a-8, the latter's order of merit and, finally, the item's rank in a
distribution
of the sums of
the D.
the D.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
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 by 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 way 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 whi~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.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
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 we 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.
1. Sex
31? 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. Which of these variables are most basic must be determined by clinical study. In any case, it seemed that
? MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRA TIC 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. THE FORMULATION 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 65 (Flood) were regarded as superior to items such as 74 (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 by 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 way 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 46 (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
? THE 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 46 (Sex orgies) but marks -3 or - 2 on Items 3I (Homosexuality) and 75 (Sex Crimes), it might be concluded that he is a man of knowledge and sophistication; but a +3 on Item 46, accompanying agreement with Items 3I and 75 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. While 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. RESULTS WITH SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE F SCALE 1. STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE PRELIMINARY SCALE (FORM 78)
The preliminary F scale, made up of the 38 items listed above, was admin- istered as a part of questionnaire Form 78 to four groups of subjects in the spring of I945? These groups were described in Chapter III, and they are listed in Table I I (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 wasscoredas6,andsoon. ItemsI2, 20, and28arenegative(they state the unprejudiced position), and here, of course, a mark of +3 was scored I, and so on. Table 2 (VII) gives the reliability coefficients, mean scores per item, and Standard Deviations for these four groups. The mean reliability of ? 74 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 by 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 OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 243
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 (VII) 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 78) a
Property Group ABcD
Over-all b
? 74
3. 71 3. 55 3. 88
. 71 . 84 ? 74
Reliability . 78
. 56
3. 72 3. 59 3. 87
? 57 . 71 . 65
52 2. 55-4. 87
. 72
3. 75 3. 60 3. 91
? 70 . 85 . 76
. 88
3. 43 3. 22 3. 64
. 86 . 94 ? 84
Mean (total) Mean (odd half) Mean (even half)
S. D. (total) S. D. (odd half) s. D. (even half)
N
Range
3. 94 3. 80 4. 08
. 71 ? 87 . 69
140
2. 12-5. 26
40 63 295
aThe 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. Group D: Professional Women.
bin obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N,
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
2. 39-5. 05
1. 68-5. 63
1. 68-5. 63
? 244
THE 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 ? 53 with A-S and . 65 withE, in Form 7S.
2. ITEM ANALYSIS AND REVISION OF THE 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. . a-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 (VII) gives for each item the mean score, the Discriminatory Power in terms of high vs. low scorers on F (D. P. F), the D. P. F's order of merit, the D. P. .
a-8, the latter's order of merit and, finally, the item's rank in a distribution of the sums of
the D. P. F plus the D. P. A-s? This final rank order was a convenient index of the ~tern's statistical "goodness" for our over-all purpose.
The average D. P. F, I. So, 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, IS fall in the range I-2, and only 4 are below 1. The means are, in general, fairly satisfactory; they average 3? 7I, 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 I7 items which appear to be significantly related to A-S, i. e. , have a D. P. A-s 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 by 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. F and to the general prin- ciples guiding our scale construction; these things being equal, the greater an item's D, P. A-s, the greater its chances of being included in the revised scale.
? 2. 3. 6. 9.
10. 12. 14. 17. 19. 20. 23. 24. 28. 30? 31. 32. 35. 38. 39. 42. 43. 46. 47. 50. 53. 55. 56. 58. 59. 60. 65. 66. 67.
( 22) (18) ( 21)
(11)
MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS TABLE 3 (VII)
MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F-SCALE ITEMS (FORM 78) a
245
Rankd
Item Mean (Astrology) 2. 60 (Force to preserve) 3. 04 (Women restricted) 2. 93 (Red-blooded life) 3. 99
b D. P. F
1. 74
1. 98
1. 75
2. 04 (15)
D. P . fs
(D. P. ~D. P. AS)
(18) (15) (26) ( 29) (8) (38) (23. 5) (10) (35) (37) (5)
( 33) (Z7) (36) ( 13) (20) (28) ( 25) (4) (34) (6) (14) (7) ( 2) (32) ( 11) (31) (22) (3)
( 30) (23. 5) (19) (17) (16) {12) ( 21) ( 1) (9)
(Pearl Harbor Day)
(Modern church)
(Rats. ? ? germs)
(Familiarity) 3. 33 (One should avoid) (Progressive education) (Undying love)
2. 20 0. 19 1. 60 1. 86 0. 76 1. 07 2. 61
1. 37 -1. 18 0. 85 1. 56
(6) (38) (24) (4)
(Things unstable)
(Novels or stories)
(Reports of atrocities) (Homosexuals)
(Essential for learning) 3. 31 (Law in own hands)
1. 29
0. 43
2. 16
1. 67
1. 42 (29) 1. 20 (31) 2. 54 (6)
(Emphasis in college) (Supernatural force)
(For one reason)
(Sciences like chemistry) 4. 35 (Sex orgies)
1. 14 1. 26 0. 59
(Honor)
(Obedience and respect) (Things too intimate) 4. 82 (Leisure) 5. 20 (Crime wave)
(What a man does)
(Always war)
(Important values)
(World catastrophe)
(Books and movies)
(Eye to profit)
(Plots by politicians) (Infection and disease) 4. 79 (Tireless leaders)
(Sex crimes)
2. 11
2. 09
3. 09
1. 99 (17) -0. 23 (36)
70.
73.
74.
75.
77. (No sane person) Mean/Person/Item 3. 71
2. 22 4. 67 4. 44
3. 63
3. 28
3. 62
5. 01 0. 79 3. 02
0. 70 (27) -0. 25 (37) 1. 17 (13) 0. 88 (22) 0. 76 (26) 0. 66 (28) 1. 18 (12) 1. 10 (16)
0. 62 (29. 5)
(15) (9. 5) (31)
4. ~ 3. 22
2. 50 3. 91 3. 97 2. 06
3. 64 3. 00 3. 72
(12. 5) (14) (1)
0. 93 1. 65 1. 55
(20) (3) (5)
4. 60 3. 48 4. 26 4. 17 2. 58 4. 10 3. 71 3. 27
2. 11 1. 16 1. 70 2. 59 1. 60 1. 55 2. 48 2. 21 1. 85 2. 02 1. 66 2. 81
(12. 5) (32) (23) (5)
( 26. 5) ( 28) (7) (8) (20) ( 16) ( 25) (2)
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
0.
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 by 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 way 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 whi~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.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
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 we 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.
1. Sex
31? 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. Which of these variables are most basic must be determined by clinical study. In any case, it seemed that
? MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRA TIC 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. THE FORMULATION 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 65 (Flood) were regarded as superior to items such as 74 (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 by 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 way 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 46 (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
? THE 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 46 (Sex orgies) but marks -3 or - 2 on Items 3I (Homosexuality) and 75 (Sex Crimes), it might be concluded that he is a man of knowledge and sophistication; but a +3 on Item 46, accompanying agreement with Items 3I and 75 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. While 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. RESULTS WITH SUCCESSIVE FORMS OF THE F SCALE 1. STATISTICAL PROPERTIES OF THE PRELIMINARY SCALE (FORM 78)
The preliminary F scale, made up of the 38 items listed above, was admin- istered as a part of questionnaire Form 78 to four groups of subjects in the spring of I945? These groups were described in Chapter III, and they are listed in Table I I (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 wasscoredas6,andsoon. ItemsI2, 20, and28arenegative(they state the unprejudiced position), and here, of course, a mark of +3 was scored I, and so on. Table 2 (VII) gives the reliability coefficients, mean scores per item, and Standard Deviations for these four groups. The mean reliability of ? 74 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 by 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 OF ANTIDEMOCRATIC TRENDS 243
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 (VII) 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 78) a
Property Group ABcD
Over-all b
? 74
3. 71 3. 55 3. 88
. 71 . 84 ? 74
Reliability . 78
. 56
3. 72 3. 59 3. 87
? 57 . 71 . 65
52 2. 55-4. 87
. 72
3. 75 3. 60 3. 91
? 70 . 85 . 76
. 88
3. 43 3. 22 3. 64
. 86 . 94 ? 84
Mean (total) Mean (odd half) Mean (even half)
S. D. (total) S. D. (odd half) s. D. (even half)
N
Range
3. 94 3. 80 4. 08
. 71 ? 87 . 69
140
2. 12-5. 26
40 63 295
aThe 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. Group D: Professional Women.
bin obtaining the over-all means, the individual group means were not weighted by N,
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
2. 39-5. 05
1. 68-5. 63
1. 68-5. 63
? 244
THE 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 ? 53 with A-S and . 65 withE, in Form 7S.
2. ITEM ANALYSIS AND REVISION OF THE 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. . a-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 (VII) gives for each item the mean score, the Discriminatory Power in terms of high vs. low scorers on F (D. P. F), the D. P. F's order of merit, the D. P. .
a-8, the latter's order of merit and, finally, the item's rank in a distribution of the sums of
the D. P. F plus the D. P. A-s? This final rank order was a convenient index of the ~tern's statistical "goodness" for our over-all purpose.
The average D. P. F, I. So, 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, IS fall in the range I-2, and only 4 are below 1. The means are, in general, fairly satisfactory; they average 3? 7I, 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 I7 items which appear to be significantly related to A-S, i. e. , have a D. P. A-s 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 by 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. F and to the general prin- ciples guiding our scale construction; these things being equal, the greater an item's D, P. A-s, the greater its chances of being included in the revised scale.
? 2. 3. 6. 9.
10. 12. 14. 17. 19. 20. 23. 24. 28. 30? 31. 32. 35. 38. 39. 42. 43. 46. 47. 50. 53. 55. 56. 58. 59. 60. 65. 66. 67.
( 22) (18) ( 21)
(11)
MEASUREMENT OF ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS TABLE 3 (VII)
MEANS AND DISCRIMINATORY POWERS OF THE F-SCALE ITEMS (FORM 78) a
245
Rankd
Item Mean (Astrology) 2. 60 (Force to preserve) 3. 04 (Women restricted) 2. 93 (Red-blooded life) 3. 99
b D. P. F
1. 74
1. 98
1. 75
2. 04 (15)
D. P . fs
(D. P. ~D. P. AS)
(18) (15) (26) ( 29) (8) (38) (23. 5) (10) (35) (37) (5)
( 33) (Z7) (36) ( 13) (20) (28) ( 25) (4) (34) (6) (14) (7) ( 2) (32) ( 11) (31) (22) (3)
( 30) (23. 5) (19) (17) (16) {12) ( 21) ( 1) (9)
(Pearl Harbor Day)
(Modern church)
(Rats. ? ? germs)
(Familiarity) 3. 33 (One should avoid) (Progressive education) (Undying love)
2. 20 0. 19 1. 60 1. 86 0. 76 1. 07 2. 61
1. 37 -1. 18 0. 85 1. 56
(6) (38) (24) (4)
(Things unstable)
(Novels or stories)
(Reports of atrocities) (Homosexuals)
(Essential for learning) 3. 31 (Law in own hands)
1. 29
0. 43
2. 16
1. 67
1. 42 (29) 1. 20 (31) 2. 54 (6)
(Emphasis in college) (Supernatural force)
(For one reason)
(Sciences like chemistry) 4. 35 (Sex orgies)
1. 14 1. 26 0. 59
(Honor)
(Obedience and respect) (Things too intimate) 4. 82 (Leisure) 5. 20 (Crime wave)
(What a man does)
(Always war)
(Important values)
(World catastrophe)
(Books and movies)
(Eye to profit)
(Plots by politicians) (Infection and disease) 4. 79 (Tireless leaders)
(Sex crimes)
2. 11
2. 09
3. 09
1. 99 (17) -0. 23 (36)
70.
73.
74.
75.
77. (No sane person) Mean/Person/Item 3. 71
2. 22 4. 67 4. 44
3. 63
3. 28
3. 62
5. 01 0. 79 3. 02
0. 70 (27) -0. 25 (37) 1. 17 (13) 0. 88 (22) 0. 76 (26) 0. 66 (28) 1. 18 (12) 1. 10 (16)
0. 62 (29. 5)
(15) (9. 5) (31)
4. ~ 3. 22
2. 50 3. 91 3. 97 2. 06
3. 64 3. 00 3. 72
(12. 5) (14) (1)
0. 93 1. 65 1. 55
(20) (3) (5)
4. 60 3. 48 4. 26 4. 17 2. 58 4. 10 3. 71 3. 27
2. 11 1. 16 1. 70 2. 59 1. 60 1. 55 2. 48 2. 21 1. 85 2. 02 1. 66 2. 81
(12. 5) (32) (23) (5)
( 26. 5) ( 28) (7) (8) (20) ( 16) ( 25) (2)
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
0.
