The most
discriminating
items deal with Jewish businessmen, stereo- typed imagery, marriage, exclusion from neighborhoods, and Jewish respon- sibility for anti-Semitism.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
12 1.
25 4.
42 4.
09 3.
15 3.
88 3.
60 2.
76 3.
22 4.
24 2.
60 2.
63 3.
39 3.
45
2. 74 3. 61 (6) 3. 40 4. 34 (1) 3. 51 2. 87 (9) 3. 48 3. 89 (5) 2. 37 2. 37 (10) 3. 96 4. 28. (3) 2. 94 4. 12 (4) 3. 35 3. 50 (7) 3. 14 4,30 (2) 2. 69 3. 48 (8) 3. 16 3. 68
1-j
::r:
M
[fJ
1-j
~
t:l . . . ::
0
"l >z
1-j
. . . . . I [fJ
M
a:
. . . . .
1-j
. . . . . ("l
8 M
0t'" 0 C'l . . . ::
3. . 79
3. 41 3. 20 3. 42 3. 96 2. 29 2. 28 2. 96 3. 09 4. 44 4. 60 3. 92 4. 67 3. 03 3. 57 3. 31 4. 35 3. 54 3. 85 3. 31 3. 29 3. 44 4. 02 3. 19 4. 20 3. 07 3. 49 2. 81 3. 50 3. 32 3. 68 3. 35 3. 80
3. 16
2. 10
3. 04
2. 29
2. 94 4. 12 2. 73 4. 76 2. 27 4. 30 2. 57 3. 78
A-8 SCAlE - FORM 78
arhe four groups on which? these data are based. are: Group A, U. C. Public Speaking Class Women (N = 140); Group B, U. C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52); Group C, U. C. Adult Extension Class Women (N = 40); Group D, Professional Women (nurses, teachers, social workers, (N =63).
bin obtaining the over-all means. the individual group means were not weighted by N.
00
--. 1
? 88 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
and the D. P. 's correlated . 8o. It would therefore appear that the relative discriminability (D. P. ) and level of acceptability (mean) of the items is due mainly to the nature of the items themselves rather than to their form of presentation in the questionnaire.
Although no correlations were computed among the four groups taking Form 78, the great variability of the over-all means and D. P. 's indicates considerable consistency of item mean and D. P. from group to group. The best items for one group tend to be the best for other groups, and similarly for the worst items. This consistency in rank order of means and D. P. 's holds even for the Professional Women, despite the fact that the absolute values of the item means were considerably lower for this group than for the others.
Further evidence on these issues is given by results obtained in September, 1945, from a group of 153 students, preponderantly women, at George Washington University, Washington, D. C. 9 The ten A-S items were pre- sented in a solid block, on a sheet containing no other scales, the instructions duplicating those given for the long form of the scale. The obtained reliabil- ity was . 91, a value almost identical with those for the other groups. The group mean per item was 4? 52 and the average D. P. was 4. 02. The mean is significantly different (above the 1 per cent level) from the University of California means, and suggests, as have other independent studies, that sig- nificant sectional differences in anti-Semitism exist (the Far West being, apparently, less prejudiced than the East). While the Washington students obtain consistently higher scores, the item means show a rank-order cor- relation of . 84 between the Washington group and the average of the four California groups, indicating a marked similarity in the relative acceptability of the items. This group also gives evidence that extremely high scorers do exist, and that the restricted range of the groups taking Form 78 is due mainly to a lack of extremely anti-Semitic members. The individual scores in the Washington group covered the entire range of possible scores, 1o-7o, with
a mean per item of 6. 27 for the high quartile, 2. 25 for the low quartile.
The Discriminatory Powers for the Washington group correlated ? 54 with the average D. P. 's for the four California groups. The smallness of this value, in contrast to that for the item -means, is due primarily to a change in the rank of item 72, which asserts that "there are too many Jews in Washington agencies. '' The D. P. for this item had a rank of 8 in the Cali- fornia groups, but a rank of 2 for the Washington group (the D. P. being 4? 5)? While the rank of the mean on this item was identical in the two groups (9 in both cases), the difference between low and high scorers was rela- tively much greater in Washington than in California. Living in Washington should provide, one might expect, a reality basis on which to respond to this
9 We wish to thank Dr. G. H. Smith, then teaching at George Washington University, for his cooperation. These results were not incorporated in the main body of data because this group was not given the remaining sections of the questionnaire.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
item and thus minimize the differences' between otherwise low and high scorers. This does not seem to be the case. It would seem, rather, that how an individual assimilates and interprets social reality is to a large extent deter- mined by his pre-existing ideology. Living in Washington appears to have mainly a polarizing rather than a homogenizing effect, especially on the "Jews in government" issue.
From the above discussion the following conclusions may tentatively be drawn.
a. The item means and D. P. 's are not appreciably changed by changes in the form of presentation (from 52 consecutive anti-Semitic items to ro consecutive anti-Semitic items to ten items randomly interspersed among a series totalling 78 in all).
b. While over-all mean and average D. P. vary considerably from group to group, relative discriminability and level of acceptability of each item (rank D. P. and mean) tend to remain fairly constant, with the exception of certain sectional differences (as in Item 72, regarding Washington agencies). That is, certain items tend consistently to have relatively high D. P. 's, others to have low D. P. 's, and similarly for the item means.
c. The item means and particularly the D. P. 's were statistically very satisfactory. For eight of the ten items the D. P. 's averaged 3? 5 to 4? 3 (these values would be even higher were the Washington group included), and even the lowest average D. P. 's of 2. 4 and 2. 9 are adequate.
d.
The most discriminating items deal with Jewish businessmen, stereo- typed imagery, marriage, exclusion from neighborhoods, and Jewish respon- sibility for anti-Semitism. It is interesting that items stating the most fre- quently heard accusations and the more openly antagonistic attitudes usually had lower means and D. P. 's.
e. In view of its high reliability and internal consistency, the short form of the A-S scale can be used for most research purposes in place of the original, longer form.
E. V ALIDA TION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE
One meaning of the concept of validity as applied to a psychological test is that the test, which involves only a small sample of the individual's re- sponses, tells us something that is generally true of that individual as judged by an intensive study of him. The A-S scale may be said to have validity of this kind to the degree that the subjects, in their responses to the scale, reveal the same tendencies which come out in their interviews. It will be worth while, therefore, to compare the responses of Mack and Larry to the A-S scale with what they have to say about Jews when they are invited to speak spontaneously.
? 11. 16. 21. 26. 33. 40. 49. 62. 69. 72.
Item
(Hire Jews) (Businessmen) (Jewish districts) (Get rid of faults) (Jewish leaders) (Marry a Jew)
(Nice neighborhood) (Basically Jewish) (All alike) (Federal agencies)
Over-all mean
3 1 2. 74 6 1 3. 40 5 1 3. 51 6 1 3. 48 3 1 2. 37 7 3 3. 96 5 1 2. 94 5 1 3. 35 3 1 3. 14 3 1 2. 69
4. 6 1. 2 3. 16
3. 61 4. 34 2. 87 3. 89 2. 37 4. 28 4. 12 3. 50 4. 30 3. 48
3. 68
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
In Table I 3(III) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group mean and the D. P. for each of the ten items in the short form of the A-S
TABLE 13 (Ill)
RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-8 SCALE
Groupa Groupa
Mack Larry Mean __! 2_,_L
aThe group means and D. P. 's are based on all four groups taking Form 78.
scale (Form 78). Mack's mean score, 4. 6, is definitely, but not extremely far, above the over-all group mean of 3. 16. He was just barely inside the high quartile for the group of Public Speaking Men of which he was a mem- ber. This is in keeping with the moderation which characterized the whole ideological section of his interview, and it forms part of the basis for the statement, in Chapter II, that he is a relatively mild case. His anti-Semitism is fairly general, in that he agrees with six of the ten statements and scores above the group mean on all but one of them; but a study of the responses to individual items reveals a clear pattern, one that can be distinguished from other patterns of anti-Semitism. In disagreeing slightly, and thereby scoring close to the group mean, in the case of Items I I (Hire Jews), 33 (Jewish leaders), and 72 (Federal agencies), he is saying that he would have no serious objection if Jews should participate more fully in American life, that this indeed is what they ought to do. The main trouble, as seen in the positive responses to Items I6 (Businessmen) and 2 I (Jewish districts), is that they would rather stick together and accumulate wealth and power for their own group. Although persecution would be largely eliminated if they should rid themselves of their faults (Item 26), they cannot really become "Americanized" (Item 62) and would still have to be kept at some distance personally and socially (Items 40 and 49).
This is almost exactly what Mack tells us in his interview. It is the main
? THE STUDY OF AXTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
point that he tries to make. "They accent the clannish and the material. . . . If a Jew fails in business, he's helped to get started again. . . . They would be liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix. . . . The Jews won't intermingle. . . . I certainly wouldn't (marry a Jew). . . . I would date that girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted by the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class. "
It is interesting that Item 40 (Marry a Jew) is the one about which Mack feels most strongly and on which he deviates most markedly from the group mean. It would appear that he feels safe in saying, in the interview, that he would marry the Jewish girl "if she had thrown off her Jewishness," because he does not really believe that she ever can do this; there would always be "something basically Jewish underneath" (Item 62).
The item on which Mack obtains a score that is slightly below the group mean is 69 (All alike). Here there is a real discrepancy between scale and interview. The analysis of the interview seemed to show that stereotypy was an outstanding characteristic of this subject's thinking, and yet when it comes to the item which pertains most directly to this characteristic, he fails to agree. This is not because the item is a poor one, for its D. P. was next to the highest obtained with this short form of the A-S scale; nor do there appear to be any special features of Mack's stereotypy that would render Item 69 inapplicable. Perhaps it is too much to expect that scale and interview will agree in every particular; these instruments are not that precise, or perhaps most subjects are not that consistent.
It may be noted that Mack, in the interview, where he is allowed free scope, brings into his discussion of the Jews certain ideas, e. g. , Jewish "weak- ness," that are not touched upon in any of the ten statements which comprise the A. . :S scale. This outcome would have been considerably less likely, it seems, if he had responded to the 52 items of the original A-S scale. It is claimed for the short form of the scale that for most research purposes it can be substituted for the long form. In Mack's case there appears to be no reason for dissatisfaction with the measure of the degree of his anti-Semitism which the short form yields; concerning the content of his anti-Semitic ideology it is noteworthy that the pattern which appears in his responses to the scale corresponds to what is central and seemingly most important in his spontaneous discussion. That the ten-item scale should at the same time reveal the more incidental and individualistic features of a subject's ideology concerning Jews would be too much to ask.
Larry's responses to the A-S scale are true to form. He obtains the lowest possible score on every item except 40 (Marry a Jew), and even here he disagrees slightly. When it was stated in Chapter II that Larry was not an extreme example of low-scoring men, the reference was to what was known of him from all the diagnostic devices employed in the research. He made it
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
clear enough in his interview that he was strongly opposed to prejudice against minority groups, and had he not come out with an extremely low score on the A-S scale we would have had cause for serious doubt of its validity. That he did not obtain the lowest possible score on Item 40 is evi- dence that he did not respond to the A-S items in an automatic way. It seems that at this point his impulse toward complete social interaction with Jews collided with his conventionalism, a trait which we have seen to be well developed in him, and he could not in honesty go beyond slight disagree- ment with the item.
In general, the responses of these two subjects on the A-S scale are con- sistent with what they say about Jews in their interviews. This consistency appears not only in the degree of anti-Semitism expressed but in the content of the subjects' thinking about Jews. To the extent that these results may be generalized, the A-S scale is a valid index of ideology concerning Jews.
F. DISCUSSION: THE STRUCTURE OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Perhaps the first conclusion to be drawn from the results presented above is that anti-Semitism is best conceived psychologically not as a specific aver- sion but as an ideology, a general way of thinking about Jews and Jewish- Gentile interaction. This is demonstrated by the high reliability of a scale dealing with so varied a set of ideas, by the reliabilities and intercorrelations of the subscales, and by the high internal consistency of the scale as revealed by the item Discriminatory Powers. The statistical results indicate that a quantitative measure of total anti-Semitic ideology has been obtained. Any individual can be assigned, with a relatively small margin of error, a rank along a dimension ranging from strong support of anti-Semitic ideology at one (high) extreme, to strong opposition at the other (low) extreme. The meaning of middle scores on this dimension is ambiguous, since they may represent indifference, ignorance, or an ambivalent combination of partial support and partial rejection of anti-Semitism. It is noteworthy, however, that individuals making middle scores on one subscale tend to make middle scores on the other subscales as well. Despite item-by-item variability, indi- viduals tend to be highly consistent in their responses to the several subscales.
The fact that an individual's stand on one set of items is similar to his stand on all others does not necessarily imply that all anti-Semitic ideas are of equal psychological importance to each individual. The spontaneous dis- cussions of anti-Semites, whether in an interview or in everyday social life, suggest that for each individual there are certain "nuclear ideas"-imagery of Jews as conniving, or sexual, or radical, and the like, and corresponding primary attitudes-which have primary emotional significance. However,
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
93
these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they tend to "pull in" numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions.
This conception of anti-Semitism aids in the understanding of the present results. It also offers an explanation of why an anti-Semitic rumor that is entirely new in its specific details (for example, the wartime accusations that only Jews could get tires or draft exemptions or officer status) is easily believed by anti-Semites: because of a receptivity to negative imagery gen- erally and by means of an ideological system within which the new idea is easily assimilated.
This conception of the inclusiveness of anti-Semitic ideology stands in sharp contrast to numerous theories which conceive of anti-Semitism in terms of certain specific accusations or motives. The notion of anti-Semitism as a form of "racial" prejudice, for example, seems to be based on the idea that the main accusations against Jews involve their "racially inherited" traits
(faults). Another common view, that anti-Semitism is a form of "religious" prejudice, is based on the explicit or implicit assumption that religious dif- ferences, and thus accusations on religious grounds, are the central issues in anti-Semitism. A third "specifistic" view is that anti-Semitism is based pri- marily on distortions of facts which some individuals have mistakenly accepted as true; for example, that Jews are unusually rich, dishonest, radical, and so on. This last theory has led to numerous attempts to fight anti-Semitism by giving the "true facts"-attempts which are distinguished for their lack of success. What this theory has overlooked is the receptivity of many indi- viduals to any hostile imagery of Jews, and the emotional resistance of these individuals to a less hostile and less stereotyped way of thinking. Finally, anti-Semitism is sometimes explained in terms of financial motives and ac- cusations: many people, it is asserted, oppose the Jews on the simple grounds of economic competition and financial self-interest. This theory ignores the other accusations (of power seeking, immorality, and the like) which are made with equal or greater emotional intensity. It also fails to explain why anti-Semites so often violate their own material self-interest in maintaining their prejudices. None of these conceptions of anti-Semitism has adequately grasped its generality, its psychological complexity, and its function in the emotional life of the individual. Nor can they suggest why many individuals oppose anti-Semitism despite their having economic situations, religious backgrounds, sources of information, and so on, which are similar to those of anti-Semites. What is required, in our opinion, is a psychological approach which seeks to grasp both anti-Semitic ideology and anti-anti-Semitic ideol- ogy in their full complexity and scope, and which then attempts to discover
? 94
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
the various sources of each viewpoint in the psychological development and social background of the individuals holding it. l0
Before discussing the major ideas comprising anti-Semitic ideology, a few words regarding the scale and the scale data are necessary. It is believed that most of the major facets of everyday American anti-Semitism have been represented in the scale, though no claim is made that it contains all the anti- Semitic ideas currently in vogue. The scale data provide an empirical basis for the following discussion in the sense: (a) that each of the ideas to be discussed is supported by most anti-Semites (subjects who fall within the highest 25 per cent of scorers on the scale), opposed by most anti-anti- Semites, the differences being statistically significant; and (b) that each anti- Semite supports most of these ideas, while each low scorer opposes most of them. Thus, one can speak of a broad framework of anti-Semitic ideology which is held in its entirety by relatively few individuals but which is sup- ported in varying degrees by many more.
What, then, are the major opinions, values, and attitudes comprising anti- Semitic ideology, how are they organized or systematized, and how is this system different from other, non-anti-Semitic points of view?
One striking characteristic of the imagery in anti-Semitic ideology is its stereotypy, which takes several forms. There is, first, a tendency to over- generalize single traits, to subscribe to statements beginning "Jews are . . . " or "The Jews do not . . . " Second, there is a stereotyped negative image of the group as a whole, as if "to know one is to know all," since they are all alike. Third, examination of the specific characteristics comprising the im- agery reveals a basic contradiction in that no single individual or group as a whole could have all these characteristics.
Another aspect of stereotypy which is implied by the scale items and brought out more directly in the interviews may be termed "stereotypy of interpersonal relationships and experiences. " It involves an inability to expe- rience Jews as individuals. Rather, each Jew is seen and reacted to as a sort of sample specimen of the stereotyped, reified image of the group. This form of stereotypy is expressed very clearly in Mack's discussion of Jews
(see Chapter II); while no statistics are available, the other interviews as well as everyday conversations indicate that his approach is not uncommon. This limitation in the experience of individuals has certain implications
10 It may again be emphasized that the present approach is a psychological one. The sociologist, at least during this stage in the development of social science, tends? to proceed along other, perhaps parallel, lines. Thus, a psychological approach in terms of purely religious or purely economic motives is inadequate. However, a sociological approach in terms of religious or politico-economic structures and their relation to anti-Semitism as a sociocultural trend is, in our opinion, both valid and of great significance. What must be opposed, as we see it, is the tendency mechanically to subsume psychology under soci- ology and to confuse basic economic or religious social forces with superficial economic or religious motives in the individual. Sociological forces are considered in Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
95
for the theory that contact with "good Jews" lessens anti-Semitism. The effectiveness of social contact would seem to depend in large part on the individual's capacity for individuated experience. This capacity is certainly not hereditarily determined, but it may often be difficult to change in adults. When it is lacking, new social experiences are likely to lead, not to new learning and development, but merely to the mechanical reinforcement of established imagery.
Further analysis of stereotypy and other characteristics of anti-Semitic thinking, as well as concrete examples from the interview material, are pre- sented in Chapter XVI.
These considerations raise several questions which are dealt with in later sections of this research. Do anti-Semites express the same stereotypy of thought and experience in relation to other groups and issues, that is, are stereotypy and rigidity aspects of their general psychological functioning? Why is it so important for anti-Semites to reject Jews on any and all grounds? Are the contradictions and oversimplifications primarily surface signs of a deeper-lying anxiety and hostility? If so, what are the personality trends involved, and how are they different from those found in non-anti-Semites?
Let us consider the deeper psychological meaning of the stereotyped nega- tive imagery of Jews. While the specific surface opinions cover a great variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure. Perhaps most central is the idea that Jews are threatening. Certainly this idea is present, explicitly or implicitly, in almost all the scale items. It is expressed in the subscale "Offensive," where Jews are described as a moral threat, that is, as violators of important standards and values. These values include: cleanliness, neatness, and conformity; also opposition to sensuality, extrava- gance, prying, social aggressiveness, exhibitionism. The imagery of Jews as value-violators makes them not only offensive but also very disturbing. The anxiety becomes almost explicit in item II-4: "There is something different and strange about Jews . . . "
These values are, of course, not limited to anti-Semites. Indeed, many of them are among the currently prevailing conventional middle-class values- and most Americans are psychologically middle class. It may be that anti- Semites and non-anti-Semites differ regarding certain values such as sensual- ity or conformity. However, it is likely that many unprejudiced individuals have subst~ntially the same values as the anti-Semites do. Why, then, do these values become the basis for anti-Semitic accusations in one group but not in the other? One hypothesis would be that the non-anti-Semites are more flexible in their support of these values, less disturbed by value-violators and less inclined to stereotypy and overgeneralization.
Moreover, these values tend, as will be shown later, to be held very strongly by the high-scoring subjects, and they appear frequently in these individuals'
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
thinking about themselves, other people, and social issues generally. In view of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity with which supposed value-violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional disposi- tions. It is possible, for example, that anti-Semites are unconsciously strug- gling to inhibit in themselves the same tendencies that they find so unbear- able in Jews. Jews may be a convenient object on which they can project their unconscious desires and fears.
2. 74 3. 61 (6) 3. 40 4. 34 (1) 3. 51 2. 87 (9) 3. 48 3. 89 (5) 2. 37 2. 37 (10) 3. 96 4. 28. (3) 2. 94 4. 12 (4) 3. 35 3. 50 (7) 3. 14 4,30 (2) 2. 69 3. 48 (8) 3. 16 3. 68
1-j
::r:
M
[fJ
1-j
~
t:l . . . ::
0
"l >z
1-j
. . . . . I [fJ
M
a:
. . . . .
1-j
. . . . . ("l
8 M
0t'" 0 C'l . . . ::
3. . 79
3. 41 3. 20 3. 42 3. 96 2. 29 2. 28 2. 96 3. 09 4. 44 4. 60 3. 92 4. 67 3. 03 3. 57 3. 31 4. 35 3. 54 3. 85 3. 31 3. 29 3. 44 4. 02 3. 19 4. 20 3. 07 3. 49 2. 81 3. 50 3. 32 3. 68 3. 35 3. 80
3. 16
2. 10
3. 04
2. 29
2. 94 4. 12 2. 73 4. 76 2. 27 4. 30 2. 57 3. 78
A-8 SCAlE - FORM 78
arhe four groups on which? these data are based. are: Group A, U. C. Public Speaking Class Women (N = 140); Group B, U. C. Public Speaking Class Men (N = 52); Group C, U. C. Adult Extension Class Women (N = 40); Group D, Professional Women (nurses, teachers, social workers, (N =63).
bin obtaining the over-all means. the individual group means were not weighted by N.
00
--. 1
? 88 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
and the D. P. 's correlated . 8o. It would therefore appear that the relative discriminability (D. P. ) and level of acceptability (mean) of the items is due mainly to the nature of the items themselves rather than to their form of presentation in the questionnaire.
Although no correlations were computed among the four groups taking Form 78, the great variability of the over-all means and D. P. 's indicates considerable consistency of item mean and D. P. from group to group. The best items for one group tend to be the best for other groups, and similarly for the worst items. This consistency in rank order of means and D. P. 's holds even for the Professional Women, despite the fact that the absolute values of the item means were considerably lower for this group than for the others.
Further evidence on these issues is given by results obtained in September, 1945, from a group of 153 students, preponderantly women, at George Washington University, Washington, D. C. 9 The ten A-S items were pre- sented in a solid block, on a sheet containing no other scales, the instructions duplicating those given for the long form of the scale. The obtained reliabil- ity was . 91, a value almost identical with those for the other groups. The group mean per item was 4? 52 and the average D. P. was 4. 02. The mean is significantly different (above the 1 per cent level) from the University of California means, and suggests, as have other independent studies, that sig- nificant sectional differences in anti-Semitism exist (the Far West being, apparently, less prejudiced than the East). While the Washington students obtain consistently higher scores, the item means show a rank-order cor- relation of . 84 between the Washington group and the average of the four California groups, indicating a marked similarity in the relative acceptability of the items. This group also gives evidence that extremely high scorers do exist, and that the restricted range of the groups taking Form 78 is due mainly to a lack of extremely anti-Semitic members. The individual scores in the Washington group covered the entire range of possible scores, 1o-7o, with
a mean per item of 6. 27 for the high quartile, 2. 25 for the low quartile.
The Discriminatory Powers for the Washington group correlated ? 54 with the average D. P. 's for the four California groups. The smallness of this value, in contrast to that for the item -means, is due primarily to a change in the rank of item 72, which asserts that "there are too many Jews in Washington agencies. '' The D. P. for this item had a rank of 8 in the Cali- fornia groups, but a rank of 2 for the Washington group (the D. P. being 4? 5)? While the rank of the mean on this item was identical in the two groups (9 in both cases), the difference between low and high scorers was rela- tively much greater in Washington than in California. Living in Washington should provide, one might expect, a reality basis on which to respond to this
9 We wish to thank Dr. G. H. Smith, then teaching at George Washington University, for his cooperation. These results were not incorporated in the main body of data because this group was not given the remaining sections of the questionnaire.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
item and thus minimize the differences' between otherwise low and high scorers. This does not seem to be the case. It would seem, rather, that how an individual assimilates and interprets social reality is to a large extent deter- mined by his pre-existing ideology. Living in Washington appears to have mainly a polarizing rather than a homogenizing effect, especially on the "Jews in government" issue.
From the above discussion the following conclusions may tentatively be drawn.
a. The item means and D. P. 's are not appreciably changed by changes in the form of presentation (from 52 consecutive anti-Semitic items to ro consecutive anti-Semitic items to ten items randomly interspersed among a series totalling 78 in all).
b. While over-all mean and average D. P. vary considerably from group to group, relative discriminability and level of acceptability of each item (rank D. P. and mean) tend to remain fairly constant, with the exception of certain sectional differences (as in Item 72, regarding Washington agencies). That is, certain items tend consistently to have relatively high D. P. 's, others to have low D. P. 's, and similarly for the item means.
c. The item means and particularly the D. P. 's were statistically very satisfactory. For eight of the ten items the D. P. 's averaged 3? 5 to 4? 3 (these values would be even higher were the Washington group included), and even the lowest average D. P. 's of 2. 4 and 2. 9 are adequate.
d.
The most discriminating items deal with Jewish businessmen, stereo- typed imagery, marriage, exclusion from neighborhoods, and Jewish respon- sibility for anti-Semitism. It is interesting that items stating the most fre- quently heard accusations and the more openly antagonistic attitudes usually had lower means and D. P. 's.
e. In view of its high reliability and internal consistency, the short form of the A-S scale can be used for most research purposes in place of the original, longer form.
E. V ALIDA TION BY CASE STUDIES: THE RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-S SCALE
One meaning of the concept of validity as applied to a psychological test is that the test, which involves only a small sample of the individual's re- sponses, tells us something that is generally true of that individual as judged by an intensive study of him. The A-S scale may be said to have validity of this kind to the degree that the subjects, in their responses to the scale, reveal the same tendencies which come out in their interviews. It will be worth while, therefore, to compare the responses of Mack and Larry to the A-S scale with what they have to say about Jews when they are invited to speak spontaneously.
? 11. 16. 21. 26. 33. 40. 49. 62. 69. 72.
Item
(Hire Jews) (Businessmen) (Jewish districts) (Get rid of faults) (Jewish leaders) (Marry a Jew)
(Nice neighborhood) (Basically Jewish) (All alike) (Federal agencies)
Over-all mean
3 1 2. 74 6 1 3. 40 5 1 3. 51 6 1 3. 48 3 1 2. 37 7 3 3. 96 5 1 2. 94 5 1 3. 35 3 1 3. 14 3 1 2. 69
4. 6 1. 2 3. 16
3. 61 4. 34 2. 87 3. 89 2. 37 4. 28 4. 12 3. 50 4. 30 3. 48
3. 68
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
In Table I 3(III) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group mean and the D. P. for each of the ten items in the short form of the A-S
TABLE 13 (Ill)
RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-8 SCALE
Groupa Groupa
Mack Larry Mean __! 2_,_L
aThe group means and D. P. 's are based on all four groups taking Form 78.
scale (Form 78). Mack's mean score, 4. 6, is definitely, but not extremely far, above the over-all group mean of 3. 16. He was just barely inside the high quartile for the group of Public Speaking Men of which he was a mem- ber. This is in keeping with the moderation which characterized the whole ideological section of his interview, and it forms part of the basis for the statement, in Chapter II, that he is a relatively mild case. His anti-Semitism is fairly general, in that he agrees with six of the ten statements and scores above the group mean on all but one of them; but a study of the responses to individual items reveals a clear pattern, one that can be distinguished from other patterns of anti-Semitism. In disagreeing slightly, and thereby scoring close to the group mean, in the case of Items I I (Hire Jews), 33 (Jewish leaders), and 72 (Federal agencies), he is saying that he would have no serious objection if Jews should participate more fully in American life, that this indeed is what they ought to do. The main trouble, as seen in the positive responses to Items I6 (Businessmen) and 2 I (Jewish districts), is that they would rather stick together and accumulate wealth and power for their own group. Although persecution would be largely eliminated if they should rid themselves of their faults (Item 26), they cannot really become "Americanized" (Item 62) and would still have to be kept at some distance personally and socially (Items 40 and 49).
This is almost exactly what Mack tells us in his interview. It is the main
? THE STUDY OF AXTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
point that he tries to make. "They accent the clannish and the material. . . . If a Jew fails in business, he's helped to get started again. . . . They would be liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix. . . . The Jews won't intermingle. . . . I certainly wouldn't (marry a Jew). . . . I would date that girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted by the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class. "
It is interesting that Item 40 (Marry a Jew) is the one about which Mack feels most strongly and on which he deviates most markedly from the group mean. It would appear that he feels safe in saying, in the interview, that he would marry the Jewish girl "if she had thrown off her Jewishness," because he does not really believe that she ever can do this; there would always be "something basically Jewish underneath" (Item 62).
The item on which Mack obtains a score that is slightly below the group mean is 69 (All alike). Here there is a real discrepancy between scale and interview. The analysis of the interview seemed to show that stereotypy was an outstanding characteristic of this subject's thinking, and yet when it comes to the item which pertains most directly to this characteristic, he fails to agree. This is not because the item is a poor one, for its D. P. was next to the highest obtained with this short form of the A-S scale; nor do there appear to be any special features of Mack's stereotypy that would render Item 69 inapplicable. Perhaps it is too much to expect that scale and interview will agree in every particular; these instruments are not that precise, or perhaps most subjects are not that consistent.
It may be noted that Mack, in the interview, where he is allowed free scope, brings into his discussion of the Jews certain ideas, e. g. , Jewish "weak- ness," that are not touched upon in any of the ten statements which comprise the A. . :S scale. This outcome would have been considerably less likely, it seems, if he had responded to the 52 items of the original A-S scale. It is claimed for the short form of the scale that for most research purposes it can be substituted for the long form. In Mack's case there appears to be no reason for dissatisfaction with the measure of the degree of his anti-Semitism which the short form yields; concerning the content of his anti-Semitic ideology it is noteworthy that the pattern which appears in his responses to the scale corresponds to what is central and seemingly most important in his spontaneous discussion. That the ten-item scale should at the same time reveal the more incidental and individualistic features of a subject's ideology concerning Jews would be too much to ask.
Larry's responses to the A-S scale are true to form. He obtains the lowest possible score on every item except 40 (Marry a Jew), and even here he disagrees slightly. When it was stated in Chapter II that Larry was not an extreme example of low-scoring men, the reference was to what was known of him from all the diagnostic devices employed in the research. He made it
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
clear enough in his interview that he was strongly opposed to prejudice against minority groups, and had he not come out with an extremely low score on the A-S scale we would have had cause for serious doubt of its validity. That he did not obtain the lowest possible score on Item 40 is evi- dence that he did not respond to the A-S items in an automatic way. It seems that at this point his impulse toward complete social interaction with Jews collided with his conventionalism, a trait which we have seen to be well developed in him, and he could not in honesty go beyond slight disagree- ment with the item.
In general, the responses of these two subjects on the A-S scale are con- sistent with what they say about Jews in their interviews. This consistency appears not only in the degree of anti-Semitism expressed but in the content of the subjects' thinking about Jews. To the extent that these results may be generalized, the A-S scale is a valid index of ideology concerning Jews.
F. DISCUSSION: THE STRUCTURE OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Perhaps the first conclusion to be drawn from the results presented above is that anti-Semitism is best conceived psychologically not as a specific aver- sion but as an ideology, a general way of thinking about Jews and Jewish- Gentile interaction. This is demonstrated by the high reliability of a scale dealing with so varied a set of ideas, by the reliabilities and intercorrelations of the subscales, and by the high internal consistency of the scale as revealed by the item Discriminatory Powers. The statistical results indicate that a quantitative measure of total anti-Semitic ideology has been obtained. Any individual can be assigned, with a relatively small margin of error, a rank along a dimension ranging from strong support of anti-Semitic ideology at one (high) extreme, to strong opposition at the other (low) extreme. The meaning of middle scores on this dimension is ambiguous, since they may represent indifference, ignorance, or an ambivalent combination of partial support and partial rejection of anti-Semitism. It is noteworthy, however, that individuals making middle scores on one subscale tend to make middle scores on the other subscales as well. Despite item-by-item variability, indi- viduals tend to be highly consistent in their responses to the several subscales.
The fact that an individual's stand on one set of items is similar to his stand on all others does not necessarily imply that all anti-Semitic ideas are of equal psychological importance to each individual. The spontaneous dis- cussions of anti-Semites, whether in an interview or in everyday social life, suggest that for each individual there are certain "nuclear ideas"-imagery of Jews as conniving, or sexual, or radical, and the like, and corresponding primary attitudes-which have primary emotional significance. However,
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
93
these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they tend to "pull in" numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions.
This conception of anti-Semitism aids in the understanding of the present results. It also offers an explanation of why an anti-Semitic rumor that is entirely new in its specific details (for example, the wartime accusations that only Jews could get tires or draft exemptions or officer status) is easily believed by anti-Semites: because of a receptivity to negative imagery gen- erally and by means of an ideological system within which the new idea is easily assimilated.
This conception of the inclusiveness of anti-Semitic ideology stands in sharp contrast to numerous theories which conceive of anti-Semitism in terms of certain specific accusations or motives. The notion of anti-Semitism as a form of "racial" prejudice, for example, seems to be based on the idea that the main accusations against Jews involve their "racially inherited" traits
(faults). Another common view, that anti-Semitism is a form of "religious" prejudice, is based on the explicit or implicit assumption that religious dif- ferences, and thus accusations on religious grounds, are the central issues in anti-Semitism. A third "specifistic" view is that anti-Semitism is based pri- marily on distortions of facts which some individuals have mistakenly accepted as true; for example, that Jews are unusually rich, dishonest, radical, and so on. This last theory has led to numerous attempts to fight anti-Semitism by giving the "true facts"-attempts which are distinguished for their lack of success. What this theory has overlooked is the receptivity of many indi- viduals to any hostile imagery of Jews, and the emotional resistance of these individuals to a less hostile and less stereotyped way of thinking. Finally, anti-Semitism is sometimes explained in terms of financial motives and ac- cusations: many people, it is asserted, oppose the Jews on the simple grounds of economic competition and financial self-interest. This theory ignores the other accusations (of power seeking, immorality, and the like) which are made with equal or greater emotional intensity. It also fails to explain why anti-Semites so often violate their own material self-interest in maintaining their prejudices. None of these conceptions of anti-Semitism has adequately grasped its generality, its psychological complexity, and its function in the emotional life of the individual. Nor can they suggest why many individuals oppose anti-Semitism despite their having economic situations, religious backgrounds, sources of information, and so on, which are similar to those of anti-Semites. What is required, in our opinion, is a psychological approach which seeks to grasp both anti-Semitic ideology and anti-anti-Semitic ideol- ogy in their full complexity and scope, and which then attempts to discover
? 94
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
the various sources of each viewpoint in the psychological development and social background of the individuals holding it. l0
Before discussing the major ideas comprising anti-Semitic ideology, a few words regarding the scale and the scale data are necessary. It is believed that most of the major facets of everyday American anti-Semitism have been represented in the scale, though no claim is made that it contains all the anti- Semitic ideas currently in vogue. The scale data provide an empirical basis for the following discussion in the sense: (a) that each of the ideas to be discussed is supported by most anti-Semites (subjects who fall within the highest 25 per cent of scorers on the scale), opposed by most anti-anti- Semites, the differences being statistically significant; and (b) that each anti- Semite supports most of these ideas, while each low scorer opposes most of them. Thus, one can speak of a broad framework of anti-Semitic ideology which is held in its entirety by relatively few individuals but which is sup- ported in varying degrees by many more.
What, then, are the major opinions, values, and attitudes comprising anti- Semitic ideology, how are they organized or systematized, and how is this system different from other, non-anti-Semitic points of view?
One striking characteristic of the imagery in anti-Semitic ideology is its stereotypy, which takes several forms. There is, first, a tendency to over- generalize single traits, to subscribe to statements beginning "Jews are . . . " or "The Jews do not . . . " Second, there is a stereotyped negative image of the group as a whole, as if "to know one is to know all," since they are all alike. Third, examination of the specific characteristics comprising the im- agery reveals a basic contradiction in that no single individual or group as a whole could have all these characteristics.
Another aspect of stereotypy which is implied by the scale items and brought out more directly in the interviews may be termed "stereotypy of interpersonal relationships and experiences. " It involves an inability to expe- rience Jews as individuals. Rather, each Jew is seen and reacted to as a sort of sample specimen of the stereotyped, reified image of the group. This form of stereotypy is expressed very clearly in Mack's discussion of Jews
(see Chapter II); while no statistics are available, the other interviews as well as everyday conversations indicate that his approach is not uncommon. This limitation in the experience of individuals has certain implications
10 It may again be emphasized that the present approach is a psychological one. The sociologist, at least during this stage in the development of social science, tends? to proceed along other, perhaps parallel, lines. Thus, a psychological approach in terms of purely religious or purely economic motives is inadequate. However, a sociological approach in terms of religious or politico-economic structures and their relation to anti-Semitism as a sociocultural trend is, in our opinion, both valid and of great significance. What must be opposed, as we see it, is the tendency mechanically to subsume psychology under soci- ology and to confuse basic economic or religious social forces with superficial economic or religious motives in the individual. Sociological forces are considered in Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
95
for the theory that contact with "good Jews" lessens anti-Semitism. The effectiveness of social contact would seem to depend in large part on the individual's capacity for individuated experience. This capacity is certainly not hereditarily determined, but it may often be difficult to change in adults. When it is lacking, new social experiences are likely to lead, not to new learning and development, but merely to the mechanical reinforcement of established imagery.
Further analysis of stereotypy and other characteristics of anti-Semitic thinking, as well as concrete examples from the interview material, are pre- sented in Chapter XVI.
These considerations raise several questions which are dealt with in later sections of this research. Do anti-Semites express the same stereotypy of thought and experience in relation to other groups and issues, that is, are stereotypy and rigidity aspects of their general psychological functioning? Why is it so important for anti-Semites to reject Jews on any and all grounds? Are the contradictions and oversimplifications primarily surface signs of a deeper-lying anxiety and hostility? If so, what are the personality trends involved, and how are they different from those found in non-anti-Semites?
Let us consider the deeper psychological meaning of the stereotyped nega- tive imagery of Jews. While the specific surface opinions cover a great variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure. Perhaps most central is the idea that Jews are threatening. Certainly this idea is present, explicitly or implicitly, in almost all the scale items. It is expressed in the subscale "Offensive," where Jews are described as a moral threat, that is, as violators of important standards and values. These values include: cleanliness, neatness, and conformity; also opposition to sensuality, extrava- gance, prying, social aggressiveness, exhibitionism. The imagery of Jews as value-violators makes them not only offensive but also very disturbing. The anxiety becomes almost explicit in item II-4: "There is something different and strange about Jews . . . "
These values are, of course, not limited to anti-Semites. Indeed, many of them are among the currently prevailing conventional middle-class values- and most Americans are psychologically middle class. It may be that anti- Semites and non-anti-Semites differ regarding certain values such as sensual- ity or conformity. However, it is likely that many unprejudiced individuals have subst~ntially the same values as the anti-Semites do. Why, then, do these values become the basis for anti-Semitic accusations in one group but not in the other? One hypothesis would be that the non-anti-Semites are more flexible in their support of these values, less disturbed by value-violators and less inclined to stereotypy and overgeneralization.
Moreover, these values tend, as will be shown later, to be held very strongly by the high-scoring subjects, and they appear frequently in these individuals'
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
thinking about themselves, other people, and social issues generally. In view of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity with which supposed value-violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional disposi- tions. It is possible, for example, that anti-Semites are unconsciously strug- gling to inhibit in themselves the same tendencies that they find so unbear- able in Jews. Jews may be a convenient object on which they can project their unconscious desires and fears.
