(Get
detailed
pic-
b.
b.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
h.
Special Personality Meanings.
Suggested Direct Questions: Genera/Importance
a. What are your Views on religion?
What does your religion Offer you?
What Appeals to you most in religion?
What is the Most Important Thing in Religion? How Important Should Religion be in a person's life?
Philosophy
lngroup
c. What are the main (most important) differences between your religion and others?
How important are the differences among the various sects?
What do you think of Atheists?
Ethics
History
d. What was the nature of your early Religious Training?
What was the Religious Atmosphere in your Home?
In what ways do you differ from Your Parents in Religion? From your Wife (Husband)?
What does it Mean to be a Christian?
How can you Tell a Christian?
What is the Main Difference between Christians and Other People? What is the Most Important of Christ's Teachings?
? 3I2 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
In what ways did your Parents Differ in Religious Matters? (If subject broke away from parental teachings: Get history; also get reactions to differences with spouse. )
Have you ever Questioned your religious beliefs?
Since data on religion and political ideology had to be excluded from the material presented to the interview raters (see below, Section F, 3), the part of the interview based on the preceding questions will not be taken up for discussion until later in this volume (Chapter XVIII).
4. CLINICAL DATA
In the clinical section of the interview an attempt was made to obtain as much personal data relevant to our problem as was possible in a single sitting and without producing anxieties in the subject. With respect to this area, even more than in the case of the others, the subject had to be unaware of the direction intended by the interview. Care was taken to avoid offering inter- pretations to the subject for which he was not ready and the effect of which could not be followed up and worked out. Here, as in the other sections, the almost general desire of the subjects to talk about themselves in a professional and confidential situation was of great help to the interviewer.
A variety of personal data had been collected by previous techniques. This material, as pointed out above, was at the disposal of the interviewer, who studied it before starting the interview. The first two sheets of the question- naire brought out some gross information about the subject's personal life. Above and beyond that, the type of information which had to be obtained by the interviewer was based on hypotheses as to what aspects of personal life might be expected to influence the pattern of social beliefs and attitudes.
The information gained in the entire clinical area by previous methods is represented in the Schedule below. In view of the length of the clinical part of the interview schedule, the questions are presented and discussed under six major headings, as follows: (a) Family Background: Sociological Aspects; (b) Family Figures: Personal Aspects; (c) Childhood; (d) Sex; (e) Social Relationships; (f) School.
a. FAMILY BAcKGROUND: SociOLOGICAL AsPECTS. T h e sociological aspects of the family background seem of particular relevance in the present context. The national origin of parents was explored in order to find out whether relative "purity" or mixture of national origin is related to prejudice. Al- though this problem was considered important, there was no specific expec- tancy as to the direction of the results.
The group memberships of the parents were to be taken as an indication of how much stress was placed by the family on the idea of "belonging" and of how much the parents considered themselves as individuals or mainly as members of different groups and organizations. The whole socioeconomic picture of the parents, and possibly of the grandparents, the status achieved
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3I 3
as well as that aspired to, had to be understood in order to throw light on the security or the tensions existing, in this area, within the family.
The underlying and direct questions on the sociological aspects of the family background are presented here.
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4a. FAMILY BACKGROUND: SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Underlying Questions:
a. National Origins of father and mother (not just racial; e. g. , third gen-
eration Polish, German immigrant, etc. ) .
. b. Important Ingroup Memberships of father and mother (e. g. , unions,
Masons, etc. ).
c. Picture of Socioeconomic Status of Parents and Grandparents (as re-
flected in occupation, education, way of life, etc. ), with special attention to Social Mobility.
Suggested Direct Questions: Background
a. Father's and mother's National Antecedents, occupation, education, politics, religion.
Economic
b. Actual Standard of Living of father and mother (Ask specific questions to get clear: cars, servants, housing, entertaining, etc. ; enough to eat, on relief, have to work as child, etc. ).
Ingroups
c. Who were your father's (mother's) Friends mostly?
What Organizations did your father (mother) belong to? How did your father (mother) spend his (her) Spare Time?
b. FAMILY FIGURES: PERSONAL AsPECTS. After the inquiry into the socio- logical aspects of the family background, the personal conception of the family figures by the subject was recorded. The subject's conception of the parent figures could reveal, among other things, whether the picture was dominated by the authoritarian aspects of the parent-child relationship or by a more democratic type of relationship. In this connection the attention of the interviewer was further focused on the ability of the subject to appraise his parents objectively-whether on the more critical or on the more loving side-as contrasted with an inclination to put the parents on a very high plane, exaggerating their strength and virtuousness.
The conceptions concerning the siblings were likewise made the topic of a special inquiry. This was done with the idea in mind that the rivalries con- nected with sibling situations are an important source of the establishment of interpersonal relationships. An attempt was made to record the existing hierarchies in the sibling situation, the attitudes toward older and younger siblings, as well as the preferences, resentments, and envies arising in this connection.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the sub- ject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem. The sources within the family of satisfactions and tensions in general were also
explored.
In this area, dealing with various personal attitudes, especially careful
thought was given to the formulation of the manifest questions regarding \vhich the subject was likely to be sensitive and in conflict. One of the pri- mary functions of these questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety. But since it was obvious that we could by this method never be sure of having obtained a true answer, especially in the case of some individuals-due more often to unintended than to deliberate camouflage- a number of less conspicuous, very specific matter-of-fact questions were also designed to catch general attitudes with as little distortion as possible.
The underlying and manifest questions in this area are as follows: INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4b. FAMILY FIGURES: PERSONAL ASPECTS
Underlying Questions:
a. Subject's Conception of Parent-Figures and Actuality (i. e. , get basis for
inferring latter): Degree of Critical Objectivity of subject.
b. Same for any important Siblings (Domination by older sibs? Displace-
ment by younger sibs? Which is most important? )
c. Pattern of Power-Relations between Father and Mother (domination-
submission, activity-passivity, etc. ).
Suggested Direct Questions: Images of Father and Mother
a. What sort of Person is your father? (Mother? )
\Vhat things do you Admire most in your Father? (Mother? ) (Require subject to illustrate stereotypes by specific traits and situational examples. )
Assuming most people aren't perfect, what Human Frailties do your father (mother) have?
Which Parent do you Take After; are you most Like; Influenced you Most?
What were his (her) ideals, etc. ?
Power-Relations of Father and Mother
b. How did your parents Get Along together?
In what ways were your Parents most Alike?
In what ways are they Different from each other?
Who Made the Decisions usually? (Get specific information e. g. , re finances, recreation, discipline of children, residence, etc. ). Disagreements arise in every family from time to time; what Bones of Contention did your parents sometimes have?
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3I 5
Siblings
c. Same initial questions for any Important Si\)lings. Also: Who was your Favorite Brother (Sister)?
What did you Like About him (her)?
What did he (she) Mean to you?
What things did you sometimes Quarrel about?
c. CHILDHOOD. Some attempt was also made to obtain information about the earlier phases of childhood. It has to be kept in mind, however, that in view of the type of inquiry used in this study, no differentiation can be made between real childhood events and present tendencies projected into childhood. The assumption was that both types of material are psychologi- cally relevant as long as the possible duality of sources is not overlooked in the interpretation of the material. Thus, the manifest question, "What were you like as a child? " was asked to get either the subject's idea about himself as a child or the possible description of the type of child he might have been. It was observed that the subject, especially if he were a prejudiced one, often attributed to himself as a child characteristics which at the present time he seemed eager to repress.
The inquiry regarding early memories, wishes, fears, dreams, and so forth had the purpose of getting material which stood out for the subject in con- nection with his childhood and seemed relevant as a basis for inference. Among the underlying questions, the structure of the emotional attachment to the parents seemed of paramount importance. Here we were specifically interested in the parents as objects of cathexis as well as of identification. In the case of a man, it was important to learn whether there was at any time an explicit rebellion against the father, and against what sort of father, or whether there was only passive submission. The assumption behind this question, later proved correct, was that the pattern developed in the rela- tionship to the father tends to be transferred to other authorities and thus becomes crucial in forming social and political beliefs in men. In this con- nection it is of importance to know not only about rebellion against the father but also how far such rebellion is conscious and accepted as such.
Rebellion against, or submission to, the father is only one part of the pic- ture. Another part deals with the question of identification, or the lack of identification, with the father, and thus with the masculine role in general.
The establishment of masculinity in the boy is, of course, also closely connected? with the boy's attitude toward the mother. To what degree was there love for the mother and to what degree identification with the mother? Was such an identification, in its turn, sublimated and accepted by the ego, or was it rejected on the conscious level because the mother symbolized not only something "admirabl~" but at the same time something weak and there- fore contemptible? How did the boy defend himself against the rejected and feared passivity? A compensatory display of "toughness" and ruthless-
? p6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ness is, according to findings from the F scale, correlated with antidemocratic social and political beliefs.
Considerations analogous to those made in the preceding paragraphs were also applied to women.
An attempt was also made to probe into pre-Oedipal fixations, that is, to pay attention to the "orality" and "anality" of the subject and especially to the defense mechanisms with which these and other instinctual problems had been handled. The problem of homosexual tendencies, their degree, and the subject's acceptance or rejection of them was also given consideration. It will be seen to be of rather crucial importance for the social and political orientation of the individual how much passive striving there is in men, and even more important, how much countercathectic defense is built up against it, and how much acceptance and sublimation of masculine identification there is in women. The problem of homosexuality relates to the different ways of failure in resolving the Oedipal conflict. and the resultant regression to earlier phases.
Since, as earlier chapters have indicated, the attitude toward authority is crucial for psychological syndromes related to social and political attitudes, an attempt was made further to find out as much as possible about the type of discipline to which the subject was exposed, and about his reactions to it. Was the discipline consistent or capricious, strict or lenient? Did both parents handle discipline in a similar way or was there much difference be- tween the parents in this respect? Was the matter in question explained to the child and was he included in the discussion of it or did the discipline appear to the child as unintelligible, arbitrary, or overwhelming? Did the parents adhere rigidly to the conventionalized values of their class, with great intolerance toward disobedience and any deviations, especially when the deviations seemed to the. parents to be manifestations of lower-class behavior, or were the values the parents tried to transmit less conventional and more in the nature of internal and humanitarian values for which the child's understanding and cooperation could be secured? Was the reaction of the subject mostly fear of authority, which could be met only by acquies- cence, or could the child grasp the issues involved and feel that the con- sideration of certain convincing social values would assure him of his parents' love? In case of failure, did the child feel that everything was lost and that something very bad might happen, or did he feel that renewed efforts would regain for him the love of his parents, only temporarily lost? It was hypothe- sized that the parents' emotional attitude toward the child, their permissive- ness toward his weakness and immaturity, furnished the model for his future behavior toward objects which he considered as weak.
Since the way in which the parents transmit social values to the child, and the punishment and rewards with which they reinforce them, are decisive for the establishment of the superego, we are led from highly personal
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3I 7
problems back to problems 'of social conscience. The effects are mirrored in interpersonal relationships, on a smaller scale in one's private life and on a larger scale in one's public function as a citizen. A person with a mature, integrated, and internalized conscience will certainly take a different stand on moral and social issues than a person with an underdeveloped, defective or overpunitive superego, or a person who still, as in childhood, clings to a set of rules and values only as they are reinforced by an external authority, be it public opinion or be it a leader.
The underlying and manifest questions under the heading of Childhood History and Attitudes follow.
Underlying Questions:
a.
Structure of the Oedipus-Complex: major identifications, loves, hates in relationships to parent-figures and -surrogates. (Formulated especially for men; adapt for women. )
Has there been an underlying trend of rebellion and hostility against the father, or of submission and passivity?
Has the hostility against the father been admitted into the ego?
Was there real identification with the father? (If not, why not? E. g. , was the parent too strong, too weak, not at home, etc. ? )
Was there genuine satisfaction in the relationship with the mother? Was the early attachment with her secure or insecure?
W ere there early signs of ambivalence?
Was she a real love-object?
Did subject ever conceive of himself as her champion, or protector, or ally? Or did he ever feel that she was unworthy, or untrustworthy, etc. ? Was there identification with the mother?
Femininity? How handled: by sublimation, or by overcompensation and reaction-formations, etc. ?
What were the main Pre-Oedipal Fixations, and How Handled? Sub- limations versus Reaction-Formations, projections, etc. Homosexuality? Its level?
Passivity: Accepted in the Ego, or Repressed and Overcompensated? Reaction to Punishment.
I. Fearoflossoflove,leadingtointrospection,understanding,psychol-
ogy, etc. , versus:
2. Fear of authority and of capricious discipline, etc.
(Get detailed pic-
b.
c. d.
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4c. CHILDHOOD
ture of punishment-and-discipline. )
e. How much Internalization of Superego? Is the dominant trend toward
neurosis or normality-or toward psychopathic-delinquent attitudes?
Suggested Direct Questions: Pre-Oedipal
a. What were you Like as a Child?
What things about your Childhood do you Remember with most Pleasure?
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
With most Satisfaction?
What is your Earliest Memory?
\Vhat things did you W orry about most as a child?
Almost everybody has had some recurrent Bad Dreams; what kinds of bad dreams did you have as a child?
Oedipal Phase
b. Which Parent did you feel Closer To when you were, say, about 6?
Superego and Reaction to Discipline
What about when you were w? r6? 25? Now? (If there was a shift: What led to this change in your esteem? )
What were your main Satisfactions in your relationship with your father?
With your mother?
What were the chief Bones of Contention?
Which Parent do you think had More To Do with your Becoming the kind of person you are?
Which Parent Exercised the Discipline in your Family?
Whose Discipline did you Fear most? Why? (N. B. , fear of physical punishment versus fear of loss of love. )
What Kind of Discipline did your Parents use?
\Vhat Things did They Discipline you for mainly?
c. What Other People were Influential in your development?
d. SEx. It is well known that the pattern of sexuality mirrors in great detail the state of the entire psychosexual development. A lack of adequate heterosexual adjustment on the physical level is usually found together with inadequate object-relationships on the psychological level; it is manifested in a lack of fusion of sex and love, or in promiscuity, or in inhibition, or in a dependent and exploitative attitude toward the other sex. A lack of warmth and "inwardness" will lead to degradation of the other sex andjor an over- glorification which often turns out to be disguised hostility. As mentioned before, the conception of the masculine and feminine role, by men and women, the rigidity versus flexibility of the conception of these roles, and the intolerance versus tolerance toward tendencies of the opposite sex in oneself are of crucial importance for our problem since these attitudes tend to become generalized and projected into the social sphere. The questions concerning this issue are as follows:
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
Underlying Questions:
What is the Major Pattern of Sexuality?
a. Mature, Heterosexual ~ttitudes?
b. If not, What (promiscuity, exploitation of other sex, dependence on
other sex, degradation of other sex, or putting other sex on pedestal,
rejection of opposite sex, homosexuality, etc. )?
c. In Heterosexual Relationships: degree of inhibition, degree of "inner-
? a. b.
c.
Degree of Rejectiveness: Moral, Arrogant-Individualistic.
Role of Utilitarian considerations (status, power, conventionality, manipulativeness and exploitiveness, leader-follower attitudes, etc. ). Degree of Social Libido: Warmheartedness, Group-Involvement versus being "Outside," etc. (Any history of being rejected or teased or scape- goated, etc. ? Any important boyhood (fascistic) gangs, producing a
"group-superego" attitude? Rituals, blood-brotherhood, secrecy, hier- archy, etc. How much genuine feeling versus detached insight? ) Type of Social-Libido: Deeper ("inner") relationships versus Super- ficial Sociability?
INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 319
ness" in relationships, d~gree of hostility and disrespect, degree of emo- tional warmth in sex relations, degree of fusion of love-and-sex?
Suggested Direct Questions: Pattern of Sexuality
Where did you get your sex instruction?
What is the earliest sex experience you can remember? How important is sex in marriage?
What main difficulties have you found in married life? Have you met many homosexuals in your travels?
e. SociAL RELATIONSHIPS. Some aspects of interpersonal relationships were considered under the preceding headings. Here the more generalized pat- tern of social relationships is in the focus of attention. Again the question concerns the degree of social libido invested in personal relationships as con- trasted with emphasis on utilitarian and manipulative aims. The degree of rejection of other people or of superficial sociability is contrasted with gen- uine acceptance of others. The history of the sociability and of the social security of the subject had also to be included here. How far was the subject accepted or rejected by ? the groups in which he participated? Under what conditions does the fact of being rejected lead to identification with, or to hostility toward, the underdog? Participation in boyhood gangs very often shows the first clear manifestation of participation in a "group superego," a state which often continues into adulthood. What, on the other hand, are the effects of being relatively isolated during the formative years of early school life? What are the early manifestations of an internalized superego?
In particular, the questions on Social Relationships are as follows: INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4e. SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Underlying Questions:
Suggested Direct Questions: Utilitarianism
a. How Important are Friends in a person's life?
What is the main thing Friends have to offer (can give) a person?
Social Libido
What attracts you in a Friend?
? 320
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
How do you Choose your Friends?
What do you Enjoy Doing with your Friends? (Get enough details to reveal the meaning; e. g. , if "talk," what about? )
Are you the sort of person who has a Few Close Friends, or do you tend to have a Lot of Friends, or . . . .
Rejectiveness
b. What things do you find most Offensive, Annoying, Objectionable, Irritating in other People?
c. Did you belong to any Boyhood Gangs? (If so, get details. )
f. ScHooL. In connection with the school history, emphasis of the inquiry was placed on the direction of the interests manifested during this period. Had there been interest in the academic aspects of school; and was such interest more directed toward intellectual topics dealing with human prob- lems and often requiring introspection, or was it mainly in mechanical and technological subjects?
The questions pertaining to School History are: INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4f. SCHOOL
Underlying Questions:
Predominant Interests and Values: Degree of Acceptance of Sensuous and Intellectual (especially Intraceptive) Values and interests versus Anti- Pleasure, Anti-Intellectualism, and emphasis on Mechanical-Manipulative, Power values?
Suggested Direct Questions: V alues
How did you Get Along in School?
How was your school record?
What Subjects were you Best in? Which did you like most?
In what ways d~d they appeal to you?
What Subjects were you Poorest in? Which did you like the least? What did you dislike about them?
5. POLITICS
Information about the subject's attitudes in the area of politics was gath- ered rather systematically by means of the questionnaire. The party prefer- ence of the subject and of his parents was established on the first two sheets of the questionnaire, and an indication as to where the subject stood on the radicalism-liberalism-conservatism-reactionism dimension was afforded by the PEC scale. Moreover, the presence or absence of a tendency toward projection of personal needs onto the political sphere was noted in the re- sponses on the questionnaire. As mentioned before, the interviewer was thoroughly acquainted with the subject's responses to the questionnaire before starting the interview.
The underlying questions taken up in this section of the Interview Sched-
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 32 I
ule were designed to follow up directly some of the questionnaire material in order to get the subject's expanded and spontaneous reactions to these topics. Thus the problem of conservatism-liberalism was taken up in greater detail in order to get the more subtle shades of the subject's beliefs. The conception of the relationships among labor, business, and government was a good indicator of the subject's tendency toward liberalism or laissez-faire conservatism or fascism or radicalism. The manifest questions listed below were aimed at finding the degree to which the political beliefs of the subject were merely projections of his personal needs and anxieties and the degree to which they were based on information and objective situational require- ments. The need for a strong leader, for an external guiding authority, can be found again in this sphere, as transferred from the more personal sphere discussed in the clinical section. Internal anxieties not faced as such may be projected, and experienced as fears and threats arising out of the political scene.
For the history of the political opinions of the subject it was of special interest to know whether these were taken over from the parents, uncritically or critically, or whether they were established despite the fact, or because of the fact, that they were bound to lead to disagreement with the parents.
The questions in this area were:
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
5? POLITICS
Underlying Questions:
a. Reactionism-Conservatism-Liberalism-Radicalism; Attitudes toward
Labor-Business-Government; Democratic-Antidemocratic trends.
b. Personalization.
c. Amount of Information and Interest.
d. Parental Identification versus Rebellion in political Attitudes.
Suggested Direct Questions: General
a. What do you think about the Political Trends in America Today? What are the Major Problems facing the country today?
What is the Outlook for the future?
How do you feel things are shaping up for the Future in America? In world affairs?
b.
What is your understanding of Democracy?
What would an Ideal Society be like?
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.
Suggested Direct Questions: Genera/Importance
a. What are your Views on religion?
What does your religion Offer you?
What Appeals to you most in religion?
What is the Most Important Thing in Religion? How Important Should Religion be in a person's life?
Philosophy
lngroup
c. What are the main (most important) differences between your religion and others?
How important are the differences among the various sects?
What do you think of Atheists?
Ethics
History
d. What was the nature of your early Religious Training?
What was the Religious Atmosphere in your Home?
In what ways do you differ from Your Parents in Religion? From your Wife (Husband)?
What does it Mean to be a Christian?
How can you Tell a Christian?
What is the Main Difference between Christians and Other People? What is the Most Important of Christ's Teachings?
? 3I2 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
In what ways did your Parents Differ in Religious Matters? (If subject broke away from parental teachings: Get history; also get reactions to differences with spouse. )
Have you ever Questioned your religious beliefs?
Since data on religion and political ideology had to be excluded from the material presented to the interview raters (see below, Section F, 3), the part of the interview based on the preceding questions will not be taken up for discussion until later in this volume (Chapter XVIII).
4. CLINICAL DATA
In the clinical section of the interview an attempt was made to obtain as much personal data relevant to our problem as was possible in a single sitting and without producing anxieties in the subject. With respect to this area, even more than in the case of the others, the subject had to be unaware of the direction intended by the interview. Care was taken to avoid offering inter- pretations to the subject for which he was not ready and the effect of which could not be followed up and worked out. Here, as in the other sections, the almost general desire of the subjects to talk about themselves in a professional and confidential situation was of great help to the interviewer.
A variety of personal data had been collected by previous techniques. This material, as pointed out above, was at the disposal of the interviewer, who studied it before starting the interview. The first two sheets of the question- naire brought out some gross information about the subject's personal life. Above and beyond that, the type of information which had to be obtained by the interviewer was based on hypotheses as to what aspects of personal life might be expected to influence the pattern of social beliefs and attitudes.
The information gained in the entire clinical area by previous methods is represented in the Schedule below. In view of the length of the clinical part of the interview schedule, the questions are presented and discussed under six major headings, as follows: (a) Family Background: Sociological Aspects; (b) Family Figures: Personal Aspects; (c) Childhood; (d) Sex; (e) Social Relationships; (f) School.
a. FAMILY BAcKGROUND: SociOLOGICAL AsPECTS. T h e sociological aspects of the family background seem of particular relevance in the present context. The national origin of parents was explored in order to find out whether relative "purity" or mixture of national origin is related to prejudice. Al- though this problem was considered important, there was no specific expec- tancy as to the direction of the results.
The group memberships of the parents were to be taken as an indication of how much stress was placed by the family on the idea of "belonging" and of how much the parents considered themselves as individuals or mainly as members of different groups and organizations. The whole socioeconomic picture of the parents, and possibly of the grandparents, the status achieved
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3I 3
as well as that aspired to, had to be understood in order to throw light on the security or the tensions existing, in this area, within the family.
The underlying and direct questions on the sociological aspects of the family background are presented here.
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4a. FAMILY BACKGROUND: SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS
Underlying Questions:
a. National Origins of father and mother (not just racial; e. g. , third gen-
eration Polish, German immigrant, etc. ) .
. b. Important Ingroup Memberships of father and mother (e. g. , unions,
Masons, etc. ).
c. Picture of Socioeconomic Status of Parents and Grandparents (as re-
flected in occupation, education, way of life, etc. ), with special attention to Social Mobility.
Suggested Direct Questions: Background
a. Father's and mother's National Antecedents, occupation, education, politics, religion.
Economic
b. Actual Standard of Living of father and mother (Ask specific questions to get clear: cars, servants, housing, entertaining, etc. ; enough to eat, on relief, have to work as child, etc. ).
Ingroups
c. Who were your father's (mother's) Friends mostly?
What Organizations did your father (mother) belong to? How did your father (mother) spend his (her) Spare Time?
b. FAMILY FIGURES: PERSONAL AsPECTS. After the inquiry into the socio- logical aspects of the family background, the personal conception of the family figures by the subject was recorded. The subject's conception of the parent figures could reveal, among other things, whether the picture was dominated by the authoritarian aspects of the parent-child relationship or by a more democratic type of relationship. In this connection the attention of the interviewer was further focused on the ability of the subject to appraise his parents objectively-whether on the more critical or on the more loving side-as contrasted with an inclination to put the parents on a very high plane, exaggerating their strength and virtuousness.
The conceptions concerning the siblings were likewise made the topic of a special inquiry. This was done with the idea in mind that the rivalries con- nected with sibling situations are an important source of the establishment of interpersonal relationships. An attempt was made to record the existing hierarchies in the sibling situation, the attitudes toward older and younger siblings, as well as the preferences, resentments, and envies arising in this connection.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
The power-relationship between the parents, the domination of the sub- ject's family by the father or by the mother, and their relative dominance in specific areas of life also seemed of importance for our problem. The sources within the family of satisfactions and tensions in general were also
explored.
In this area, dealing with various personal attitudes, especially careful
thought was given to the formulation of the manifest questions regarding \vhich the subject was likely to be sensitive and in conflict. One of the pri- mary functions of these questions was to encourage the subject to talk freely. This was attempted by indicating, for example, that critical remarks about parents were perfectly in place, thus reducing defenses as well as feelings of guilt and anxiety. But since it was obvious that we could by this method never be sure of having obtained a true answer, especially in the case of some individuals-due more often to unintended than to deliberate camouflage- a number of less conspicuous, very specific matter-of-fact questions were also designed to catch general attitudes with as little distortion as possible.
The underlying and manifest questions in this area are as follows: INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4b. FAMILY FIGURES: PERSONAL ASPECTS
Underlying Questions:
a. Subject's Conception of Parent-Figures and Actuality (i. e. , get basis for
inferring latter): Degree of Critical Objectivity of subject.
b. Same for any important Siblings (Domination by older sibs? Displace-
ment by younger sibs? Which is most important? )
c. Pattern of Power-Relations between Father and Mother (domination-
submission, activity-passivity, etc. ).
Suggested Direct Questions: Images of Father and Mother
a. What sort of Person is your father? (Mother? )
\Vhat things do you Admire most in your Father? (Mother? ) (Require subject to illustrate stereotypes by specific traits and situational examples. )
Assuming most people aren't perfect, what Human Frailties do your father (mother) have?
Which Parent do you Take After; are you most Like; Influenced you Most?
What were his (her) ideals, etc. ?
Power-Relations of Father and Mother
b. How did your parents Get Along together?
In what ways were your Parents most Alike?
In what ways are they Different from each other?
Who Made the Decisions usually? (Get specific information e. g. , re finances, recreation, discipline of children, residence, etc. ). Disagreements arise in every family from time to time; what Bones of Contention did your parents sometimes have?
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3I 5
Siblings
c. Same initial questions for any Important Si\)lings. Also: Who was your Favorite Brother (Sister)?
What did you Like About him (her)?
What did he (she) Mean to you?
What things did you sometimes Quarrel about?
c. CHILDHOOD. Some attempt was also made to obtain information about the earlier phases of childhood. It has to be kept in mind, however, that in view of the type of inquiry used in this study, no differentiation can be made between real childhood events and present tendencies projected into childhood. The assumption was that both types of material are psychologi- cally relevant as long as the possible duality of sources is not overlooked in the interpretation of the material. Thus, the manifest question, "What were you like as a child? " was asked to get either the subject's idea about himself as a child or the possible description of the type of child he might have been. It was observed that the subject, especially if he were a prejudiced one, often attributed to himself as a child characteristics which at the present time he seemed eager to repress.
The inquiry regarding early memories, wishes, fears, dreams, and so forth had the purpose of getting material which stood out for the subject in con- nection with his childhood and seemed relevant as a basis for inference. Among the underlying questions, the structure of the emotional attachment to the parents seemed of paramount importance. Here we were specifically interested in the parents as objects of cathexis as well as of identification. In the case of a man, it was important to learn whether there was at any time an explicit rebellion against the father, and against what sort of father, or whether there was only passive submission. The assumption behind this question, later proved correct, was that the pattern developed in the rela- tionship to the father tends to be transferred to other authorities and thus becomes crucial in forming social and political beliefs in men. In this con- nection it is of importance to know not only about rebellion against the father but also how far such rebellion is conscious and accepted as such.
Rebellion against, or submission to, the father is only one part of the pic- ture. Another part deals with the question of identification, or the lack of identification, with the father, and thus with the masculine role in general.
The establishment of masculinity in the boy is, of course, also closely connected? with the boy's attitude toward the mother. To what degree was there love for the mother and to what degree identification with the mother? Was such an identification, in its turn, sublimated and accepted by the ego, or was it rejected on the conscious level because the mother symbolized not only something "admirabl~" but at the same time something weak and there- fore contemptible? How did the boy defend himself against the rejected and feared passivity? A compensatory display of "toughness" and ruthless-
? p6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ness is, according to findings from the F scale, correlated with antidemocratic social and political beliefs.
Considerations analogous to those made in the preceding paragraphs were also applied to women.
An attempt was also made to probe into pre-Oedipal fixations, that is, to pay attention to the "orality" and "anality" of the subject and especially to the defense mechanisms with which these and other instinctual problems had been handled. The problem of homosexual tendencies, their degree, and the subject's acceptance or rejection of them was also given consideration. It will be seen to be of rather crucial importance for the social and political orientation of the individual how much passive striving there is in men, and even more important, how much countercathectic defense is built up against it, and how much acceptance and sublimation of masculine identification there is in women. The problem of homosexuality relates to the different ways of failure in resolving the Oedipal conflict. and the resultant regression to earlier phases.
Since, as earlier chapters have indicated, the attitude toward authority is crucial for psychological syndromes related to social and political attitudes, an attempt was made further to find out as much as possible about the type of discipline to which the subject was exposed, and about his reactions to it. Was the discipline consistent or capricious, strict or lenient? Did both parents handle discipline in a similar way or was there much difference be- tween the parents in this respect? Was the matter in question explained to the child and was he included in the discussion of it or did the discipline appear to the child as unintelligible, arbitrary, or overwhelming? Did the parents adhere rigidly to the conventionalized values of their class, with great intolerance toward disobedience and any deviations, especially when the deviations seemed to the. parents to be manifestations of lower-class behavior, or were the values the parents tried to transmit less conventional and more in the nature of internal and humanitarian values for which the child's understanding and cooperation could be secured? Was the reaction of the subject mostly fear of authority, which could be met only by acquies- cence, or could the child grasp the issues involved and feel that the con- sideration of certain convincing social values would assure him of his parents' love? In case of failure, did the child feel that everything was lost and that something very bad might happen, or did he feel that renewed efforts would regain for him the love of his parents, only temporarily lost? It was hypothe- sized that the parents' emotional attitude toward the child, their permissive- ness toward his weakness and immaturity, furnished the model for his future behavior toward objects which he considered as weak.
Since the way in which the parents transmit social values to the child, and the punishment and rewards with which they reinforce them, are decisive for the establishment of the superego, we are led from highly personal
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 3I 7
problems back to problems 'of social conscience. The effects are mirrored in interpersonal relationships, on a smaller scale in one's private life and on a larger scale in one's public function as a citizen. A person with a mature, integrated, and internalized conscience will certainly take a different stand on moral and social issues than a person with an underdeveloped, defective or overpunitive superego, or a person who still, as in childhood, clings to a set of rules and values only as they are reinforced by an external authority, be it public opinion or be it a leader.
The underlying and manifest questions under the heading of Childhood History and Attitudes follow.
Underlying Questions:
a.
Structure of the Oedipus-Complex: major identifications, loves, hates in relationships to parent-figures and -surrogates. (Formulated especially for men; adapt for women. )
Has there been an underlying trend of rebellion and hostility against the father, or of submission and passivity?
Has the hostility against the father been admitted into the ego?
Was there real identification with the father? (If not, why not? E. g. , was the parent too strong, too weak, not at home, etc. ? )
Was there genuine satisfaction in the relationship with the mother? Was the early attachment with her secure or insecure?
W ere there early signs of ambivalence?
Was she a real love-object?
Did subject ever conceive of himself as her champion, or protector, or ally? Or did he ever feel that she was unworthy, or untrustworthy, etc. ? Was there identification with the mother?
Femininity? How handled: by sublimation, or by overcompensation and reaction-formations, etc. ?
What were the main Pre-Oedipal Fixations, and How Handled? Sub- limations versus Reaction-Formations, projections, etc. Homosexuality? Its level?
Passivity: Accepted in the Ego, or Repressed and Overcompensated? Reaction to Punishment.
I. Fearoflossoflove,leadingtointrospection,understanding,psychol-
ogy, etc. , versus:
2. Fear of authority and of capricious discipline, etc.
(Get detailed pic-
b.
c. d.
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4c. CHILDHOOD
ture of punishment-and-discipline. )
e. How much Internalization of Superego? Is the dominant trend toward
neurosis or normality-or toward psychopathic-delinquent attitudes?
Suggested Direct Questions: Pre-Oedipal
a. What were you Like as a Child?
What things about your Childhood do you Remember with most Pleasure?
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
With most Satisfaction?
What is your Earliest Memory?
\Vhat things did you W orry about most as a child?
Almost everybody has had some recurrent Bad Dreams; what kinds of bad dreams did you have as a child?
Oedipal Phase
b. Which Parent did you feel Closer To when you were, say, about 6?
Superego and Reaction to Discipline
What about when you were w? r6? 25? Now? (If there was a shift: What led to this change in your esteem? )
What were your main Satisfactions in your relationship with your father?
With your mother?
What were the chief Bones of Contention?
Which Parent do you think had More To Do with your Becoming the kind of person you are?
Which Parent Exercised the Discipline in your Family?
Whose Discipline did you Fear most? Why? (N. B. , fear of physical punishment versus fear of loss of love. )
What Kind of Discipline did your Parents use?
\Vhat Things did They Discipline you for mainly?
c. What Other People were Influential in your development?
d. SEx. It is well known that the pattern of sexuality mirrors in great detail the state of the entire psychosexual development. A lack of adequate heterosexual adjustment on the physical level is usually found together with inadequate object-relationships on the psychological level; it is manifested in a lack of fusion of sex and love, or in promiscuity, or in inhibition, or in a dependent and exploitative attitude toward the other sex. A lack of warmth and "inwardness" will lead to degradation of the other sex andjor an over- glorification which often turns out to be disguised hostility. As mentioned before, the conception of the masculine and feminine role, by men and women, the rigidity versus flexibility of the conception of these roles, and the intolerance versus tolerance toward tendencies of the opposite sex in oneself are of crucial importance for our problem since these attitudes tend to become generalized and projected into the social sphere. The questions concerning this issue are as follows:
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
Underlying Questions:
What is the Major Pattern of Sexuality?
a. Mature, Heterosexual ~ttitudes?
b. If not, What (promiscuity, exploitation of other sex, dependence on
other sex, degradation of other sex, or putting other sex on pedestal,
rejection of opposite sex, homosexuality, etc. )?
c. In Heterosexual Relationships: degree of inhibition, degree of "inner-
? a. b.
c.
Degree of Rejectiveness: Moral, Arrogant-Individualistic.
Role of Utilitarian considerations (status, power, conventionality, manipulativeness and exploitiveness, leader-follower attitudes, etc. ). Degree of Social Libido: Warmheartedness, Group-Involvement versus being "Outside," etc. (Any history of being rejected or teased or scape- goated, etc. ? Any important boyhood (fascistic) gangs, producing a
"group-superego" attitude? Rituals, blood-brotherhood, secrecy, hier- archy, etc. How much genuine feeling versus detached insight? ) Type of Social-Libido: Deeper ("inner") relationships versus Super- ficial Sociability?
INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 319
ness" in relationships, d~gree of hostility and disrespect, degree of emo- tional warmth in sex relations, degree of fusion of love-and-sex?
Suggested Direct Questions: Pattern of Sexuality
Where did you get your sex instruction?
What is the earliest sex experience you can remember? How important is sex in marriage?
What main difficulties have you found in married life? Have you met many homosexuals in your travels?
e. SociAL RELATIONSHIPS. Some aspects of interpersonal relationships were considered under the preceding headings. Here the more generalized pat- tern of social relationships is in the focus of attention. Again the question concerns the degree of social libido invested in personal relationships as con- trasted with emphasis on utilitarian and manipulative aims. The degree of rejection of other people or of superficial sociability is contrasted with gen- uine acceptance of others. The history of the sociability and of the social security of the subject had also to be included here. How far was the subject accepted or rejected by ? the groups in which he participated? Under what conditions does the fact of being rejected lead to identification with, or to hostility toward, the underdog? Participation in boyhood gangs very often shows the first clear manifestation of participation in a "group superego," a state which often continues into adulthood. What, on the other hand, are the effects of being relatively isolated during the formative years of early school life? What are the early manifestations of an internalized superego?
In particular, the questions on Social Relationships are as follows: INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4e. SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS Underlying Questions:
Suggested Direct Questions: Utilitarianism
a. How Important are Friends in a person's life?
What is the main thing Friends have to offer (can give) a person?
Social Libido
What attracts you in a Friend?
? 320
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
How do you Choose your Friends?
What do you Enjoy Doing with your Friends? (Get enough details to reveal the meaning; e. g. , if "talk," what about? )
Are you the sort of person who has a Few Close Friends, or do you tend to have a Lot of Friends, or . . . .
Rejectiveness
b. What things do you find most Offensive, Annoying, Objectionable, Irritating in other People?
c. Did you belong to any Boyhood Gangs? (If so, get details. )
f. ScHooL. In connection with the school history, emphasis of the inquiry was placed on the direction of the interests manifested during this period. Had there been interest in the academic aspects of school; and was such interest more directed toward intellectual topics dealing with human prob- lems and often requiring introspection, or was it mainly in mechanical and technological subjects?
The questions pertaining to School History are: INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
4f. SCHOOL
Underlying Questions:
Predominant Interests and Values: Degree of Acceptance of Sensuous and Intellectual (especially Intraceptive) Values and interests versus Anti- Pleasure, Anti-Intellectualism, and emphasis on Mechanical-Manipulative, Power values?
Suggested Direct Questions: V alues
How did you Get Along in School?
How was your school record?
What Subjects were you Best in? Which did you like most?
In what ways d~d they appeal to you?
What Subjects were you Poorest in? Which did you like the least? What did you dislike about them?
5. POLITICS
Information about the subject's attitudes in the area of politics was gath- ered rather systematically by means of the questionnaire. The party prefer- ence of the subject and of his parents was established on the first two sheets of the questionnaire, and an indication as to where the subject stood on the radicalism-liberalism-conservatism-reactionism dimension was afforded by the PEC scale. Moreover, the presence or absence of a tendency toward projection of personal needs onto the political sphere was noted in the re- sponses on the questionnaire. As mentioned before, the interviewer was thoroughly acquainted with the subject's responses to the questionnaire before starting the interview.
The underlying questions taken up in this section of the Interview Sched-
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 32 I
ule were designed to follow up directly some of the questionnaire material in order to get the subject's expanded and spontaneous reactions to these topics. Thus the problem of conservatism-liberalism was taken up in greater detail in order to get the more subtle shades of the subject's beliefs. The conception of the relationships among labor, business, and government was a good indicator of the subject's tendency toward liberalism or laissez-faire conservatism or fascism or radicalism. The manifest questions listed below were aimed at finding the degree to which the political beliefs of the subject were merely projections of his personal needs and anxieties and the degree to which they were based on information and objective situational require- ments. The need for a strong leader, for an external guiding authority, can be found again in this sphere, as transferred from the more personal sphere discussed in the clinical section. Internal anxieties not faced as such may be projected, and experienced as fears and threats arising out of the political scene.
For the history of the political opinions of the subject it was of special interest to know whether these were taken over from the parents, uncritically or critically, or whether they were established despite the fact, or because of the fact, that they were bound to lead to disagreement with the parents.
The questions in this area were:
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
5? POLITICS
Underlying Questions:
a. Reactionism-Conservatism-Liberalism-Radicalism; Attitudes toward
Labor-Business-Government; Democratic-Antidemocratic trends.
b. Personalization.
c. Amount of Information and Interest.
d. Parental Identification versus Rebellion in political Attitudes.
Suggested Direct Questions: General
a. What do you think about the Political Trends in America Today? What are the Major Problems facing the country today?
What is the Outlook for the future?
How do you feel things are shaping up for the Future in America? In world affairs?
b.
What is your understanding of Democracy?
What would an Ideal Society be like?
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.
