techniques described earlier in the book. The detailed case studies of Clinic patients, the results of the Projective Questions for our group, and many of the State­ ments of Complaint showed that these variables were just as valuable for dis­ tinguishing high and low scores in this group as they were in the case of other groups. It is, of course, impossible to form, on the basis of the short Statements of Complaint alone, a personality picture of patients in which all of these characteristics appear. Therefore the reader, going over the examples of these Statements and a few selected case studies in the following section, may not be convinced, particularly since only brief outlines of the cases were given to illustrate the symptomatology, important genetic factors, and a few other characteristics common to a whole group of patients in the high and low quartiles. Many of the details about the patients' relationships to others and to their work were omitted there. Still, the reader will find striking differ­ ences between low and high scorers by paying attention to the cues as defined above. Perhaps the first group of variables, namely the nature of defenses, will not become so apparent from the interview fragments selected for presentation. T h e y will be illustrated primarily by the brief case examples included also in the following section. The complete material, as given to the raters, did offer more cues in this direction. Particularly striking was the frequency with which the low-scoring subjects (but hardly ever high-scor­ ing ones) spoke about the interference of their symptoms with their work,

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

941

'hich was in this connection described in such a w a y that one could infer the atient's true involvement in his work. A striking proportion of the low :orers had artistic occupations or interests. The most frequent sign of trait no. 2 in our examples, lies in the freuency with which the low scorers refer in some w a y to their relationships 3 other people, to concern about being rejected, and to their own shortcomlgs in interpersonal relationships, quite in contrast to the high scorers. The character syndrome intrapunitiveness-masochism-strong internalized jperego is illustrated b y several of the examples of low scorers, particularly le cases with neurotic depressions and inferiority feelings, but also b y the df-critical attitude with which the low scorers report their difficulties. The reat frankness with which many of them expose their weaknesses or sponineously talk about their childhood sufferings also perhaps expresses their dependent) wish to receive sympathy from the interviewer, as well as a esire to appease their strict superegos ("If I confess everything now, I won't ave to feel quite as guilty as I would if you discovered these things about le later.")

Variable VII: Predominant Types of Symptoms. The two lists of yrmptoms are given in Section F, 2 . The reliabilities for this category were tatistically acceptable (around 8 0 per cent) and the relationship to E was elatively high with all raters ( 7 3 - 8 5 per cent). According to these findigs, the symptoms in List A characterize the high-scoring group, those in ,ist B predominate in the low-scoring group. The symptomatology of the igh- and low-scoring groups will be presented and discussed in more detail 1 the following section which deals with the clinical pictures and personaliies of the subjects. There, material gathered b y the various techniques emiloyed in this study will be utilized and the discussion illustrated b y a number if case examples. 6. S U M M A R Y

Before turning to the clinical section, however, we may summarize and liscuss the findings of the rating technique. 1 . It was possible to predict standing on the E scale from a small section of subject's first psychiatric interview, dealing almost exclusively with the ubject's symptoms. This shows again how strongly ethnocentrism is corelated with personality dynamics. 2. In order to test the thesis that the differences between the high- and ow-scoring groups could be described b y means of the variables described bove, 7 control raters, each rating only one variable, were employed. Unortunately, these raters were not quite familiar enough with the meaning nd application of psychoanalytic concepts. In spite of this, an average eliability of 7 7 per cent between rater A (a staff member of the study) and

942

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

the control raters was obtained. This figure is statistically acceptable for our purpose and indicates that the ratings b y raters A and B were not based merely on comparisons of the interviews with a general "apperceptive mass" acquired in their experience with high and low scorers, but were actually based on the variables as here described. T h e average agreement for A (and also for B ) between ratings of the single variables and E score was around 7 7 per cent; the corresponding figure for the control raters was only 6 5 per cent. However, when composite scores of highness-lowness were com­ puted (derived from all 7 independent control ratings), the agreement with E was 7 5 per cent. This indicates that the variables show significant relation­ ships to E, although w e cannot say just how well one could predict E from any one of the single variables. T h e percentage-agreements of A's ratings with E score may have been raised somewhat-by previous experience with high- and low-scoring subjects and by the halo effect. T h e control raters' pre­ dictions are certainly not as good as they could be, due to relative lack of training. From a theoretical point of view, the actual degree to which the relationships between E and each of the single variables exceed chance, is of little importance. Obviously all of the variables overlap. T h e y probably represent various aspects of one or of a very few more basic personality factors.

G.

CLINICAL PICTURES A N D PERSONALITIES OF H I G H A N D L O W SCORERS 1. T H E H I G H SCORERS

Probably any one of the symptoms listed under A ("high") in Category VII, such as physical anxiety symptoms, hypochondriacal fears, stomach ul­ cers ( m e n ) , could be found in low-scoring subjects—and depression, tiredness, conscious conflict, and the like, in high scorers. However, the manifestations in List A and in List B seem to form syndromes which differentiated well between our two groups. T h e various symptoms in each syndrome have certain common characteristics. Even the control rater who had little train­ ing in psychoanalytic or other dynamic theories sensed this relatedness. It helped her in the rating task because it was possible for her to form "whole impressions" of the patients, using the various single symptoms as alternative cues. In comparing the various symptoms mentioned in one list with those men­ tioned in the other, it becomes clear that the main difference between them consists in the w a y less acceptable parts of the personality are handled b y the ego. In the high scorers the sources of disturbance—aggressive impulses, for ' instance—are seen as "outside" the self or other means are used to deny their true significance. Anxiety is displaced from the inner conflicts themselves

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

943

to the body, or it appears in consciousness without the conflicts to which it belongs; or countercathective defenses are used, producing compulsive fea­ tures or psychosomatic manifestations such as stomach ulcers ( m e n ) . W h e n impulses do begin to break through, they often do so in the form of violent outbursts, "spells," or tantrums, or they lead to a feeling of not being oneself. It is this strenuous denial of many of one's impulses and the attempt at seeing everything unacceptable as outside the self, which seems to be the common denominator for most of the content of List A in Category VII. This is, in essence, the tendency—so common in high scorers—to keep things egoalien. The same general character tendency, it seems, is expressed in extrapunitiveness and in other w a y s described elsewhere in the present volume. Once again, the findings on Clinic patients confirm what was found to be true in the Study's sample of the general population (Chapter XII). a. HIGH-SCORING MEN. In order to illustrate the clinical pictures in highscoring men a few case examples will be given here. The first patient is a middle-aged businessman. In his first psychiatric inter­ view he stated that he had "been fighting a nervous breakdown." He com­ plained of tremors, sweating, fatigue, polyuria, intestinal gas, spells of panic, and a tendency to cry. He said that his symptoms first appeared when he heard how much temporary alimony he had to pay. Then "something snapped in m y head." This condition had improved for a while, after some medical treatment, but reappeared after the patient's business license was suspended for a short time because of certain irregularities. In the course of psychotherapy the patient was superficially cooperative, came on time, and was particularly polite to the therapist but could not enter into the therapeutic relationship. He offered several times to take the woman therapist to an elegant place for dinner. When speaking about himself, the patient dwelled merely on his somatic complaints in a hypochondriacal w a y and refused to give up the idea that his trouble was of physiological origin, requiring medical treatment. At the therapist's request, the patient told about his life experiences. He used this situation mainly to impress the therapist with stories of his business success and of his successful and in­ fluential friends, but it became apparent that he had no genuine attachments to anyone. After some months both patient and therapist felt that treatment should be discontinued for lack of progress. This patient's character and history point towards anal problems (reten­ tion). Castration anxiety is experienced in terms of a fear of "losing some­ thing" or "having to give up something." His strong anxiety and underlying weakness is unsuccessfully cloaked by a masculine facade which, in this case, centers around the idea of being a "successful businessman." His relations to others are weak and egocentric. His externalized superego does not pre­ vent him from trying slightly illegal means for reaching success. When his ego is threatened by some "loss" or lack of success, his anxiety is increased.

944

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

In such a situation he becomes aware of anxiety without much content. He focuses on the physiological symptoms of anxiety, becomes even more anxious, then seeks medical treatment. This particular type of high-scoring man was not very frequent in the Clinic group. Probably it is more frequent in medical clinics or in the practice of private physicians. The same pattern of underlying weakness and castra­ tion anxiety covered by a masculine facade was, however, found in most other high-scoring men patients, some with more, some with less compulsive char­ acters. In some, unconscious homosexual conflicts were especially important. And paranoid trends were not uncommon. One group of high-scoring patients had few or no compulsive features but more marked phobic trends. These cases, too, had much "vague anxiety," were focused often on the physical anxiety symptoms such as tremors, and so forth, and showed some hypo­ chondriacal concern. An example of this latter type is a young veteran who suffered from a com­ mon type of combat neurosis consisting of severe tremors and vague anxiety whenever he engaged in the least strenuous activity. This patient's ship had been torpedoed and the patient (who could not swim) had had to spend an hour on a leaky raft. At the time he had felt little fear. A month later, when on shore in a hotel, symptoms appeared suddenly, apparently without any precipitating cause. The patient had always suffered from mild phobiasbeing afraid of guns, bumblebees, snakes, hypodermics and, occasionally, of crowds and gatherings of strangers. However, "toughness" stood out in his personality. He had always had "crazy dreams," lately severe night­ mares. In a recent one, four men in full military gear, including guns, had taken a blood test on him and a group of friends. T h e y did it roughly and blood streamed down his arm. This dream makes one wonder whether the battle incident in itself pre­ cipitated the acute anxiety state. It seems more likely that the actual danger situation on the raft only contributed by temporarily decreasing the ego's ability to deal with other conflicts, possibly of a homosexual nature, that were activated by the situation in the service. As in the case of several high-scoring male interviewees, the parents died when the patient was young. From the age of 1 2 on, the subject and his older brother were raised by the two older sisters. Little material on childhood history was recorded by the therapist. Of the family relationships we know only that the patient had, at the time of his treatment, warm feelings for his brother who, he said, bullied him in childhood to some extent. The patient still spoke with resentment of his sisters, who "dominated" him and whose guardianship he resented. The patient's symptoms disappeared after six interviews in which his fam­ ily relationships were discussed. He was also given explanations of the psy­ chological and physiological mechanisms in fear and read some mental

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

945

hygiene literature on this point. This, he said, had been helpful because it showed him "what our minds are made up of." Our last example is concerned with another type of case with a very in­ fantile personality, who had had a schizophrenic episode in the service and was diagnosed as a "schizophrenia, simple type." He said in his statement of complaint that he came to the Clinic "because I want to be natural again." He felt that a few years ago he had "a good personality, but that is gone now." He complained of lack of interest in anything, inability to concentrate or to enjoy anything, of "nervousness," "restlessness," and a "depressed and dazed feeling." He couldn't "make friends or get acquainted." He found it very hard to keep a job. The patient, a 26-year-old man who lived at home with his father, had no friends, no girl friend, and no idea what he would like to do. He felt timid, very discouraged, empty, and utterly lonely. His relationships to his family were shallow and frustrating. The patient was the second of six siblings—he had one older brother, four younger sisters. His mother was committed to a mental institution when the patient was 1 0 years old. The children were raised in different foster homes and had little contact with one another. He felt lonely and unhappy. When interviewed, the patient could not even give the exact ages of his younger sisters, but said, "I miss m y family." The rela­ tionship to his father was very disturbing to the patient, who found it some­ what hard to admit this. The father was a strict Catholic and a punitive person with a bad temper, who had little understanding of the patient. He told his son that he would leave him if he could not stay at his present job. He also advised the subject to avoid psychiatrists and consult the priest instead. The patient seemed to be afraid of, and submissive to, his father in most respects, and had much underlying hostility toward him. This man made high scores on the E and F scales, a middle score on PEC. The interview disclosed that the patient had no idea about most current issues. His prejudice, as expressed in the questionnaire, seemed to be related in part to his uncritical acceptance of all kinds of cliches about outgroups and to a general underlying hostility and a feeling of futility and threatening chaos. One of his main ideas was the importance of segregation of all kinds of minority groups "to avoid fights." He felt "there will be trouble" and that "the country is going to the dogs." Almost his only specific accusation against outgroups was that Negroes are inferior and aggressive. (At the same time, the patient said that he was the only white orderly in the military hos­ pital who did not mind waiting on Negro patients. Perhaps this was due to an "ingratiation mechanism" which also made it possible for the patient to "get along" with his father.) The following statements of complaint by high-scoring men may serve to illustrate further the personality trends discussed earlier. One subject came to the hospital for gastro-intestinal study in connection

946

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

with a project in psychosomatic medicine. He said he had suffered from stomach ulcers for fifteen years, complained of "nervousness and depressed attitude." He had done much worrying about his stomach. His nervousness had markedly increased since his wife was operated on for thyroid trouble. Also, living with in-laws had been trying. Another patient, who had been diagnosed as a "psychopathic personality with homosexuality and psychosomatic features," gave the following story in his first interview. Tension, headaches, "peculiar feelings," jumpiness, gas pains, and fear of being attacked. The symptoms appeared after an appendec­ tomy a year earlier. Since then he had been afraid that a certain person would do him physical harm. "Shortly after that I was in a car accident and the same fellow tried to harm me. I didn't feel strong enough to protect myself." A third case was diagnosed "psychopathic personality with pathological sexuality and neurotic trends." He was suspected of having duodenal ulcers, but no diagnosis had been made. The court had committed this patient to the hospital because he had exposed himself sexually to a small girl. The record of the first interview runs as follows: The patient doesn't know why he does it. Relates a long history of sexual pre­ occupations after being warned by his brother about masturbation and relations with girls. Has had fights when he has felt that someone was making fun of him or that something was due him and was being refused. Says he has always been rather close-mouthed, doesn't like to ask favors of anyone, and doesn't want to be indebted to anyone. Three years ago he noticed that his ability to concentrate and to think fast was somewhat impaired. His job as an oil driller necessitated keen coordination and he was responsible for several injuries to the ground crew for which he subsequently blamed himself and felt that he could have prevented them if he had been more on his toes. Decided to give up oil drilling, became a welder. The patient confessed and stated that he was guilty of sexual exposure on one occasion but vigorously denied the others. The incident occurred when he was driving to work early in the morning, and the next thing he remembers was some­ time in the afternoon. He recalls having exposed himself to a young girl on the corner, offering her a nickel to play with his penis. He became violently upset over this, felt that he had been working too hard, and took a week's vacation. Had been working fifteen or sixteen hours daily. A fourth example is afforded by a high-scoring man diagnosed as "psychoneurosis, anxiety state" whose statement of complaint was as follows: Rapid breathing, pain over precordium, anxiety, and tension. Patient states he does not know when his trouble started but has never felt well since a car ac­ cident five years ago, when he fractured two ribs and struck his head. Developed headaches which came on if he had been worrying. His work, and especially the union men working under him have irritated him greatly. An increasing source of aggravation has been trouble with the production in the factory. Since the last summer vacation in the mountains he has developed more breathlessness, vomit­ ing, diarrhea, some headaches, dreams of a senseless, disagreeable character. Symp­ toms reappear when he returns to work.

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

947

In the final example the diagnosis was "psychoneurosis, mixed, obsessive, compulsive and anxiety features, alcohol addiction," and the statement of complaint: Being nervous and drinking too much. "I am afraid I'm going crazy." Patient says that prior to four years ago he was perfectly well. Following a ball game, when he was home alone, minding the baby, he suffered a sudden onset of fear with profuse perspiration, palpitation, and trembling. He was afraid that he might harm himself or the child in some way. The doctor told him it was just nervousness and gave him phenobarbitol. Since that time he has had many such attacks, but not as severe. Can't account for the episodes. About one year ago he found that one shot of whiskey would make him "normal again." This progressed slowly, building up to a pint a day and ever since. Since taking alcohol, he has been able to cut down the phenobarbitol almost entirely. He says he never gets completely drunk, but cannot get along without drinking. Realizes he is taking more and more and that this is quite expensive. The patient is anxious to stop drinking and to work out his problem. States there is no problem in his family relations. b. HIGH-SCORING W O M E N . The high-scoring women showed the same types of anxiety and hypochondriacal symptoms as did the men; sometimes these appeared in more compulsive, sometimes in "phobic," sometimes in schizoid personalities. Many of them suffered from "spells," either of anxiety and/or of hyperventilation symptoms and loss of consciousness or of tension . and temper outbursts. In some, all of these features were present. The following statements of complaints are typical: Nervous attacks, easily upset. For three years. Attacks of confusion, tingling, tremors for eighteen months. The nervous spell consists of dizzy feeling in her head leading almost to unconsciousness, numbness, and tingling in her extremities. Breathing at the onset is fast and the heart starts beating fast. The symptoms began to appear after husband was shipped overseas. Husband is described as personally and sexually compatible. Questioning brought out, however, that there is some friction because he is not considerate enough of the children. (Essentially the same physical symptoms as in the first example were related.) Also, the patient was terrified of dying of heart failure during her spells. She got very tense and irritable at the children and occasionally squeezed their throats until she regained composure. Alarmed at these tendencies, the patient sought help. (Same physical symptoms as above.) Panic, crying spells, sexual difficulties, and jealousy of husband. Spells started three and a half years ago, when she felt "an electric shock passing from the bottom of her feet to her head." After this fol­ lowed the first "spell." They have recurred two or three times a day since. The patient is afraid of death during a spell, of heart trouble, of cancer, of "losing my mind," and of harming her children during a spell. The following case is the only one of this type that was interviewed. The patient was a young, lower middle-class housewife with two children. Her husband was a semi-skilled worker who had been on the night shift since their marriage ten years ago. Patient feared the dark as a child and had never liked staying home at night alone, but a few months ago her anxiety became

948

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

acute. She locked all windows and doors at night, for fear someone might come in and attack her and the children. T w o months ago, while dozing off at night, she awoke with a sudden anxiety attack and then lost conscious­ ness. Every day since then she has become very tense and has had pains in the cords of her neck. She has had a feeling of being hot and cold at the same time, and a queer sinking feeling. Occasionally she has had spells of shaking and fainting. She has been able to call someone to help her each time just before losing consciousness. At such times she also has had fits of screaming. Afterwards, she has had amnesia for part of the event. The following history material and personality picture was gleaned from inter­ views, T.A.T. stories, and from a series of dreams reported during her therapy. The symptoms refer primarily to a present conflict about the patient's dis­ satisfaction with her marriage. This conflict is patterned after an earlier one involving her relationships to her family, particularly one brother. The patient and her two older brothers were raised on a rather isolated farm. T h e y had few friends and even in adolescence the patient was not permitted to go out much nor to have dates or witness boys' athletic events unchaperoned. The parents were Swiss Catholic immigrants who adhered strictly to their old-world mores. The mother seems to have been particularly severe with regard to toilet and cleanliness training—as indicated also by her present treatment of the grandchildren—and to have completely suppressed, the children's noisiness and overt hostility. The sexual taboos were strictly observed; the children were trained to be extremely modest and were given no sex instruction. This type of training has produced a number of reaction formations in the patient, e.g., excessive concern with neatness, punctuality, obedience, and modesty. Aside from these facts, it is difficult to form a con­ crete realistic picture of the personalities and relationships in the subject's family, as her descriptions were so extremely idealized. She described the father as an old-fashioned but very jovial and mild man; the mother as a nervous and somewhat ailing but hard-working, generous, and kind woman and good mother; the brothers as particularly nice and good natured. The patient claimed she "had a lot of fun" in childhood, and "never fought" with the two brothers. Similarly, she insisted that there was nothing wrong in her relationship with her husband except for his working nights, for which he is not to blame. She said that sexual relations, though often somewhat hurried, were usually satisfactory—though she occasionally did not achieve an orgasm. The dreams and T.A.T. revealed, however, that the patient had a great deal of unconscious hostility towards her husband, as well as towards her mother, her favorite brother, and men in general, who were represented as aggressive and sexually brutal. This unconscious imagery of men as "at­ tackers" was expressed consciously in her thinking about certain outgroups such as Negroes and Mexicans. The dreams also suggest a conflict over sexual

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

949

and oral-aggressive impulses directed towards men. The contexts in which the orality and aggression appeared (smashing snakes, biting into chicken drumsticks, etc.) suggest infantile wishes to bite, destroy and incorporate a penis. Dangerous, electrically charged wire fences belonging to an enclosure for chickens (such as existed on her parents' farm) formed a recurrent theme; the patient unwittingly climbed a fence or touched it, with the result­ ing sensation of "being shaken" and of inability to tear herself away from the fence until the current was shut off. Here, it seems, there is reenactment of fears connected with the gratification of infantile wishes—probably sexual ones. This is likely also to be the meaning of her shaking and fainting spells, of which the dream scene is reminiscent. T o this subject, the expression of hostility represented a special problem. She could not admit any aggression towards her husband or family, inhibit­ ing most expressions of anger and irritation behind a facade of submissive compliance and somewhat forced cheerfulness. In therapy it was revealed that her shaking and fainting spells always followed incidents in which a man provoked her anger by acting in a deprecating and implicitly aggressive and demanding manner, while she retained a calm and good-humored at­ titude. Thus, the first spell occurred after a card game in which her husband called her attention to an ace she had overlooked. She said that ordinarily she would have become angry with her husband, but this time she "laughed it off." Other spells have occurred after she was asked to pay a bill which had already been paid and after she was told she would have to pay more for an article than the price previously agreed upon. In both cases she felt no anger at the time but had a "spell" later. This case can be described as an anxiety hysteria in which compulsive trends play a role, and in which conflicts about hostile impulses are par­ ticularly important. The other cases with anxiety and "nervous spells" are probably dynamically similar. There was one case with a psychogenic pa­ ralysis of the right arm and face. This woman had a very rigid character and some compulsive traits. She, too, had extreme unconscious hostility towards men, particularly her former husband. The symptom appeared after she had struck her brother, to whom she had an ambivalent erotic attachment, when he made sexual advances towards her. Another personality pattern found among the ethnocentric subjects might be called the constricted infantile schizoid type. Here, too, compulsive traits are an important part of the picture. Some of these cases, when acutely dis­ turbed, had feelings of depersonalization and apathy. The following case is an example: The patient was a 27-year-old college graduate who had been married about a year and had just had a baby. She looked and acted younger than her age, and generally made the impression of a naive, very "good little girl." She was very inhibited—in the expression of both sensuality and aggression—

OjO

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

and her ego was occupied to a very large extent with maintaining order, cleanliness, control, and a good facade. She did this b y limiting her interests and concentrating on religion and her duties. The latter were carried out efficiently, and this gave her a sense of satisfaction. Before her marriage she achieved this kind of satisfaction through secretarial work; at the time of admission to the Clinic she was interested exclusively in housekeeping. The patient described her father as a "stern disciplinarian" whom she had always feared. She resented his treatment of her husband of whom he did not approve, but she was unable to admit this resentment. She described her mother in the familiar idealized terms and said: "I have always respected her." She had several brothers with whom she competed for love and ap­ proval, and, like many of our high-scoring women, she ended this competi­ tion by accepting—on the surface—a completely feminine and submissive role. The husband, a social service worker, was still in the army, and so was not with the patient after the birth of the child. It was at this time that the patient began to feel "peculiar like in a fog" and as though she were "not quite m y ­ self." She was oriented in space and time but could not carry out some of the simplest tasks, in spite of very superior mental ability which, according to tests, had not been affected by her illness. Her physicians thought it best to have the patient join her husband at the earliest possible moment. She was thought well enough to travel alone with the baby. Unexpectedly, during the trip she had to change plans. This stumped her completely. She just sat down with her baby in the waiting room at the airport, quite lost and not able to ask for information nor to make arrangements for herself. She did not improve much after she had joined her husband. In going shopping, for in­ stance, she would stand before the grocery shelves, unable to think of things to buy. The patient was very alarmed and depressed about her condition. In the hospital she kept repeating her complaints over and over, and said she feared she was going crazy and that she could not be helped. The husband reported that the patient had changed in other respects too. Whereas she had been sexually rather frigid before the delivery, she all of a sudden became very passionate. Hospitalization and psychotherapy seemed to do little good. So the patient was discharged and brought in by her husband at intervals for electric shock treatments. After very few treatments the patient felt normal and both she and her husband felt that she was now less inhibited, warmer, and able to enjoy herself more. At the present time the psychological meanings and effects of shock treat­ ments are not sufficiently understood to permit theorizing concerning its role in this case. Its evaluation is rendered the more difficult by the fact that the patient had received and was receiving psychotherapy. The doctors' and husband's acceptance of her newly awakened sensuality may have helped

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

951

the patient to accept this part of herself, and this may have been an important factor in her improvement. Another case of the same general type was a 24-year-old mother of two children. She too had an episode of depersonalization and forgetfulness fol­ lowing the birth of the first child. This woman could have been taken for a naive high school girl. Her usual submissive and conventional "good girl" be­ havior occasionally alternated with outbursts of anger and spite. She was a very dependent person with no ideas and opinions of her own and without interests outside of the domestic sphere. W h e n her husband's support was withdrawn (because of illness) just after she had her second child, she suf­ fered a paranoid schizophrenic episode, became afraid someone would harm her and the children, that her husband or relatives would take one of her daughters out and not bring her back. Still another case was that of a girl who had always been a particularly con­ scientious worker and who was completely submissive to her rigid, unsym­ pathetic parents and aggressive older sister, without ever becoming aware of any resentment. W h e n this girl was promoted to a job of considerable re­ sponsibility she developed extreme headaches and entered a state of depres­ sion and anxiety, in which she accused herself of being bad, thought people were looking at her, and feared she would lose her mind. This girl and several other high-scoring women suffered, during the acute stages of their illness, from a mood disturbance which could only be de­ scribed as "agitated depression." (In some cases this was accompanied by suicidal ideas.) These depressions, however, were different from those seen in the patients who were subject to periodic neurotic depressions. T h e y were often accompanied b y somewhat bizarre ideas and in general showed schizoid qualities. For this reason they were sometimes labeled schizo-affective reactions. Few of these cases had the slightest idea of or interest in current issues and were very unsure of the few ideas they could voice during the interviews. Their ideologies about outgroups were meager, less elaborated, and even more naive and stereotyped than those of less disturbed high-scoring subjects. Their rejection of outgroups—in the abstract at least—was extremely strong, leading to very high prejudice scores and often to emotionally charged re­ sponses during interviews such as "You wouldn't want to have a black baby, would y o u ? " This is an expression of their particular ego weakness, necessitat­ ing special efforts at creating and maintaining countercathexes. 2.

THE L O W SCORERS

The pattern formed b y the symptoms in List B of Category VII is dif­ ferent. The unacceptable impulses—although not all conscious nor undis­ guised—are more ego-assimilated and are perceived as part of the self. The

952

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

low-scoring patients generally came to the Clinic with a particular psycho­ logical problem they wanted to solve. T h e y complained of certain conflicts or anxieties about some more or less definite idea or situation or were consciously dissatisfied with their sex role. Many of these are character neuroses. The "evil" was not sought outside but in the self. Elsewhere in the present volume it has been shown that high scorers on E are typically extrapunitive, while low scorers are intrapunitive. Intrapunitiveness has been understood as a sign of a strict but internalized superego and probably also of a somewhat masochistic character structure. The psychologically ill low scorers seem to show this tendency in exaggerated form: in (neurotic) depression, suicidal ideas, inferiority, and guilt feelings. Their greater acceptance of their instinctual and fantasy lives and their relative independence from conventional restrictions give great variety, in­ dividuality, and even bizarreness to the pathological ideas and behavior of these patients. In some ways many of these patients (although by no means all of them) behaved in a w a y that is opposite to the cultural norm for their sex. Some of the men were shy, timid, passive, and dependent and had some interests more often found in women. Some of the women were aggressive, less inter­ ested in home and family than in some occupational achievement. Homo­ sexuality and sexual perversions were more freely admitted, and conflicts about such impulses were often quite conscious and undisguised. (This does not mean that the low scorers have more homosexual tendencies. There are probably just as many if not many more high scorers with such impulses. But in the latter case, these impulses and fantasies are strongly disguised and re­ pressed.) a. LOW-SCORING MEN. The low scorers on E presented such a variety of complaints and clinical pictures that it is almost impossible to fit them into a few "types." W h i l e some had psychoses or classical neuroses with anxietyhysterical and compulsive symptoms, many cases presented character dis­ orders which had come to the fore or were accentuated because of situational factors. An example of this type was a very dependent man, married to a more aggressive woman to whom he was very much attached and sexually attracted. The relationship, always problematic, had become intolerable since the wife had a second child whom she rejected. The Clinic suggested foster-home placement for the child. The patient could not accept this nor could he decide to leave his famliy. Broadly speaking, the low-scoring men were generally unaggressive, nurturant, often somewhat withdrawn and inhibited socially. T h e y came to the Clinic with depressions and conscious anxieties relating to problems of sex, work, or general adjustment. In contrast to the high-scoring men, the prob­ lems as stated by these patients referred directly to their relationships to others. During the war a few of them suffered acute conflict about the prob-

PSYCHOLOGICAL

ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

953

lem of participation, leading, in a few cases, to self-inflicted injuries to avoid the draft, in others to conscientious objection. This was not primarily because of fear of physical injury or death but because of ideological reasons and a horror of being forced to kill. An illustrative case is that of a young man of college age who had been in a camp for conscientious objectors. He was short and slight. His manner and speech betrayed much tension and self-consciousness. He was very unsure of himself and suffered somewhat from compulsive doubt and indecision. He had well-formed opinions about some subjects—such as the problems of minorities and pacifism—but in most areas he was quite uncertain, mentioning one opinion and then retreating when challenged by the interviewer, saying "I really don't know much about it yet—I have to read a lot more." He was keenly interested in politics and concerned about social progress. He realized that his occupational choice—to counsel people about their personal problems —stemmed from awareness of his own inner struggles and from his own desire to be helped. The patient voluntarily sought help because of restlessness, anxiety, occa­ sional depression, and inability to concentrate. He also had severe feelings of inadequacy, stage-fright, social anxiety, and several fears-of the dark, of physical injury, and of graveyards and mental institutions. The patient's father was of lower-class origin with a grade-school educa­ tion, who became a carpenter, then a farmer and minister in a fundamentalist church. He was a stern, dominating and punitive man with narrow, funda­ mentalist and puritanical ideas, who made the children work hard on the farm and dealt out severe corporal punishment. The mother, a church singer, would have liked to push the father into a higher ministerial position. She was ashamed of her husband's fire and brimstone sermons and his denuncia­ tion of vices he himself possessed. Though not punitive herself, she did not actively take the children's part. She tried to appease the father b y con­ formity to his demands, and she tried to influence the children to do the same. There was much discord between the parents which was painful to the patient. He usually sided with the mother, who had made him her special confidant. Although he had been close to his mother in his earlier life, the patient was, at the time of the interview, rather critical of her. The patient had one brother, several years his senior, with whom he was never close but whom he liked and respected and wanted to know better. He was quite close, however, to his twin brother, taller, stronger, and more ag­ gressive than the patient, and admired him for his poise and school achieve­ ment. The patient let his brother play the socially aggressive role and also let the brother go ahead in football while the patient remained in the back­ ground, doing the chores on the farm. The brother submitted to the father, did not resist the corporal punishment and, so far, remained a conformist. The patient, on the other hand, always resisted the father's punishment to

954

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

some extent, though often in fantasy only; he felt the father was doing him a wrong, often broke the father's rules, and finally tried to break completely with the parental ideology with regard to religion, mores, and politics. This process caused the patient a great deal of conscious anxiety and conflict. The core of the neurosis was undoubtedly the partly repressed hostility against the father, complicated by the relationship to the twin brother. The following are excerpts from the first psychiatric interviews of lowscoring men: The patient says that since childhood he has been somewhat withdrawn, making very few social contacts, remaining in his room for days at a time. Never has had any particular interests, heroes, or ideals other than the vague feeling that he should somehow get a good job and become a respectable member of society. But he "loses interest and becomes bored with a job as soon as he finds out that he can handle it." He has had a variety of positions from laborer to personnel interviewer. When the job becomes intolerable, feelings of anxiety and frustration are at their height. He will feel very dissatisfied with himself as well as with the job and then try to change jobs. He shot off the middle finger of one hand "in a hysterical effort to escape the draft." He feels that psychotherapy is his "last chance" to straighten out and settle down mentally. The patient complained of acute anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and present inability to work or make decisions. He said the problem worrying him was whether he was a homosexual and if so, how could he make a happy adjust­ ment to it? While in the army, the patient had formed a strong attachment to a homosexual man of his own age who, for a long time, encouraged and courted, then suddenly rejected him. When the relationship had become very strained, the patient was very angry and thought of killing the friend, but instead made a suicide attempt, wounding himself quite severely with a gun. The patient suffers from feelings of depression, primarily in reaction to receiv­ ing a letter from his girl friend stating that she had married someone else. They had been friends on a purely platonic basis, sharing intellectual interests. Also he feels bitter and hopeless about his recent transfer from a public service camp to a government camp where he has no opportunity for constructive activity. He feels the CO. camps should provide more public service, not be there merely for pur­ poses of detention. There were two cases with hysterical symptoms: One pianist, with a his­ tory of various mild hysterical conversion symptoms while in the service, who complained of numbness and partial loss of function of the right index finger; one student who suffered from anxiety nightmares and fainting spells, particularly during examination times. The fainting spells had first appeared in situations in which he had felt attacked by his very aggressive, brutal father. Finally, there were a few low-scoring men with mild cases of schizo­ phrenia. Actually, their E scores were in the low end of the low middle quar­ tile. But interviews revealed that timidity had inhibited the questionnaire

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

955

responses in one case in which the subject was really strongly opposed to prejudice. This patient had always been a seclusive, somewhat compulsive, obviously schizoid person. Although all his relationships were weak and ego­ centric, he gave a history of having been somewhat closer to his mother than to his father, whom he described as particularly puritanical, stern, and co­ ercive. He expressed much hatred for his father, but there was evidence that some of these sentiments were actually expressions of unconscious fantasies of homosexual submission to the father. W h i l e an officer in the army, he suffered from feelings of jealousy regarding his wife, hopelessness and rest­ lessness, finally ending in a schizophrenic episode in which he imagined that a number of his subordinates were criticizing his work and were spying on him and talking about him. He became so angry he wanted to kill these individuals. In spite of these tendencies towards projection, the parent was strongly intrapunitive, as shown by the ideas just cited as well as by his responses to the questionnaire and projective items. The other schizophrenic from the low middle quartile, a young seaman, claimed that he experienced sexual satisfaction only when he deliberately soiled his trousers. He reported various bizarre fantasies, usually of sadistic actions directed against women. He imagined that his shipmates knew about his secret sexual practice and that they looked down on him and rejected turn for it. He sought help voluntarily. In the projections of this and the previous case, both intrapunitive charicters, the superego seems to play a different role than it does in the charac­ teristic projections of the high scorers, where the self is seen as the virtuous Dne, the "others" as the representatives of the id. W h i l e undoubtedly the two psychotic cases' just cited projected some of their repressed impulses, e.g., homosexual and sadistic ones, onto their environment, they did this to a .mailer degree than did the high scorers. In addition, they projected their 3 w n superego strivings onto the environment, feeling that others—more or less justifiably—rejected and punished them. D. LOW-SCORING W O M E N . It was brought out in Section D that a great nany of the low-scoring women were classified as "mixed neurosis." This s partly due to the fact that in the classification scheme used, no separate :ategory was available for neurotic depression, one of the main complaints jf our low-scoring group. Also, the diagnosis of mixed neurosis was usually -esorted to in the case of character disorders. These also were prevalent imong the low-scoring women. The following excerpts from the first psychiatric interviews are typical of :he low-quartile women. Feelings of depression were given as main com­ plaints by low-scoring patients with a great variety of other problems. Even :he one schizophrenic scoring in the low quartile complained of the charac:eristic depression and feelings of inadequacy. The prevalence of passivity md orality is also to be noted.

Q

j6

T H E AUTHORITARIANPERSONALITY

Main concern is "that I have failed repeatedly with everything I do." Com­ plains of lack of self-confidence in her abilities and in her work. States " I have budt up such a resentment toward myself that I am afraid I will commit suicide. Several of these women, suffering from depression, felt that their symptom was related to their difficult relationship to their mothers. One young woman said she felt "a great deal of hatred" for her mother and got sleepy and irritable whenever her mother was around. She is depressed, with loss of appetite, lassitude, and suicidal thoughts, wants to lie down all the time, requires an abnormal amount of sleep-fifteen to sixteen hours-but without gaining a feeling of vitality afterwards. Another woman stated that she felt "things are too hard"-she'd rather go to bed. Felt depressed, weak, irritable. In two women, the central problem was their conscious struggle with homosexual impulses. One young girl with strong intellectual interests had had a violent crush on a female teacher during adolescence. Later she formed crushes on men. She is aware of some homosexual tendencies. She has a strong desire for friend­ ship and love relationships. Depending on the satisfaction and frustration of this need, she alternates between periods of elation and depression. The other had crying spells, the desire to sleep all the time, and also suf­ fered from vomiting and cramps. Some of the women sought help mainly because they felt they were harm­ ing their children by their neurotic behavior. All of these were rather active women with interests outside the home, and with a great desire for achieve­ ment and for playing a more or less masculine role. One woman had married an invalid man whom she admired for his intel­ lectual talents. She worked to support him and their child, waiting on her husband hand and foot when at home. She continually drove herself to under­ take too much, felt nervous, did not sleep well, and felt she "wasn't a decent mother." She often got spells of excessive eating, followed by depression. Formerly she had had the same "spells" of drinking. Another case is that of a married woman about 3 0 years of age who had one child of a previous marriage. She had felt extremely depressed and unable to work since she discovered that she was pregnant again. She did not want the baby because it would mean giving up a career she had just started with much satisfaction, but could not think of offering it for adoption because her husband very much wanted a child. She wanted to have help so that she would either be able to accept the child or decide to give it up. She said, "I bitterly resent having been bom a female." From her history, it appeared that she had always actively competed with boys or men. As a kindergarten child she picked fights with little b o y s - " I liked to beat them to a pulp to show them who was really something." She was married twice previously,

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

957

each time to a brilliant and successful man with whom she would compete bitterly. These marriages were unsuccessful. At the time of her treatment, she was happily married to a more passive man who admired her and encour­ aged her professional ambitions. The patient was a serious, sensitive, tense person who was uncomfortable and shy in groups and preferred to be or work alone. Asked about her early life, she described herself as a thoroughly undisciplined, nonconforming child, who in spite of very high intelligence could not do well in school because she got bored and refused to do work she disliked. She did not get along with other children, and preferred to do art work by herself. In later childhood she wanted to be a cowgirl. In adoles­ cence she went through a very rebellious period, then took art training and became a radical. She was talented and had had some success in various artistic fields. She was interested in modern experimental art forms and in the repre­ sentation of psychological moods. She was politically left-wing but felt she could not be of great use to any political movement because of her shyness and inability to function in groups or to approach people. She described herself and her history with much psychological perceptiveness, frankness, and insight. In spite of this, psychotherapy was difficult because everything was told in a very intellectualized fashion. Instead of letting herself feel the appropriate emotions, the patient usually managed to keep quite aloof, care­ fully choosing her words to describe her early environment and history. The patient had had previous periods of depression, each time when some­ thing blocked her professional ambitions. The last episode was very severe: She became afraid there was a man in the house who could harm her, and she developed such a loathing for herself that she felt her skin was covered with repulsive fish scales. The history revealed that she was the only child of two rather neurotic people, who in her early childhood gave the girl a good deal of freedom and individual attention. In spite of this, she often felt lonely and "left out." Through the circumstance of the parents' separation when the patient was 5, the patient came to feel that her mother had caused the beloved father much suffering and was responsible for the separation. She began to feel great dis­ gust for and hostility towards her mother, who became the prototype for her image of the "shallow, pretty, exploiting woman." Her professional interests and activities were based on identification with her professionally successful father, and perhaps also her stepmother. It is not necessary for our purpose to go into a detailed discussion of the dynamics of this woman's personality and development. The case was pre­ sented merely as a description of one type of female patient found among the low scorers. Though too extreme to be representative, the case has many characteristics typical of a whole group of low-scoring women, usually polit­ ical radicals or militant liberals: the masculine identification (which is un­ usually strong here), the competition with men and striving for professional

Oj8

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

achievement, the rejection of femininity and inability to accept the role of mother. The latter two are exceptionally pronounced here. In most of oi low-scoring women there were strong feminine identifications also whic were in conflict with the "masculine" strivings. In contrast to the higl scoring women, there i s - a s with low-scoring women generally-little con pulsiveness, less constriction, greater richness of fantasy life-here expresst in artistic and other professional fields-introversion (here particular strong), and concern with ideas and inner experience. The patient tried 1 handle her conflicts b y seeking rational explanations (therapy) and b y sub! mations. In a few of the low-scoring women anxiety symptoms predominated, these cases, feelings of inadequacy were quite prominent and there w anxiety and shyness in certain social situations. One woman felt so unea: in groups that she frequently broke into a sweat. She was also jealous of h husband's interest in other women and afraid she might retaliate b y having affair, as she did once before. Another patient, an unmarried woman wl was embarrassed in social situations, had developed tremors whenever s had to hold a cup or stemmed glass, or when filling out application blanl After having fallen down the stairs at a party where she was very uncomfo: able, she developed a panic of going down stairs. Also, the patient thoug she was always attracted b y the wrong men-usually very neurotic m< One very inhibited young girl came to the Clinic because she was afraid r former enuresis might return. She thought she would use the symptom avoid social engagements, of which she was somewhat afraid. She felt ve guilty about her adolescent sexual interests. She had night terrors aboui half hour after going to sleep, in which she saw something coming down her—sometimes a net, sometimes a swarm of bugs. Sometimes an abstn shape of a person would crawl into her bed. She would scream and jump ( of bed. One case was of a more phobic character. The girl had had an anir phobia. W h e n seen at the Clinic she was in a "confused anxious state," afr of entering graduate school, particularly of going to see her graduate : visor. She could not bring herself to go to him and discuss her work. 5 felt that she had not accomplished much. She was also worried because : did not feel warmly towards anyone, because she felt rather hostile—parti larly toward her mother. There was one case with obsessive-compulsive symptoms, a woman -« a previous depressive episode. At the time of her treatment she was unable do her (clerical) work for fear she might write down something that wo embarrass her or damage someone else. The trouble began at 1 7 when feared to write down "darn" or "damn." (Swearing was severely condemi by her strict father, whom she reported she hated.) Years later, after she r about rape in the papers she began to w o r r y about the word "rape." N o w was afraid of writing down something pertaining to her current employ

1

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

959

raping or attacking her. She was never certain whether she had not by chance inserted these ideas into a letter, or into other products of her typing work. For the last few years she had found that sedatives and alcohol would relieve her condition. One of the low-scoring women was classified as a paranoid schizophrenic. Yet her complaints, except for a few bizarre ideas, were similar to the ones reported by other low-scoring women suffering primarily from depression. The patient described with much insight her extreme sensitivity to other people's reactions, her concern lest she be rejected by others, her early feel­ ings of insecurity and of being unwanted. She said her illness started with nervousness, indecision, and fears "of not being able to keep a job, that I might harm people, of dying of a cerebral hemorrhage (her mother had died in this w a y ) ; afraid I was going to die and none knew about it or cared." W h e n first interviewed she complained of being depressed and lacking in the ability to concentrate on her work. She was afraid people were "question­ ing her motives" and had tried to read her mind by saying things to elicit her reactions. She felt a change in the attitude of her family towards her. She had been weak and tired, attributing this to a drug which she believed was used in the food at the previous hospital. She said "there is a barrier between me and other people erected by myself. Last week I felt closer to people." Finally, there were two cases who were referred by physicians to whom they had turned because of physical symptoms. In one case the main com­ plaint was a headache and "hypersensitivity to light, necessitating wearing of dark glasses." The other case complained mainly of dismenorrhea, also of nausea and of muscular pains simulating her mother's arthritis. Both cases traced their symptoms to accidents. Although little material on these patients was available, it seemed very likely that they were cases of conversion hysteria. 3.

THE

"MIDDLES"

Most of the data just presented pertain only to patients receiving E scores within the high or low quartiles. W e have, of course, collected some data on "middle scorers." First, there were the questionnaire data, including responses to Projective Questions, and second, the psychiatric diagnoses and Minnesota Multiphasic scores. These indicated that, on the whole, "low middles" re­ sembled the low scorers more, the "high middles" showed more resemblance to the high scorers. In addition, several clinical case studies were made of patients with middle scores. In these cases one could clearly discern both "high" and "low" per­ sonality trends and, sometimes, curious inconsistencies in ideology and be­ havior. This was true of some of our most disturbed patients. Most of the psychotic patients made middle scores—a few were "low middles," but most of them made high middle scores. Some explanations of this trend have been

960

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

advanced in Section D above; it seemed to be related in these patients to ego weakness and unconcern with social reality. There were, of course, people with middle scores who were relatively little disturbed, but we have very little information concerning them. The total sample of Clinic subjects contained 2 7 cases diagnosed as psy­ chotic. Of these, 7 0 per cent ( 1 9 cases) made scores in the middle quartiles. This percentage is considerably greater than chance (which would be 5 0 per cent) and is significant at the 5 per cent level. However, little weight can be given this result because of the small number of cases. The clinical case studies also indicate that many of the most disturbed patients tended to make middle rather than extreme scores. In these cases it can often be shown that the over-all personality picture is either "high" or "low" but that the neurotic or psychotic processes lead to certain contra­ dictory opinions, or attitudes that are the opposite. An example of such a picture is a schizophrenic man, a strongly intrapunitive person, thoroughly opposed to any kind of prejudice against minorities, usually a pacifist (and believer in a vague humanitarianism) who at certain times expressed marked chauvinism and destructive ideas directed against other nations. He developed these ideas when control of his own homosexu­ ality and hostility was threatening to collapse. Another case is that of a man with a strongly paranoid character who had the most outspoken fascist ideology. This man's character structure and his scores on the F and PEC scales revealed that in most respects this man was very much like our highscoring subjects. Great hostility and fear of his father had prevented genuine identifications. But the subject spent all his efforts in a fruitless attempt to prove to himself and the world that he was more powerful, capable, intelli­ gent, and virtuous than his father. This manifested itself, among other ways, in continual though unrealistic and unsuccessful strivings for positions of power, in a grandiose conception of himself, in a verbose manner of speech and continual orientation toward making an impression on others. In many ways this man could be described as a psychopathic character. Still, he made only a low-middle score on E. Interviews revealed that this was related to a certain opposition to the father's prejudiced ideology, although in other areas this subject had very conventional values. Also, the mild opposition to preju­ dice seemed to rest on a certain amount of identification with deprived groups. For instance, he considered the differences between whites and Negroes to be primarily due to a difference in education; in fact he would like to solve all problems in the area of group relations b y giving educa­ tional opportunities to all. He also considers the basis for all his own failures to be his lack of a college education due to the fact that his father lost his money just when the patient was of college age. Needless to say, this subject's ideology differed qualitatively from that of low-middle subjects whose

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

961

characters were more typical of low scorers. These differences, however, were revealed only in the interview. H.

CONCLUSIONS

In this concluding section we shall discuss the problem of the relationship between ethnocentrism and psychological ill health in the light of the find­ ings just reported. First, however, it will be necessary to make a statement about the degree to which conclusions drawn on the basis of findings from the Langley Porter Clinic group can be generalized. In our description of the sample (Section B ) we have defined the Langley Porter Clinic population as a group coming mainly from the urban lower middle-class and, on the average, somewhat younger and slightly more educated and more intelligent than the general population, and more cooperative than average. In these respects Langley Porter Clinic patients are probably similar to patient groups from other psychiatric clinics in large American cities. Within the limits set by our selection procedure, the sample studied was thought to be fairly rep­ resentative of the Clinic population as a whole, although an exact comparison with the clinic population at large could not be made for want of available data. Results of the present investigation which were found to be statistically significant probably hold for similar clinic groups. A question then arises as to how representative these clinic groups are of the psychologically dis­ turbed (neurotic-psychotic) population as a whole. This question cannot be answered, because no one knows just what this population is like. There are countless individuals who have severe psychological disturbances but never come to the attention of clinics or private psychiatrists. On the other hand, a public clinic such as the one described probably covers a wider range of clinical pictures and social backgrounds than any other agency, certainly a much wider one than could be found among patients going to private ther­ apists and institutions. As far as the statistical significance of most of the results is concerned, much is left to be desired. The scope of the investigation did not permit the use of many more than 1 2 0 subjects. For many of our comparisons this group had to be divided into many small subgroups. Taken one by one, most of the numerical results therefore are not statistically significant, nor otherwise impressive. Whatever value there is in the present investigation lies more in the consistency of all of our findings with one another and with the findings of the study as a whole. N o w an attempt will be made to bring our findings to bear on several questions regarding the relationships between ethnocentrism and psycho­ logical ill health. All of the following questions have been raised in connection with the research findings reported in this book: ( 1 ) Are people with rela-

062

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

tively severe psychological disturbances on the average more or less preju­ diced than "normal" people? ( 2 ) Are people making extreme (high or l o w ) scores on the E scale also extreme on the dimension of mental health-mental illness? ( 3 ) Are high or low scorers prone to develop certain specific kinds of psychological disturbances? ( 4 ) Did the study of neurotic and psychotic subjects lead to new hypotheses about the character structure and its possible genetic sources in high and low scorers? ( 5 ) Is there any evidence that one of the two groups, at the opposite extremes of the E scale, was more severely disturbed than the other? Is there a relationship between ethnocentrism and psychosis?

1. Are people with relatively severe psychological disturbances on the average more or less prejudiced than "normal" people? W h e n the average ethnocentrism scores of the Langley Porter men and women were compared with scores obtained b y averaging all other groups, the Clinic group turned out to be slightly, but not significantly, less prejudiced than average. The scores showed a wide range and great variability, indicating that the group contained subjects of greatly varying ideologies and personalities. If one would like to generalize to a wider group of psychologically disturbed people, the Langley Porter Clinic mean is probably too low. As we have shown, the Clinic group was younger, somewhat more educated, intelligent, and cooperative than average. All these selective factors are known to show slight negative correlations with ethnocentrism. On these and other grounds it seems reasonable to assume that a large group of disturbed persons taken at random from the general population would on the average make prejudice scores similar to those of a group of nondisturbed people.

2. Are people making extreme (high or low) scores on the E scale also extreme on the dimension of mental health-mental illness? Most of the dy­ namic formulations in this book have been derived from comparisons of subjects scoring in the high and low quartiles. An objection to this procedure has been that perhaps high and low scorers are both deviant groups, that they are "marginal and neurotic," and that "normal people" in our society are "middles," that is, mildly in agreement with the stereotypes prevalent in our culture. In order to answer the above question conclusively one would first have to establish a reliable measure of degree of psychological disturbance. This could then be correlated with ethnocentrism in a large group of subjects. No such measure was available for the present investigation. However, there were some indications that the subjects receiving middle scores on E were at least as disturbed—if not more so-than the patients making extreme scores. This statement is based on some clinical case studies of neurotic and psychotic middle scorers and on the finding that 7 0 per cent of our psychotic subjects scored in the middle quartiles.

3. Are high or low scorers prone to develop certain specific kinds of psy­ chological disturbances? On the whole our data seem to show that the clinical

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

963

pictures of subjects in the high quartile resemble each other and differ system­ atically from the clinical pictures shown by patients from the low quartile. These trends cannot be completely described in terms of the conventional psychiatric classifications as they were used at Langley Porter Clinic. In these terms, the trends were partially expressed in a predominance of "mixed neurosis" with "depressive and anxiety features" in low-scoring women, of "anxiety states" in high-scoring women. The relationships were less marked in the men. However, clinically defined similarities among high-scoring cases, on the one hand, and low-scoring cases, on the other, cut across the lines drawn by these diagnostic classifications. There are high as well as low scorers in each of the major psychiatric categories (e.g., schizophrenia, manic-depressive psychosis, anxiety state, hysteria, obsessive-compulsive, and "mixed neurosis"). It cannot be decided here whether this is due to the essentially nondynamic nature of the classification system or to the w a y in which the classifications were applied b y the physicians. Probably both factors are responsible. More detailed study of the complaints as described b y the patients in a first psychiatric interview revealed the following differ­ ences in clinical pictures of high and low scorers. The subjects scoring high on ethnocentrism usually displayed very little awareness of their own feelings and psychological problems. W h a t is more, they tended to resist psychological explanations and to suppress emotion. Their complaints were very often devoid of any psychological content. The most common symptoms in both men and women were vague anxiety or physical signs of anxiety and rage. The more disturbed patients suffered from feelings of depersonalization, lack of interest, and depressed affect of a more schizoid type. V e r y many high-scoring men and women came to the Clinic with somatic complaints—some of them psychosomatic symptoms which could be understood as expressions of suppressed affects such as fear or rage. T h e y were inclined to dwell at length on these symptoms to the exclusion of other problems. Some showed pathological fear of sickness, physical injury, or death. The most frequent physical complaints of the high-scoring men in our group were stomach ulcers and physical expressions, such as tremors, sweat­ ing, etc., of tension and anxiety. Some of the cases had markedly compulsive characters, others appeared to be more "phobic" or to have characters built around defenses against passive homosexuality. In some of these cases fears of being injured or attacked, or other paranoid trends, were part of the pic­ ture. Other types of cases were primarily psychopathic (one of these had admitted sexual exposure to a child) and still others were overt homosexuals. All of them, except for one case of simple schizophrenia, showed to some extent the "toughness" and masculine facade together with various signs of extreme castration anxiety and underlying passivity. The majority of the high-scoring women complained of irritability, anxiety or hyperven-

964

T

H

E

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

tilation symptoms; many also had temper outbursts or attacks of trem­ bling, screaming, or fainting (probably equivalents of attacks of rage) and fear of dying during such an attack. W h e n one of these cases was studied in detail, it was found that her attacks of panic, trembling, fainting, and screaming were expressions of extreme rage precipitated by an incident earlier in the day but suppressed at the time. There was one case of hysterical conversion in a woman with a very rigid character, and there were several very infantile schizoid cases with different features such as agitated depres­ sion, depersonalization, and paranoid fears. All of these women, however, resembled each other in the following ways: their main problems seemed to center around the inability to express strong hostilities directed against some member of their family; their personalities were rigid and very constricted; most of them had marked compulsive traits. Rigidity of personality and the tendency to use countercathective defenses seem to be characteristic of both high-scoring-men and high-scoring women. The low scorers were found to exhibit a wide variety of clinical pictures and complaints. T h e y were much more familiar with themselves, more aware and accepting of emotional experiences and problems. The complaints of low-scoring patients very rarely consisted of vague anxiety or physical symptoms alone. If anxiety without content appeared at all, the patient also reported being concerned about other problems. Usually, the patients stated their problems in terms of specific impulses, fears, or adjustment difficulties. The most common single symptom characteristic of low-scoring men and women was neurotic depression with feelings of inadequacy. Most of these patients had inhibitions in some area—sexual, work, social—and felt uneasy in group situations. Summarizing these findings, then, one might say that some statistical rela­ tionship was found for the women between high E score and the classification "anxiety state," on the one hand, low E score and a classification which was labeled "mixed neurosis" (which probably should have been called "neurotic depression"), on the other. It became clear, however, that ethnocentrism was much more strongly related to certain very general personality trends which cut across the lines drawn by the psychiatric classifications. It has therefore been impossible to speak of symptoms or "types of disturbance" without some reference to the personality syndromes in which they oc­ curred. These personality syndromes will be discussed more fully, more interpretatively in the following section.

4. Did the study of neurotic and psychotic subjects lead to new hypoth­ eses about the character structure and its possible genetic sources in high and low scorers? All the important variables in which high- and low-scoring patients differed, were identical with those found to differentiate high and low scorers in groups of people who were relatively little disturbed. In the

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

•

965

disturbed group, however, these characteristics were seen in more exagger­ ated form. In the first student group studied by the questionnaire and clinical techniques, Frenkel-Brunswik and Sanford ( 3 8 ) found that the high-scoring women more often mentioned health problems, in spite of the fact that their health histories appeared to be quite similar to those of the low scorers. These few, often casual, remarks about health were related to certain themes in the T.A.T. stories, where many characters suffered mutilating injuries and acci­ dents. On the basis of these data, a tentative interpretation was made to the effect that high-scoring women characteristically show concern about their physical well-being because they are unconsciously afraid of being hurt as a punishment for strong hostile impulses. This hypothesis was confirmed and extended by the data furnished by the Clinic group. In the Langley Porter Clinic women, references to physical symptoms were not confined to a few more or less casual remarks but often formed the most emphasized part of the patient's statement of complaint. Intensive study of several cases sup­ ported the hypothesis, developed on the basis of earlier findings (Chapter XII), that the tendency to focus on one's physical condition in this par­ ticular w a y not only expresses strong unconscious (castration) anxiety but also represents the w a y in which a person with a very constricted ego defends himself against becoming aware of large areas of his emotional life. Similarly, some of the "normal" subjects in the over-all sample of the study mentioned tendencies towards depressed feelings. The data on the lowscoring Clinic patients confirmed the hypothesis that tendencies toward feelings of inferiority and guilt and depression were consistent with a type of character structure found commonly in low scorers and would appear to some degree under conditions of inner or outer stress. In the "normal" sub­ jects, however, these tendencies appeared to be relatively mild, while some of the Clinic patients were incapacitated by them. Thus, the material from the Clinic group supported and, in some instances shed additional light upon, the dynamic hypotheses advanced in Chapters IX through XIII. Also, our data strongly bore out our hypothesis that the rela­ tionships between ethnocentrism and personality variables would be essen­ tially the same for "normal" and for psychologically disturbed groups, but that some of these personality trends would, in the disturbed group, appear in pathological forms and degrees. Taking the evidence from the various techniques with which our group was studied, and recalling major conclusions from earlier chapters, we can make the following general formulation regarding the character structure of high and low scorers. The high scorers have rigid, constricted personalities, as shown b y their stereotyped, conventionalized thinking and acting and their violent and categorical rejection of everything reminding them of their own repressed

0

66

.

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

impulses. Their egos appear to be not only very constricted but also quite undifferentiated: their range of experience, emotionally and intellectually, is narrow. It is as if they can experience only the one conventionally correct attitude or emotion in any given situation. Everything else is suppressed or denied or if another impulse breaks through, it is experienced as something which'is completely incompatible with the conception of the self, and which suddenly overwhelms the ego. In part, this high degree of ego-alienness probably derives from the fact that the impulses emerging from repression are so primitive and, especially in the women, so very hostile. Compare, for example, the w a y s in which two high-scoring women on the one hand, and one low-scoring woman, on the other, expressed their ambivalence towards their children. The two high-scoring women had "spells" of excitement, trembling, and various physical manifestations which they did not recognize as expressions of rage. One woman actually choked her children during such attacks, the other had had the impulse but could control it. Both tried to convince the interviewer and themselves that they "really" loved their chil­ dren The low-scoring woman was quite aware of rejecting her child, of her habitual impatience and inability to give enough love to the child. She recog­ nized the effects of her behavior on the child, tried to make up for it at times and hoped that after therapy she would be able to be a better mother. The high-scoring mothers were not able to admit any deviation from the conven­ tional idea that a mother, unless she is utterly depraved, can feel anything but tenderness and devotion for her children. In these, and in all of the other cases of high scorers, it seemed as if the person's ego had usually been able to keep the unacceptable impulses completely out of consciousness, b y means of countercathexes, and that this prevented modifications of the impulse, such as channelization into milder and more adult forms, sublimations and the like. The T.A.T. stories of the high scorers showed the ego's constriction and lack of differentiation particularly clearly. Even subjects of high intelli­ gence, with excellent vocabularies, told stereotyped, unimaginative stories. The repressed impulses appeared in very primitive, crude forms, giving rise to stories of crime and punishment very much like those of high scorers in other groups (see Chapter X I V ) . The stories of the low scorers were much richer in content and often less primitive, giving evidence that the person had experienced in himself or through empathy with others a wide range of emotions and that he had found relatively mature ways of expressing his impulses. Besides this channelization, sublimations and intellectualization seemed to play a larger role in low scorers as expressed in their intellectual and artistic interests, their attitudes towards their work, and their attempts to solve their neurotic problems b y intellectual analysis and understanding. It is our general impression that the high scorers, more than the low scorers, are dominated by castration anxiety and more often show anal character traits such as hostile rejectiveness, retentiveness, and anal reaction formations. The

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H

A N D POTENTIAL FASCISM

967

last trend was found to be particularly strong in the women. High s c o r e r s particularly men-also seem to have strong but repressed passive-dependent desires, but these appear to be differently organized in the personality than is the case with the low scorers. Whereas in the low scorers these tendencies are expressed directly in interpersonal relationships, in the desire to be loved and in the fear of being rejected in a very personalized w a y , the high-scoring men's passivity and dependency probably is mainly a reaction to their extreme castration anxiety. The high-scoring men often seek protection from this anxiety in a motherly woman, but without having a very differentiated rela­ tionship to this woman as a person. This brings us to the problem of interpersonal relationships in high and low scorers. The relevant information comes from the detailed case studies (including T.A.T.'s) and the first psychiatric interviews. T h e frequency with which the low scorers discussed their relationships to others was strik­ ing- though often quite disturbed, they tend to behave toward others in a very personal w a y . Furthermore, the low scorers' relationships, as expressed in their lives as well as in their fantasies, often were of a combined nurturant-dependent type. The same tendency was also shown in their occu­ pational interests (social service, physician, psychological counselor). The interpersonal relationships of high scorers appeared to be much weaker less personal, more conventional, and more often expressed in terms of dominance-submission.

c Is there any evidence that one of the two groups, at the opposite ex­ tremes of the E scale, was more severely disturbed than the other? Is there a relationship between ethnocentrism and psychosis? T w o kinds of hypotheses regarding possible relationships between ethnocentrism and mental ill health have been advanced by people who were more or less familiar with the results reported on throughout this book. Some, usually those strongly inter­ ested in fighting prejudice, have focussed their attention on the personality descriptions of high scorers. Because these include so many variables (e.g., constriction, projectivity, self-deception, etc.) usually considered unfavor­ able from a mental-hygiene point of view and because of the fact that our low-scoring subjects do not have these characteristics to any great extent, the conclusion has been drawn that highly prejudiced people are simply men­ tally disturbed people, those opposed to prejudice are the "normals, lhe difference in ideology is then explained by the hypothesis that the ethnocen­ tric ideology of the high scorers is based on irrational attitudes which in turn spring from their neurotic conflicts, while the ideology of the "normal low scorers is developed entirely in a rational, reality-adapted manner. Others however, have pointed out that of our two groups, the low scorers deviate more from the culture pattern of their environment. T h e y are more often "socially maladjusted" and seem to suffer more from feelings of de­ pression, anxiety, and inadequacy-all characteristic of a popular conception

968

T H E AUTHORITARIAN

PERSONALITY

of the neurotic pattern. According to this hypothesis, then, people who are prejudiced are the "normals" because they are well adjusted in their culture. T h e y have taken over the prejudices along with other ideologies of the cul­ ture to which they conform. The low scorers, who rebel against their parents and often against many of the cultural mores, are psychologically ill. Both of these hypotheses assume that one of the groups scoring at the ex­ tremes of the E scale is a "normal," the other an "abnormal" group. Our inves­ tigation shows that one is likely to find people with more or less severe psy­ chological disturbances in the high, low, and middle quartiles although we cannot say in what proportions. It even suggests the possibility that the most disturbed people will be found in the middle quartiles. But there are more basic theoretical reasons for objecting to both of the above hypotheses. The first one, commonly found in liberal thought, as­ sumes that "rational" behavior, in contrast to "irrational" behavior, is en­ tirely independent of deeper-lying personality dynamics. Finding obvious irrational qualities in ethnocentric ideology, some individuals have concluded that prejudiced people think "emotionally" whereas unprejudiced people think "rationally"—that is, without being influenced by their needs and emo­ tions. Our results indicate, however, that the w a y a person thinks is always conditioned, to a greater or lesser degree, by emotional dispositions. The capacity for rational functioning, in which needs and affects play a positive rather than a negative (distorting, inhibiting) role, is part of what we and others have called a strong ego. While ego strength seems higher, on the average, in the low than in the high scorers, it must be emphasized that irrationality has been found to some degree in both; however, it is quali­ tatively different in the two groups and impels the individuals in antipodal directions. W e must object even more strenuously to the second of the above hypotheses—which equates conformity with psychic health, nonconformity with psychic disturbance—because it represents a w a y of thinking which is all too common in the social sciences as well as in everyday life. It is true, as our results and others show, that ethnocentric individuals are frequently more conforming and more "adjusted" to the prevailing pressures and ideas of our culture. These individuals are thus more "normal" in the sense of approximating the behavior- and ideology-demands of the culture. How­ ever, to see normality (in this external sense) as identical with psychic health (a concept involving inner integration, sublimation, and the like) is to maintain a thoroughly behavioristic, nondynamic conception of the indi­ vidual. If good external adjustment is to be psychologically healthy, it must be in response to an environment which sufficiently gratifies the most im­ portant needs of the individual; being "well-adjusted" under other condi­ tions, e.g., in the face of severe suppression or denial of self-expression, can only be achieved at tremendous inner expense. The "cost" of adjustment to

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L ILL H E A L T H A N D P O T E N T I A L F A S C I S M

969

most high scorers has been demonstrated throughout this book. Similarly, rebellious and nonconforming behavior must also be understood in rela­ tion to external forces and inner demands. That they may occur, though with different meanings, in both democratic and authoritarian personalities showing various degrees of disturbance, is shown by data from the Clinic group, the San Quentin group (Chapter X X I ) , and the over-all study sample (Parts II and III). What, then, can we say regarding our original question of the relation of ethnocentrism to the degree of psychological disturbance? Although no really conclusive answer is at hand, we can, however, try to make cer­ tain hypotheses based on ( i ) our data regarding the incidence of neuroses and psychoses in the various E quartiles for the Clinic group; and ( 2 ) the evidence, presented throughout this book, regarding personality character­ istics of high and low scorers. As pointed out in Section D of this chapter, we found a consistent increase in the proportion of psychoses going from the low to the high middle quar­ tiles, with a drop from the high middle to the high quartile. The figures are presented in Tables 3 (XXII) and 4 ( X X I I ) . Because of the small numbers of cases in each quartile, this trend is not statistically significant. Supposing that this result were found to be generally valid, and if psychosis is regarded as a more severe disturbance than neurosis, one could say that there is a slight relationship between severity of mental disturbance (psychosis) and ethno­ centrism. The possible reasons w h y there were fewer psychotics in the ex­ treme high quartile have already been discussed. Is there a relationship between ethnocentrism and psychosis, antiethnocentrism and neurosis? The following discussion is meant as a mere speculation on our findings and presented only to stimulate further discussion and research. It seemed to all of us, who discussed and made formulations about the character structures of high and low scorers, that there were per­ sonality trends in the high scorers which would make them more prone to develop psychotic manifestations, while the low scorers seemed to tend more towards neurotic disturbances. (See also Simmel, m . ) In spite of the fact that we found some low scorers with very disorganized and weak egos (among them at least one schizophrenic), comparison with the high scorers still gave the impression that the low scorers had relatively much stronger egos—that is, they appeared to us to be able to handle their impulses much more successfully due to relatively less extensive repressions and countercathexes and to greater capacity for sublimation and other modifica­ tions. Also, the low scorers appeared capable of more genuine relationships to other people, whereas the interpersonal relationships of the high scorers were much more shallow and founded less on personal experiences and feel­ ings than on conventions and stereotypes. These character trends are more consistent with the formation of neurotic traits rather than with the forma-

0

yO

T H E AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

tion of psychotic ones. In pathological forms, these tendencies are less alien and less overwhelming to the ego. Just exactly what the deeper dynamics and the genetic sources of these trends are, we cannot say. Perhaps the clue to the type of character found most commonly among low scorers is a very early inhibition of aggressions which are then turned upon the self; or the early relationships to parents lead to strong identifications and a well-inter­ nalized—though often disturbing—conscience. In the high scorers, extensive repressions and countercathexes have hin­ dered the ego's development. The ego remains rather primitive, undifferen­ tiated, and completely isolated from a large portion of the deeper layers. W h e n the unresolved unconscious conflicts become intensified and come closer to consciousness, the ego, totally unprepared, feels overwhelmed and shocked. This may lead merely to strong anxieties with or without somatic symptoms. In more extreme form, however, it may lead to depersonalization, withdrawal from reality, denial, projections, and other psychotic manifes­ tations. Given a sufficiently supporting environment, highly ethnocentric individuals achieve a sense of "comfort" and "adjustment"; but they fre­ quently lack the productiveness, the capacity for love, and, in times of stress, the grip on reality, which are more characteristic of the anti-authoritarian individuals.