rbe
following
scales were used in the various forms:
169 4.
169 4.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
37 21 3.
82 55
3. 34 11 4. 70 27 2. 34 37
3. 42 120
5. 31 16 21 2. 49 17
3. 43 54
3. 54 6f 25 1. 60 48
3. 32 134
3. 97 58 4. 60 46 1. 72 109 2. 40 33
35 3. 29 281 3. 35 589
3. 03 52 3. 43 42 2. 59 63
3. 10 297
3. 80 47 3. 28 54 3. 01 57
3. 32 3. 34 3. 40 2. 57
3. 18
3. 42 3. 24 2. 93
3. 18
4. 36 3. 67 3. 65
4. . 07
aThe following scales were used in the varions forms: Form 78: A-S Scale (10 items)
Form 60: Form 45: Form 40:
E Scale (12 items) E Scale (10 items) E Scale ( 5 items)
3. 35
4. 40
4. 18
3. 92 71
4. 19 299
158
178 50
4. 12 132 4. 04 1. 58
? THE AUTHOlUT AlUAN PERSONALITY
respectively). Whether this lower mean holds for all individuals whose fathers are in this income group, or only for those individuals who get into organized groups such as those tested, is not clear. Further study may reveal that the lower E mean characterizes those individuals who were born in wealthier families but who tend-presumably for emotionally important reasons-to gravitate toward middle- or working-class groups, occupations, and ideologies. We are led to suspect, on the basis of results in numerous areas, that upward class mobility and identification with the status quo cor- relate positively with ethnocentrism, and that downward class mobility and
identification go with anti-ethnocentrism.
A final "socioeconomic background" factor studied was father's occupa-
tion. Table 2o(V) gives the mean E score for various groups based on occupation of father. The most common occupations (N = 136-169) were: Labor (skilled and unskilled), white collar, and big business-managerial. Small business and professional groups were next in size (N = 95 and 90), and in order of decreasing size we find farmers, engineers, government offi- cials, and religious (ministers, etc. ). With regard toE mean, there are only three groups which deviate more than o. 3 points from the over-all mean of 3. 86. The offspring of engineers are significantly above average, with a mean of 4. 36. On the other hand, the offspring of fathers with religious or govern- ment occupations are well below average (3. 20 and 3. 25). For all other occu- pations differences are minor and even smaller than the differences from sample to sample for any one occupation. No occupational grouping is con- sistently high or consistently low in every sample. Even in the case of fathers with big business and managerial occupations, the E mean varies considerably; it is sometimes below, sometimes above that for the test group from which it was taken. Thus, we find particularly low E means for this occupational group in the Extension Psychology Class and Professional Women, and a relatively high mean for the George Washington University Women (rela- tive to the other occupational groupings in each sample). These variations suggest, as do the data above, that ethnocentrism in the individual is not significantly correlated with many of the socioeconomic groupings which
are commonly assumed (by many social scientists as well as by laymen) to be direct, immediate determinants of ethnocentrism. It is the meaning of the group to the individual rather than membership per se, that helps us to predict his stand on ethnocentrism and other issues.
On the basis of the group membership data presented in this section (Tables 12 (V)-20(V) ), certain hypotheses can tentatively be drawn. Per- haps the first lesson to be learned concerns the danger of stereotyped think-
ing about groups. No broad grouping in this study showed anything approaching ideological homogeneity. This is not presented as a startling discovery but rather as a sober reminder to those who assume a close relation
? Groups
i""". S . ! l~. o
N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean
"'
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean S. D. 0 I
Groups td ing Fora 78:
u. c. Public Speaking Class Women u. C. Public ftleaking Class Men Extension Psychology Class Women ProfessionalWomen
~
Totals:
46 3. 19 50 2. 92 30
3. 22 0
-? -- 41
3. 40 0 ----297
3. 18 1. 46
Groups t d i. ng Fora 60:
Univ. of Oregon Student Women
uitiv. of Oregon and Univ. of California Student Women 1 2. 32 14 3. 45 4 univ. of Oregon and univ. of California Student Men 8 3. 24 7 3. 69 6
s~ (U
Totals:
W Ln ~ L~ ~
L~ ~ Ln 2. 66113. 06 21. 95 33
3. 25 0
. . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 . 2 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . 158
-< 3. 18 L31 ~
Group& tdinJ Fora 45: Maritime School Men
48 4. 16 ~ 4. ~ 17
4. 32 9 4. 82 1 6. 30 9 4. 08 5 5. 22 18
4. 58 0
---- 30
4. 45 12 4. 08 178
4. 36 I. 60
~
Groups td inJ Fora 40:
George Washington university Student Women Maritime School Men
M L~ ~ 4. ~ 10 47 5. 22 16 4. 76 25
4. ~ I 2. ro 1 6. 40 25 4. 03 9 3. 78 18 5. 01 10 5. 72 0 . . . . . . . . . 10 5. 30 l2 5. 18 7
4. 79 12 3. 25 18 5. 00 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. 71 4 3. 95132 5. 09 11 4. ~ 164
4. 04 1. 58 5. 08 L76
~ ~
Totals:
61 4. 90 36 4. 49 35
4. 82 11 5. 40 1 6. 40 35 4. 39 21 4. 58 25
4. 85 12 3. 25 44
4. 53 15 4. 13 296
4. 61 1. 78 ~
Over. . . all totals:
&.
rbe following scales were used in the various forms:
169 4. 07144 3. 70 95
3. 95 61. 3. 81 11 3. ~ 90 3. 62 43 4. 36136
3. 71 12 3. 25141
3;95 27 4. 11929
3. 86
~
Form 78: Form 60: Form 45: Form 40. !
A? S SCale ( 10 items) E Scale (12 items) E Seale (10 items) E Scale (5 items)
. . . . . 0
TABLE :D {V)
MEAN A? S OR E S(l)RESa FOR GROUPS YIHOSE FA'l'ltmS HAVE VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS
-~~
~'l! 8'Si
~ ~~
~t1 <>IJ i= li
1i. . 'il ! :iii . . . . ~~"tig ~ ~~
>1:1
. . ? ~~! ~ita j~ ~s~ '"1li
J e J! ~l
~~
>~ ~~~~ ~
t""
23 2. 93 25 3. 16 12 3. 76 9 3. 08 3 2. 20 16 3. 65 5 2. 96 10 2. 35 0 ---- 2. 60
16 3. 28 10 4. 31 36 3. 38 0 ---- 6 3. 67 0 ---- 140 6 3. 70 2 4. 80 8 3. 96 0 -? -- 4 2. 78 0 ? ? ? ? 52
z
I 4. 00 8 3. 23 2 4. 55 3 4. 10
4 3. 13 2 3. 211 6 2. 72
0. ---- 16 3. 53 0 ---- 42
3. 40 1. 36 2. 57 I. 37.
~
6 2. 80 12 2. 23 6
2. 75 4 3. 05 0 ----
3. 15 16 3. 26 4 2. 30 35 2. 91 15 4. 07 60
2. 34 0
? ? ? ? 15 3. 32 0 ? ? ? ? 63
5 2. 94 8 3. 37 3
3. 54 6 4. 08 0 ? ? ? ? 4 3. 30 0 ? ? ? ? 13 3. 44 8 3. 05 3 3. 10 2 2. 82 2 1. 95 13 2. 35 11 2. 54 2 1. 99 5 2. 97 0 ---- 7
3. 211 0 3. 66 0 2. 58 0
? ? ? ? 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ---- 11
3. 58 0 ? ? ? ? 47 2. 80 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3. 34 0 ---- 57
3. 42 L38 3. 24 1. 29 2. 93 1. 25
~
. , a s
8 ' 6
~. ! f8
s
::J Over-all rs
9 1. 63 1 2. 00 10
rs
3. 32 1. 43
3. 34 L 48 0
0
0
M
M
<JJ
:II
'""'
>1:1
<JJ
"'
? 206 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
between prejudice and membership in certain groups. While certain average differences have been found, the Standard Deviations are large and the over- lapping between groups considerable. This does not mean that group mem- berships and social forces are unimportant in the formation and in the expression of ethnocentrism; indeed, there is a wealth of sociological litera- ture to show that they are. Rather, it would appear that sociological factors play an essential but complex and indirect psychological role. Social psy- chology must, therefore, advance beyond its initial stage of seeking-and expecting to find-simple relationships between ideology and group member- ships; it must go on to study the complex processes by which the individual selectivity assimilates the manifold pressures from his socio-ideological envi- ronment.
While no ideologically homogeneous groupings were found, there were significant relations between ethnocentrism and certain group memberships. The groups which are most differentiated with respect to ethnocentrism- that is, which tend to be predominantly high or predominantly low-have two main properties: They involve membership by choice rather than mem- bership by birth, and they show relatively great homogeneity with respect to various other psychological characteristics. Thus, the political preference or the income-occupation grouping of the father shows no consistent rela- tion to ethnocentrism in the offspring. J"? ut the subject's personal political preference (membership by choice), like his socioeconomic aspirations and his tendency to accept or reject his father's political views, is more closely related to E score. Similarly, membership in the exclusive Women's Club or the Labor School is more significant in terms of E than membership in the United Electrical Workers Union or the Parent-Teachers' Association, the latter groups being less homogeneous in all ideological areas.
The group memberships having the greatest significance for ethnocentrism are, then, those which have the greatest psychological significance for the individual. They are, it seems, groups which the individual chooses to join because they permit the further development and fuller expression of dis- positions existing prior to joining. We are forced to reexamine the notion that the group membership determines the ideology-that, for example, a man is prejudiced because he is a Republican or a member of a snobbish club. Not only is the ideology likely to have preceded (in at least a primitive form) the joining of the group but, more important, both the ideology and the group membership seem to express deeper trends in the individual. An example of such a trend is "independence" versus "submission" in relation to parental authority. Thus, high scorers on E demonstrated greater submission and conformity than did the low scorers, both in the content of their ideology
(E and PEC) and in their choice of political party (Table 14(V)). The individual's choice of group, like his choice of ideology, appears to be not merely a matter of chance or of simple imitation, but in large part an expres-
? POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 207
sian of important emotional dispositions. Before turning to these issues in more detail we shall, in the next chapter, consider religious ideology and groupings in relation to ethnocentrism.
F. CONCLUSIONS
The study of politico-economic ideology and group memberships has led to a broadening in our conception of the antidemocratic individual. The Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism scales, our primary measures of antidemo- cratic trends, show statistically significant relationships with the right-left dimension of politico-economic ideology. There appears to be an affinity between conservatism and ethnocentrism, liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. The relationship is, however, quantitatively imperfect (r=approximately . 5) and qualitatively complex. It is proposed, in further studies, to break down the right-left dimension into numerous ideological patterns. One 0f these-perhaps the most significant in terms of potential antidemocracy-is the pseudoconservative.
In previous chapters we have seen that anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism, for example, are not isolated attitudes but parts of a relatively unified ethno- centric ideology. The present chapter suggests that ethnocentrism itself is but one aspect of a broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning. Trends similar to those underlying ethnocentric ideology are fourid in the same individual's politico-economic ideology. In short, ideology regarding each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and an expres- sion of more central ("subideological") psychological dispositions.
? CHAPTER VI
ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELA TION TO SOME RELIGIOUS A TTITUDES AND PRACTICES R. Nevitt Sanford
A. INTRODUCTION
In approaching the topic of religion, the general question was similar to that raised in connection with politico-economic ideology: What trends in religious thought and practice can be distinguished and what, if any, is their significance for prejudice or its opposite? Categories for the analysis of reli- gious thought were not, however, ready to hand. It seemed that a qualitative study of interview material had to precede any attempt to quantify trends in religious ideology.
3. 34 11 4. 70 27 2. 34 37
3. 42 120
5. 31 16 21 2. 49 17
3. 43 54
3. 54 6f 25 1. 60 48
3. 32 134
3. 97 58 4. 60 46 1. 72 109 2. 40 33
35 3. 29 281 3. 35 589
3. 03 52 3. 43 42 2. 59 63
3. 10 297
3. 80 47 3. 28 54 3. 01 57
3. 32 3. 34 3. 40 2. 57
3. 18
3. 42 3. 24 2. 93
3. 18
4. 36 3. 67 3. 65
4. . 07
aThe following scales were used in the varions forms: Form 78: A-S Scale (10 items)
Form 60: Form 45: Form 40:
E Scale (12 items) E Scale (10 items) E Scale ( 5 items)
3. 35
4. 40
4. 18
3. 92 71
4. 19 299
158
178 50
4. 12 132 4. 04 1. 58
? THE AUTHOlUT AlUAN PERSONALITY
respectively). Whether this lower mean holds for all individuals whose fathers are in this income group, or only for those individuals who get into organized groups such as those tested, is not clear. Further study may reveal that the lower E mean characterizes those individuals who were born in wealthier families but who tend-presumably for emotionally important reasons-to gravitate toward middle- or working-class groups, occupations, and ideologies. We are led to suspect, on the basis of results in numerous areas, that upward class mobility and identification with the status quo cor- relate positively with ethnocentrism, and that downward class mobility and
identification go with anti-ethnocentrism.
A final "socioeconomic background" factor studied was father's occupa-
tion. Table 2o(V) gives the mean E score for various groups based on occupation of father. The most common occupations (N = 136-169) were: Labor (skilled and unskilled), white collar, and big business-managerial. Small business and professional groups were next in size (N = 95 and 90), and in order of decreasing size we find farmers, engineers, government offi- cials, and religious (ministers, etc. ). With regard toE mean, there are only three groups which deviate more than o. 3 points from the over-all mean of 3. 86. The offspring of engineers are significantly above average, with a mean of 4. 36. On the other hand, the offspring of fathers with religious or govern- ment occupations are well below average (3. 20 and 3. 25). For all other occu- pations differences are minor and even smaller than the differences from sample to sample for any one occupation. No occupational grouping is con- sistently high or consistently low in every sample. Even in the case of fathers with big business and managerial occupations, the E mean varies considerably; it is sometimes below, sometimes above that for the test group from which it was taken. Thus, we find particularly low E means for this occupational group in the Extension Psychology Class and Professional Women, and a relatively high mean for the George Washington University Women (rela- tive to the other occupational groupings in each sample). These variations suggest, as do the data above, that ethnocentrism in the individual is not significantly correlated with many of the socioeconomic groupings which
are commonly assumed (by many social scientists as well as by laymen) to be direct, immediate determinants of ethnocentrism. It is the meaning of the group to the individual rather than membership per se, that helps us to predict his stand on ethnocentrism and other issues.
On the basis of the group membership data presented in this section (Tables 12 (V)-20(V) ), certain hypotheses can tentatively be drawn. Per- haps the first lesson to be learned concerns the danger of stereotyped think-
ing about groups. No broad grouping in this study showed anything approaching ideological homogeneity. This is not presented as a startling discovery but rather as a sober reminder to those who assume a close relation
? Groups
i""". S . ! l~. o
N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean
"'
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean
N Mean S. D. 0 I
Groups td ing Fora 78:
u. c. Public Speaking Class Women u. C. Public ftleaking Class Men Extension Psychology Class Women ProfessionalWomen
~
Totals:
46 3. 19 50 2. 92 30
3. 22 0
-? -- 41
3. 40 0 ----297
3. 18 1. 46
Groups t d i. ng Fora 60:
Univ. of Oregon Student Women
uitiv. of Oregon and Univ. of California Student Women 1 2. 32 14 3. 45 4 univ. of Oregon and univ. of California Student Men 8 3. 24 7 3. 69 6
s~ (U
Totals:
W Ln ~ L~ ~
L~ ~ Ln 2. 66113. 06 21. 95 33
3. 25 0
. . . . . . . . . . . 26
3 . 2 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . 158
-< 3. 18 L31 ~
Group& tdinJ Fora 45: Maritime School Men
48 4. 16 ~ 4. ~ 17
4. 32 9 4. 82 1 6. 30 9 4. 08 5 5. 22 18
4. 58 0
---- 30
4. 45 12 4. 08 178
4. 36 I. 60
~
Groups td inJ Fora 40:
George Washington university Student Women Maritime School Men
M L~ ~ 4. ~ 10 47 5. 22 16 4. 76 25
4. ~ I 2. ro 1 6. 40 25 4. 03 9 3. 78 18 5. 01 10 5. 72 0 . . . . . . . . . 10 5. 30 l2 5. 18 7
4. 79 12 3. 25 18 5. 00 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3. 71 4 3. 95132 5. 09 11 4. ~ 164
4. 04 1. 58 5. 08 L76
~ ~
Totals:
61 4. 90 36 4. 49 35
4. 82 11 5. 40 1 6. 40 35 4. 39 21 4. 58 25
4. 85 12 3. 25 44
4. 53 15 4. 13 296
4. 61 1. 78 ~
Over. . . all totals:
&.
rbe following scales were used in the various forms:
169 4. 07144 3. 70 95
3. 95 61. 3. 81 11 3. ~ 90 3. 62 43 4. 36136
3. 71 12 3. 25141
3;95 27 4. 11929
3. 86
~
Form 78: Form 60: Form 45: Form 40. !
A? S SCale ( 10 items) E Scale (12 items) E Seale (10 items) E Scale (5 items)
. . . . . 0
TABLE :D {V)
MEAN A? S OR E S(l)RESa FOR GROUPS YIHOSE FA'l'ltmS HAVE VARIOUS OCCUPATIONS
-~~
~'l! 8'Si
~ ~~
~t1 <>IJ i= li
1i. . 'il ! :iii . . . . ~~"tig ~ ~~
>1:1
. . ? ~~! ~ita j~ ~s~ '"1li
J e J! ~l
~~
>~ ~~~~ ~
t""
23 2. 93 25 3. 16 12 3. 76 9 3. 08 3 2. 20 16 3. 65 5 2. 96 10 2. 35 0 ---- 2. 60
16 3. 28 10 4. 31 36 3. 38 0 ---- 6 3. 67 0 ---- 140 6 3. 70 2 4. 80 8 3. 96 0 -? -- 4 2. 78 0 ? ? ? ? 52
z
I 4. 00 8 3. 23 2 4. 55 3 4. 10
4 3. 13 2 3. 211 6 2. 72
0. ---- 16 3. 53 0 ---- 42
3. 40 1. 36 2. 57 I. 37.
~
6 2. 80 12 2. 23 6
2. 75 4 3. 05 0 ----
3. 15 16 3. 26 4 2. 30 35 2. 91 15 4. 07 60
2. 34 0
? ? ? ? 15 3. 32 0 ? ? ? ? 63
5 2. 94 8 3. 37 3
3. 54 6 4. 08 0 ? ? ? ? 4 3. 30 0 ? ? ? ? 13 3. 44 8 3. 05 3 3. 10 2 2. 82 2 1. 95 13 2. 35 11 2. 54 2 1. 99 5 2. 97 0 ---- 7
3. 211 0 3. 66 0 2. 58 0
? ? ? ? 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 ---- 11
3. 58 0 ? ? ? ? 47 2. 80 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 3. 34 0 ---- 57
3. 42 L38 3. 24 1. 29 2. 93 1. 25
~
. , a s
8 ' 6
~. ! f8
s
::J Over-all rs
9 1. 63 1 2. 00 10
rs
3. 32 1. 43
3. 34 L 48 0
0
0
M
M
<JJ
:II
'""'
>1:1
<JJ
"'
? 206 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
between prejudice and membership in certain groups. While certain average differences have been found, the Standard Deviations are large and the over- lapping between groups considerable. This does not mean that group mem- berships and social forces are unimportant in the formation and in the expression of ethnocentrism; indeed, there is a wealth of sociological litera- ture to show that they are. Rather, it would appear that sociological factors play an essential but complex and indirect psychological role. Social psy- chology must, therefore, advance beyond its initial stage of seeking-and expecting to find-simple relationships between ideology and group member- ships; it must go on to study the complex processes by which the individual selectivity assimilates the manifold pressures from his socio-ideological envi- ronment.
While no ideologically homogeneous groupings were found, there were significant relations between ethnocentrism and certain group memberships. The groups which are most differentiated with respect to ethnocentrism- that is, which tend to be predominantly high or predominantly low-have two main properties: They involve membership by choice rather than mem- bership by birth, and they show relatively great homogeneity with respect to various other psychological characteristics. Thus, the political preference or the income-occupation grouping of the father shows no consistent rela- tion to ethnocentrism in the offspring. J"? ut the subject's personal political preference (membership by choice), like his socioeconomic aspirations and his tendency to accept or reject his father's political views, is more closely related to E score. Similarly, membership in the exclusive Women's Club or the Labor School is more significant in terms of E than membership in the United Electrical Workers Union or the Parent-Teachers' Association, the latter groups being less homogeneous in all ideological areas.
The group memberships having the greatest significance for ethnocentrism are, then, those which have the greatest psychological significance for the individual. They are, it seems, groups which the individual chooses to join because they permit the further development and fuller expression of dis- positions existing prior to joining. We are forced to reexamine the notion that the group membership determines the ideology-that, for example, a man is prejudiced because he is a Republican or a member of a snobbish club. Not only is the ideology likely to have preceded (in at least a primitive form) the joining of the group but, more important, both the ideology and the group membership seem to express deeper trends in the individual. An example of such a trend is "independence" versus "submission" in relation to parental authority. Thus, high scorers on E demonstrated greater submission and conformity than did the low scorers, both in the content of their ideology
(E and PEC) and in their choice of political party (Table 14(V)). The individual's choice of group, like his choice of ideology, appears to be not merely a matter of chance or of simple imitation, but in large part an expres-
? POLITICO-ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY AND GROUP MEMBERSHIPS 207
sian of important emotional dispositions. Before turning to these issues in more detail we shall, in the next chapter, consider religious ideology and groupings in relation to ethnocentrism.
F. CONCLUSIONS
The study of politico-economic ideology and group memberships has led to a broadening in our conception of the antidemocratic individual. The Anti-Semitism and Ethnocentrism scales, our primary measures of antidemo- cratic trends, show statistically significant relationships with the right-left dimension of politico-economic ideology. There appears to be an affinity between conservatism and ethnocentrism, liberalism and anti-ethnocentrism. The relationship is, however, quantitatively imperfect (r=approximately . 5) and qualitatively complex. It is proposed, in further studies, to break down the right-left dimension into numerous ideological patterns. One 0f these-perhaps the most significant in terms of potential antidemocracy-is the pseudoconservative.
In previous chapters we have seen that anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism, for example, are not isolated attitudes but parts of a relatively unified ethno- centric ideology. The present chapter suggests that ethnocentrism itself is but one aspect of a broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning. Trends similar to those underlying ethnocentric ideology are fourid in the same individual's politico-economic ideology. In short, ideology regarding each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and an expres- sion of more central ("subideological") psychological dispositions.
? CHAPTER VI
ETHNOCENTRISM IN RELA TION TO SOME RELIGIOUS A TTITUDES AND PRACTICES R. Nevitt Sanford
A. INTRODUCTION
In approaching the topic of religion, the general question was similar to that raised in connection with politico-economic ideology: What trends in religious thought and practice can be distinguished and what, if any, is their significance for prejudice or its opposite? Categories for the analysis of reli- gious thought were not, however, ready to hand. It seemed that a qualitative study of interview material had to precede any attempt to quantify trends in religious ideology.
