In order to arrange this, subjects desired for
individual
study were referred to by the birth date ?
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
.
California Service Club Men:
Kiwanis Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rotary Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I2 I 5
26 8
46
II
29 I5 I7 36
29 3I 9
40 23
63 George \Vashington University Women Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IF
Los Angeles Men (classes at University of California and Univer-
sity of Southern California, fraternity group, adult evening class, parents of students, radio writers group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II7
Los Angeles Women (same groupings as above) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I30
Jrotal 779 Jrotal Forms 4S and 40 I,5I8 Overall Jrotal 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-
I 54
? INTRODUCTION
ments 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 World War 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.
Two large groups were obtained in the Los Angeles area, several smaller groups in Oregon, and one group in W :ishington, 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 app((ared 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. When 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. THE DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
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,
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
a minister in the inner councils of a men's service club. The 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. When 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 by 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 by 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. The 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.
We 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. We 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.
We 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
(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 90 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 200 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 20 per cent, and this sample was strongly biased in the direction of low scores on the scales for measuring antidemocratic trends.
3. THE SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR INTENSIVE CLINICAL STUDY
With 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
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
with a few of their number-about 10 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 why the response in these instances was poor. But there were other reasons why 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. 00 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 way 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.
Very few "middle" subjects-the 50 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
150. To 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.
? CHAPTER II
THE 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 by 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 way 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.
? 32
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, "Why does he talk that way? " This is one way 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 all) ; 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 MAN 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 lawyer1 :
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 by 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 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 father's, Democratic. He "agrees" with the political trends ex- pressed by the Anti-New Deal Democrats and "disagrees" with the New Deal Democrats; he "disagrees" with the traditional Republicans but "agrees" with the Willkie-type Republicans.
The subject is of "Irish" extraction and was born in San Francisco. Both of his parents were born in the United States. He states in his questionnaire that his father is a retired lumberman who owns his own home and has a retired income of $r,ooo. It is learned in the interview that the father was a worker in the woods and in the mills and it is to be inferred that his income derives mainly from a pension. The mother died when the subject was six. He has a sister four years his senior.
The protocol of his interview follows: 2
Vocation: This student has decided to make law his vocation. He says he has been out of school three years and is now a freshman at the University. However, he went for two years to business school and in addition has attended night school; but he has to start at the beginning here. He had a Civil Service job in Washington, being for a time principal clerk in one of the sections of the War Department. (What made you decide to be a lawyer? ) "I decided when I was in Washington. Of course, I was half decided when I was at business school, where business law was emphasized. When I was in high school, my financial means were such that I figured I had better get a general business education and then go to work. (In what ways does law appeal to you? ) Well, it seems to me to unlock an awful lot of doors. In any profession, you go so far and then you bump up against it. It is the fundamental basis of our government. It is really the foundation of our enterprise. Sometime I have hopes of making it available to people without funds, so that they can have equal sittings in the court. I want to go in for a general practice at the start and then maybe corporate law and then maybe criminal law. Law will be more important in the future than ever before. There is a trend toward more stringent laws, more regimentation. This will be true whether the form of govern- ment alters or not. Economists have detennined that for the good of everybody there has to be central control. (What does your father think of the law? ) My father is quite interested in it. Of course, he wanted business for me. He has busi- ness ability but he is a very retiring fellow. He wouldn't meet people. He owned some lumber land, but mostly he preferred working for other people. He is very
unassuming; he worked in the woods and in the mills. His $1,ooo income now is from investments, stocks and bonds. He hasn't worked for thirty years. At the time he worked, the wage was around $75 a month. He had stomach trouble. Yes, he owns his own home in a little town. We have our own cistern and an electric pump that I helped install. He built the old house himself and he has all the modern conveniences. He can get by all right on $1,ooo a year. "
Income: (You want to earn $5,ooo per year? ) "Well, $5,ooo sounds like a lot of money right now. It depends on where you live and how. In ordinary circum- stances you could live comfortably on it. The opportunities for a lawyer in a small town are limited, but I do like the small town. Especially those that are adjacent
2 The interviewer wrote as rapidly as he could, in a "shorthand" of hi~ own, throughout the interview and then immediately used a dictaphone to record all that he had written. In this way 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 enjoy hunting, fishing, and camping. But I like the conveniences of the city. In the city you have finer houses and the theaters. I haven't found any place I like better than California, and I have traveled quite a lot. I'm going to travel to Alaska. My father's brother died there in the Yukon. There are great possibilities there in the future. If a person studies it carefully and locates properly, he goes up with a town. J. worked with some men lumbering last summer who worked on the Alaska highway. They found it pretty tough going. But these difficulties can be overcome if big capitalists get interested. There is a huge pool of oil up there, you know, and that ought to be developed. "
Politics: "I voted for Dewey. In previous times I would have voted for FDR, but I worked there in Washington and saw things I would put a stop to. There is a concentration of power in the bureaus. People who work there have different attitudes. In the Civil Service you are paid according to how many people are under you, so they want people to come in. They think of themselves only. I'm not mercenary enough to understand it. I would simplify things by a competent administration. There is too much overlapping and bungling. I was the right-hand man of the General there when the OWl was introduced. They put up this build- ing for $6oo,ooo with little purpose in mind. They did the same thing that the Army monitoring service was already doing. The OWl wanted to take it over. Even after the OWl took it over, the War Department still helped prepare the communiques; but the OWl wanted credit. All that duplication at a tremendous outlay of money for no purpose. And all the time our department was crying for personnel. I worked many hours overtime for no pay because I was in the Civil Service. I was there from September, 1940, to September, 1942. I was there when war was declared. I worked then for thirty-seven hours straight. It was quite a day in Washington. I liked living in Washington very much. I like being close to the center of things. You can learn a lot about how the government functions. There
are daily events at your fingertips that by the time it gets here have changed some- how. It was fun knowing about the background, knowing about the secret com- mittees. My salary was $2,ooo a year. Living conditions, of course, were terrible. (What did you like about Dewey especially? ) I liked Dewey's background, his frankness, honesty, his clear-cut way of presenting his case. I think that at heart he is a very honest man, interested in maintaining the old government traditions. (How do you see things shaping up for the future? ) If we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered. The system in Washington has outgrown the limits of one man to control. We have got to eliminate confusion. The man who runs it must pick his lieutenants carefully. The way it is now, there is no clear authority. You have to consult a half a dozen agencies to get anywhere. This will recede very little after the war. Eventually the President will have to appoint a strong Cabinet to run things for him. There is no doubt that the system is becoming more centralized. I doubt that President Roosevelt will be reelected. It depends on the way the war goes. From his speeches, one seems to see that he feels he is necessary to the United States. He has control of the Party and will run as long as he is physically able. The popular vote in the last election was very close. 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. People who had sons in the war effort felt that taking the President out might prolong the war. That was wrong. The Army and the Navy were prepared for the war ten years in advance. General Marshall would have had a lot to say, whoever was elected. I have sat beside him and heard him talk. Nobody could alter his position. A change of presidents might have altered
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
35
our relations to England, but riot to Russia. Recently there has been a lot of oppo- sition to Churchill. He has been OK in war, but how he will be in peace is a ques- tion. There is, of course, close feeling between Roosevelt and Churchill. But Roosevelt would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie. Of course, a lot of Roosevelt's ideas came from Hoover. (Would there be a difference in our rela- tions with Russia? ) No, there would be no difference in our relations with Russia. I think Joe Stalin would play pretty fair with us. And Dewey is honest to the death. He has a good background, though not of the wealthy class, and he would think of the average people. His honesty and straightforwardness appeal to me greatly. But a man has to use some underhandedness to get across the highest ideals. "
Religion: "On my father's side, my folks were Catholic. My father and his brothers and sisters were Catholic. Father was never deeply religious, but he was a good man. 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.
California Service Club Men:
Kiwanis Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rotary Club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I2 I 5
26 8
46
II
29 I5 I7 36
29 3I 9
40 23
63 George \Vashington University Women Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IF
Los Angeles Men (classes at University of California and Univer-
sity of Southern California, fraternity group, adult evening class, parents of students, radio writers group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II7
Los Angeles Women (same groupings as above) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I30
Jrotal 779 Jrotal Forms 4S and 40 I,5I8 Overall Jrotal 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-
I 54
? INTRODUCTION
ments 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 World War 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.
Two large groups were obtained in the Los Angeles area, several smaller groups in Oregon, and one group in W :ishington, 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 app((ared 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. When 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. THE DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION OF QUESTIONNAIRES
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,
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
a minister in the inner councils of a men's service club. The 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. When 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 by 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 by 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. The 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.
We 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. We 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.
We 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
(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 90 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 200 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 20 per cent, and this sample was strongly biased in the direction of low scores on the scales for measuring antidemocratic trends.
3. THE SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR INTENSIVE CLINICAL STUDY
With 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
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
with a few of their number-about 10 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 why the response in these instances was poor. But there were other reasons why 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. 00 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 way 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.
Very few "middle" subjects-the 50 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
150. To 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.
? CHAPTER II
THE 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 by 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 way 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.
? 32
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, "Why does he talk that way? " This is one way 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 all) ; 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 MAN 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 lawyer1 :
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 by 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 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 father's, Democratic. He "agrees" with the political trends ex- pressed by the Anti-New Deal Democrats and "disagrees" with the New Deal Democrats; he "disagrees" with the traditional Republicans but "agrees" with the Willkie-type Republicans.
The subject is of "Irish" extraction and was born in San Francisco. Both of his parents were born in the United States. He states in his questionnaire that his father is a retired lumberman who owns his own home and has a retired income of $r,ooo. It is learned in the interview that the father was a worker in the woods and in the mills and it is to be inferred that his income derives mainly from a pension. The mother died when the subject was six. He has a sister four years his senior.
The protocol of his interview follows: 2
Vocation: This student has decided to make law his vocation. He says he has been out of school three years and is now a freshman at the University. However, he went for two years to business school and in addition has attended night school; but he has to start at the beginning here. He had a Civil Service job in Washington, being for a time principal clerk in one of the sections of the War Department. (What made you decide to be a lawyer? ) "I decided when I was in Washington. Of course, I was half decided when I was at business school, where business law was emphasized. When I was in high school, my financial means were such that I figured I had better get a general business education and then go to work. (In what ways does law appeal to you? ) Well, it seems to me to unlock an awful lot of doors. In any profession, you go so far and then you bump up against it. It is the fundamental basis of our government. It is really the foundation of our enterprise. Sometime I have hopes of making it available to people without funds, so that they can have equal sittings in the court. I want to go in for a general practice at the start and then maybe corporate law and then maybe criminal law. Law will be more important in the future than ever before. There is a trend toward more stringent laws, more regimentation. This will be true whether the form of govern- ment alters or not. Economists have detennined that for the good of everybody there has to be central control. (What does your father think of the law? ) My father is quite interested in it. Of course, he wanted business for me. He has busi- ness ability but he is a very retiring fellow. He wouldn't meet people. He owned some lumber land, but mostly he preferred working for other people. He is very
unassuming; he worked in the woods and in the mills. His $1,ooo income now is from investments, stocks and bonds. He hasn't worked for thirty years. At the time he worked, the wage was around $75 a month. He had stomach trouble. Yes, he owns his own home in a little town. We have our own cistern and an electric pump that I helped install. He built the old house himself and he has all the modern conveniences. He can get by all right on $1,ooo a year. "
Income: (You want to earn $5,ooo per year? ) "Well, $5,ooo sounds like a lot of money right now. It depends on where you live and how. In ordinary circum- stances you could live comfortably on it. The opportunities for a lawyer in a small town are limited, but I do like the small town. Especially those that are adjacent
2 The interviewer wrote as rapidly as he could, in a "shorthand" of hi~ own, throughout the interview and then immediately used a dictaphone to record all that he had written. In this way 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 enjoy hunting, fishing, and camping. But I like the conveniences of the city. In the city you have finer houses and the theaters. I haven't found any place I like better than California, and I have traveled quite a lot. I'm going to travel to Alaska. My father's brother died there in the Yukon. There are great possibilities there in the future. If a person studies it carefully and locates properly, he goes up with a town. J. worked with some men lumbering last summer who worked on the Alaska highway. They found it pretty tough going. But these difficulties can be overcome if big capitalists get interested. There is a huge pool of oil up there, you know, and that ought to be developed. "
Politics: "I voted for Dewey. In previous times I would have voted for FDR, but I worked there in Washington and saw things I would put a stop to. There is a concentration of power in the bureaus. People who work there have different attitudes. In the Civil Service you are paid according to how many people are under you, so they want people to come in. They think of themselves only. I'm not mercenary enough to understand it. I would simplify things by a competent administration. There is too much overlapping and bungling. I was the right-hand man of the General there when the OWl was introduced. They put up this build- ing for $6oo,ooo with little purpose in mind. They did the same thing that the Army monitoring service was already doing. The OWl wanted to take it over. Even after the OWl took it over, the War Department still helped prepare the communiques; but the OWl wanted credit. All that duplication at a tremendous outlay of money for no purpose. And all the time our department was crying for personnel. I worked many hours overtime for no pay because I was in the Civil Service. I was there from September, 1940, to September, 1942. I was there when war was declared. I worked then for thirty-seven hours straight. It was quite a day in Washington. I liked living in Washington very much. I like being close to the center of things. You can learn a lot about how the government functions. There
are daily events at your fingertips that by the time it gets here have changed some- how. It was fun knowing about the background, knowing about the secret com- mittees. My salary was $2,ooo a year. Living conditions, of course, were terrible. (What did you like about Dewey especially? ) I liked Dewey's background, his frankness, honesty, his clear-cut way of presenting his case. I think that at heart he is a very honest man, interested in maintaining the old government traditions. (How do you see things shaping up for the future? ) If we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered. The system in Washington has outgrown the limits of one man to control. We have got to eliminate confusion. The man who runs it must pick his lieutenants carefully. The way it is now, there is no clear authority. You have to consult a half a dozen agencies to get anywhere. This will recede very little after the war. Eventually the President will have to appoint a strong Cabinet to run things for him. There is no doubt that the system is becoming more centralized. I doubt that President Roosevelt will be reelected. It depends on the way the war goes. From his speeches, one seems to see that he feels he is necessary to the United States. He has control of the Party and will run as long as he is physically able. The popular vote in the last election was very close. 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. People who had sons in the war effort felt that taking the President out might prolong the war. That was wrong. The Army and the Navy were prepared for the war ten years in advance. General Marshall would have had a lot to say, whoever was elected. I have sat beside him and heard him talk. Nobody could alter his position. A change of presidents might have altered
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
35
our relations to England, but riot to Russia. Recently there has been a lot of oppo- sition to Churchill. He has been OK in war, but how he will be in peace is a ques- tion. There is, of course, close feeling between Roosevelt and Churchill. But Roosevelt would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie. Of course, a lot of Roosevelt's ideas came from Hoover. (Would there be a difference in our rela- tions with Russia? ) No, there would be no difference in our relations with Russia. I think Joe Stalin would play pretty fair with us. And Dewey is honest to the death. He has a good background, though not of the wealthy class, and he would think of the average people. His honesty and straightforwardness appeal to me greatly. But a man has to use some underhandedness to get across the highest ideals. "
Religion: "On my father's side, my folks were Catholic. My father and his brothers and sisters were Catholic. Father was never deeply religious, but he was a good man. 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.
