lngroup
orientation
to family as 5?
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
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. e. , those designat- ing reactions presumed to occur more frequently in the prejudiced person- when given to subjects scoring high on the prejudice scales, as well as "Low" ratings given to relatively unprejudiced, i. e. , our so-called "low-scoring," subjects, in short, the hH and lL combinations. The remaining two figures, indicating the frequency of prejudiced subjects receiving a "Low" and of un- prejudiced subjects receiving a "High" rating, in short, the? hL and the lH combinations, constitute the "negative," nonconfirmatory instances.
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 33S
The series of tables in Chapters X to XII (Tables I (X) to 2 (XII)) pre- sents, for the two sexes separately, the numbers of prejudiced and of un- prejudiced interviewees who give the presumably "High" and the pre- sumably "Low" responses in the interviews, for each of the scoring categories. The number of "Neutrals" may be obtained by subtraction of their sums from the total number of subjects in the respective prejudiced or unprejudiced groups. The four raw figures are followed by two sums which contrast the total number of positive with the total number of negative in- stances. All "positive," i. e. , confirmatory, evidence is italicized. Whenever a category is defined in the Scoring Manual by only one variant, H or L, rather than by an opposition of an H with an L, only the presence of the trait in question is registered in the tables and the remaining space is left blank.
The final column of the tables indicates the level of statistical significance of the difference, on the category in question, between prejudiced and unprej- udiced extremes as defined in the present study. It thus refers to the "dis- criminatory power" and the importance of the category as a personality correlate-and therefore as a potential measure-of overtly expressed ethnic prejudice. Indications of significance are given in terms of whether or not the sper cent (satisfactory), the 2 per cent, or the I per cent level (highly satisfactory, since in this latter case there is a 99 per cent probability that the obtained difference is not due to chance factors) has been reached or surpassed, without specifying whether or by how much they have been surpassed. Significance was computed after evenly dividing the "Neutrals" among the "High" and the "Low" ratings. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that dividing the Neutral ratings tends to lower the index of significance, the more so the larger the proportion of these ratings. Thus, in treating the Neutral ratings as we do, we are keeping on the safe side, since, as was pointed out above, the Neutral scorings are based, in a con- siderable proportion of the cases, on lack of information rather than on lack of actual discriminability.
Wherever the proportion of Neutrals for the total sample of interviewees is larger than so per cent, the statistical significance of the category in question was not computed and therefore there was no entry under any circumstances in the last column of the tables. The category was also omitted from the survey of interview scores in Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX). For men the total number of categories is 86, somewhat less than for women, in whose case a few more subdivisions were introduced into the Scoring Manual. Of these 86 categories, 72 yielded less than so per cent Neutrals, and thus re- mained for full treatment. For women only 6s of the original 90 categories yielded less than soper cent Neutrals and were thus retained for full treat- ment. The fact that the categories were generally somewhat more dis- criminatory in the case of the men than in the case of the women may be
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
accounted for by the fact that most of the men were interviewed at a later stage of the study and that therefore their records were more complete.
All the calculations discussed above were performed separately for men and women. Corresponding figures for each appear closely adjacent to one another in the tables, those for men (M) in the upper left-hand and those for women (W) in the lower right-hand area of each of the "cells" that one may imagine at the intersection of vertical columns with horizontal rows, the latter defined by the various categories.
? CHAPTER X
P ARENTS AND CHILDHOOD AS SEEN THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS Else Frenkel-Brunswik
A. INTRODUCTION
In turning to the specific results of the interviews we begin with the organization of the family. Many of the attitudes and underlying needs dis- cussed in this volume must be assumed to originate, as far as the individual is concerned, in the family situation. Here the growing child learns for the first time to handle interpersonal relations. Some of the members of the family are in an authoritative, others in an equalitarian or in a weaker position than himself. Some are of the same, others are of the opposite sex. It soon becomes evident to the youngster what kind of behavior is considered appropriate and will lead to reward and what kind of behavior will be punished. He finds himself confronted with a certain set of values and certain expectations which he has to meet.
Within the general common framework of the white American popula- tion, families vary greatly as to the rigidity or flexibility of the roles defined within the family, as well as to values in general. We shall encounter families in which considerably more emphasis is placed on obedience than it is in others. In some cases discipline is harsh and threatening, in others intelligible and mild. Or there may be rigorous adherence to conventional rules and customs rather than to more flexible and more intrinsic values which lead to greater tolerance for individual variations. Or smooth functioning within the family may depend either more on exchange of well-defined obligations and "goods," or else on an exchange of genuine affection. These and other differences in the organization of the family are under scrutiny in the light of their possible implications with respect to the personality structure of the individual and his social and political beliefs.
Although no striking relations between these patterns and gross economic factors have been uncovered in the present study, systematic investigations of a more distinctly sociological nature would undoubtedly reveal broader
337
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
cultural and subcultural determinants of these differences, say, the greater frequency of one or the other type of family organization in different national subgroups, or a dependence on the relative stability or instability of the socioeconomic family history. ?
While this goes to press, data from a separate project (Frenkel-Bruns- wik, for an advance report see 30)1 seem to indicate that parents of ex- tremely prejudiced children are relatively often the children of foreign-born parents or show preoccupation as to social and national insecurity.
Specific rating categories from the Interview Scoring Manual in the area of family organization, followed by tabulation of quantitative results and eventually by a discussion and the presentation of pertinent quotations from the interviews themselves, are given in Sections B to D.
B. A TTITUDES TOW ARD P ARENTS AND CONCEPTION OF THE FAMILY
1. DEFINITION OF RA TING CA TEGORIES AND QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
In line with the over-all subject matter of the present volume, the discus- sion concerning attitudes toward parents will, among others, center about the following questions: Is the general tendency toward glorification and lack of critical evaluation of ingroups on the part of the ethnically prejudiced also mirrored in . their attitudes toward their parents? Is there a tendency toward submission, and how are the problems of rebellion, hostility, and guilt handled in our two opposite groups? How are the feelings of genuine love related to conformity as contrasted with independence?
The definitions of the specific categories of the Scoring Manual dealing with problems of this nature are listed here in the form in which they were used by the raters. It should be remembered, however, that the Manual represents merely a summary of what was developed, and discussed with the two raters, in extended conferences preceding the actual rating procedure. The subsequent text makes occasional use of the more prominent of the con- notations thus established which were not formally incorporated in the Manual in order not to overload it in actual use.
Before starting the presentation of the various parts of the Interview Scoring Manual, attention must be called to the fact that strict opposi-
1 The study on social discrimination in children referred to here is being carried out at the Institute of Child Welfare of the University of California. The project was initiated by the present writer, in cooperation with Harold E. Jones and T. \V. Adorno, and spon- sorship was at first by the Scientific Department of the American Jewish Committee. In developing the tests and experiments the present writer was aided primarily by Claire Brednor, Donald T. Campbell, Joan Havel, Murray E. Jarvik, and Milton Rokeach.
? PARENTS AND CHILDHOOD SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 339
tion or near-opposition of the presumably "High" and the presumably "Low" variants is to be assumed only where the numbers or number-letter combinations appearing on the right side of the page are identical with those on the left. Thus Category 2, "victimization," stands in a somewhat oblique relation to Categories za to zc. In some cases pairings of this kind reflect the fact that there is more than one opposite to a given variant. Beginning with Section C of this chapter, different sets of letters are sometimes used on the two sides to stress an absence of one-by-one correspondence of a series of alternatives listed on the right with a series of items on the left, although the lists in their entirety define a more clear-cut pattern of oppo- sition. (Concerning the lopsided evaluation of asymmetrical categories in the tables to follow, see the concluding pages of the preceding chapter. )
The first subdivision of the Interview Scoring Manual follows. As in the Interview Schedule, italics are used to represent key phrases which had been emphasized to the raters by underscoring.
INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL: ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPTION OF FAMILY
(to Table r(X)).
I .
2.
PRESUMABLY "HIGH" VARIANTS
Conventional idealization of parent(s): Overestimation of qualities and status, expressed in behavioral (essentially exter- nal), conventionalized general- ities, or undifferentiated "all's
well" attitude
Victimization (quasi-persecu- tory) byparent(s): Neglect, in- cluding failure to give proper discipline, unjust discipline;
"picked on"; unfair: resents pre- ferring of rival sib or spouse (or foster-sib or step-spouse); etc.
PREsUMABLY "Low" VARIANTs I. Objective appraisal of parents
2a. Principled open rejection
2b. Genuine positive affect: some reference to (positive) psycho- logical qualities; individualized
characterizations
2c. Blocked affect (Presumably
mutually exclusive with 2a) 3? Principled independence
4? Love-seeking succorance-nur- turance-affiliation toward par- ents
3a. Submission to parental author- ity and values: respect based on fear
3b. Capricious rebellion against parents; delinquency
4a. Ego -alien dependence- for - things and suppon on parents: essentially exploitive-manipula- tive-"getting"; an externalized relationship
4b. Sense of obligation-and-duty to
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
parents: Desire to "make it up
to them"
5?
lngroup orientation to family as 5? Individualized approach to
a whole; e. g. , emphasis on fam- members of the family ily heredity and "background";
homogeneous-totalitarian fam-
ily vs. rest of world; aristocratic
superiority of family, etc.
In Table I (X), the results for both men and women interviewees are presented in the manner described in the concluding section of the preceding chapter. Abbreviated formulations of the categories just listed are presented, along with category numbers, for purposes of easier identification.
2. IDEALIZA TION VS. OBJECTIVE APPRAISAL OF P ARENTS
In view of their general tendency toward conventionality and submission toward ingroup members, it is not surprising to find in the prejudiced sub- jects a tendency toward "idealization of the parents. " This idealization is expressed characteristically in generalized and undifferentiated, convention- alized terms which primarily glorify external features of physical appear- ance or overt behavioral conduct rather than involving the more internal aspects of their personality. "Objective appraisal" of parents, referring to an ability for critical evaluation of the parents in specific and psychologically conceived terms, on the other hand, is predominant in the unprejudiced subjects.
The detailed results presented in Table I(X) (under Category I) reveal the striking fact that none of the low-scoring women interviewed shows the glorification of the parents just described; instead, I I of them show objective, critical appraisal. Of the high-scoring women, 9 show glorification and 6 ob- jective appraisal of parents. For the total group of women, there are 20 "positive" as contrasted with 6 "negative" instances in the sense defined at the end of the preceding chapter. The statistical significance of the differ- ence between the positive evidence (i. e. , that confirming the original hypoth- esis underlying the distinction between the "High" and the "Low" variant) and the negative (nonconfirmatory) evidence cited is found to be at the " I per cent level," and thus highly satisfactory (see Chapter IX, Section F, 6).
A good illustration of the "High" attitude in women is given by the fol- lowing quotation from the interview of one of the high scorers: "Mother- she amazes me-millions of activities-had two maids in years ago, but never since-such calmness-never sick, never-beautiful woman she really is. " The reference to external dimensions, both behavioral ("million ac- tivities") and physical ("never sick, beautiful"), can be seen clearly in the foregoing record. It must be emphasized that the subjects were asked, in this connection, "What kind of person is your father (mother)? " without further
? 1. Conventional idealization(H) vs. objective appraisal(L) of parents Women
. H.
9 6 0 ! ! 20 6
2. Victimization by parents (H) vs. a. Principled open rejectton of
parents (L}
b. c. Genuine affection or blocked Men
affect for parents(L)
aa. Submission to parents (H) vs. principled independence(L)
women 3 10 10 3 Men 14 2 2 10 24 4
women J1. . 0 1 8 17 1 Men 9 4 9 4
women6 1 61
1 2
1 5
3b. Capricious rebellion(H)
4a. Dependence for things on parents Men 13
1 5
1 2
1 1
2
14 27 2 8 2f 7
(H) vs. love-seeking affiliation(L)
4b. Sense of obligation and duty(H) 5. Ingroup conception of family(H)
Women T3 Men 5
women1
--
!
20 men and 25 women "high scorers"
20 men and 15 women "low scorers"
Men
1
l
Men women
_? _ 4 8 4
. . ? . 4
8 4 -
-
TABLE 1 (X)
INTERVIEW RATINGS ON ATTITUDE TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPT OF FAMILY
FOO 80 SUBJECTS SCORING EXTREMELY "HIGH" OR "LOW" ON THE ETHNIC PREJUDICE QUESTIONNAmE SCALE
Interview rating categories (abbreviated from Manual)
s~x I
Number of "High"(H) and "Low"(L) ratings received by
Sums of instances Level of statistical
? positive" "negative" significance reached
L H L
11 1 2 13 24 3
(percentage)
. . .
Men
Wo111en 2 ~ 3 2
Men 6
Women7 1
i1 11
62 71
1 A . A. 1 4 12 12 4
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
specification (see the Interview Schedule as presented in the preceding chap- ter).
The overestimation of parents in more general terms is especially clear in the record of another prejudiced woman interviewee (F24): "Father-he is wonderful; couldn't make him better. He is always willing to do anything for you. He is about years old, six feet tall, has dark brown hair, slim build, young-looking face, good-lookirig, dark green eyes. " The same sub- ject gives further evidence of the stereotypical conceptoion of parents in the high scorers by repeating the same description for her mother, differentiat- ing only the physical characteristics. After repeating the first two sentences she continues: "She is about 5 feet 5 inches, neither slim nor stocky. She's reducing. She has dark hair, blue eyes, is nice looking. She is years old. " These illustrations are quite typical of the responses of our high-scoring subjects.
It should be added that none of the 6 high-scoring women who show "ob- jective appraisal" of parents was considered to manifest "positive affect" toward the parents (Category 2). This will be discussed below.
Very characteristic of high-scoring subjects is an initial statement of great admiration for parents, followed by some criticism which is not, how- ever, recognized as such by the subject. The comparison of reactions to general questions with reactions to specific questions proved especially fruitful, e. g. , when parents were characterized in general positive terms but the specific episodes and traits referred to were mostly of a negative charac- ter. (Regarding related mechanisms of self-deception, see 33, 34? ) The sub- ject is aware only of admiration toward the parents, and the reservations seem to enter the picture against "better" intention and knowledge, thus in- jecting into the statement an element of ambivalence.
Examples of this attitude from the protocols of high-scoring women are quoted in the following. It should be mentioned here that throughout Chapters X to XII the special code numbers used in rating the interviews are retained for greater anonymity; for the same reason, localities, occupa- tions and related personal data are either left out or disguised.
F31: (Father? ) "He has a marvelous personality and gets along well with people. He has a hot temper. "
Or F79: "Mother was, of course, a very wonderful person. She was very nervous. Irritable only when overdoing. "
Or again, Fu: "Father is quiet and calm. He never shows irritation. He is very intelligent, and his opinions are very valid. He is very sincere and very well liked by friends and employees. He rarely puts himself out for people, but people love him. He is exceptionally good looking, dresses well, has gray hair, and i s - - years old. "
Glorification of parents is equally or even more pronounced in our high- scoring men than it is in the high-scoring women. Of the 2o interviewees
? P ARENTS AND CHILDHOOD SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 343
in this group, I I show this feature whereas only one has been rated as giving evidence of "objective appraisal"; and the entire category is again sig- nificant at the I per cent level. One of the high-scoring men describes his father as a "very, very fine man-intelligent, understanding, excellent father, in every way. " Another says that his father "is always good to his family. Naturally, a kid would not think their parents had any weaknesses in them. " Use of such terms as "naturally" or "of course"-the latter in the protocol of F79 quoted above-reveals the element of conventionalism inherent in the mechanism of glorification. Another high-scoring man says:
M47: (What sort of person was your mother? ) "Well, best in the world. . . . She's good, in fact, the best. In other words, she's just tops with me. She's friendly with everybody. Never has no trouble. Does anything for me she can. Writes me all the time. (What do you admire most about her? ) Just about everything. When father went away, mother took care of me all her life, where she could have put me in a home some place if she had wanted to. She always stayed with me in trouble. "
? Or, M p: (What have you admired most about your father? ) "Well, let's see. . . . Well, there's really no particular point that I admire most. . . . I've always been very proud to be his son. (What sort of person was your mother? ) Most terrific person in the world to me. (Shortcomings of mother? ) Well, I don't really think she has any, except maybe too wound up in her home, and didn't take more interest in social affairs. . . . I truthfully can't say she has any definite shortcomings. "
Or, M51: (Going back to your father, you say you didn't accept him as a shining example when you were a child? ) "He was always with me except when I was in boarding school, that is, always at home. I just took him for granted, that's all. I never analyzed him . . . when I was very small. Instead of asking why does the sun shine, how are babies made, etc. , etc. , my father says I took everything for granted. . . . I wonder why that was. . . . "
One of the outstanding features in the above quotations from high scorers is the use of superlatives in the description of parents, such as "excellent man in every way," "best in the world," "most terrific person," etc. If more detailed and specific elaborations are made at all, they refer to material bene- fits or help given by the parents. Where there is no readiness to admit that one's parents have any weakness in them it is not surprising to find later an indication of repressed hostility and revengeful fantasies behind the mask of compliance. Some evidence on this point has already been presented above.
The high scorers' emphasis on more obvious rather than on subtle and internalized characteristics cannot be traced to a lower level of education or of intelligence (see Chapter VIII). Rather it must be seen as in line with their general tendency toward greater shallowness and stereotypy and a diluted diffuseness of inner experiences.
The objective appraisal of one's parents, manifested primarily by the low scorers, has a very different quality. Instead of an apparent overestima- tion of the parents which, as will be seen, goes hand in hand with a fear- ful submission to them, we find in the typical unprejudiced subject an evalua-
? 344
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tion of the parents on terms of equality. In the following records, all taken from interviews of low-scoring subjects, we find the parents described as real people with real assets and shortcomings. The emphasis in the descrip- tion is on internal rather than external and physical characteristics. Con- comitant with a more critical attitude, we often find in these records a closer and warmer relationship with the parents. It also becomes clear that the parents have often been a source of comfort and love for these subjects, who, in their turn, are more secure in their feelings toward their parents. They are thus able to face and to express conflicts in the areas where there is or was disagreement. Often we get the impression that the low scorers talk in a benevolently condescending way about their parents, critically and at the same time lovingly.
Thus low-scoring women are found to describe their parents as follows:
F6s: "My mother is very much interested in people; she is practical and sensible, but she gets too much interested in fads. On some points I disagree with my mother very much. Mother wants me to be more social. She wants me to wear lipstick, go out to parries, etc. I am too lazy to do all those things. She is very good, nice and does the right thing, but I don't like her temperament. She is mad one minute and the next one she isn't. She gives me too much advice. "
F62: "Father tries to be rational, but he is not always so. He is a dominant person, though my mother was master of the house. "
F7o: (What kind of person is your father? ) "Father was never much in the pic- ture; he paid more attention to me between the ages of one and six than later. I think he wanted a boy, so he paid little attention to me, so probably has not influenced my attitudes very much. Describing father is easier. He's a more definite kind of per- son than mother. He's a person of great intolerance; he is 'a great authority on all subjects' (spoken with some irony) including medicine and physiology. "
F2 3: "Father was very dominating in the home, like all European men, and mother submitted to him. I almost think she enjoyed 'being a martyr'! " (It then became very clear that her mother's submissive and self-sacrificing attitude were unacceptable to
the subject. The mother never got what she wanted. The things she wanted were
like dreams, and she seemed satisfied to keep them as dreams. For example, she would have liked to redecorate the house or to buy a summer place, but the father \. would never let her. )
F26 feels that her father did not understand her point of view. She thinks he is sensitive, but does not sense other people's feelings. The mother is described as a pal, and as having a sense of humor. Subject thinks that, unlike her father, her mother understood what she was feeling.
Examples of "objective appraisal" of parents in low-scoring men follow. As is to be expected in our culture, there sometimes is a word or two of exaggerated praise at the beginning; but this is usually followed up by some more specific qualifiation of a less stereotyped, more vivid and direct kind.
M42: (What sort of person is your mother? ) "Well, I think she is a wonderful woman . . . been very good to me . . . never put too many restrictions on my activ- ities . . . her rules were few and far between, but what rules there were, had to be obeyed and not to be monkeyed with. .
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. e. , those designat- ing reactions presumed to occur more frequently in the prejudiced person- when given to subjects scoring high on the prejudice scales, as well as "Low" ratings given to relatively unprejudiced, i. e. , our so-called "low-scoring," subjects, in short, the hH and lL combinations. The remaining two figures, indicating the frequency of prejudiced subjects receiving a "Low" and of un- prejudiced subjects receiving a "High" rating, in short, the? hL and the lH combinations, constitute the "negative," nonconfirmatory instances.
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 33S
The series of tables in Chapters X to XII (Tables I (X) to 2 (XII)) pre- sents, for the two sexes separately, the numbers of prejudiced and of un- prejudiced interviewees who give the presumably "High" and the pre- sumably "Low" responses in the interviews, for each of the scoring categories. The number of "Neutrals" may be obtained by subtraction of their sums from the total number of subjects in the respective prejudiced or unprejudiced groups. The four raw figures are followed by two sums which contrast the total number of positive with the total number of negative in- stances. All "positive," i. e. , confirmatory, evidence is italicized. Whenever a category is defined in the Scoring Manual by only one variant, H or L, rather than by an opposition of an H with an L, only the presence of the trait in question is registered in the tables and the remaining space is left blank.
The final column of the tables indicates the level of statistical significance of the difference, on the category in question, between prejudiced and unprej- udiced extremes as defined in the present study. It thus refers to the "dis- criminatory power" and the importance of the category as a personality correlate-and therefore as a potential measure-of overtly expressed ethnic prejudice. Indications of significance are given in terms of whether or not the sper cent (satisfactory), the 2 per cent, or the I per cent level (highly satisfactory, since in this latter case there is a 99 per cent probability that the obtained difference is not due to chance factors) has been reached or surpassed, without specifying whether or by how much they have been surpassed. Significance was computed after evenly dividing the "Neutrals" among the "High" and the "Low" ratings. It must not be forgotten, in this connection, that dividing the Neutral ratings tends to lower the index of significance, the more so the larger the proportion of these ratings. Thus, in treating the Neutral ratings as we do, we are keeping on the safe side, since, as was pointed out above, the Neutral scorings are based, in a con- siderable proportion of the cases, on lack of information rather than on lack of actual discriminability.
Wherever the proportion of Neutrals for the total sample of interviewees is larger than so per cent, the statistical significance of the category in question was not computed and therefore there was no entry under any circumstances in the last column of the tables. The category was also omitted from the survey of interview scores in Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX). For men the total number of categories is 86, somewhat less than for women, in whose case a few more subdivisions were introduced into the Scoring Manual. Of these 86 categories, 72 yielded less than so per cent Neutrals, and thus re- mained for full treatment. For women only 6s of the original 90 categories yielded less than soper cent Neutrals and were thus retained for full treat- ment. The fact that the categories were generally somewhat more dis- criminatory in the case of the men than in the case of the women may be
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
accounted for by the fact that most of the men were interviewed at a later stage of the study and that therefore their records were more complete.
All the calculations discussed above were performed separately for men and women. Corresponding figures for each appear closely adjacent to one another in the tables, those for men (M) in the upper left-hand and those for women (W) in the lower right-hand area of each of the "cells" that one may imagine at the intersection of vertical columns with horizontal rows, the latter defined by the various categories.
? CHAPTER X
P ARENTS AND CHILDHOOD AS SEEN THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS Else Frenkel-Brunswik
A. INTRODUCTION
In turning to the specific results of the interviews we begin with the organization of the family. Many of the attitudes and underlying needs dis- cussed in this volume must be assumed to originate, as far as the individual is concerned, in the family situation. Here the growing child learns for the first time to handle interpersonal relations. Some of the members of the family are in an authoritative, others in an equalitarian or in a weaker position than himself. Some are of the same, others are of the opposite sex. It soon becomes evident to the youngster what kind of behavior is considered appropriate and will lead to reward and what kind of behavior will be punished. He finds himself confronted with a certain set of values and certain expectations which he has to meet.
Within the general common framework of the white American popula- tion, families vary greatly as to the rigidity or flexibility of the roles defined within the family, as well as to values in general. We shall encounter families in which considerably more emphasis is placed on obedience than it is in others. In some cases discipline is harsh and threatening, in others intelligible and mild. Or there may be rigorous adherence to conventional rules and customs rather than to more flexible and more intrinsic values which lead to greater tolerance for individual variations. Or smooth functioning within the family may depend either more on exchange of well-defined obligations and "goods," or else on an exchange of genuine affection. These and other differences in the organization of the family are under scrutiny in the light of their possible implications with respect to the personality structure of the individual and his social and political beliefs.
Although no striking relations between these patterns and gross economic factors have been uncovered in the present study, systematic investigations of a more distinctly sociological nature would undoubtedly reveal broader
337
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
cultural and subcultural determinants of these differences, say, the greater frequency of one or the other type of family organization in different national subgroups, or a dependence on the relative stability or instability of the socioeconomic family history. ?
While this goes to press, data from a separate project (Frenkel-Bruns- wik, for an advance report see 30)1 seem to indicate that parents of ex- tremely prejudiced children are relatively often the children of foreign-born parents or show preoccupation as to social and national insecurity.
Specific rating categories from the Interview Scoring Manual in the area of family organization, followed by tabulation of quantitative results and eventually by a discussion and the presentation of pertinent quotations from the interviews themselves, are given in Sections B to D.
B. A TTITUDES TOW ARD P ARENTS AND CONCEPTION OF THE FAMILY
1. DEFINITION OF RA TING CA TEGORIES AND QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
In line with the over-all subject matter of the present volume, the discus- sion concerning attitudes toward parents will, among others, center about the following questions: Is the general tendency toward glorification and lack of critical evaluation of ingroups on the part of the ethnically prejudiced also mirrored in . their attitudes toward their parents? Is there a tendency toward submission, and how are the problems of rebellion, hostility, and guilt handled in our two opposite groups? How are the feelings of genuine love related to conformity as contrasted with independence?
The definitions of the specific categories of the Scoring Manual dealing with problems of this nature are listed here in the form in which they were used by the raters. It should be remembered, however, that the Manual represents merely a summary of what was developed, and discussed with the two raters, in extended conferences preceding the actual rating procedure. The subsequent text makes occasional use of the more prominent of the con- notations thus established which were not formally incorporated in the Manual in order not to overload it in actual use.
Before starting the presentation of the various parts of the Interview Scoring Manual, attention must be called to the fact that strict opposi-
1 The study on social discrimination in children referred to here is being carried out at the Institute of Child Welfare of the University of California. The project was initiated by the present writer, in cooperation with Harold E. Jones and T. \V. Adorno, and spon- sorship was at first by the Scientific Department of the American Jewish Committee. In developing the tests and experiments the present writer was aided primarily by Claire Brednor, Donald T. Campbell, Joan Havel, Murray E. Jarvik, and Milton Rokeach.
? PARENTS AND CHILDHOOD SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 339
tion or near-opposition of the presumably "High" and the presumably "Low" variants is to be assumed only where the numbers or number-letter combinations appearing on the right side of the page are identical with those on the left. Thus Category 2, "victimization," stands in a somewhat oblique relation to Categories za to zc. In some cases pairings of this kind reflect the fact that there is more than one opposite to a given variant. Beginning with Section C of this chapter, different sets of letters are sometimes used on the two sides to stress an absence of one-by-one correspondence of a series of alternatives listed on the right with a series of items on the left, although the lists in their entirety define a more clear-cut pattern of oppo- sition. (Concerning the lopsided evaluation of asymmetrical categories in the tables to follow, see the concluding pages of the preceding chapter. )
The first subdivision of the Interview Scoring Manual follows. As in the Interview Schedule, italics are used to represent key phrases which had been emphasized to the raters by underscoring.
INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL: ATTITUDES TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPTION OF FAMILY
(to Table r(X)).
I .
2.
PRESUMABLY "HIGH" VARIANTS
Conventional idealization of parent(s): Overestimation of qualities and status, expressed in behavioral (essentially exter- nal), conventionalized general- ities, or undifferentiated "all's
well" attitude
Victimization (quasi-persecu- tory) byparent(s): Neglect, in- cluding failure to give proper discipline, unjust discipline;
"picked on"; unfair: resents pre- ferring of rival sib or spouse (or foster-sib or step-spouse); etc.
PREsUMABLY "Low" VARIANTs I. Objective appraisal of parents
2a. Principled open rejection
2b. Genuine positive affect: some reference to (positive) psycho- logical qualities; individualized
characterizations
2c. Blocked affect (Presumably
mutually exclusive with 2a) 3? Principled independence
4? Love-seeking succorance-nur- turance-affiliation toward par- ents
3a. Submission to parental author- ity and values: respect based on fear
3b. Capricious rebellion against parents; delinquency
4a. Ego -alien dependence- for - things and suppon on parents: essentially exploitive-manipula- tive-"getting"; an externalized relationship
4b. Sense of obligation-and-duty to
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
parents: Desire to "make it up
to them"
5?
lngroup orientation to family as 5? Individualized approach to
a whole; e. g. , emphasis on fam- members of the family ily heredity and "background";
homogeneous-totalitarian fam-
ily vs. rest of world; aristocratic
superiority of family, etc.
In Table I (X), the results for both men and women interviewees are presented in the manner described in the concluding section of the preceding chapter. Abbreviated formulations of the categories just listed are presented, along with category numbers, for purposes of easier identification.
2. IDEALIZA TION VS. OBJECTIVE APPRAISAL OF P ARENTS
In view of their general tendency toward conventionality and submission toward ingroup members, it is not surprising to find in the prejudiced sub- jects a tendency toward "idealization of the parents. " This idealization is expressed characteristically in generalized and undifferentiated, convention- alized terms which primarily glorify external features of physical appear- ance or overt behavioral conduct rather than involving the more internal aspects of their personality. "Objective appraisal" of parents, referring to an ability for critical evaluation of the parents in specific and psychologically conceived terms, on the other hand, is predominant in the unprejudiced subjects.
The detailed results presented in Table I(X) (under Category I) reveal the striking fact that none of the low-scoring women interviewed shows the glorification of the parents just described; instead, I I of them show objective, critical appraisal. Of the high-scoring women, 9 show glorification and 6 ob- jective appraisal of parents. For the total group of women, there are 20 "positive" as contrasted with 6 "negative" instances in the sense defined at the end of the preceding chapter. The statistical significance of the differ- ence between the positive evidence (i. e. , that confirming the original hypoth- esis underlying the distinction between the "High" and the "Low" variant) and the negative (nonconfirmatory) evidence cited is found to be at the " I per cent level," and thus highly satisfactory (see Chapter IX, Section F, 6).
A good illustration of the "High" attitude in women is given by the fol- lowing quotation from the interview of one of the high scorers: "Mother- she amazes me-millions of activities-had two maids in years ago, but never since-such calmness-never sick, never-beautiful woman she really is. " The reference to external dimensions, both behavioral ("million ac- tivities") and physical ("never sick, beautiful"), can be seen clearly in the foregoing record. It must be emphasized that the subjects were asked, in this connection, "What kind of person is your father (mother)? " without further
? 1. Conventional idealization(H) vs. objective appraisal(L) of parents Women
. H.
9 6 0 ! ! 20 6
2. Victimization by parents (H) vs. a. Principled open rejectton of
parents (L}
b. c. Genuine affection or blocked Men
affect for parents(L)
aa. Submission to parents (H) vs. principled independence(L)
women 3 10 10 3 Men 14 2 2 10 24 4
women J1. . 0 1 8 17 1 Men 9 4 9 4
women6 1 61
1 2
1 5
3b. Capricious rebellion(H)
4a. Dependence for things on parents Men 13
1 5
1 2
1 1
2
14 27 2 8 2f 7
(H) vs. love-seeking affiliation(L)
4b. Sense of obligation and duty(H) 5. Ingroup conception of family(H)
Women T3 Men 5
women1
--
!
20 men and 25 women "high scorers"
20 men and 15 women "low scorers"
Men
1
l
Men women
_? _ 4 8 4
. . ? . 4
8 4 -
-
TABLE 1 (X)
INTERVIEW RATINGS ON ATTITUDE TOWARD PARENTS AND CONCEPT OF FAMILY
FOO 80 SUBJECTS SCORING EXTREMELY "HIGH" OR "LOW" ON THE ETHNIC PREJUDICE QUESTIONNAmE SCALE
Interview rating categories (abbreviated from Manual)
s~x I
Number of "High"(H) and "Low"(L) ratings received by
Sums of instances Level of statistical
? positive" "negative" significance reached
L H L
11 1 2 13 24 3
(percentage)
. . .
Men
Wo111en 2 ~ 3 2
Men 6
Women7 1
i1 11
62 71
1 A . A. 1 4 12 12 4
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
specification (see the Interview Schedule as presented in the preceding chap- ter).
The overestimation of parents in more general terms is especially clear in the record of another prejudiced woman interviewee (F24): "Father-he is wonderful; couldn't make him better. He is always willing to do anything for you. He is about years old, six feet tall, has dark brown hair, slim build, young-looking face, good-lookirig, dark green eyes. " The same sub- ject gives further evidence of the stereotypical conceptoion of parents in the high scorers by repeating the same description for her mother, differentiat- ing only the physical characteristics. After repeating the first two sentences she continues: "She is about 5 feet 5 inches, neither slim nor stocky. She's reducing. She has dark hair, blue eyes, is nice looking. She is years old. " These illustrations are quite typical of the responses of our high-scoring subjects.
It should be added that none of the 6 high-scoring women who show "ob- jective appraisal" of parents was considered to manifest "positive affect" toward the parents (Category 2). This will be discussed below.
Very characteristic of high-scoring subjects is an initial statement of great admiration for parents, followed by some criticism which is not, how- ever, recognized as such by the subject. The comparison of reactions to general questions with reactions to specific questions proved especially fruitful, e. g. , when parents were characterized in general positive terms but the specific episodes and traits referred to were mostly of a negative charac- ter. (Regarding related mechanisms of self-deception, see 33, 34? ) The sub- ject is aware only of admiration toward the parents, and the reservations seem to enter the picture against "better" intention and knowledge, thus in- jecting into the statement an element of ambivalence.
Examples of this attitude from the protocols of high-scoring women are quoted in the following. It should be mentioned here that throughout Chapters X to XII the special code numbers used in rating the interviews are retained for greater anonymity; for the same reason, localities, occupa- tions and related personal data are either left out or disguised.
F31: (Father? ) "He has a marvelous personality and gets along well with people. He has a hot temper. "
Or F79: "Mother was, of course, a very wonderful person. She was very nervous. Irritable only when overdoing. "
Or again, Fu: "Father is quiet and calm. He never shows irritation. He is very intelligent, and his opinions are very valid. He is very sincere and very well liked by friends and employees. He rarely puts himself out for people, but people love him. He is exceptionally good looking, dresses well, has gray hair, and i s - - years old. "
Glorification of parents is equally or even more pronounced in our high- scoring men than it is in the high-scoring women. Of the 2o interviewees
? P ARENTS AND CHILDHOOD SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 343
in this group, I I show this feature whereas only one has been rated as giving evidence of "objective appraisal"; and the entire category is again sig- nificant at the I per cent level. One of the high-scoring men describes his father as a "very, very fine man-intelligent, understanding, excellent father, in every way. " Another says that his father "is always good to his family. Naturally, a kid would not think their parents had any weaknesses in them. " Use of such terms as "naturally" or "of course"-the latter in the protocol of F79 quoted above-reveals the element of conventionalism inherent in the mechanism of glorification. Another high-scoring man says:
M47: (What sort of person was your mother? ) "Well, best in the world. . . . She's good, in fact, the best. In other words, she's just tops with me. She's friendly with everybody. Never has no trouble. Does anything for me she can. Writes me all the time. (What do you admire most about her? ) Just about everything. When father went away, mother took care of me all her life, where she could have put me in a home some place if she had wanted to. She always stayed with me in trouble. "
? Or, M p: (What have you admired most about your father? ) "Well, let's see. . . . Well, there's really no particular point that I admire most. . . . I've always been very proud to be his son. (What sort of person was your mother? ) Most terrific person in the world to me. (Shortcomings of mother? ) Well, I don't really think she has any, except maybe too wound up in her home, and didn't take more interest in social affairs. . . . I truthfully can't say she has any definite shortcomings. "
Or, M51: (Going back to your father, you say you didn't accept him as a shining example when you were a child? ) "He was always with me except when I was in boarding school, that is, always at home. I just took him for granted, that's all. I never analyzed him . . . when I was very small. Instead of asking why does the sun shine, how are babies made, etc. , etc. , my father says I took everything for granted. . . . I wonder why that was. . . . "
One of the outstanding features in the above quotations from high scorers is the use of superlatives in the description of parents, such as "excellent man in every way," "best in the world," "most terrific person," etc. If more detailed and specific elaborations are made at all, they refer to material bene- fits or help given by the parents. Where there is no readiness to admit that one's parents have any weakness in them it is not surprising to find later an indication of repressed hostility and revengeful fantasies behind the mask of compliance. Some evidence on this point has already been presented above.
The high scorers' emphasis on more obvious rather than on subtle and internalized characteristics cannot be traced to a lower level of education or of intelligence (see Chapter VIII). Rather it must be seen as in line with their general tendency toward greater shallowness and stereotypy and a diluted diffuseness of inner experiences.
The objective appraisal of one's parents, manifested primarily by the low scorers, has a very different quality. Instead of an apparent overestima- tion of the parents which, as will be seen, goes hand in hand with a fear- ful submission to them, we find in the typical unprejudiced subject an evalua-
? 344
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tion of the parents on terms of equality. In the following records, all taken from interviews of low-scoring subjects, we find the parents described as real people with real assets and shortcomings. The emphasis in the descrip- tion is on internal rather than external and physical characteristics. Con- comitant with a more critical attitude, we often find in these records a closer and warmer relationship with the parents. It also becomes clear that the parents have often been a source of comfort and love for these subjects, who, in their turn, are more secure in their feelings toward their parents. They are thus able to face and to express conflicts in the areas where there is or was disagreement. Often we get the impression that the low scorers talk in a benevolently condescending way about their parents, critically and at the same time lovingly.
Thus low-scoring women are found to describe their parents as follows:
F6s: "My mother is very much interested in people; she is practical and sensible, but she gets too much interested in fads. On some points I disagree with my mother very much. Mother wants me to be more social. She wants me to wear lipstick, go out to parries, etc. I am too lazy to do all those things. She is very good, nice and does the right thing, but I don't like her temperament. She is mad one minute and the next one she isn't. She gives me too much advice. "
F62: "Father tries to be rational, but he is not always so. He is a dominant person, though my mother was master of the house. "
F7o: (What kind of person is your father? ) "Father was never much in the pic- ture; he paid more attention to me between the ages of one and six than later. I think he wanted a boy, so he paid little attention to me, so probably has not influenced my attitudes very much. Describing father is easier. He's a more definite kind of per- son than mother. He's a person of great intolerance; he is 'a great authority on all subjects' (spoken with some irony) including medicine and physiology. "
F2 3: "Father was very dominating in the home, like all European men, and mother submitted to him. I almost think she enjoyed 'being a martyr'! " (It then became very clear that her mother's submissive and self-sacrificing attitude were unacceptable to
the subject. The mother never got what she wanted. The things she wanted were
like dreams, and she seemed satisfied to keep them as dreams. For example, she would have liked to redecorate the house or to buy a summer place, but the father \. would never let her. )
F26 feels that her father did not understand her point of view. She thinks he is sensitive, but does not sense other people's feelings. The mother is described as a pal, and as having a sense of humor. Subject thinks that, unlike her father, her mother understood what she was feeling.
Examples of "objective appraisal" of parents in low-scoring men follow. As is to be expected in our culture, there sometimes is a word or two of exaggerated praise at the beginning; but this is usually followed up by some more specific qualifiation of a less stereotyped, more vivid and direct kind.
M42: (What sort of person is your mother? ) "Well, I think she is a wonderful woman . . . been very good to me . . . never put too many restrictions on my activ- ities . . . her rules were few and far between, but what rules there were, had to be obeyed and not to be monkeyed with. .
