No More Learning

What do you think of (Where do you stand on; How do you feel about): Labor Unions? (Get elaboration with specific questions, prefer- ably on current issues: e. g. , 30 per cent wage increase demand; current strikes; PAC; labor leaders; American Business; Free Enterprise; etc. $25,ooo limitation. )
Government Control? (E. g. , OP A; Unemployment Compensation;
? 322
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Full~Employment Bill; Public Health Insurance; antitrust; etc. Also
anti-PAC; antistrike, etc. )
Personalization
c. What is it about a man that Makes him Worth Voting for (e. g. , in presi- dential choice in last election)?
d. What Ought to be Done about (any group or movement objected to)? What Groups have the Most Influence on political affairs?
How do they work?
What do you consider the Most Dangerous Threats to our present form of government?
What ought to be done about it?
6. MINORITIES AND "RACE"
Since this topic has been given detailed consideration in previous chapters,
we may be brief in outlining the underlying and manifest inquiry concern- ing it. As far as opinions are concerned, it was of interest to find the cognitive and emotional line drawn by the subject between ingroup and outgroup and the characteristics he specifically ascribed to each. How stereotyped and how automatic is the attribution of traits to outgroups? A comparison of this part of the interview with the previous ones, especially the clinical, made it possible to ascertain to what degree a subject's innermost preoccupations, such as sex, dependency, "anality," are projected into the social sphere. How far are the accusations against the minority group completely generalized stereotypes and how far is the specific content of these accusations condi- tioned by the personal problems of the accuser? Is there a special negative or positive affinity between the subject and one particular outgroup? Does the subject believe in social and psychological determination of individual and ethnic characteristics and does he feel his personal responsibility in this respect, or does he think of these characteristics as "inborn" and thus not flexible? The degree of realism in thinking about minority groups belongs
here.
The amount of awareness of hostility, the readiness to act against out-
groups, are among the major problems concerning attitudes toward out- groups. Of relevance in this connection is the degree of inner conflict result- ing from being prejudiced. Does the subject feel the need of reconciling his prejudice with democratic and Christian ideals and with respectability, and so forth, or is he ready to act in a straight antidemocratic fashion? In the first case, what are the conditions under which he could lose his inhibitions and act antidemocratically?
The sources of opinions and attitudes were approached by inquiry into parental beliefs, into religious and educational training, and into group mem- berships. The question was posed as to what degree prejudice may be a function of specific experiences with minority groups.
Occasionally some attempt was made, at the conclusion of the interview, to influence prejudice by argument, by making prejudice disreputable, or by
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 32 3
other means, in order to gain information about effective methods of com- bating prejudice.
The questions in this area follow:
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
6. MINORITIES AND "RACE"
Underlying Questions: a. Opinions.
r. How General or how Specific is the Prejudice? (What outgroups are rejected? What outgroups have peculiar Fantasy-value? How does this group differ from other outgroups? )
2. What are the Main Stereotype Characteristics of the main outgroups (e. g. , power, acquisition, sex, dirty, lazy)?
3? How Stereotyped and how Automatic is the attribution of traits to outgroups (i. e. , phrasing, assurance and categoricalness, recurrence of similar projections, etc. ; exceptions)?
4? Is there an "Essential" Race Theory (i. e. , can those faults be elimi- nated, or are they "basic"; whose responsibility is it to make the change)?
b. Attitudes.
I. Degree and Form of Hostility (or attraction) toward outgroup(s)?
How much is Conscious? Unconscious?
How Openly is this Expressed to Others? To the Self? (i. e. , how much veiling by pseudodemocratic fa<;ade? )
2. Degree and Form of Aggressiveness (or willingness to act aggres- sively) toward outgroup(s)?
Is the attitude essentially one of Persecution-or Active Discrim- ination-or Segregation (with "equality")-or Exclusion only? Check specific readiness to support Antidemocratic measures; and type and degree of Pseudodemocratic Fac;ade.
3? Degree and Nature of Inner Conflicts re prejudice?
What forces oppose prejudice (e. g. , rationality, respectability or ingroup feelings, Christian antiaggression)?
c. History: Sources of opinions and attitudes.
I. Parental opinions, attitudes, and teachings (also relatives and sib-
lings).
2. Religious, Educational Training. "
3? Significant Group Memberships.
4? Experience with minority group members; to what extent is the
prejudice a function of frustrations and "Surface Resentments"?
d. Ingroup Feelings: Meaning?
e. Therapy: What therapeutic techniques are most effective in combating
prejudice?
Suggested Direct Questions:
a. Opinions. General
I. What do you think about the problem of Minority Groups in this country? Jewish problem? Negro problem?
? 324
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
What do you think is (are) the most important Minority Prob- lem(s)?
What minority group(s) present(s) the Biggest Problem in this country?
What racial groups do you find the Least Attractive? Which do you like the Least?
(For any group about which subject shows a particular concern, get his ideas of what it is like, and what ought to be done. If he men- tions Jews first, get this information on other groups later. )
Stereotype
2. (How) Can you tell a person is a Jew? A Jew from other people? What are the most Characteristic Traits of Jews? Their principal characteristics?
Do you think Dislike of the Jews is Increasing? (If Yes: Why? )
Influence
Do you think the Jews are more of a menace or just a nuisance?
Some people think the Jews have too much influence in this country; what do you think? In what areas? How did they obtain it? How do they use it?
Do you think the Jews have done their part in the War Effort?
Do you think the Jews are a Political Force in America?
"Exceptions"
3? Are there any Exceptions to the general rule? Where do you find them?
Are there some good Jews?
"Basic-ness"
4? Do you think the Jew(s) will Ever Change? Or will there always be something basically Jewish about them (him)? (If the Jew will change: ) How might that be done (come about)?
What do you think the Jew(s) ought to do?
b. Attitudes. General
What ought to be done about the Jews? (About the particular prob- lem conceived by subject? )
(In general, if subject is mild at first, see how aggressive he can be induced to be. If he is extreme at first, see how readily he can agree to milder courses. )
Persecution
What action is being taken by people or groups that you know of? How extensive is this? Are they justified?
What do you think about what Hitler did?
What would you have done if you had had Hitler's problem?
What might lead to the same thing happening here?
What might have to be done as a Last Resort if the Jews continue
(doing whatever subject emphasizes as a menace)?
What might Justify taking more Extreme Steps to solve this prob- lem?
What steps might have to be taken?
Some people think the Jews ought to be Sent Back where they came from; how do you feel about this? Should their property be Con- fiscated, to make sure of putting an end to this problem?
Should their money be divided up?
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 325
Discrimination
How about keeping Jews out of Important Positions?
Would that perhaps solve the problem-essentially?
What about Educational Quotas to keep Jews from taking over cer- tain professions?
Segregation
Exclusion
What about keeping Jews out of Gentile Neighborhoods?
Should Gentiles and Jews Mingle socially?
Do you think Gentiles should Intermarry with Jews?
"Exceptions"
(Concerning any proposed measure:) Should this be done 'to all the
Jews? How to distinguish? c. History.
Where did you First Learn about the Jews?
What Personal Experiences have you had with Jews?
Have you had any Contrary Experiences?
What were your Parents' Attitudes toward the Jews, as you were growing up?
Have you Ever Felt Differently about the Jews?
As was the case with interview data on religion, interview material on political and racial attitudes is being postponed for discussion in some of the later portions of the book (Chapters XVI and XVII).
F. THE SCORING OF THE INTERVIEWS
1. QUANTIFICATION OF INTERVIEW DATA
Systematic treatment of interview material presents special problems in- herent in the nature of the data. On the one hand, the interviewee has to be given as much freedom as possible for the spontaneous expression of his attitudes and needs. Guidance by means of the Interview Schedule had thus been made as noninterfering as it could be, in view of the definite direction of emphasis that was to be maintained. Material obtained under such circum- stances, although contained within a common general frame, is, on the other hand, characterized by a good deal of uniqueness and personal flavor to which only presentation in the manner of case description can do full justice.
In view of the fact that the focus of this study is on group trends rather than on the single case, it seemed possible, as anticipated in the introduction to this chapter, to effect a certain compromise between case study and sta- tistical approach and thus to gain in comprehensiveness and conclusiveness far more than is being lost in immediacy and directness. A kind of crude quantification of the interview material was achieved by counting, in terms of a number of specially designed interview scoring categories, the occur- rence of certain characteristics in the interviews of those scoring extremely high and those scoring extremely low on overt anti-Semitism or ethnocen- trism. Since this procedure has intrinsic shortcomings, to be discussed below,
? p6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
the numerical results are not meant to yield conclusive evidence for the validity of the personality differences found between our high and low scorers. They do, however, describe in a relatively systematic, organized, and controlled way the impressions formed about these personality differ- ences in the course of intensive studies of individual cases.
This agreement between interview scoring and case studies justifies in- creased confidence in the figures presented in the next four chapters. The entire approach should be considered, however, as an initial attempt to com- bine the stu? y of variables on a group basis with the study of individuals.
2. BROAD OUTLINE OF CATEGORIES IN THE INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL
The list of categories as well as the more formal part of the explanations accompanying each of them, which together make up the Scoring Manual, will be presented in full, together with the discussion of the specific results, in Chapters X, XI, and XII. There are sixty-two main classifications. Sub- divisions of some of them bring the total number of scoring categories used for women to ninety, the total being slightly less for men. These categories cover ( r) predominantly factual material such as childhood events or family structure, along with (2) data dealing with attitudes toward oneself, one's parents, the opposite sex, or people in general, and (3) highly interpretative dimensions exemplified by technical psychodynamic terms (such as "counter- cathectic rejection" of certain drives) or else by more "formal" character- izations (such as "rigidity," "intolerance of ambiguity," "anti-intraceptive- ness," and so forth).
The factual material and the evidence on attitudes are presented under the four headings of "Family" (Chapter X) and of "Sex," "People," and "Self" (Chapter XI).
The dynamic and formal categories are especially emphasized in a fifth and concluding part of the scoring scheme, under the heading of "Character Structure and Personality Organization" (Chapter XII). Although these categories were to a considerable extent inspired by psychoanalysis, they should not be considered as psychoanalytic in the narrower sense of the word, since classification of our material is done primarily on the basis of present personality structure rather than on the basis of psychogenetic data. The entire framework, length, and condition of our interviews made it impossible directly to obtain material of a depth-level comparable to that of genuine psychoanalytic material. At the same time, however, there was enough spon- taneous material at hand to make it possible for raters trained in dynamic psychology to infer some of the major structural problems and types of defense mechanisms in our subjects, in accordance with the categories pro- vided by the Scoring Manual.
A certain parallelism, although by no means an exact duplication, between
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 327
the Interview Schedule and the Scoring Manual will be noted when com- paring the two in detail.
3. THE INTERVIEW RATING PROCEDURE AND THE RATERS
Since our major purpose in analyzing the interview material was to gain additional evidence concerning the relationship of prejudice to personality, it was important to conceal from the rater the explicit stand of the subject with respect to ethnic tolerance or prejudice as well as with respect to polit- ical ideology in general. All references to these topics throughout the inter- view were thus carefully deleted before the protocols were handed to the raters. The diagnosis of the subjects' personality was thus rendered "blind. " The raters did know, of course, that their subjects had scored either high or low on the scales for measuring prejudice, but they did not know which were the high and which the low scorers.
In all other respects the interview protocols remained unchanged.
a. RA TING BY CA TEGORIES. The rating of the interviews was done for each of the categories separately. The score for the category in question, how- ever, was obtained in a synoptic rather than a piecemeal fashion.
The major source for the assignment of a score was the clinical part of the interview, but evidence was utilized from any part of the interview which might be brought to bear on each category.
Scores were in terms of a three-point scale. Since, as was mentioned above, a careful study of the interviews had preceded the construction of the Scor- ing Manual, certain more or less definite expectations as to what might constitute the personality aspects of a prejudiced as contrasted with an un- prejudiced subject had been developed in the way of advance hypotheses. In view of this, the two opposites within each category were tentatively designated as the presumably "High" and "Low"2 variants or alternatives, i. e. , those expected to be typical of prejudiced and of unprejudiced persons, respectively. In the Manual the left column was used for the presumably high and the right column for the presumably low variant.
The third rating, "Neutral," comprised two distinct possibilities: (I) the existing evidence was too colorless or self-contradictory within the category in question to warrant assignment to either the "High" or the "Low" alterna- tive; or (2) there was no evidence at all pertinent to this category. The for- mer case is much less frequent among the "Neutral" ratings actually given than one might expect beforehand. In some of the protocols possibilities (I) and (2) were scored separately; their proportion was found to be about three to seven. In particular, factual questions were somewhat more likely to yield
2 Note that the initial letter of the terms "High," "Low," (and "Neutral") is capitalized when referring to interview ratings in order to distinguish these ratings from the actual "high" or "low" scores of the subjects on prejudice and on the other scales of the question- naire.
? p8 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
"no evidence" than interpretative categories, but even in the case of the group of categories subsumed under character structure the number of cases in which the material was too ambiguous to make a decision possible remained within comparatively low limits.
In absolute terms the number of "Neutrals" is considerable, especially in the case of some of the categories dealing with childhood events (see Chap- ters X to XII). For many variables lack of information is~by no means always due to the impossibility of gathering evidence but rather to the sportiness of either the spontaneous responses of the subject or of the inquiry on the part of the interviewer who, as stated above, could not possibly cover the entire ground in each case. Both the Interview Schedule and the Scoring Manual make an attempt to cover systematically as many as possible of the very numerous areas, but it could not be hoped that each case would furnish material on all of the questions involved.
b. INTUITIVE OvER-ALL RATINGs. Besides the ratings on each of the cate- gories, the raters were asked also to make intuitive over-all ratings. They were instructed, that is, to give their conclusive impression as to whether the subject involved was prejudiced or not. One of two alternatives, "High"
(H) or "Low" (L), had to be chosen (for data see final column of Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX); discussion in Chapter XIII).
c. THE INTERVIEW RATERS. The ratings were made by two members of the staff of the study, here to be called M and R, one of them male and the other female. Both are well-trained psychologists and were thoroughly familiar with the nature of the categories and the underlying implications as to personality theory. These raters had participated actively in numerous conferences at which the scoring procedure was thoroughly discussed, prior to making the ratings.
Each of the raters scored approximately half of the men and half of the women, high and low scorers being distributed at random in about equal proportions within each group. (Concerning added duplicate ratings to check on reliability, see below. )
In particular, the interviews of cases Jl,fz to M2o and F22 to F39a among those scoring high, and of cases M2 to Mzg and of F29 to F39 among the low-scoring interviewees were evaluated by rater M, and those of the re- maining interviewees, listed farther down in the respective subdivisions of Tables 1 (IX) and 2 (IX), were evaluated by rater R. It should be added that the code numbers used were distributed at random among the various groups so that each rater rated not only men and women, low scorers and high scorers, but also approximately equal proportions of subjects who had been given Forms 78 and 45 of the questionnaire (see also Table 3 (IX)).
4. RELIABILITY OF THE INTERVIEW RATINGS
There were three ways in which some light was thrown upon the difficult question of the reliability of the interview ratings, although only the second
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 329
of these deals directly with reliability in the technical sense of the term. The other two refer to aspects which are merely more or less closely related to this problem.
a. PROPORTIONs OF RATINGs GIVEN. First, the proportion of High, Low, and Neutral ratings within each category was compared for the two raters and found to be in fairly good agreement. One method used in computing an index for this agreement was the following: the frequencies of "High" responses, as scored by the first of the raters on each of the variables was plotted on a scatter diagram against the frequencies of such responses as scored by the second rater. In this comparison, the two raters are repre- sented by the different nonoverlapping groups they were assigned to rate. Similar scattergrams were obtained for "Low" and "Neutral" ratings, and in each of the three cases men and women were plotted separately. With one exception, the correlation coefficients computed from the six scatter- grams were between . 70 and . 82. This indicates that the two raters tended to concur fairly well in giving either a relatively large or a relatively small number of "High," or of "Low," or of "Neutral" ratings within any of the approximately ninety categories, showing a certain uniformity at least for one aspect of the rating policy.
(It may be added that in absolute terms there is also good agreement, the range of frequencies of "High" scores being o to I2, and o to I4, for the two raters, respectively, the various categories being considered for each of the sexes separately. For "Low" scores the corresponding ranges were o to I I and o to I 3? Thus, while both the raters neglect to use some of the alter- natives offered by the Manual (as indicated by "o"), neither of them uses the opposite alternatives indiscriminately, i. e. , in the characterization of all or nearly all the interviews analyzed by them. )
In view of the fact that the two staff members rated different samples of subjects, the coefficients and other data given above suggest that the char- acter and distribution of ratings given for the various categories are to a considerable degree intrinsic to the category in question, at least within our specific combination of raters.
b. INTERRATER AGREEMENT. Secondly, we turn to reliability proper. Nine interviewees in the group assigned to rater M were, in an additional checking procedure not used for the main analysis or for the survey in Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX), also rated by rater R under the identical detailed set of aspects. Two of these nine subjects were deliberately chosen from the relatively small group-12 of the So interviewees, i. e. , I 5 per cent-of those for whom the composite standing based on the detailed ratings of the original rater had missed the correct diagnosis as to prejudice. These subjects were M19 and F39. As may be further seen from Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX), the remaining seven are likewise mostly not from among the clearest cases as far as inter- view ratings are concerned.
A comparison of t:he gross results of the two rating procedures is shown
? Interviewees
Prejudice score (from
TABLE 7 (IX)
RELIABILITY OF INI'ERVIEW RATINGS: INTERRATER AGREEMENT ON NINE SUBJEX:TS
Percentage of High ratings on interview
Rater M Rater R
Intuitive rating on interview Rater M Rater R
LL H H LL HH H ? HH LL HH HL
questionnaire). M3low19. 236. 1LL
M4 high 77. 3 78. 1 H H M5low31. 431. 7LL M6 high 72. 7 74. 4 H H Ml9 low 70. 4 31. 1 H L F24 high 70. 5 70. 0 H H F29 low 33. 3 34. 4 L L F31 high 79. 4 77. 7 H H F39 low 72. 2 27. 2 H L
Composite standing on interview Rater M Rater R
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 33 I
in Table 7 (IX). The prejudice scores based on the questionnaire are taken from Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX). However, the numerical scores appearing on these tables for the subjects listed here, as based on the ratings of rater M, are limited to a selection of the more discriminating categories (see below, Section 6). The figures in Table 7 (IX) are based upon the ratings on all categories and are further given as percentages of "High" ratings relative to the possible maximum of ratings as given by the total number of cate- gories. Thereby the number of Neutral ratings-easily obtained by subtract- ing both "High" and "Low" ratings from the total number of categories, 86 for men and 90 for women (see below)-has been added half and half to the "High" and the "Low" ratings. Composite standing as indicated by a percentage score of over, or of under, so, and finally intuitive over-all ratings of the interview make up the remainder of the table.
Percentage scores show excellent interrater agreement for six of the nine subjects. Of the remaining three, those with really striking discrepancies are the same two mentioned above as having been misjudged by the original rater, M, namely M19 and F39. In both cases, the second rater has rectified the error very clearly by establishing percentage scores in the neighborhood of 30 which contrast sharply with those in the neighborhood of 70 as obtained from the first rater. The correlation coefficient between the columns repre- senting the two raters-not very meaningful under the circumstances-is . 6I. It would be raised to about . 8 if one of the two "controversial" cases just mentioned were eliminated so as to adjust the proportion of such cases more closely to that referred to above as existing in the total sample of inter- viewees, namely Is per cent. Such a figure, if verified on a broader basis, would be quite satisfactory for the kind of material involved.
In terms of composite standing and intuitive ratings, agreement is perfect save for the two cases mentioned. (Intuitive ratings on one of the controversial subjects, M 19, is incomplete due to the fact that rater R, contrary to instruc- tions, declared herself as unable to make up her mind in this particular case. )
It may be added that the means of the percentage scores for the two raters are quite close to one another as well as to the ideal value of so. They are s8. 4 for M and so. 9 for R. This augments the evidence brought forward above under (a) with respect to the proportion of ratings given by the two raters. The slight preponderance of "High" ratings in rater M is also reflected in his intuitive over-all ratings. In fact, it is concentrated in the two cases where he makes his mistakes and where the second rater evens out the score.
A breakdown for the six major areas covered by the Scoring Manual, namely family patterns (see Chapter X), attitude toward sex, other people, and self (see Chapter XI), and dynamic character structure and cognitive personality organization (see Chapter XII) is given in Table 8 (IX). The number of categories for each area is also indicated. Considering the small- ness of these numbers, pairs of averages from raw scores in terms of number
? Areas in Scoring Manual
Family pattern (parents, etc) A ttitude toward sex
Number
of four high scorersc
categories Rater M Rater R
five low scorersc Rater M Rater R
A ttitude toward other
Attitude toward self
Dynamic character structure Cognitive personality organization
Totals
H-L 28 6. 8-1. 3
7 4. 5-0. 3 11 6. 3-0. 0 16 9. 3-1. 3 22 15. 3-0. 3
6 5. 0-0. 0
goa 47. 2-3. 2 49. 9-4. 4
H-L
3. 8-5. 6 1. 8-2. 2 2. 2-3. 2 3. 0-6. 6 5. 8-6. 2 2. 0-2. 8
TABLE 8 (IX)
INl'ERRATER AGREEMENl' ON INl'ERVIEW RATiroS FOR SIX MAJOR AREAS
people
aFor men the total is only 86; no adjustment to this sl~ght difference has been made in the present table in the case of the men subjects.
bRounded to one decimal place csee Table 7 (IX)
Average number of rating. sb received by
H-L
9. 3-1. 3 5. 3-0. 3 6. 3-0. 3 9. 5-l. 5
H-L
3. 0-8. 6 1. 0-3. 4 0. 4-5. 0 1. 0-9. 8 1. 6-8. 8 0. 4-5. 0
14. 5-0. 5 5. 0-0. 5
18. 6-26. 6 7. 4-40. 6
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 333
of "High" and "Low" ratings (H-L) are given for the four high scorers as contrasted with the five low scorers listed in Table 7 (IX). No indices of reliability were computed here; but comparison of the first with the second and of the third with the fourth pair of figures in each row of Table 8 (IX) reveals a good deal of agreement between the two raters. The fact that this agreement is less pronounced in the case of the low scorers as shown in the columns containing the third and fourth pairs of figures, and that, further- more, the values of H and L within these pairs ofteri show less clear-cut differentiation than they do in the left part of the table, is due-as was revealed in more detailed analysis not presented here-to the fact that both cases with controversial diagnosis, M 19 and F39, happen to be in this group. Perhaps with the exception of family pattern and attitude toward self, this lack of differentiation for the group of low scorers, especially in rater M, and the ensuing disagreement with rater R, is about evenly distributed over the various areas; for high scorers differentiation and agreement is about equally good for all the areas, and the "totals" are in excellent agreement with one another.
Discounting the controversial cases, i. e. , the 15 per cent in our total sample of interviewees for which the original rater arrived at a diagnosis op- posite to that given by the defining score on the prejudice scales, the results of this fragmentary analysis of reliability are quite encouraging. In fact, if the trend as discussed for Table 7 (IX) should be representative of the entire sample, interrater agreement for the remaining 85 per cent of the inter- viewees would be close to ? 9? For the other 15 per cent one may contemplate challenging the validity of the defining prejudice score along with doubting the validity of the interview rating. The "questionnaire-high" may after all be considered the product of an approach that is by definition less con- cerned with underlying dynamics than is the diagnosis of the "personality- high. "
Further data on interrater agreement on the interview will be presented in Chapter XIII.
The problem of agreement of various types of ratings among themselves, such as in our present context especially of composite standing and intuitive over-all rating, will be discussed in Chapter XIII. In a broader sense such aspects are also included within the general concept of reliability.
A third avenue of scrutiny somewhat akin to reliability problems is through the study of "halo-effects," to be discussed next.
5. MINIMIZING HALO-EFFECTS IN RATING THE INTERVIEWS
We return now to the problem of the carry-over from one category to another, much in the way of the "halo-effect" known in social and educa- tional psychology. One way of preventing or minimizing the halo-effect would have been to use designations other than "(presumably) High" and
? 334
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
"(presumably) Low" to characterize the two opposites within the various categories. But such a procedure would have prevented only raters un- familiar with the underlying hypotheses from succumbing to halo-effects. Such raters, on the other hand, would have been undesirable from other, more crucial points of view. It was thus decided to leave control of halo- effects to special analytical attitudes the raters were asked to maintain, and to ascertain the degree of relatedness in a statistical analysis of the completed ratings. It must be noted that-as in all cases of halo-effects-a certain amount of correlation may be fully justified by fact, i. e. , by existing correlation of real traits. Exactly how much of the halo is realistic would require further intensive study for all combinations of categories involved.
Both the variability of the discriminatory power of the single categories (see below) and the variability of the proportion of "High" and "Low" rat- ings ascribed to the various subjects seem to indicate that the raters succeeded, at least in part, in keeping the halo-effect within reasonable bounds in rat- ing the subjects. Evidence on the second of these points is contained in Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX) in the first two of the columns relating to ratings of the interviews. As is readily seen, hardly any of the subjects are classified as "High" or as "Low" on all categories even when the "Neutral" ratings are excluded from consideration, and for some of them there is an approximately equal number of "High" and "Low" ratings. This shows that the raters were quite capable of separating the various issues involved, and of rating a person
as "High" in one respect and as "Low" in another.
6. TABULATION OF INTERVIEW RATINGS BY CATEGORIES: STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
A tabulation of interview ratings by single categories was obtained simply by counting the instances of High (H), of Low (L), and of Neutral (N) ratings, on a given category, among subjects of each of four groups-high- scoring men, low-scoring men, high-scoring women, and low-scoring women (scoring, that is, extremely high or low on the direct prejudice ques- tionnaire).
Analysis of the figures for a given category, with a view to their bearing upon the underlying hypotheses, could have any one of four outcomes-two "positive" and two "negative. " The "positive" instances are confirmatory of the original hypothesis. They include "High" ratings-i.