Subjects with religious
affiliations
are not, however, generally ethnocen- tric.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
.
~~"tig ~ ~~
>1:1
. . ? ~~! ~ita j~ ~s~ '"1li
J e J! ~l
~~
>~ ~~~~ ~
t""
23 2. 93 25 3. 16 12 3. 76 9 3. 08 3 2. 20 16 3. 65 5 2. 96 10 2. 35 0 ---- 2. 60
16 3. 28 10 4. 31 36 3. 38 0 ---- 6 3. 67 0 ---- 140 6 3. 70 2 4. 80 8 3. 96 0 -? -- 4 2. 78 0 ? ? ? ? 52
z
I 4. 00 8 3. 23 2 4. 55 3 4. 10
4 3. 13 2 3. 211 6 2. 72
0. ---- 16 3. 53 0 ---- 42
3. 40 1. 36 2. 57 I. 37.
~
6 2. 80 12 2. 23 6
2. 75 4 3. 05 0 ----
3. 15 16 3. 26 4 2. 30 35 2. 91 15 4. 07 60
2. 34 0
? ? ? ? 15 3. 32 0 ? ? ? ? 63
5 2. 94 8 3. 37 3
3. 54 6 4. 08 0 ? ? ? ? 4 3. 30 0 ? ? ? ? 13 3. 44 8 3. 05 3 3. 10 2 2. 82 2 1. 95 13 2. 35 11 2. 54 2 1. 99 5 2. 97 0 ---- 7
3. 211 0 3. 66 0 2. 58 0
? ? ? ? 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ---- 11
3. 58 0 ? ? ? ? 47 2. 80 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3. 34 0 ---- 57
3. 42 L38 3. 24 1. 29 2. 93 1. 25
~
. , a s
8 ' 6
~. ! f8
s
::J Over-all rs
9 1. 63 1 2. 00 10
rs
3. 32 1. 43
3. 34 L 48 0
0
0
M
M
<JJ
:II
'""'
>1:1
<JJ
"'
? 206 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
between prejudice and membership in certain groups. While certain average differences have been found, the Standard Deviations are large and the over- lapping between groups considerable. This does not mean that group mem- berships and social forces are unimportant in the formation and in the expression of ethnocentrism; indeed, there is a wealth of sociological litera- ture to show that they are. Rather, it would appear that sociological factors play an essential but complex and indirect psychological role. Social psy- chology must, therefore, advance beyond its initial stage of seeking-and expecting to find-simple relationships between ideology and group member- ships; it must go on to study the complex processes by which the individual selectivity assimilates the manifold pressures from his socio-ideological envi- ronment.
While no ideologically homogeneous groupings were found, there were significant relations between ethnocentrism and certain group memberships. The groups which are most differentiated with respect to ethnocentrism- that is, which tend to be predominantly high or predominantly low-have two main properties: They involve membership by choice rather than mem- bership by birth, and they show relatively great homogeneity with respect to various other psychological characteristics. Thus, the political preference or the income-occupation grouping of the father shows no consistent rela- tion to ethnocentrism in the offspring. J"? ut the subject's personal political preference (membership by choice), like his socioeconomic aspirations and his tendency to accept or reject his father's political views, is more closely related to E score. Similarly, membership in the exclusive Women's Club or the Labor School is more significant in terms of E than membership in the United Electrical Workers Union or the Parent-Teachers' Association, the latter groups being less homogeneous in all ideological areas.
The group memberships having the greatest significance for ethnocentrism are, then, those which have the greatest psychological significance for the individual. They are, it seems, groups which the individual chooses to join because they permit the further development and fuller expression of dis- positions existing prior to joining. We are forced to reexamine the notion that the group membership determines the ideology-that, for example, a man is prejudiced because he is a Republican or a member of a snobbish club. Not only is the ideology likely to have preceded (in at least a primitive form) the joining of the group but, more important, both the ideology and the group membership seem to express deeper trends in the individual. An example of such a trend is "independence" versus "submission" in relation to parental authority. Thus, high scorers on E demonstrated greater submission and conformity than did the low scorers, both in the content of their ideology
(E and PEC) and in their choice of political party (Table 14(V)). The individual's choice of group, like his choice of ideology, appears to be not merely a matter of chance or of simple imitation, but in large part an expres-
? POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 207
sian of important emotional dispositions. Before turning to these issues in more detail we shall, in the next chapter, consider religious ideology and groupings in relation to ethnocentrism.
F. CONCLUSIONS
The study of politico-economic ideology and group memberships has led to a broadening in our conception of the antidemocratic individual. The Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism scales, our primary measures of antidemo- cratic trends, show statistically significant relationships with the right-left dimension of politico-economic ideology. There appears to be an affinity between conservatism and ethnocentrism, liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. The relationship is, however, quantitatively imperfect (r=approximately . 5) and qualitatively complex. It is proposed, in further studies, to break down the right-left dimension into numerous ideological patterns. One 0f these-perhaps the most significant in terms of potential antidemocracy-is the pseudoconservative.
In previous chapters we have seen that anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism, for example, are not isolated attitudes but parts of a relatively unified ethno- centric ideology. The present chapter suggests that ethnocentrism itself is but one aspect of a broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning. Trends similar to those underlying ethnocentric ideology are fourid in the same individual's politico-economic ideology. In short, ideology regarding each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and an expres- sion of more central ("subideological") psychological dispositions.
? CHAPTER VI
ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELA TION TO SOME RELIGIOUS A TTITUDES AND PRACTICES R. Nevitt Sanford
A. INTRODUCTION
In approaching the topic of religion, the general question was similar to that raised in connection with politico-economic ideology: What trends in religious thought and practice can be distinguished and what, if any, is their significance for prejudice or its opposite? Categories for the analysis of reli- gious thought were not, however, ready to hand. It seemed that a qualitative study of interview material had to precede any attempt to quantify trends in religious ideology. Such a study was made, and it is reported in Chapter XVIII,1 but since the collection of interviews and of questionnaires pro- ceeded simultaneously, it was not possible to make use of a completed quali- tative analysis in preparing measuring instruments for use with groups of subjects. Only a few hypotheses, suggested during the early stages of the study, were represented in the content of the questionnaire. The present chapter is concerned solely with results obtained through the use of the questionnaire. These results were derived from data on the religious affilia- tions of the subjects and their parents as set forth on the first page of the questionnaire, from answers to an open-ended question about religion and the church which was used in a preliminary form of the questionnaire, and from responses to three scale items which belong in the general area of religion.
B. RESULTS
1. RELIGIOUS GROUP MEMBERSHIPS
a. AccEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF RELIGION. Data on religious affiliation
were obtained by means of the question, "What is your religion? " which
1 Interview material bearing on certain religious attitudes also appears in Chapters XI and XXI.
208
? ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS A TTITUDES
appeared on page one of the questionnaire in all four of its forms. In answering this question, subjects gave the name of some religious sect or wrote "none" or left the question blank. The answer "none" is taken as an indication that the subject rejects religion, while answering with the name of some religious group is taken as evidence that he somehow accepts religion. When the question is left blank, no inferences can be made. The data obtained by means of this question from the four forms of the questionnaire are summarized in Table I (VI).
Attention may first be called to the fact that subjects who answer "none" (last column but one in Table I (VI)) obtain an over-all mean A-S or E score, 2. 7I (last row in Table I (VI)), that is notably lower than the means for most of the religious groups. 2 The only exceptions appear in the case of the Unitarians, whose over-all mean is 1. 99, and the Combined Minor Prot- estant Sects, whose over-all mean is 2 ? 49? For all the other religious denom- inations the means are in the range 3? 4I (Congregational) to 4. 38 (Lutheran). These trends appear in the data for each form of the questionnaire as well as in the over-all totals. If all subjects who professed to some religious affiliation were placed in one group for statistical purposes, their mean score would be very much higher than that of those who claim no religious-affiliation. There seems to be no doubt that subjects who reject organized religion are less prejudiced on the average than those who, in one way or another, accept it.
Subjects with religious affiliations are not, however, generally ethnocen- tric. Although the nonreligious subjects are clearly nonethnocentric on the average, the mean scores for the various religious denominations are, on the
whole, very close to the neutral point.
The overwhelming majority of our subjects do profess to some religious
affiliation. The nonreligious, nonethnocentric group is relatively small in number and, probably, not very important socially. The variability among the religious subjects seems to be almost as great as it is for our over-all sample. This means that among our religious subjects both extreme high and extreme low scorers are to be found. W e must also take note of the fact that among the nonreligious subjects, high as well as low scorers appear. In this latter connection a possible sex difference is to be noted. Nonreligious women seem to obtain lower scores on the average than do nonreligious men. (Note, in the "none" column of Table I (VI), the means for the groups of women and for the groups of men. ) The nonreligious women almost always score definitely low while the nonreligious men are much more variable.
b. ETHNOCENTRISM IN DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS. If we ask why some religious people score high and others low on ethnocentrism, we
2 The estimation of the significance of differences between means in this chapter follows the same rule that was used in Chapter V. Cf. the foomote r2 to Chap. V. If theN's for the groups in question are as large as 50, then a difference of . 6 is likely to be significant, at least at the 5 per cent level. Most of the differences discussed in this chapter are much larger than . 6 and seem well above the minimum requirements of statistical significance.
? 210
Groups taking Fora 78:
Public Speaking Class llomen Public Speaking Class Men Extension Class WOmen Professional Women
TOtal: f'orm 78
Groups tak in& Fora 60:
Univ. of Oregon Student llomen 3 Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of
california Student llomen Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of
California Student Men TOtal: f'orm 60
Groups taking Fora 45: Maritime SChool Men
Psychiatric Clinic Men Psychiatric Clinic llomen San Quentin Men
TOtal: f'orm 45c
Groups taking Fora 40:
Geo. Washington Univ. 11omen Maritime SChool Men Middle-Class llomen Middle-Class Men llorking-Class Men
TOtal: f'orm 40
Over-all total: four forms
Bprot . . tant here refers to denomination.
5 3. 40
4 3. 98 12 3. 58
25 4. 36 11 3. 46 18 4. 55 24 4. 67
54 4. 24
16 4. 51 35 5. 15 6 4. 57 3 6. ~ 14 4. 67
3. 83 3 3. 25 2 2. 58
3. 92 3 2. 86 2 4. 50
3. 72 10 3. 47 5 3. 88
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 1 ! VI>
! lEAN A-S OR E: BroRE:S Of' VARIOUS RELIGIOUS GROUPS
subjects
who answered
I. Catholic
N Mean
23 3. 15 9 3. 66 8 4. 38
10 2. 44 50 3. 29
Prot~~tanta
N Mean
24 3. 35 14 3. 73 13 3. 99 17 2. 64
68 3. 37
4 1. 85 18 3. 15
13 3. 15 35 3. 05
77 4. 59 18 3. 94 15 4. 58 38 4. 49
110 4. 48
15 3. 99 59 5. 24 60 3. 98 29 4. 28 16 3. 75
III.
C b m b i n e d P r e s b y -
Major terian Protestant
sects
N ~ean NMean
M e t h o d i s t
N Mean
19 3. 70 4 2. 60 1 2. 50
Lutheran
N Mean
6 4. 03 1 3. 70
3. 36
25 3. 52 7 3. 99
4 4. 08 5. 25
74 4. 92 179 190 4. 21 392
(217) (4. 18) 34 4. 13 (481) (3. 89) 83
4. 53124. 524 4. 15 4. 09 9 5. 07 4 5. 80 4. ~ 3 5. 60 . 1 6. 40 4. 00 5 4. 48 1 5. 00
54. 125 4. 20 4. 31 34 4. 69 15 4. 81
bThe following denominations of sects were combined: Bible, Brethren. Christian, Disciple, Evangelical. Humanist. Moral Rearmsment. Natural Law, Nazarene. Quaker. Adventist. Unity, Universalist. The designations of these sects are those employed by the subjects in filling out their questionnaires. The division into major and minor Protestant sects does not conform in every particular with the actual membership figures for the whole United States; it was
naturally tum our attention first to the question of what role the particular religious denomination or sect has to play. Examination of Table r(VI) shows that there are no differences of any significance between Catholics and Protestants, and this regardless of whether we place in one category those subjects who answered "Protestant" or whether we combine the larg- est Protestant denominations. Among the Protestant denominations which have been classed as "major," only one group distinguishes itself: the Uni- tarians3 have a lower mean score than any of the others. This seems to be in keeping with the generally liberal outlook of this group. The minor Prot- estant denominations taken together obtain a lower mean score than do any of the other religious groups save the Unitarians. Unfortunately, none of
3 In terms of membership figures for the United States this body probably should not be classed as "major. "
4. 42
(80) (3. 52) 18 (18) (3. 04) 5 (9) (2. 80) 2 (22) (3. 09) 1
(129) (3. 33) 26
(26) (4. 12) 8 (~) (3. 60) 3
(19) (3. 11) 2 (65) (3. 66) 13
(46) (4. 51) 3 (6) (4. 32) 2 (18) (3. 53) 5 (29) (4. 65) 4
(70) (4. 24) 10
(81) (4. 16) 15 (42) (5. 07) 7 (61) (3. 59) 9 (20) (4. 15) 3 (13) (4. 15) 0
3. 00 2. 98 1. 80 5. 10
3. 46
3. 63
0 1 4. 80 0
4. 38 "Protestant" but did not give the name of any
5. 23 3. 30 3. 58 4. 35
4. 02
12 4. 65 9 4. 42 1 5. 50 0
6 2. 90 3 3. 80 74. 834 4. 98
194. 1412 4. 27
3. 92 88 4. 10 39
? C b n g r e -
g~~tionel
N Mea>
~! %lisco-
p a l i a n
N Mean
8 9 j ) t i S t C h r i s t i a n M O r l ! l l n S c i e n c e
NMeanNMeanNMean
U n i t a r i a n
N Mean
IV.
C b m b i n e d M i n o r
Pr~~! gnt
v. N O n e
VI. B l a n k
2 2. 25 21 3. 30
5 3. 185 I 5. 60 2 2 4. 50 I 3 I. 870
II 3. 288
3. 46 3 4. 30 4. 00 0
1. 60 I 2. 60
I2. 70 3. 36 5. 3. 64
I I I 4
7
I. 10 1. 80 I. 20 2.
>1:1
. . ? ~~! ~ita j~ ~s~ '"1li
J e J! ~l
~~
>~ ~~~~ ~
t""
23 2. 93 25 3. 16 12 3. 76 9 3. 08 3 2. 20 16 3. 65 5 2. 96 10 2. 35 0 ---- 2. 60
16 3. 28 10 4. 31 36 3. 38 0 ---- 6 3. 67 0 ---- 140 6 3. 70 2 4. 80 8 3. 96 0 -? -- 4 2. 78 0 ? ? ? ? 52
z
I 4. 00 8 3. 23 2 4. 55 3 4. 10
4 3. 13 2 3. 211 6 2. 72
0. ---- 16 3. 53 0 ---- 42
3. 40 1. 36 2. 57 I. 37.
~
6 2. 80 12 2. 23 6
2. 75 4 3. 05 0 ----
3. 15 16 3. 26 4 2. 30 35 2. 91 15 4. 07 60
2. 34 0
? ? ? ? 15 3. 32 0 ? ? ? ? 63
5 2. 94 8 3. 37 3
3. 54 6 4. 08 0 ? ? ? ? 4 3. 30 0 ? ? ? ? 13 3. 44 8 3. 05 3 3. 10 2 2. 82 2 1. 95 13 2. 35 11 2. 54 2 1. 99 5 2. 97 0 ---- 7
3. 211 0 3. 66 0 2. 58 0
? ? ? ? 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ---- 11
3. 58 0 ? ? ? ? 47 2. 80 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3. 34 0 ---- 57
3. 42 L38 3. 24 1. 29 2. 93 1. 25
~
. , a s
8 ' 6
~. ! f8
s
::J Over-all rs
9 1. 63 1 2. 00 10
rs
3. 32 1. 43
3. 34 L 48 0
0
0
M
M
<JJ
:II
'""'
>1:1
<JJ
"'
? 206 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
between prejudice and membership in certain groups. While certain average differences have been found, the Standard Deviations are large and the over- lapping between groups considerable. This does not mean that group mem- berships and social forces are unimportant in the formation and in the expression of ethnocentrism; indeed, there is a wealth of sociological litera- ture to show that they are. Rather, it would appear that sociological factors play an essential but complex and indirect psychological role. Social psy- chology must, therefore, advance beyond its initial stage of seeking-and expecting to find-simple relationships between ideology and group member- ships; it must go on to study the complex processes by which the individual selectivity assimilates the manifold pressures from his socio-ideological envi- ronment.
While no ideologically homogeneous groupings were found, there were significant relations between ethnocentrism and certain group memberships. The groups which are most differentiated with respect to ethnocentrism- that is, which tend to be predominantly high or predominantly low-have two main properties: They involve membership by choice rather than mem- bership by birth, and they show relatively great homogeneity with respect to various other psychological characteristics. Thus, the political preference or the income-occupation grouping of the father shows no consistent rela- tion to ethnocentrism in the offspring. J"? ut the subject's personal political preference (membership by choice), like his socioeconomic aspirations and his tendency to accept or reject his father's political views, is more closely related to E score. Similarly, membership in the exclusive Women's Club or the Labor School is more significant in terms of E than membership in the United Electrical Workers Union or the Parent-Teachers' Association, the latter groups being less homogeneous in all ideological areas.
The group memberships having the greatest significance for ethnocentrism are, then, those which have the greatest psychological significance for the individual. They are, it seems, groups which the individual chooses to join because they permit the further development and fuller expression of dis- positions existing prior to joining. We are forced to reexamine the notion that the group membership determines the ideology-that, for example, a man is prejudiced because he is a Republican or a member of a snobbish club. Not only is the ideology likely to have preceded (in at least a primitive form) the joining of the group but, more important, both the ideology and the group membership seem to express deeper trends in the individual. An example of such a trend is "independence" versus "submission" in relation to parental authority. Thus, high scorers on E demonstrated greater submission and conformity than did the low scorers, both in the content of their ideology
(E and PEC) and in their choice of political party (Table 14(V)). The individual's choice of group, like his choice of ideology, appears to be not merely a matter of chance or of simple imitation, but in large part an expres-
? POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 207
sian of important emotional dispositions. Before turning to these issues in more detail we shall, in the next chapter, consider religious ideology and groupings in relation to ethnocentrism.
F. CONCLUSIONS
The study of politico-economic ideology and group memberships has led to a broadening in our conception of the antidemocratic individual. The Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism scales, our primary measures of antidemo- cratic trends, show statistically significant relationships with the right-left dimension of politico-economic ideology. There appears to be an affinity between conservatism and ethnocentrism, liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. The relationship is, however, quantitatively imperfect (r=approximately . 5) and qualitatively complex. It is proposed, in further studies, to break down the right-left dimension into numerous ideological patterns. One 0f these-perhaps the most significant in terms of potential antidemocracy-is the pseudoconservative.
In previous chapters we have seen that anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism, for example, are not isolated attitudes but parts of a relatively unified ethno- centric ideology. The present chapter suggests that ethnocentrism itself is but one aspect of a broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning. Trends similar to those underlying ethnocentric ideology are fourid in the same individual's politico-economic ideology. In short, ideology regarding each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and an expres- sion of more central ("subideological") psychological dispositions.
? CHAPTER VI
ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELA TION TO SOME RELIGIOUS A TTITUDES AND PRACTICES R. Nevitt Sanford
A. INTRODUCTION
In approaching the topic of religion, the general question was similar to that raised in connection with politico-economic ideology: What trends in religious thought and practice can be distinguished and what, if any, is their significance for prejudice or its opposite? Categories for the analysis of reli- gious thought were not, however, ready to hand. It seemed that a qualitative study of interview material had to precede any attempt to quantify trends in religious ideology. Such a study was made, and it is reported in Chapter XVIII,1 but since the collection of interviews and of questionnaires pro- ceeded simultaneously, it was not possible to make use of a completed quali- tative analysis in preparing measuring instruments for use with groups of subjects. Only a few hypotheses, suggested during the early stages of the study, were represented in the content of the questionnaire. The present chapter is concerned solely with results obtained through the use of the questionnaire. These results were derived from data on the religious affilia- tions of the subjects and their parents as set forth on the first page of the questionnaire, from answers to an open-ended question about religion and the church which was used in a preliminary form of the questionnaire, and from responses to three scale items which belong in the general area of religion.
B. RESULTS
1. RELIGIOUS GROUP MEMBERSHIPS
a. AccEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF RELIGION. Data on religious affiliation
were obtained by means of the question, "What is your religion? " which
1 Interview material bearing on certain religious attitudes also appears in Chapters XI and XXI.
208
? ETHNOCENTRISM AND RELIGIOUS A TTITUDES
appeared on page one of the questionnaire in all four of its forms. In answering this question, subjects gave the name of some religious sect or wrote "none" or left the question blank. The answer "none" is taken as an indication that the subject rejects religion, while answering with the name of some religious group is taken as evidence that he somehow accepts religion. When the question is left blank, no inferences can be made. The data obtained by means of this question from the four forms of the questionnaire are summarized in Table I (VI).
Attention may first be called to the fact that subjects who answer "none" (last column but one in Table I (VI)) obtain an over-all mean A-S or E score, 2. 7I (last row in Table I (VI)), that is notably lower than the means for most of the religious groups. 2 The only exceptions appear in the case of the Unitarians, whose over-all mean is 1. 99, and the Combined Minor Prot- estant Sects, whose over-all mean is 2 ? 49? For all the other religious denom- inations the means are in the range 3? 4I (Congregational) to 4. 38 (Lutheran). These trends appear in the data for each form of the questionnaire as well as in the over-all totals. If all subjects who professed to some religious affiliation were placed in one group for statistical purposes, their mean score would be very much higher than that of those who claim no religious-affiliation. There seems to be no doubt that subjects who reject organized religion are less prejudiced on the average than those who, in one way or another, accept it.
Subjects with religious affiliations are not, however, generally ethnocen- tric. Although the nonreligious subjects are clearly nonethnocentric on the average, the mean scores for the various religious denominations are, on the
whole, very close to the neutral point.
The overwhelming majority of our subjects do profess to some religious
affiliation. The nonreligious, nonethnocentric group is relatively small in number and, probably, not very important socially. The variability among the religious subjects seems to be almost as great as it is for our over-all sample. This means that among our religious subjects both extreme high and extreme low scorers are to be found. W e must also take note of the fact that among the nonreligious subjects, high as well as low scorers appear. In this latter connection a possible sex difference is to be noted. Nonreligious women seem to obtain lower scores on the average than do nonreligious men. (Note, in the "none" column of Table I (VI), the means for the groups of women and for the groups of men. ) The nonreligious women almost always score definitely low while the nonreligious men are much more variable.
b. ETHNOCENTRISM IN DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS. If we ask why some religious people score high and others low on ethnocentrism, we
2 The estimation of the significance of differences between means in this chapter follows the same rule that was used in Chapter V. Cf. the foomote r2 to Chap. V. If theN's for the groups in question are as large as 50, then a difference of . 6 is likely to be significant, at least at the 5 per cent level. Most of the differences discussed in this chapter are much larger than . 6 and seem well above the minimum requirements of statistical significance.
? 210
Groups taking Fora 78:
Public Speaking Class llomen Public Speaking Class Men Extension Class WOmen Professional Women
TOtal: f'orm 78
Groups tak in& Fora 60:
Univ. of Oregon Student llomen 3 Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of
california Student llomen Univ. of Oregon and Univ. of
California Student Men TOtal: f'orm 60
Groups taking Fora 45: Maritime SChool Men
Psychiatric Clinic Men Psychiatric Clinic llomen San Quentin Men
TOtal: f'orm 45c
Groups taking Fora 40:
Geo. Washington Univ. 11omen Maritime SChool Men Middle-Class llomen Middle-Class Men llorking-Class Men
TOtal: f'orm 40
Over-all total: four forms
Bprot . . tant here refers to denomination.
5 3. 40
4 3. 98 12 3. 58
25 4. 36 11 3. 46 18 4. 55 24 4. 67
54 4. 24
16 4. 51 35 5. 15 6 4. 57 3 6. ~ 14 4. 67
3. 83 3 3. 25 2 2. 58
3. 92 3 2. 86 2 4. 50
3. 72 10 3. 47 5 3. 88
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 1 ! VI>
! lEAN A-S OR E: BroRE:S Of' VARIOUS RELIGIOUS GROUPS
subjects
who answered
I. Catholic
N Mean
23 3. 15 9 3. 66 8 4. 38
10 2. 44 50 3. 29
Prot~~tanta
N Mean
24 3. 35 14 3. 73 13 3. 99 17 2. 64
68 3. 37
4 1. 85 18 3. 15
13 3. 15 35 3. 05
77 4. 59 18 3. 94 15 4. 58 38 4. 49
110 4. 48
15 3. 99 59 5. 24 60 3. 98 29 4. 28 16 3. 75
III.
C b m b i n e d P r e s b y -
Major terian Protestant
sects
N ~ean NMean
M e t h o d i s t
N Mean
19 3. 70 4 2. 60 1 2. 50
Lutheran
N Mean
6 4. 03 1 3. 70
3. 36
25 3. 52 7 3. 99
4 4. 08 5. 25
74 4. 92 179 190 4. 21 392
(217) (4. 18) 34 4. 13 (481) (3. 89) 83
4. 53124. 524 4. 15 4. 09 9 5. 07 4 5. 80 4. ~ 3 5. 60 . 1 6. 40 4. 00 5 4. 48 1 5. 00
54. 125 4. 20 4. 31 34 4. 69 15 4. 81
bThe following denominations of sects were combined: Bible, Brethren. Christian, Disciple, Evangelical. Humanist. Moral Rearmsment. Natural Law, Nazarene. Quaker. Adventist. Unity, Universalist. The designations of these sects are those employed by the subjects in filling out their questionnaires. The division into major and minor Protestant sects does not conform in every particular with the actual membership figures for the whole United States; it was
naturally tum our attention first to the question of what role the particular religious denomination or sect has to play. Examination of Table r(VI) shows that there are no differences of any significance between Catholics and Protestants, and this regardless of whether we place in one category those subjects who answered "Protestant" or whether we combine the larg- est Protestant denominations. Among the Protestant denominations which have been classed as "major," only one group distinguishes itself: the Uni- tarians3 have a lower mean score than any of the others. This seems to be in keeping with the generally liberal outlook of this group. The minor Prot- estant denominations taken together obtain a lower mean score than do any of the other religious groups save the Unitarians. Unfortunately, none of
3 In terms of membership figures for the United States this body probably should not be classed as "major. "
4. 42
(80) (3. 52) 18 (18) (3. 04) 5 (9) (2. 80) 2 (22) (3. 09) 1
(129) (3. 33) 26
(26) (4. 12) 8 (~) (3. 60) 3
(19) (3. 11) 2 (65) (3. 66) 13
(46) (4. 51) 3 (6) (4. 32) 2 (18) (3. 53) 5 (29) (4. 65) 4
(70) (4. 24) 10
(81) (4. 16) 15 (42) (5. 07) 7 (61) (3. 59) 9 (20) (4. 15) 3 (13) (4. 15) 0
3. 00 2. 98 1. 80 5. 10
3. 46
3. 63
0 1 4. 80 0
4. 38 "Protestant" but did not give the name of any
5. 23 3. 30 3. 58 4. 35
4. 02
12 4. 65 9 4. 42 1 5. 50 0
6 2. 90 3 3. 80 74. 834 4. 98
194. 1412 4. 27
3. 92 88 4. 10 39
? C b n g r e -
g~~tionel
N Mea>
~! %lisco-
p a l i a n
N Mean
8 9 j ) t i S t C h r i s t i a n M O r l ! l l n S c i e n c e
NMeanNMeanNMean
U n i t a r i a n
N Mean
IV.
C b m b i n e d M i n o r
Pr~~! gnt
v. N O n e
VI. B l a n k
2 2. 25 21 3. 30
5 3. 185 I 5. 60 2 2 4. 50 I 3 I. 870
II 3. 288
3. 46 3 4. 30 4. 00 0
1. 60 I 2. 60
I2. 70 3. 36 5. 3. 64
I I I 4
7
I. 10 1. 80 I. 20 2.
