No More Learning

The philosophers named include: Bertrand Russell, Comte, Mill, Dewey,
? s6o
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Spencer, Socrates, Maimonides. The lows occasionally-the highs almost never-admire individuals who are members of various minority groups (Jewish, Negro, Chinese, etc. ). Certain religious figures are included in this category: Confucius, Buddha, St. Francis (see the neutral category below). Highs more than lows tend to mention Plato. Perhaps the reason for this is indicated by one high man who wrote: "Plato-the original personnel man. " There are, so to speak, both low and high aspects to Plato's philosophy. If his name is given with others, one scores by context; if given alone, it is scored H.
2. Physical and biological scientists. (This does not include inventors or applied scientists or technologists, most of whom are scored H. ) Sir William Osler, Newton, Washington Carver, Darwin, Einstein, Galileo, Pasteur, Madame Curie (particularly by men).
3? Social scientists, liberal-radical political figures. Jefferson, Marx, Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, Henry Wallace, Frances Perkins, Freud, P~stalozzi, Norman Thomas.
4? Active denial of admiration. For example: "I'm beholden to no man. " "No one person stands out. " However, omissions of this item are scored neutral.
Neutral Category. Several names seem to be given equally often by highs and lows; they may apparently be admired for high reasons or for low reasons.
The most common examples are Lincoln, F. D. Roosevelt, and Christ. (Roose- velt's popularity with highs was probably limited to the war period. ) Any of these names, alone or in combination with each other, are scored Na; if additional names are given, one scores by context. For example, the response, "Washington, Lincoln, F. D. R. " is scored H because of the context of patriotism (see below). The response, "Jefferson, Paine, Lincoln, Roosevelt" is scored L. Ernie Pyle is given mainly by highs, but without a context is scored Na. Will Rogers, Woodrow Wilson, and Willkie are N a.
Omissions are scored Neutral.
High Categories (Question 3)
The main trends underlying the high responses are ones which recur throughout the projective questions as well as in the several other tech- niques of the study: authoritarianism, anti-intraception, "toughness"-power, militarism, and ultraconservatism. These are exemplified in the following categories.
1. Power and control. Emphasis here is on the strong, rugged, masculine leader.
One favorite source is the military: Halsey, Patton, Marshall, Byrd, Doolittle, Rickenbacker, Bismarck, Caesar, MacArthur, Lindbergh, Napoleon. A corollary of the emphasis on strength is an emphasis on suffering: being vicitimized, martyred,
? PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS
alone in a cruel world. For example: "The boys who died in the war for people who do not even appreciate it, as they show many times; being an ex-serviceman myself. " Among the high women royalty and nobility, particularly from past centuries, are quite popular. Certain religious leaders such as the Pope and Mary Baker Eddy are given predominantly by highs. Churchill seemed to have captured the imagina- tion of many highs. A major source of names, particularly for the high men, is the area of practical invention, business, and technology, industrial giants being the
most popular. Examples: Ford, Carnegie, Edison, leading manufacturers.
2. Conservative Americana. Men whose main distinction comes from being strong national leaders, usually in a military or politically conservative con- text. This category overlaps somewhat with the first.
Examples: Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Edgar Hoover, John Paul Jones, Dewey, "True Americans. "
3? Parents and relatives. It is not uncommon for highs to list several family members, in addition to other individuals, in response to this question.
Example: "My mother who, although isn't famous or seemingly different from any other person, I think is one of the greatest persons alive today; you may think me prejudiced and childish, but I do have my reasons. " It happens, though rarely, that a low mentions the parent of the opposite sex; this is scored L if the context is clearly low: "My Parents. "
4? Miscellaneous. Responses expressing high trends but not in the above categories.
High women often mention actresses and movie stars, e. g. Kate Smith, Bing Crosby. Sabatini is a writer preferred by highs; best-seller authors are also included here for the most part. An example of a descriptive high response is: "My girl friends who live happily without any worry. " (Superficial, anti-intraceptive. )
Scoring Procedure. Most subjects list several names in response to this question; the names may fall into more than one category, but they are usually uniformly high or uniformly low. In some cases, however, both H and L categories are represented. These cases are scored H, L, or Nhl according to the predominant trend.
Thus the response, "da Vinci, Ely Culbertson, Henry Ford" is scored H, while "Einstein, Edison, Carver" is scored L. One man gave a list of some I 5 names repre- senting most of the high and low categories above, with no apparent unifying theme or predominant trend; his response was scored Nhl. Clinically, he was a "conflicted low" who seemed to be struggling with opposing high and low trends, so that his score on this item was very meaningful.
QuEsTioN 4? WHAT MIGHT DRIVE A PERSON NuTs?
Low Categories
Both low and high categories for this question are similar to those for Question 1 (Moods). The lows tend to respond mainly in terms of psycho-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
logical conflict and frustration. They have an intraceptive orientation and they emphasize the role of the individual himself in the neurosis. Once again we find a context of achievement values and active striving-striving which is made difficult by inner problems or by external blocks.
1. Inner psychological states. The main concepts here are focal conflict and anxiety. There is often a strong sense of failure, of self-blame, of helpless- ness or impotence.
Examples: "Inability to cope with problems; frustration. " "Hardly anything that would make them express the above opinion (see the full statement of this ques- tion); sometimes complete suppression of a person's feelings, emotions, energies would do it. " "Self-condemnation. " "His own failure to put an end to the situation causing the disturbance or to stop thinking about it. " "Despair caused by inability to cope with distressing situations; continual criticism without constructive sugges- tions. " "Frustrations, pointlessness of existence, morbidity, sorrow, violation of one's ego. " "Insecurity. " "Tension without release. " "Being dishonest with oneself; wrong attitude toward life's problems. " References to fear are low.
While undifferentiated "worry" or "brooding" are high, there is a kind of focal, differentiated worry? or anxiety which is scored L. By this is meant not a vague anxiety in the face of a generally threatening world, but concern over specified personal frustrations.
Examples: "Continual worry about family problems, continual striving to earn a living. " "Worry, emotional or economic. " "Severe emotional strain, especially if combined with physical hardships or pain. " (The highs often refer to physical hard- ships per se, but they seldom refer to the actual experience of emotion or pain. )
The inner life of the lows, while apparently relatively rich and satisfying in many ways, seems often to be stormy and conflictful. The sense of going too far, of being carried away by emotion, of having too much inner life, so to speak, may be expressed in responses to this item.
Examples: "Letting our emotional states wear us down. " "Exaggerating one's per- sonal problems. " Obsessional trends are sometimes exhibited: "The man's mind is in a groove or rut; unless he has a varied interest, he will go insane from worry and thinking of one thing. " "A person might become insane over too much interest in religion, love, money, etc. ; any obsession carried too far might do it. " The lows' references to inner life can be distinguished from those of the highs on the basis of their greater awareness, and acceptance, of emotion and of their more differentiated introspective experience. Compare the responses above with the high responses: "Worry" or "constant worry of a particular thing. " Or compare the low response, "Too much self-analysis" with the high, "Talk oneself into it. " (See high category z, below. ) In general, responses indicating rejection of inner life are more common in highs than lows.
2. Dominating, blocking, rejecting environment. These responses may take an "interpersonal" or an ideological form. In the former case, the individual is in a disturbing situation from which he cannot extricate himself, in part for inner reasons (explicit or implicit). Moral conflict and open ambivalence are
? PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS
often expressed. There is not' only hostility toward a dominating or rejecting person, but also some feeling of relationship or obligation. Surface conflict about hostility, especially toward love objects or those who represent both love and authority, is fairly common among lows. (The highs appear to resolve their ambivalence toward the ingroup by maintaining only the posi- tive side in consciousness and by [unconsciously] redirecting the hostility toward outgroups, thus avoiding for the most part a clear-cut sense of inner conflict. )
Examples: "Living on intimate terms with people who insist on controlling every move. " "Being mad or constantly irritated by one whom you must associate with. " Compare these with the high response: "Worry, or have to live with and be nice to selfish or disagreeable or unpleasant people. "
References to an unhappy childhood, to depriving parents, or to lack of love are low. However, references to bad parents in terms of poor discipline or lack of discipliQe, are scored H. While the idea of overwork or lack of rest is high, references to lack of leisure or of pleasant relaxation (ego-satis- fying passivity) are low.
The more ideologized responses refer to the social system as creating in- security and frustration, or as making complex and contradictory demands which the individual cannot meet. The imagery of the "social system" is similar to that of the family authority: dominating, rejecting, stifling.
References to "oppression" by lows and highs are sometimes difficult to distin- guish. Thus, a low wrote: "Prolonged persecution could drive a person nuts, partic- ularly if he felt un-united with anyone else and felt that he alone was subjected to the full brunt of the persecution. " By way of contrast, note the following high response: "Constant oppression by employers, fellow-workers, or unions. " In the high re- sponse we find not only the antiunion sentiment, but also a feeling of generalized threat and a strong extrapunitive quality with no self-orientation or intraception. The low, on the other hand, expresses intraception, an attempt at self-analysis, and a desire for strong emotional ties with his environment.
Neutral Responses. Facetious references to the questionnaire as a cause of going nuts are neutral. Presumably the highs' reasons for rejecting the test is their anti-intraception and opposition to "prying," whereas the lows are disturbed by the large number of scale items with which they strongly dis- agree. However, references to the projective items, and to this one in par- ticular, are scored H. For example: "Trying to answer questions like this one" (see high category 2, below). References to diet and nutrition are neu- tral in themselves; they are given, usually as part of a larger response, more often by low than by high scorers.
High Categories (Question 4)
The main variables underlying these responses include anti-mtraception, extrapunitiveness, external orientation, ego-alien passive-dependency, hos-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tility, and anxiety; and an emotionally shallow diffuse inner life, These char- acteristically high variables also emerged from the analysis of interviews and of T. A. T. material.
I. "Rumblings from below. " The rationale for this concept has been given above (Question I : Moods). The orientation in these responses is toward the individual rather than toward the situation, but there is no reference to inner insecurities, conflicts, or affective states. On a more interpretive level, we find a superego-ridden ego with a rigid moral fac;ade; "going nuts" involves break-through of the underlying impulses or anxieties and destruction of the fac;ade. The popular expression, "blow your top" and "blow your cork" are literal representations of this underlying imagery. They refer primarily to quasi-psychotic episodes rather than to neurotic symptoms. The main ego defenses seem to be projection, denial, and reaction-formation (emphasis on
work, opposition to leisure).
One common type of response involves the idea of overwork, strain, or
pressure.
Examples: "Pressure. " "Overwork, mental fatigue, or nervous strain. " "Too much work (physical or mental). " "Undertaking too much. " "Overtaxing your strength in business or social affairs. " "Continual difficulties, suspense. " "Too long hours at work; debt. " "Long hours-r6 or r8 hours a day for 7 days a week working on some- thing that doesn't keep you busy constantly" (note the combined emphasis on over- work as well as boredom, and the fear of "having your mind unoccupied"). "Over- work-lousy physical conditions coupled with sudden shock. " "The constant grind and routine of everyday life would drive me nuts if I couldn't find some way to lose myself; my books serve this purpose. " In the last example, books apparently have a defensive, anti-intraceptive function rather than a creative or expressive one. Fear of overwork seems to exist most strongly in just those individuals who value work most. By inference-and this is supported by much clinical material-the overwork represents overconformity or "being too good for too long," something which leads to the break-through of passivity and/or hostility against external work-demanding authority.
Once again we find frequent references to worry with a minimum of elaboration or differentiation. Worry is often related to body anxiety and fear of physiological ("nervous") breakdown. Indeed, the references to overwork above often involve, implicitly or explicitly, the idea that mental breakdown is caused primarily by body breakdown. This underlying anxiety over body weakness and threat of body harm in the ethnocentric men stands in marked contrast to their surface emphasis on rugged masculinity which is expressed in other projective questions as well as in other tech- niques.
Examples: "Sickness, ill health, worry, trouble. " "Insanity is (due) to several things, most of which are physical deteriorations; disease or sudden shock. " "Loss of his senses (sight, etc. ) or the fatigue of battle. " "Unknown illness not treated in time. "
? PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS
Excessive drinking is included here because it represents a bodily rather than a psychological threat. Another common cause given is heredity. For example: "Wouldn't go mad without an innate streak of insanity. " "Taxing self beyond innate ability. " The hereditarian theory of neurosis is like the hereditarian theory of group differences and human nature; it helps to obviate the necessity for looking inward or for seeking psychosocial explanations of human behavior.
While anti-intraception is an aspect of many of the above responses, it is in many cases the primary theme. These responses are usually not difficult to differentiate from low category 2 ("too much inner life"). "Going nuts" is attributed to thinking about oneself or to straining one's mind.
Examples: "A strain on his nerves from overconcentration or something. " "Intent concentration for a long period of time (years). " "Talk self into it. " "Thinking too much about your own troubles and forgetting to let God help you. " (Compare this with the low response: "Not learning to face problems squarely in the face and with courage. ") "His imagination runs away with him. " The response, "Trying to answer questions like this one," expresses both opposition to "prying" by others and a sense of discomfort and threat in the face of one's own emotions.
Individuals giving the above responses seem afraid to look inward at all, for fear of what they will find. Is this one basis for the tendency, at least in its more extreme forms, to regard extroversion as good, introversion as bad? A similar idea is ex- pressed in Item 9 of the Form 45 F scale: One should concentrate on "cheerful things" and not think about "worries or problems.
" It seems also to be involved in the idea of leisure merely as rest from work or as escape rather than as a means of self-expression and self-understanding.
Responses referring to "loss of loved ones" or to worry over possible loss or harm, may be included here since they seem to express the rumbling of deep-lying hostility toward family and ingroup members.
As mentioned previously, the highs tend to handle their ambivalence toward family members by exaggerating the surface positive feelings (idealization, admira- tion, submission) and by deflecting the hostility by means of projection (imagery of outgroups and human nature), displacement and rationalization (hostility expressed directly but explained as moral indignation), and so on. The infrequent references by lows to concern over loved ones usually involve more explicit indications of strong personal relationship.
2. Threatening, irritating, or nonsupporting environment. These responses show a predominantly external orientation, with no reference to the indi- vidual's inner needs, strivings or values, and with no implication of surface inner conflict. Neurosis is, so to speak, imposed on the individual from with- out, by an invidious stimulus or idea that overwhelms his mind much as a germ infects the body.
Examples: "Continued irritating noises or lights, also pain or torture; depends on the person and his weaknesses; religion and alcohol are the two most frequent things in my belief. " "Monotonous humdrum such as a quiet routine or just the opposite as a bombardment; from one extreme to the other. " "Another war will drive most of the people nuts-mostly people who have been in World War II" (by a veteran).
? 566 THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
"Constant noise of unpleasant nature, such as shrill whistles. " "Continuous arguing, tedious work, lots of noise. " "The current strikes, the uncertainty of the times, gov- ernments of the world constantly bickering. " "A nagging wife, Harry James' Orchestra. " "A continual series of things going wrong. " "Financial troubles. " "Loss of money. "
The idea of aloneness, without reference to actual relationship or to striv- ings for love, is included here. For example: "Loneliness and departure from a nice manner of living; solitude, etc. " Fear of solitude per se is high; it seems to represent, as do many of the examples above, underlying anxiety in the face of an environment unconsciously felt to be threatening. References to self- pity are fairly common and are consistent with the extrapunitive, projective trends in some of the other responses. For example: "Constant self-pity and imagination of a thousand ills. " References to sexual frustration are usually
high in men, low in women, although contextual qualities must be considered
m sconng.
The idea of monotony or tedious work is high, particularly when the gen-
eral context of the response indicates boredom, lack of stimulation, or other high trends; it is scored L when there is some indication of blocked inner (achievement) values and needs.
An example of a high response is: "Continuous repetition of a disliked subject or action. " By way of contrast, consider the following response: "Frustration from lack of factors in the environment which will interest or inspire him in any way whatever. " Despite the external orientation, this response is scored L because of the reference to frustration and the desire for inner satisfaction.
3? Omissions of Question 4 are statisticized as H. Omissions occurred in only 4 per cent of the cases, but three-fourths of these were highs (see Table 2 (XV)). This result is consistent with the anti-intraception and other trends differentiating those high from those low in prejudice.
QuESTION 5? WoRsT CRIMES A PERSON CouLD CoMMIT?
Low Categories
The main inner problem to which these responses refer is aggression, the primary difference between lows and highs lying in the manner of handling this deep-lying need. Formal low categories have not been dis- tinguished for this item, but certain general properties of the low re- sponses may be indicated. Achievement values once again provide a moral frame of reference. Intraception, understanding, hesitancy in condemning, identification with the underdog, intense personal relationships, and the like are common qualities of the low responses. Concern with crimes against the personality is much more common than concern with crimes against the body; and bodily harm, when it is referred to, is described in a less primitive and a more object-related way. There is strong concern with the psycho- logical development and integrity of the individual. It is convenient here as
. .
? PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS 567
elsewhere to distinguish the ideological area from that of interpersonal rela- tionships.
In the sphere of ideology we find references to exploitation and discrim- ination against minority groups, lower economic classes, "the common man," and other nations. Also references to crimes against "humanity" or "society" as a whole.
Examples: "The worst possible crime a person can commit would be that of true treason; by true treason I mean the motive or attempt to injure, impair, or jeopardize those things that are dear to the majority and of their best interests. " "Race extermi- nation and starting wars. " "Hate, intolerance, narrowness; his crimes against society as a whole. " "Selling out his fellow man for profit to himself. " "Each crime is dif-
ferent-depends on motivation and result; in general, crimes against fellow man, Jew- baiting, etc. " "Permit mob rule, economic exploitation. " "Racial persecution and the enforced militarism of a country during peacetime. " "Slavery, including mental slavery, warping and distorting the minds of children. "
With regard to interpersonal relationships we find themes and qualities similar to those above.
Examples: "Tell a person's confidence; get personal gain from another's rights. " "Graft, fraud, etc. at the expense of innocent victims; malicious slander" (while graft and fraud given alone are high, the focus on the victims and the last part of the response suggest a score of L). "The greater sins are committed by us who know the right and the needs of others but 'pass by on the other side'" (this response was given by a strongly religious low; compare with high religious responses). "Betrayal of principles, friends. " "Avarice, intolerance. " "Hypocrisy, deception. ; be untrue to oneself. " There are frequent criticisms of authority figures. For example: "Abuse of authority. " "Negligence on the part of a military commander or anyone that results in a loss of life. "
While "murder" alone is scored Na, and brutality alone is H, responses involving murder or physical attack which bring in motivations and which describe more than the aggressive act itself are scored L.
Examples: "Murder for gain or envy. " "Crimes done just to make people miser- able. " "Murder-because no man should have control over another's life" (intracep- tion, achievement values). "Sadistically causing the suffering of others" (references to sadistic motives, to cruelty, and to resulting suffering are scored L, while the idea of "blind hate" implying breakdown of ego controls is scored H). "Brutality for the sake of seeing persons suffer. " "Cruelty to helpless things. " "Cause another to degen- erate. " "To take another's life" (more object-related than "murder"). References to crime as a symptom requiring psychological understanding also fall here.
A response involving incest and matricide was given once, by a low man and in a context meriting a score of L; "Incest with his mother or matricide, (crime against an individual); destroying world culture, that is books, sculpturing, etc. (crime against humanity). " (Parenthetical remarks by the subject. ) This response seems to express, in a characteristically low form, deep ambivalence toward the mother in which love and hate motives are extremely strong. The ambivalence of the high men is not likely to be expressed in this way, and their erotic attachment to the mother is probably not as great (see the psychiatric clinic material, Chapter XXII). Note also
? 568 THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
how this man's relationship to his mother has become the image on which is built his relationship to humanity and culture. References to incest or matricide in a moral- istic context would be scored H.
Neutral Responses. "Murder" alone is scored neutral; it is given seldom, and about equally often by highs and lows. References to murder are com- mon, but in a context that is usually clearly high or low. "Create war' without further qualification is scored Na. Omissions are neutral for this item. They occurred in 8 per cent of the responses.
This is the only item which the lows omitted slightly more frequently than did the highs (9 per cent and 7 per cent respectively). The following hypothesis may help to explain this result. Whereas the highs are disturbed by looking inward, the lows are more disturbed by looking outward at major value-violations, particularly aggressive ones. (This hypothesis might be tested by determining high-low differ- ences in reading reports of aggressive crimes, the highs being expected to read, to condemn, and to enjoy these more without recognizing that personal motives are at work. ) To the extent that the highly ethnocentric subjects are more punitive than the others, they would be expected to show more interest in crime and other pun- ishment-evoking activities. The disturbance of the lows may also be due in part to the tendency to identify with the victim.
High Categories (Question 5)
1. Crude aggression and sex. These responses suggest, as have responses to previous items, that for many highs there is a deep-lying, ego-alien fund of aggression and sex. These trends seem to have remained relatively primi- tive, destructive, unsocialized; and they are not well fused with or modified by other trends in the ego. The frequent association of sex with aggression suggests that sex is conceived as aggressive and threatening. Aggression is aimed at the body of the victim, without reference to personal relationships or to psychological meanings for aggressor or victim. It has the primitive quality commonly found in the fantasies and fears of small children. (The same impersonal, destructive, object-less quality is often found in the current flood of mystery detective fiction, in which the hero, finding a close friend or relative murdered, immediately responds not with sorrow or concern but with moral indignation and a list of suspects. ) The responses often refer to bizarre, destructive acts one might commit in a psychotic episode when ego-control and cognitive structuring of the environment are eliminated and unsocialized impulses break through.
Examples: Probably the most popular high response is "Murder and rape. " In the group of Veteran men, for example, this was given, sometimes along with other crimes, by 15 out of z6 highs as compared with 4 out of 25 lows. "Torture. " "Sex crimes. " "Murder without sufficient reason. " "Rape on juveniles. " "Sex crimes on children, women; kidnapping; murdering of newly born babies. " "Having been a prisoner of war in the Philippines, I would consider some of the sights I saw there truly unprintable, but to my knowledge the worst crime that is printable would be rape. "
? PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS
References to attacks on children are fairly common; this is perhaps related to the fact that in San Quentin the sex offenders,. many of whom engaged in sexual activities with children, were extremely high on ethnocentrism (see Chapter XXI). Occasionally there are detailed concrete descriptions of brutal acts. For example: "Kidnap a person, starve them for two weeks, then strangle them; after they are finally dead, dissect their body, wrap up the pieces and mail them home to the vic- tim's parents. "
2. Other immoral acts. These responses fall within a context of ethno- centrism, pseudopatriotism, and moral values dealing with conventional masculinity-femininity and conformity.
Examples: "Treason, traitorism, sedition" (crimes against the status quo). "Dope peddling, failure of a politician to protect his country. " "Heresy. " "Traitorous acts against those who have faith in him, as well as sex crimes. " (This is a matter of not living up to others' expectations rather than a matter of personal relationship or inner demands. ) "Adultery. " "Crimes against his person, sex crimes, and to will- fully smear a woman's name. " "Murder, immoral acts, dishonesty. " "To neglect himself and family" (no reference to relationship, motivation). "The one against the Holy Ghost. " "Willful passing on of dangerous disease to other person" (body anxiety, concern with contamination).
3? Various legal offenses. We note here the tendency to think in formal, external, legal terms. Again the concern with property and money is ex- pressed.
The more common specific offenses include robbery, stealing, larceny, blackmail, kidnapping, "Destruction of property," arson, manslaughter, and so on. References to murder in legalistic terms are included here: "Willful first-degree murder. " "Un- justifiable homicide. "
QuESTION 6. MosT EMBARRASSING MoMENTs?
Low Categories
The defining context for the low responses includes violation of achieve- ment values, self-blame and guilt, concern for the feeling of others, feel- ings of failure and inadequacy.
1. Hurting another's feelings. Both highs and lows often refer to acts which involve breaches of common courtesy. However, the highs ordinarily focus on the act per se and on the idea of etiquette, whereas the lows are concerned mainly with the problem of rejection and with the feelings of the other person. Also, there is often an element of self-reproach in the low responses.
Examples: "Forgetting things about others that I really should know" (explicit self-blame). "Unintentionally offending any person, but particularly any loved one or well-liked one. " "When I have done anything tactless that may hurt someone, or any act of stupidity. " "To see others suffer from embarrassment" (identification and empathy). "Walk into room at wrong moment, others are being intimate" (self- rejection for intruding, rather than rejection of others for behaving that way).
? 570
THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
2. Feelings of inadequacy, failure, being rejected. In these responses the focus is mainly on oneself and there is explicit or implicit self-criticism.
Examples: "When I start talking, realize that I don't know what I'm talking about. " "Ignorance-that is, not knowing well something I should know. " "Meet someone and not know what to say. '' "Situations in which I am inadequate. " "To be laughed at for failing to get off a presentable public speech; to be put in an embar- rassing position by a person who outmaneuvers you mentally. " ("Making a public speech" alone is Na. ) "To find out that after taking a strong stand I was absolutely wrong. " "People laugh at me, not with me. " "Not go somewhere because I didn't have a date, then be asked how it was. " "Asking someone something or some service" (scored L because of surface inhibition, inadequacy, implied fear of rejection).
The embarrassing situation may involve moral obligation and guilt. In some cases the individual does not meet his own inner standards; in other cases he does not want to do something or be with someone, but feels both obligation and open ambivalence.
Examples: "Not fulfilling promises I made. " "When I feel I have neglected to do something I should have done. " "Getting into some situation in which you had no desire to be but someone expected you to be there. "
In general, references to mistakes, especially when they are described as silly or stupid, are scored L; they seem to be based on self-evaluation, inner focusing and intrapunitiveness.
Responses like "Exposure of my own weaknesses, I suppose" and "Being caught for the faker I am" are included here because of the explicit self-blame and the self- critical humor, although the idea of "exposure" or being caught, without this con- text, is high (see below).
High Categories (Question 6)
1. Violations of convention and etiquette. Probably the most common high response to this item refers to breaches of etiquette. The focus is on the behavior per se, on behavior which violates specific formulae of the Emily Post variety. There is almost never a reference to inner needs or faults, the violations usually being regarded as "slips" or unmotivated accidents. In this way guilt, self-blame, and ego-reference are made unnecessary. Whereas the embarrassment of the lows is primarily an inner matter, relatively independ- ent of whether or not they were observed, the embarrassment of the highs depends almost entirely on being frowned upon by an external moral force. The idea of "being caught" is prominent in the high responses, and with it the implication that the same thing done without detection would not be embarrassing.
Examples: "Making a decided error in social etiquette would be the worst. " "For- getting names of people" (social anxiety, no reference to personal concern for per- son). "Faulty dress. " "Saying something degrading of another person r. . vithin their hearing" (author's italics). "To appear inefficient. " "Saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. " "When I talk about something and forget what I have been talking
? PROJECTIVE QUESTIONS
about" (compare with L response: "Discover I don't know what I am talking about"). "When the children pipe up in front of company with something I've said about the person or some other innocent thing which sounds evil and embarrasses me. " "When my husband is rude to me in front of other people" (inhibited hostil- ity? ). "If I am found being lax about kindness, counesy toward everybody" (the idea of kindness (not love) toward everyone as a kind of task is not uncommon among people who, in the details of their ideology, ethnocentrically reject the bulk of mankind). "Being disapproved of. " "Get called down for an error in front of other people" (compare with the L response: "Being exposed for the faker I am"). "Mispronounce words. " "Guests arrive and the house is dirty or I'm unkempt. " "Be accidentally rude or impolite.