It must be
emphasized
that careful study of the question- naire beforehand is essential for an adequate interview.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
The sample of the subjects in- terviewed as compared with the total sample will be described first.
A characterization of the interviewers in terms of their background, training, and psychological point of view will also be given.
Next, the Interview Sched- ule used and the technique employed in interviewing will be presented.
This will be followed, in the concluding sections of this chapter, by a discussion of the methods used in the evaluation of the interview data.
In the four following chapters a statistical analysis and discussion of the results gained from the study of the interviews will be presented, first in terms of a detailed set of rating categories (Chapters X to XII), and then in terms of over-all ratings and comprehensive description (Chapter XIII).
B. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR THE INTERVIEWS
1. BASIS OF SELECriON
The selection of the subjects to be interviewed was determined, in the first place, by their responses on the A-S or the E scale. With few exceptions (see below), all interviewees belonged either to the uppermost or to the lowermost quartile in this respect, the proportions of high-scoring and low-
scoring subjects being approximately equal.
Secondly, consideration was given to the response to the three scales of
the questionnaire. Thus, an effort was made to include in the sample inter- viewed not only the most "typical" high scorers and low scorers, i. e. , sub- jects with correspondingly high or low scores on the PEC and F scales, but also some of those more atypical subjects who obtained a high score on the first scales but a relatively low score on one or both of the others.
Thirdly, an effort was made to balance our samples of high-scoring and low-scoring subjects in terms of age, sex, political and religious affiliation, as well as national or regional background.
Of the thirty to forty different socioeconomic groups to which the ques- tionnaire had been administered (see Chapter IV), subjects for interviews were selected from the following twelve: Psychiatric Clinic Patients from the Langley Porter Clinic of the University of California (men and women, abbreviated LPC); University of California Public Speaking Class (men
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 295
and women, PSM and PSW); Alameda School for Merchant Marine Of- ficers (men, Maritime); San Quentin State Prison Inmates (men, SQ); Uni- versity of California Extension Testing Class (men and women, TC); Uni- versity of California Extension Psychology Class (men and women, EG); University of California Summer Session Education Class (men, EdPs); Stu- dents at the Pacific School of Religion (men, PSR); Employment Service Veterans (men, Vets); Professional Women-public school teachers, social workers, public health nurses (N and R W); University of Oregon Summer Session Students (women, OG); Students at the University of California Medical School (women, Med).
In all, approximately one hundred persons were interviewed. Some of the interviews could not be used in the final scoring, however. One reason for this was that some of the subjects scoring at the very extreme ends of the F scale distribution had been used by the scorers in a last checkup on the scoring manual and had therefore to be excluded later from the main analysis which was to be a "blind" one (see below). Other records had to be discarded because of their brevity or barrenness.
The results to be reported in the subsequent chapters are based on the records of So interviewees, 4 0 men and 4 0 women. Of the men, 2 0 were high extremes on the E scale; and 20 were low extremes. For the women, the corresponding numbers were 2 5 and I 5. The survey presented in Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX) shows for each interviewee the code number, group extrac- tion, standing on responses to the various scales of the questionnaire, with parentheses used to designate membership in one of the middle quartiles.
The rater's "blind" diagnosis of the interview responses makes up the right half of the tables. It is to receive full discussion in Chapter XIII.
2. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE INTERVIEWEES
A breakdown with respect to further characteristics of the interviewees, and a comparison of the samples interviewed-approximately one-tenth of the total of the groups mentioned above-with the entire upper and lower quartiles of our over-all samples, will show that our interview samples are fairly representative of the extreme quartiles defined in terms of overt anti- Semitism or ethnocentrism. A quantitative comparison is given in Table 3 (IX). Inspection of the means of all the subjects falling into the upper and lower quartiles with those of corresponding groups of interviewees reveals a sufficiently close agreement. The interviewee samples are, more often than not, somewhat farther to the extreme end of the scale than the correspond- ing total extreme quartiles. This trend holds in spite of the fact that, as seen from Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX), in a few instances interviewees had to be taken from the extreme ends of the middle quartiles of the E scale.
A further breakdown has been undertaken with respect to age, religion,
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
TABLE 1 (IX)
SURVEY OF 20 PREJUDICED AND 20 UNPREJUDICED MEN INTERVIEWEDa
Standing on
Groupb
Ml LPC h h (h) 1 27 1 H
Code No.
~estionnairec
Interview Scoresd "High" "Low"
A-S E F PEC
M4 Ps. t h h 1 h 47 2 H
M6 PSM h h h h 41 2 H
M7 PEM h h (l) 1 6 32 L L Mll PSM h h h h 52 2 H H Ml3 PSM h h h (h) 52 1 H H Ml4PSM hh(h)(1) 8 32 L L M17Ps. th(h)1h254 H H MIS LPC h h h h 33 3 H H M20Maritime-h11540 L L M40 SQ h h (h) h
M41 SQ h h h h
M43 SQ h h h 1
M45 SQ h h h h
M46 TC h h 1 h
M47 SQ h h h h
M5l SQ h h h h
M52 SQ h h h h
M57 SQ h h h h
M58 TC h h h h
Means of 20 prejudiced men interviewees
M2 EG 1 1 1 1
M3 PEM 1 1 (1) 1
M5 PSM 1 1 1 1 MSPStl1(1)1h544 M9 PSM 1 1 1 (h) 39 2 M1oEdPs 1111
M12EdPs 1111
Ml5 LPC 1 1 1 1
M16 LPC 1 1 1 1 M19Ps. t11(l)(h)350 H H M42Maritime-111157L L
M44 PSR 1 1 1 1 2 54
M48Vets 1111 6 37
M49TC 1111442
M50 SQ 1 1 1 h JO 34 M53Vets1111152
M54 SQ 1 1 1 h 12 24
M55TC 1111456
M56 SQ 1 1 1 1 5 41
M59 SQ 1 1 1 h 14 39 L L
Means of 20 9. 4 38. 0 unprejudiced men
interviewees
"For discussion of the evaluation of the interviews and of the results shown in this table, see Section F of the present chapter, and Chapter XIII.
bFor key to abbreviations, see text, p. 294/95.
cThe upper and lower middle quartiles are indicated by the use of paren-
theses with the letters h and 1.
? Number of ratings other than "Neutral. " Number of Neutrals is ob-
tained by subtracting that of "High" and of "Low" from 72 (on Table 1 (IX)) or 65 (on Table 2 (IX)). For selection of categories, seep. 335.
Composite Standing on 72 Categories
Intuitive Over-all Rating of Interviews
H H H
55 2 H H 49 2 H H 43 3 H H 48 2 H H 42 6 H H 44 2 H H 36 5 H H 51 4 H H 56 0 H H 54 2 H H
38. 7 7. 3
5 52 0 53 3 34
L L L L L L L L H ff H H L L L L L L
337 245 2 43 6 44
L L LL L L L L L L L L L L L L
? F22 PSW
F24 PSW
F25 LPC
h (h) h (h) 28 1
INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 297 TABLE 2 (IX)a
SURVEY OF 25 PREJUDICED AND 15 UNPREJUDICED WOMEN INTERVIEWED
Group
H hhhh3'1 4 H hhhh3) 7 H F26N hh(l)h922 L
F28 RW hhhh197H F31 PSW hh(h)h510H
Intuitive over-all Rating of Interviews
H H H L H H H L H H H H H H L H L H H H L H H H H
H L L L L L L H L L L L L L L
U>de No.
standing on Questionnaire
A-S E F PEC
Interview Scores
"High" "Low"
Q:>mposite standing on 65 categories
F32N hhhh34 3 F33 TC h h h h 3 32
H L H H H H H H? L H L H H H H H H
F36 TC F37 EXi
hh(h)(l)'n 5 h(h)hh21 10 hhhh25 14 hhh(1)245 hhh(h)30 6 hh11238
F38 PSW
F39a N
FOO RW
F61 LPC
F64 RW h h h h 0 26 F66 PSW hhh1357 F67 RW hhhh328 F68N h(h)1h32 4
F69 PSW
F71 PSW
F72 LPC
F74 PSW
F77 LPC
F78 PSW
F79 OG
Means of 25 prejudiced women interviewees
hhhh37 7 hhhh47 2 hhhh17 26 hhhh45 4 hhh13'1 4 h h h (h) 44
h h h (h) 36
27. 4 9. 5
F21PSW 111h24 0
H L L L L L L H
L L L L L L
F23 TC 1 1 (1) 1
F'n PSW 1 (l) 1 1
F29 LPC 1 1 1 1
F30 RW 1 1 1 1
F34 PSW 1 1 (l) 1
F35 TC 1 1 1 1
F39 PSW 1 1 1 1
F62 PSW 1 1 1 h 1 44 L F63 LPC 1 1 1 1
F65 PSW 1 1 h 1 F70 Med 1 1 1 1 F73 PSW 1 (1) 1 1 F75 PW 1 (l) (h) 1 F76 PSW 1 ( 1 ) ( h ) ( l )
Means of 15 unprejudiced women interviewees
385
4 42 6 44 0 38 1 35 343
14 2 2 7. 0 36. 2
asee footnotes to Table 1 (IX).
2 46 0 53 7 36 3 44 149 1 42
1 H 4 H
? Questionnaire form
T otal of a ll taking Forms Range Mean
subjects
High-scoring interviewees Mean N
66. 5 7 70. 6 18
58. 6 12 59. 0 6
Low- scoring Low-quartile interviewees
78:
45:
Men 17-82 46. 4 Women 14-86 46. 2
Men 10-70 43. 2 Women 10-70 35. 4
Mean
29. 1 28. 2
25. 0 15. 6
Mean N
30. 3 6 33. 6 10
15. 8 11 13. 6 5
TABLE 3(IX)
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF INTERVIEWEES IN TERMS OF SCORES ON THE ETHNOCENTRISM SCALEa
78
or 45 N
52 243
390 130
High~ quartile Mean
64. 6 69. 5
59. 7 54. 8
aSince 75 out of the 80 interviewees are from among the subjects tested by Form 78 or Form 45, comparisons are here limited to these two groups.
N
00 "'
? Religious
A ffiliation
Catholic Protestant None
Blank
Sums
High Quartile
Low Quartile
INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 299
and politics. To maintain anonymity, these data are not included in the tables just mentioned which deal with individual subjects, but are presented in a statistical manner in Tables 4 (IX) to 6 (IX). For men, a few data on religion and politics are missing; hence the discrepancies in the sums relating to the total quartiles.
On the whole, the distributions of the interviewees and of corresponding extreme quartiles are not at too great odds with one another, considering the difficulties in finding subjects with the exact combination of qualifica- tions. The more striking deviations from close correspondence may be listed as follows:
\Vith respect to age (Table 4 (IX)), there are no low-scoring women interviewees in the age bracket of "46 and over"; the share of this bracket
TABLE 4 (IX)
AGE DIS1RIBUTION IN TOTAL EXTREME QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES (NUMBERS OF THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES)
Age Groups
16-22
23 - 30 31- 45 46andover
Sums I
High Quartile
Low Quartile
Men
59 (6) 88 (8) 78 (5) 53 (1)
278 (20)
Women
70 (8) 55 (5) 59 (6) 51 (6)
235 (25)
Men
60 (4) 90 (10) 93 (4) 36 (2)
279 (a>)
Women
60 (9) 61 (3) 75 (3) 49 (0)
245 (15)
is added to the youngest age group. Furthermore, there is only one high- scoring male interviewee in this highest age bracket. Our interviewee sample is therefore on the younger side when compared with all the subjects.
The major deviation with respect to religion (Table 5 (IX)) is that three (i. e. , 20 per cent) of the low-scoring women interviewees are Catholics while the corresponding figure for the "low" women in our total sample is only
TABLE 5 (IX)
RFLIGIOUS AFFILIATION IN TOTAL EX1REli'IE QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES (NUMBERS OF THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES)
Men
47 (7) 185 (11) 15 (2)
13 (0) 260 ( 20)
Women
40 (7) 184 (17) 9 (0)
2 (1) 235 ( 25)
Men
29 (1) 156 (14) 65 (5)
11 (0) 261 (20)
Women
10 (3) 156 (7) 70 (5) 9 (0)
245 (15)
? JOO THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
10 (4 per cent). On the positive side, we may single out for special mention the fact that there is close agreement of corresponding figures for both high scorers and low scorers when the categories "None" and "Blank" are pooled; it may thus be said that both high-scoring and low-scoring interviewees are representative of their extreme quartiles with respect to indifference to or rejection of religion.
As to politics (Table 6 (IX)), "liberal" women are more numerous among the interviewees than among the corresponding quartiles, especially so far
TABLE 6 (IX)
POLITICAL OUTLOOK IN TOTAL EXTREME QYARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES
Political
O u t l o o k
Liberal Conservative Leftist
Misc. and blank
Sums
High Quartile
Low Quartile
(NUMBERS OF THE LATTFB ARE SPECIFIED IN PAR~THESES)
Men
99 (7) 112 (10) 0 (0)
49 (3) 200 (~)
Women
98 (17) 109 (5) 0 (0) 28 (3)
235 ( 2 5 )
Men
156 (14) 45 (2) 22 (3) 38 (1)
261 (~)
Women
173 (12) 23 (0) 21 (2) 28 (1)
245 ( 1 5 )
as the high scorers are concerned (98 to 17, i. e. , 68 to 42 per cent). This latter fact, however, does not hold for men. The comparatively small group of leftists or radicals (covering those who gave their attitude as "socialist" or as "communist") is represented with relatively greater frequency among in- terviewees (two women and three men, all low scorers).
3. APPROACHING THE INTERVIEWEES
An effort was made to maintain anonymity for all those interviewed as well as to convince them of the fact that they would remain unidentified. Pains were taken to conceal from the interviewee the true basis of selection.
In particular, the following procedure was adopted in securing the co- operation of the prospective interviewee: After the questionnaire responses had been evaluated, the person who had administered the questionnaire appeared at one of the next meetings of the group in question and an- nounced that further information was required of some of those who had answered the questionnaire. Those selected were identified in terms of their birthdates only and asked to arrange for an appointment after the meet- mg.
At the beginning of the actual interview they were told that they had been selected on the basis of age and regional origin. The interviewers gained the impression that in this way the anxiety as to the basis of selection was sue-
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 301
cessfully removed. Actually, not one of even the highest scorers ever showed signs of knowing the true reason for his or her selection, although some of them showed signs of suspiciousness of a more general nature. The reason for this naivete seems to lie primarily in the fact that most high scorers do not think of themselves as particularly prejudiced.
In most cases an invitation to be interviewed was readily accepted. The motivation seemed to be primarily the desire to talk about oneself and the implicit hope of receiving some advice in the process. To some of the subjects the added incentive of a remuneration ($3 per test or interview) seemed not unimportant.
The interviews lasted from one and a half to three hours and were usually conducted in one session. As a rule they were held in one of the offices of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study, in an atmosphere of comfort and quiet. When it was impractical or impossible for the subject to come to the office (as was the case especially with the prison group) the interviewer went to see the subject.
C. THE INTERVIEWERS
Certain specifications were also maintained as far as those conducting the interviews were concerned. Men were always interviewed by men, women only by women. All high-scoring subjects were interviewed by American- born Gentiles.
There were altogether nine interviewers. Although all were college grad- uates and psychologically trained, their backgrounds varied to a consider- able extent. More than half of them had special experience and training in clinical psychology and considerable familiarity with the basic concepts of psychoanalysis. Four of them had undergone psychoanalysis, and one of these is a practicing psychoanalyst. Two of the remaining interviewers had primarily a social psychological rather than a clinical orientation. Another two had the traditional rather than the dynamic clinical approach. In conse- quence, some difference of emphasis in the collection of data had to be anticipated. This probably made for greater variety of scope in the inter- views as a whole, although at the sacrifice of strict uniformity of pro- cedure.
In order to secure a reasonable amount of uniformity, a detailed Inter- view Schedule, described in Section E, was worked out in advance. Not all the questions could be asked of all subjects, but an effort was made to cover all the major points with each interviewee. A relative preponderance of the ideological or of the clinical aspects was found to exist in accordance with the background of the interviewer.
All interviewers had a copy of the Interview Schedule together with a special instruction sheet, both to be discussed in detail below. In preliminary
? 302 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
conferences all interviewers clarified every point of inquiry before seemg any of the interviewees.
D. SCOPE AND TECHNIQUE OF THE INTERVIEW 1. GENERAL PLAN FOR THE INTERVIEW
As was the case in the preparation of the questionnaire, the Interview Schedule was developed on the basis of theoretical considerations as to what is relevant with respect to the topic under investigation. We can roughly differentiate two types of hypotheses underlying the schedule, the "directed" ones and the "categorical" ones. The former are based on specific expecta- tions in regard to the relationships to be obtained (e. g. , it was tentatively assumed that a positive relationship would be found between "rigidity" and prejudice). This relationship can be hypothetically deduced from general psychological considerations and, besides, it was tentatively supported by preliminary studies. In contrast to this type of directed hypothesis, the categorical ones assume that there will be some relationship between a certain category and prejudice \vithout its being possible to anticipate its direction.
The Schedule was revised on the basis of the evidence gained in explora- tory interviewing. As the Interview Schedule is described, the reader should keep in mind that not all of the dimensions there proved equally discriminat- ing. The idea was to study the major fields of sociopsychological develop- ment in relation to the establishment of social and political beliefs. In the present chapter the entire Interview Schedule is reported, but it will not become evident until the results are discussed in the subsequent chapters which dimensions are the crucial ones in differentiating prejudiced and un- prejudiced subjects.
The major areas covered in the interviews are: r. Vocation; 2. Income; 3? Religion; 4? Clinical Data; 5? Politics; 6. Minorities and "Race. " Each of these headings has been covered in part by previous techniques. The interviews, however, went considerably beyond the information gathered by the other techniques.
In each case the interview was preceded by the study, on the part of the interviewer, of the information gathered previously, especially a detailed study of the questionnaire responses.
Our selection of the particular categories listed seems justified in view of the fact that we are dealing with patterns of political and social beliefs in relation to personal and environmental factors, the latter being regarded as potential determiners of a choice on the part of the subject between al- ternative ideologies offered by our culture.
There was no rigid adherence by the interviewer to any particular order of topics. The rationale for the suggested order-that in which the topics are taken up in the discussion which follows-was that it might be well to start with something relatively peripheral, like vocation. People like to talk
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 303
about their vocation and are often looking for advice in this matter. This provides the necessary warming up for the interviewee. Income comes next, since it is also considered relatively peripheral, though in some cases there is considerable sensitivity about this matter. The interview then could turn to religion and from there proceed to the more intimate clinical data. It usually concluded with questions about politics and minorities in the hope of getting, at the end of the interview, more personalized reactions on these topics which are so crucial for our major problem. At the same time, tfiese topics lead back, at the end of the interview, to more external issues.
2. "UNDERL YING" AND "MANIFEST" QUESTIONS
In preparing the Interview Schedule, an analysis was made of the relevant psychological and social factors in each of the main areas to be covered. This analysis was based both on general social and personality theory and on findings from the exploratory interviews. As a result of these considera- tions, a number of so-called "underlying questions" were formulated to indicate for the interviewer which psychological aspects of the particular topic should be covered. These underlying questions were meant only as a guide for the interviewer. They had to be concealed from the subject in order that undue defenses might not be established through recognition of the real focus of the interview.
A set of direct, "manifest" questions, on the other hand, gave the inter- viewer suggestions as to the kind of questions that should actually be asked in order to throw light on the "underlying" issues. It was not intended, how- ever, that the interviewer should rigidly adhere to the questions suggested. Depending on the subject's personality structure and on what topics he brought up himself, the interviewer formulated manifest questions as he went along, bearing in mind constantly, however, the underlying questions. As experience accumulated, more suitable manifest questions were formu- lated in advance of the interviews and used in a more uniform manner.
3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEWERS
The general instructions which were given to the interviewers are as fol- lows:
The careful and rather minute detail of the present Interview Schedule should not mislead the new interviewer. We do not intend that he should follow this schedule literally, in fact, we are definitely against this. Rather, the Interview Schedule should be regarded as providing a general orientation for the interviewer. It lists kinds of things we hope to obtain from the subject as well as suggestions as to how these things might indirectly be obtained by questioning. Not all of the kinds of things are relevant to each subject nor should all of the que. stions be asked each subject; in many cases an entirely original line of questioning will be necessary.
Different types of interviews can be thought of as varying between two extremes: on the one hand, a completely "controlled" interview in which the interviewer fol- lows a rigidly defined set of questions for all subjects; and on the other hand, an extremely "free" interview in which the interviewer asks only the most general
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
3? 4
questions, the sequence of questions being determined primarily by the subject's answers.
Our prototypic interview falls between these two extremes but is somewhat closer to the latter. There are six broad areas which must be covered: Vocation, In- come, Religion, Clinical Material, Politics, and Minority Groups. Within each area we make a basic distinction between Underlying Questions and Suggested Direct Questions. (Note that within each area in the interview schedule, we first list the Underlying Questions, and then the Suggested Direct Questions. ) The Underlying Questions are those which the interveiwer asks himself about the subject; they are the variables by means of which we want to characterize the subjects; but you don't ask a person "Do you really libidinize your work? " or "What is your underlying image of the Jew? " The procedure here is methodologically the same as our pro- cedure with the indirect items of the F scale; we ask questions the answers to which give insights regarding hypotheses which are never explicitly stated in the inter- view. Clearly, the Direct Questions used to get answers to a given Underlying Ques- tion will vary greatly from subject to subject, depending in each case on the sub- ject's ideology, surface attitudes, defenses, etc. Nevertheless, we have been able to formulate for each underlying question a number of direct questions, based on our general theory and experience. The list of direct questions, as stated above, should be regarded as tentative and suggestive only. The suggested direct questions, like other surface techniques used by the study, should be changed from time to time in the light of new theory and experience.
The interview should be related closely to the subject's questionnaire. As a result of the coordination of interview and questionnaire, the latter contains items bearing on each of the six broad areas of the interview. For the convenience of the inter- viewers, an initial section within each of the six areas contains references to the rele- vant questionnaire items.
It must be emphasized that careful study of the question- naire beforehand is essential for an adequate interview. The questionnaire by itself reveals many important points under each topic; it also suggests hypotheses which can be verified in the interview. Pre-interview study of the questionnaire, then, gives the interviewer a more structured approach to the interview and should be done in all possible cases.
(Some further general directions are given below as parenthetic com- ments to the headings of the sections listing the underlying and the direct questions where they first appear in the Schedule. )
E. THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE1
A detailed description of each section of the Interview Schedule will help to clarify the procedure described.
1. VOCATION
By means of the questionnaire, information was obtained about the present and the desired occupation of the subject and about attitudes toward work in general. Over and above that, the main function of the underlying
1 While the responsibility for the analysis of the interview material rested mainly with the author of the present and the subsequent chapters, the Interview Schedule presented here is a joint product of the entire staff of this project.
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 305
questions guiding the interview in this area was to find out (a) the meaning which vocation has for the subject, in its work and social aspects, and (b) the determinants of the choice of his vocation.
More specifically, it was relevant to our problem to find out how much genuine interest and libido the subject has for his work. Does his work rep- resent for him a gratifying and constructive form of self-expression and achievement or does he consider his work as "drudgery" and as a mere means to some end such as attaining money, status, or power? Keeping in mind that the importance of success is a generalized pattern in our culture, we still expected that our material would differentiate people who are oriented primarily toward the subject matter of their work and toward real achievement from those for whom only the peripheral aspect of the work is meaningful, e. g. , as a means for placing them within a hierarchy (leader or follower, an adjutant to the boss). Vocation can thus be viewed from the angle of its possibilities as a means to group identification and especially to identification with higher social circles. The wish to be a link in a hierarchical chain seems of importance to many of our subjects. The emphasis on the constructive content or the social values of work as contrasted with em- phasis on mastery of technology and manipulation of resources and people is relevant in this connection. As an illustration of the background elements
continually entering into the construction of the Interview Schedule, the well-known connection between Nazi ideology and emphasis on technology may be mentioned here.
In the attitude toward work, however, as in all of our material, the possi- bility of orientation on different levels has to be kept in mind. The wish to escape a kind of work which is experienced as drudgery often goes hand in hand with a superficial emphasis on the importance of "hard work," both for reasons of success and for reasons of morality. A very general emphasis on the importance of work is often associated with an absence ? of concrete and specific ideas about the content of work. On the other hand, a more libidinized attitude toward work is often both more relaxed and more specific, and it differentiates less between work and pleasure. The role of the social aspects of work, e. g. , intergroup feeling, or general sociability and friendship, has also been explored. Attention of the interviewer has been directed, further, toward other personality needs as expressed in special cases.
The problem of how far identification with, or rebellion against, the parents determined the choice of vocation, was the starting point for further inquiry.
After listing the underlying questions which seemed relevant to the problem of vocation, a set of manifest, direct questions was suggested after the fashion described above. The part of the Interview Schedule dealing with vocation is presented here in full. Since most of the direct questions are self-
? J06 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
explanatory in their purpose and rationale, no further explanations will be made. (In order to structure the somewhat lengthy Interview Schedule when in use by the interviewer, key words and phrases which were in- tended especially to catch his or her attention were underscored or capital- ized. All such matters are left intact in the entire presentation of the schedule so as to reflect all shades of emphasis, using italics for underscoring. )
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
1. VOCATION
Underlying Questions (What it is that we want to find out):
a. Meaning of vocation to subject (in work and social aspects):
1. W ark-libido: subject-matter interest, relatedness to work, integra- tion of work, and leisure activities. Genuine Sublimations.
2. Aspirations: Real Achievement drive versus interest in "Success," Status, Prestige, Money, Power.
3? Technological-Manipulative attitudes?
4? Hierarchical thinking (leader-follower; the "lieutenant," etc. ).
5? In-group feeling. ?
6. Concern with "Social Value" of the work.
7? Role of Sociability and friendship on the job. (Distinguish super-
ficial gregariousness versus genuine friendship. ) 8. Attitudes re Wife working.
9? Other special personality needs.
b. Determinantsofchoice:
1. Parental identification or rebellion. 2 . Other .
Suggested Direct Questions:
(It is understood that in no interview can all of these questions be asked. The interviewer proceeds with his attention fixed primarily upon the underlying questions, using whatever direct questions seem most promising in the context of the moment. Moreover, it is not expected that the inter- viewer will always use the phraseology set down here. It is our belief, how- ever, that all of these questions are good; they are being used frequently by the interviewers at the present time, and as experience accumulates, there will be more and more subjects who have been asked exactly the same question. )
Appeal
a. In what ways does Appeal to you? (N. B. , Don't ask auto-
matically, "How does the job appeal": if subject is a janitor, e. g. , find out first Whether subject's job appeals to him; if appropriate, find out what Would appeal to him and inquire about this instead. )
What does offer you?
'Vhat are the main Advantages of (being a)
What it is like to be a ?
b. What are the Less Attractive aspects of (being a)
tages?
c. What does the Future look like in this field?
? Satisfactions?
? Disadvan-
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 307
Alternatives
d. Do you feel that you are "cut out" for this type of work (or profes- sion)?
What Other Things do you feel you might be "cut out" for?
Have you ever seriously considered other Vocations? Had Other dreams?
Under what conditions might you Change (i. e. , from present voca- tion)?
History
e. When did you Decide to be a ?
How didyoucometobeinterestedin____?
What made you decide to be a ?
What did your Parents (father, mother) want you to be? What do your Parents think of ?
How has your father liked his work?
(Get work history if striking jobs, or many changes. )
Wife
f. Does your Wife Work? (If subject is woman: Have you worked since your marriage? ) How do you feel about that? (How does your hus- band? )
z. INCOME
Here, as in the case of vocation, some gross information, e. g. , size of in- come, was gained by means of the questionnaire. The function of the inter- view was to find out the degree of "money-mindedness," the aspirations and fantasies centering around money. Is money per se important, or is it im- portant for what it can give? Of relevance here is the emphasis on status as narcissistic enhancement of one's own person, own power, or own security, which can be realistic or exaggerated. There can be a realistic emphasis on a good life or on exaggerated craving for luxuries; the latter is often observed in those of our subjects who are not rooted in the constructive task of daily living but whose repressed anxieties, aggressions, and infantile cravings call for an escape into a living that is full of excitement. Here again the orientation toward different levels is important. An extreme money-minded- ness as revealed in more concrete and specific contexts often goes hand in hand with denial of the importance of money on a superficial level and often even with an emotional rejection of the "rich. "
The attitude toward charity was also explored in this connection as a pos- sible manifestation of atonement which, in turn, is known to be a reaction to aggression. From a social point of view, charity often has the function of keeping the underprivileged in their place, kindness acting in effect as a humiliating factor.
Another important factor leading to a group of underlying questions is realism vs. autism with respect to thinking and to goal behavior in this field. A considerable discrepancy between fantasies and reality in the attitude to-
? Underlying Questions:
a. Money-Mindedness.
b. AspirationsandFantasies.
c.
1. Status (narcissistic).
2. Power, Manipulation.
3? Security (Realistic versus Neurotic).
4? Charity-Nurturance-GuiltFantasies.
5? Lavish Living, Excitement. (Q. Is a subject with "live dangerously-
win a lot or lose a lot"-attitudes really willing to take chances?
Realistic versus Autistic Thinking.
1. How much distance separates present from aspired status?
2. How well is the path to the goal structured for subject?
3? What are subject's Real Chances of reaching the goal?
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ward economic goals, combined with lack of a structured path and lack of readiness to work and to postpone pleasure, might make one susceptible to the use of socially destructive behavior as a means of attaining, by a short cut, fulfillment of one's infantile dreams and gratifications. Again, lack of a real readiness to work can be hidden behind general emphasis or overem- phasis on work, especially since work in these cases represents an unpleasant duty. Over and above this, psychoanalysts have claimed that the attitude to- ward money reveals early instinctual fixations and anxieties and the way of dealing with them, e. g. , anal retention or expulsion, or money as a symbol of potency.
Of particular theoretical importance is the set of questions which deals with socioeconomic background, especially the changes in economic level in the family of the subject. Sudden changes either up'fard or downward might be followed by a lack of adaptation in the whole socioeconomic sphere and might make this sphere similar to a "weak organ," especially susceptible to becoming a medium for the acting out of difficulties. This is what H. Hartmann has called the "compliance of social factors," in analogy to Freud's concept of the "compliance of organs" in the occurrence of physical disease. Inquiry was also made into the ways financial matters were handled by the parents. The role of economic frustrations was followed up.
A final question of interest is whether a certain personality structure alone is sufficient to establish a selection from among existing ideologies, e. g. , prej- udice, or if, in addition to that, a special socioeconomic history and condi- tion of the family is required for, or especially conducive to, the acting out of difficulties in the social sphere.
The underlying and manifest questions in the sphere of income are con- tained in the following part of the Interview Schedule.
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
2. INCOME
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 309
4? Is there a Discrepancy between subject's Fantasies and his Actual Expectations?
d. Determinants in Social Background.
1. Parental Attitudes toward money.
2. Parental Socioeconomic Level (including changes) during subject's
childhood and adolescence.
3? How much Status-Change has (an older) subject experienced since
youth?
4? What Economic Frustrations has subject experienced?
Suggested Direct Questions: Present Frustrations
a. How do you Get Along on (present income)?
Do you have a Car? (What make, model, and year? )
What do you Miss Most that your present income doesn't permit?
Aspirations and Fantasies
b. What would you Do with (Expected Income)? With Desired In- come? )
What would it Make Possible (Enable you to do? )
What would it Mean to you?
c. What is the Most Imponant Thing Money can Give a person?
Some people say that the best things in life are free; others say that when you come right down to it, money is really important. How Important is Money Really?
How much is an adequate income for, say, a family of four?
There's an old saying, "A penny saved is a penny earned"; but then again, some people prefer the idea of "Easy come, easy go. " How do you feel about-that?
Some people like to take Chances: "Win a lot, lose a lot"; then other people are more Cautious about money. What's your attitude?
Realism
d. What's the Likelihood of your making _ _ _ _ ten years from now? How good are your Chances of making ? How do you expect to Reach that income?
What are your Plans for Attaining that income?
History
e. How did you Get Along during the Depression?
In the four following chapters a statistical analysis and discussion of the results gained from the study of the interviews will be presented, first in terms of a detailed set of rating categories (Chapters X to XII), and then in terms of over-all ratings and comprehensive description (Chapter XIII).
B. SELECTION OF SUBJECTS FOR THE INTERVIEWS
1. BASIS OF SELECriON
The selection of the subjects to be interviewed was determined, in the first place, by their responses on the A-S or the E scale. With few exceptions (see below), all interviewees belonged either to the uppermost or to the lowermost quartile in this respect, the proportions of high-scoring and low-
scoring subjects being approximately equal.
Secondly, consideration was given to the response to the three scales of
the questionnaire. Thus, an effort was made to include in the sample inter- viewed not only the most "typical" high scorers and low scorers, i. e. , sub- jects with correspondingly high or low scores on the PEC and F scales, but also some of those more atypical subjects who obtained a high score on the first scales but a relatively low score on one or both of the others.
Thirdly, an effort was made to balance our samples of high-scoring and low-scoring subjects in terms of age, sex, political and religious affiliation, as well as national or regional background.
Of the thirty to forty different socioeconomic groups to which the ques- tionnaire had been administered (see Chapter IV), subjects for interviews were selected from the following twelve: Psychiatric Clinic Patients from the Langley Porter Clinic of the University of California (men and women, abbreviated LPC); University of California Public Speaking Class (men
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 295
and women, PSM and PSW); Alameda School for Merchant Marine Of- ficers (men, Maritime); San Quentin State Prison Inmates (men, SQ); Uni- versity of California Extension Testing Class (men and women, TC); Uni- versity of California Extension Psychology Class (men and women, EG); University of California Summer Session Education Class (men, EdPs); Stu- dents at the Pacific School of Religion (men, PSR); Employment Service Veterans (men, Vets); Professional Women-public school teachers, social workers, public health nurses (N and R W); University of Oregon Summer Session Students (women, OG); Students at the University of California Medical School (women, Med).
In all, approximately one hundred persons were interviewed. Some of the interviews could not be used in the final scoring, however. One reason for this was that some of the subjects scoring at the very extreme ends of the F scale distribution had been used by the scorers in a last checkup on the scoring manual and had therefore to be excluded later from the main analysis which was to be a "blind" one (see below). Other records had to be discarded because of their brevity or barrenness.
The results to be reported in the subsequent chapters are based on the records of So interviewees, 4 0 men and 4 0 women. Of the men, 2 0 were high extremes on the E scale; and 20 were low extremes. For the women, the corresponding numbers were 2 5 and I 5. The survey presented in Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX) shows for each interviewee the code number, group extrac- tion, standing on responses to the various scales of the questionnaire, with parentheses used to designate membership in one of the middle quartiles.
The rater's "blind" diagnosis of the interview responses makes up the right half of the tables. It is to receive full discussion in Chapter XIII.
2. REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE INTERVIEWEES
A breakdown with respect to further characteristics of the interviewees, and a comparison of the samples interviewed-approximately one-tenth of the total of the groups mentioned above-with the entire upper and lower quartiles of our over-all samples, will show that our interview samples are fairly representative of the extreme quartiles defined in terms of overt anti- Semitism or ethnocentrism. A quantitative comparison is given in Table 3 (IX). Inspection of the means of all the subjects falling into the upper and lower quartiles with those of corresponding groups of interviewees reveals a sufficiently close agreement. The interviewee samples are, more often than not, somewhat farther to the extreme end of the scale than the correspond- ing total extreme quartiles. This trend holds in spite of the fact that, as seen from Tables I (IX) and 2 (IX), in a few instances interviewees had to be taken from the extreme ends of the middle quartiles of the E scale.
A further breakdown has been undertaken with respect to age, religion,
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
TABLE 1 (IX)
SURVEY OF 20 PREJUDICED AND 20 UNPREJUDICED MEN INTERVIEWEDa
Standing on
Groupb
Ml LPC h h (h) 1 27 1 H
Code No.
~estionnairec
Interview Scoresd "High" "Low"
A-S E F PEC
M4 Ps. t h h 1 h 47 2 H
M6 PSM h h h h 41 2 H
M7 PEM h h (l) 1 6 32 L L Mll PSM h h h h 52 2 H H Ml3 PSM h h h (h) 52 1 H H Ml4PSM hh(h)(1) 8 32 L L M17Ps. th(h)1h254 H H MIS LPC h h h h 33 3 H H M20Maritime-h11540 L L M40 SQ h h (h) h
M41 SQ h h h h
M43 SQ h h h 1
M45 SQ h h h h
M46 TC h h 1 h
M47 SQ h h h h
M5l SQ h h h h
M52 SQ h h h h
M57 SQ h h h h
M58 TC h h h h
Means of 20 prejudiced men interviewees
M2 EG 1 1 1 1
M3 PEM 1 1 (1) 1
M5 PSM 1 1 1 1 MSPStl1(1)1h544 M9 PSM 1 1 1 (h) 39 2 M1oEdPs 1111
M12EdPs 1111
Ml5 LPC 1 1 1 1
M16 LPC 1 1 1 1 M19Ps. t11(l)(h)350 H H M42Maritime-111157L L
M44 PSR 1 1 1 1 2 54
M48Vets 1111 6 37
M49TC 1111442
M50 SQ 1 1 1 h JO 34 M53Vets1111152
M54 SQ 1 1 1 h 12 24
M55TC 1111456
M56 SQ 1 1 1 1 5 41
M59 SQ 1 1 1 h 14 39 L L
Means of 20 9. 4 38. 0 unprejudiced men
interviewees
"For discussion of the evaluation of the interviews and of the results shown in this table, see Section F of the present chapter, and Chapter XIII.
bFor key to abbreviations, see text, p. 294/95.
cThe upper and lower middle quartiles are indicated by the use of paren-
theses with the letters h and 1.
? Number of ratings other than "Neutral. " Number of Neutrals is ob-
tained by subtracting that of "High" and of "Low" from 72 (on Table 1 (IX)) or 65 (on Table 2 (IX)). For selection of categories, seep. 335.
Composite Standing on 72 Categories
Intuitive Over-all Rating of Interviews
H H H
55 2 H H 49 2 H H 43 3 H H 48 2 H H 42 6 H H 44 2 H H 36 5 H H 51 4 H H 56 0 H H 54 2 H H
38. 7 7. 3
5 52 0 53 3 34
L L L L L L L L H ff H H L L L L L L
337 245 2 43 6 44
L L LL L L L L L L L L L L L L
? F22 PSW
F24 PSW
F25 LPC
h (h) h (h) 28 1
INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 297 TABLE 2 (IX)a
SURVEY OF 25 PREJUDICED AND 15 UNPREJUDICED WOMEN INTERVIEWED
Group
H hhhh3'1 4 H hhhh3) 7 H F26N hh(l)h922 L
F28 RW hhhh197H F31 PSW hh(h)h510H
Intuitive over-all Rating of Interviews
H H H L H H H L H H H H H H L H L H H H L H H H H
H L L L L L L H L L L L L L L
U>de No.
standing on Questionnaire
A-S E F PEC
Interview Scores
"High" "Low"
Q:>mposite standing on 65 categories
F32N hhhh34 3 F33 TC h h h h 3 32
H L H H H H H H? L H L H H H H H H
F36 TC F37 EXi
hh(h)(l)'n 5 h(h)hh21 10 hhhh25 14 hhh(1)245 hhh(h)30 6 hh11238
F38 PSW
F39a N
FOO RW
F61 LPC
F64 RW h h h h 0 26 F66 PSW hhh1357 F67 RW hhhh328 F68N h(h)1h32 4
F69 PSW
F71 PSW
F72 LPC
F74 PSW
F77 LPC
F78 PSW
F79 OG
Means of 25 prejudiced women interviewees
hhhh37 7 hhhh47 2 hhhh17 26 hhhh45 4 hhh13'1 4 h h h (h) 44
h h h (h) 36
27. 4 9. 5
F21PSW 111h24 0
H L L L L L L H
L L L L L L
F23 TC 1 1 (1) 1
F'n PSW 1 (l) 1 1
F29 LPC 1 1 1 1
F30 RW 1 1 1 1
F34 PSW 1 1 (l) 1
F35 TC 1 1 1 1
F39 PSW 1 1 1 1
F62 PSW 1 1 1 h 1 44 L F63 LPC 1 1 1 1
F65 PSW 1 1 h 1 F70 Med 1 1 1 1 F73 PSW 1 (1) 1 1 F75 PW 1 (l) (h) 1 F76 PSW 1 ( 1 ) ( h ) ( l )
Means of 15 unprejudiced women interviewees
385
4 42 6 44 0 38 1 35 343
14 2 2 7. 0 36. 2
asee footnotes to Table 1 (IX).
2 46 0 53 7 36 3 44 149 1 42
1 H 4 H
? Questionnaire form
T otal of a ll taking Forms Range Mean
subjects
High-scoring interviewees Mean N
66. 5 7 70. 6 18
58. 6 12 59. 0 6
Low- scoring Low-quartile interviewees
78:
45:
Men 17-82 46. 4 Women 14-86 46. 2
Men 10-70 43. 2 Women 10-70 35. 4
Mean
29. 1 28. 2
25. 0 15. 6
Mean N
30. 3 6 33. 6 10
15. 8 11 13. 6 5
TABLE 3(IX)
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF INTERVIEWEES IN TERMS OF SCORES ON THE ETHNOCENTRISM SCALEa
78
or 45 N
52 243
390 130
High~ quartile Mean
64. 6 69. 5
59. 7 54. 8
aSince 75 out of the 80 interviewees are from among the subjects tested by Form 78 or Form 45, comparisons are here limited to these two groups.
N
00 "'
? Religious
A ffiliation
Catholic Protestant None
Blank
Sums
High Quartile
Low Quartile
INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 299
and politics. To maintain anonymity, these data are not included in the tables just mentioned which deal with individual subjects, but are presented in a statistical manner in Tables 4 (IX) to 6 (IX). For men, a few data on religion and politics are missing; hence the discrepancies in the sums relating to the total quartiles.
On the whole, the distributions of the interviewees and of corresponding extreme quartiles are not at too great odds with one another, considering the difficulties in finding subjects with the exact combination of qualifica- tions. The more striking deviations from close correspondence may be listed as follows:
\Vith respect to age (Table 4 (IX)), there are no low-scoring women interviewees in the age bracket of "46 and over"; the share of this bracket
TABLE 4 (IX)
AGE DIS1RIBUTION IN TOTAL EXTREME QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES (NUMBERS OF THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES)
Age Groups
16-22
23 - 30 31- 45 46andover
Sums I
High Quartile
Low Quartile
Men
59 (6) 88 (8) 78 (5) 53 (1)
278 (20)
Women
70 (8) 55 (5) 59 (6) 51 (6)
235 (25)
Men
60 (4) 90 (10) 93 (4) 36 (2)
279 (a>)
Women
60 (9) 61 (3) 75 (3) 49 (0)
245 (15)
is added to the youngest age group. Furthermore, there is only one high- scoring male interviewee in this highest age bracket. Our interviewee sample is therefore on the younger side when compared with all the subjects.
The major deviation with respect to religion (Table 5 (IX)) is that three (i. e. , 20 per cent) of the low-scoring women interviewees are Catholics while the corresponding figure for the "low" women in our total sample is only
TABLE 5 (IX)
RFLIGIOUS AFFILIATION IN TOTAL EX1REli'IE QUARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES (NUMBERS OF THE LATTER ARE SPECIFIED IN PARENTHESES)
Men
47 (7) 185 (11) 15 (2)
13 (0) 260 ( 20)
Women
40 (7) 184 (17) 9 (0)
2 (1) 235 ( 25)
Men
29 (1) 156 (14) 65 (5)
11 (0) 261 (20)
Women
10 (3) 156 (7) 70 (5) 9 (0)
245 (15)
? JOO THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
10 (4 per cent). On the positive side, we may single out for special mention the fact that there is close agreement of corresponding figures for both high scorers and low scorers when the categories "None" and "Blank" are pooled; it may thus be said that both high-scoring and low-scoring interviewees are representative of their extreme quartiles with respect to indifference to or rejection of religion.
As to politics (Table 6 (IX)), "liberal" women are more numerous among the interviewees than among the corresponding quartiles, especially so far
TABLE 6 (IX)
POLITICAL OUTLOOK IN TOTAL EXTREME QYARTILES AND INTERVIEWEES
Political
O u t l o o k
Liberal Conservative Leftist
Misc. and blank
Sums
High Quartile
Low Quartile
(NUMBERS OF THE LATTFB ARE SPECIFIED IN PAR~THESES)
Men
99 (7) 112 (10) 0 (0)
49 (3) 200 (~)
Women
98 (17) 109 (5) 0 (0) 28 (3)
235 ( 2 5 )
Men
156 (14) 45 (2) 22 (3) 38 (1)
261 (~)
Women
173 (12) 23 (0) 21 (2) 28 (1)
245 ( 1 5 )
as the high scorers are concerned (98 to 17, i. e. , 68 to 42 per cent). This latter fact, however, does not hold for men. The comparatively small group of leftists or radicals (covering those who gave their attitude as "socialist" or as "communist") is represented with relatively greater frequency among in- terviewees (two women and three men, all low scorers).
3. APPROACHING THE INTERVIEWEES
An effort was made to maintain anonymity for all those interviewed as well as to convince them of the fact that they would remain unidentified. Pains were taken to conceal from the interviewee the true basis of selection.
In particular, the following procedure was adopted in securing the co- operation of the prospective interviewee: After the questionnaire responses had been evaluated, the person who had administered the questionnaire appeared at one of the next meetings of the group in question and an- nounced that further information was required of some of those who had answered the questionnaire. Those selected were identified in terms of their birthdates only and asked to arrange for an appointment after the meet- mg.
At the beginning of the actual interview they were told that they had been selected on the basis of age and regional origin. The interviewers gained the impression that in this way the anxiety as to the basis of selection was sue-
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 301
cessfully removed. Actually, not one of even the highest scorers ever showed signs of knowing the true reason for his or her selection, although some of them showed signs of suspiciousness of a more general nature. The reason for this naivete seems to lie primarily in the fact that most high scorers do not think of themselves as particularly prejudiced.
In most cases an invitation to be interviewed was readily accepted. The motivation seemed to be primarily the desire to talk about oneself and the implicit hope of receiving some advice in the process. To some of the subjects the added incentive of a remuneration ($3 per test or interview) seemed not unimportant.
The interviews lasted from one and a half to three hours and were usually conducted in one session. As a rule they were held in one of the offices of the Berkeley Public Opinion Study, in an atmosphere of comfort and quiet. When it was impractical or impossible for the subject to come to the office (as was the case especially with the prison group) the interviewer went to see the subject.
C. THE INTERVIEWERS
Certain specifications were also maintained as far as those conducting the interviews were concerned. Men were always interviewed by men, women only by women. All high-scoring subjects were interviewed by American- born Gentiles.
There were altogether nine interviewers. Although all were college grad- uates and psychologically trained, their backgrounds varied to a consider- able extent. More than half of them had special experience and training in clinical psychology and considerable familiarity with the basic concepts of psychoanalysis. Four of them had undergone psychoanalysis, and one of these is a practicing psychoanalyst. Two of the remaining interviewers had primarily a social psychological rather than a clinical orientation. Another two had the traditional rather than the dynamic clinical approach. In conse- quence, some difference of emphasis in the collection of data had to be anticipated. This probably made for greater variety of scope in the inter- views as a whole, although at the sacrifice of strict uniformity of pro- cedure.
In order to secure a reasonable amount of uniformity, a detailed Inter- view Schedule, described in Section E, was worked out in advance. Not all the questions could be asked of all subjects, but an effort was made to cover all the major points with each interviewee. A relative preponderance of the ideological or of the clinical aspects was found to exist in accordance with the background of the interviewer.
All interviewers had a copy of the Interview Schedule together with a special instruction sheet, both to be discussed in detail below. In preliminary
? 302 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
conferences all interviewers clarified every point of inquiry before seemg any of the interviewees.
D. SCOPE AND TECHNIQUE OF THE INTERVIEW 1. GENERAL PLAN FOR THE INTERVIEW
As was the case in the preparation of the questionnaire, the Interview Schedule was developed on the basis of theoretical considerations as to what is relevant with respect to the topic under investigation. We can roughly differentiate two types of hypotheses underlying the schedule, the "directed" ones and the "categorical" ones. The former are based on specific expecta- tions in regard to the relationships to be obtained (e. g. , it was tentatively assumed that a positive relationship would be found between "rigidity" and prejudice). This relationship can be hypothetically deduced from general psychological considerations and, besides, it was tentatively supported by preliminary studies. In contrast to this type of directed hypothesis, the categorical ones assume that there will be some relationship between a certain category and prejudice \vithout its being possible to anticipate its direction.
The Schedule was revised on the basis of the evidence gained in explora- tory interviewing. As the Interview Schedule is described, the reader should keep in mind that not all of the dimensions there proved equally discriminat- ing. The idea was to study the major fields of sociopsychological develop- ment in relation to the establishment of social and political beliefs. In the present chapter the entire Interview Schedule is reported, but it will not become evident until the results are discussed in the subsequent chapters which dimensions are the crucial ones in differentiating prejudiced and un- prejudiced subjects.
The major areas covered in the interviews are: r. Vocation; 2. Income; 3? Religion; 4? Clinical Data; 5? Politics; 6. Minorities and "Race. " Each of these headings has been covered in part by previous techniques. The interviews, however, went considerably beyond the information gathered by the other techniques.
In each case the interview was preceded by the study, on the part of the interviewer, of the information gathered previously, especially a detailed study of the questionnaire responses.
Our selection of the particular categories listed seems justified in view of the fact that we are dealing with patterns of political and social beliefs in relation to personal and environmental factors, the latter being regarded as potential determiners of a choice on the part of the subject between al- ternative ideologies offered by our culture.
There was no rigid adherence by the interviewer to any particular order of topics. The rationale for the suggested order-that in which the topics are taken up in the discussion which follows-was that it might be well to start with something relatively peripheral, like vocation. People like to talk
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 303
about their vocation and are often looking for advice in this matter. This provides the necessary warming up for the interviewee. Income comes next, since it is also considered relatively peripheral, though in some cases there is considerable sensitivity about this matter. The interview then could turn to religion and from there proceed to the more intimate clinical data. It usually concluded with questions about politics and minorities in the hope of getting, at the end of the interview, more personalized reactions on these topics which are so crucial for our major problem. At the same time, tfiese topics lead back, at the end of the interview, to more external issues.
2. "UNDERL YING" AND "MANIFEST" QUESTIONS
In preparing the Interview Schedule, an analysis was made of the relevant psychological and social factors in each of the main areas to be covered. This analysis was based both on general social and personality theory and on findings from the exploratory interviews. As a result of these considera- tions, a number of so-called "underlying questions" were formulated to indicate for the interviewer which psychological aspects of the particular topic should be covered. These underlying questions were meant only as a guide for the interviewer. They had to be concealed from the subject in order that undue defenses might not be established through recognition of the real focus of the interview.
A set of direct, "manifest" questions, on the other hand, gave the inter- viewer suggestions as to the kind of questions that should actually be asked in order to throw light on the "underlying" issues. It was not intended, how- ever, that the interviewer should rigidly adhere to the questions suggested. Depending on the subject's personality structure and on what topics he brought up himself, the interviewer formulated manifest questions as he went along, bearing in mind constantly, however, the underlying questions. As experience accumulated, more suitable manifest questions were formu- lated in advance of the interviews and used in a more uniform manner.
3. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEWERS
The general instructions which were given to the interviewers are as fol- lows:
The careful and rather minute detail of the present Interview Schedule should not mislead the new interviewer. We do not intend that he should follow this schedule literally, in fact, we are definitely against this. Rather, the Interview Schedule should be regarded as providing a general orientation for the interviewer. It lists kinds of things we hope to obtain from the subject as well as suggestions as to how these things might indirectly be obtained by questioning. Not all of the kinds of things are relevant to each subject nor should all of the que. stions be asked each subject; in many cases an entirely original line of questioning will be necessary.
Different types of interviews can be thought of as varying between two extremes: on the one hand, a completely "controlled" interview in which the interviewer fol- lows a rigidly defined set of questions for all subjects; and on the other hand, an extremely "free" interview in which the interviewer asks only the most general
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
3? 4
questions, the sequence of questions being determined primarily by the subject's answers.
Our prototypic interview falls between these two extremes but is somewhat closer to the latter. There are six broad areas which must be covered: Vocation, In- come, Religion, Clinical Material, Politics, and Minority Groups. Within each area we make a basic distinction between Underlying Questions and Suggested Direct Questions. (Note that within each area in the interview schedule, we first list the Underlying Questions, and then the Suggested Direct Questions. ) The Underlying Questions are those which the interveiwer asks himself about the subject; they are the variables by means of which we want to characterize the subjects; but you don't ask a person "Do you really libidinize your work? " or "What is your underlying image of the Jew? " The procedure here is methodologically the same as our pro- cedure with the indirect items of the F scale; we ask questions the answers to which give insights regarding hypotheses which are never explicitly stated in the inter- view. Clearly, the Direct Questions used to get answers to a given Underlying Ques- tion will vary greatly from subject to subject, depending in each case on the sub- ject's ideology, surface attitudes, defenses, etc. Nevertheless, we have been able to formulate for each underlying question a number of direct questions, based on our general theory and experience. The list of direct questions, as stated above, should be regarded as tentative and suggestive only. The suggested direct questions, like other surface techniques used by the study, should be changed from time to time in the light of new theory and experience.
The interview should be related closely to the subject's questionnaire. As a result of the coordination of interview and questionnaire, the latter contains items bearing on each of the six broad areas of the interview. For the convenience of the inter- viewers, an initial section within each of the six areas contains references to the rele- vant questionnaire items.
It must be emphasized that careful study of the question- naire beforehand is essential for an adequate interview. The questionnaire by itself reveals many important points under each topic; it also suggests hypotheses which can be verified in the interview. Pre-interview study of the questionnaire, then, gives the interviewer a more structured approach to the interview and should be done in all possible cases.
(Some further general directions are given below as parenthetic com- ments to the headings of the sections listing the underlying and the direct questions where they first appear in the Schedule. )
E. THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE1
A detailed description of each section of the Interview Schedule will help to clarify the procedure described.
1. VOCATION
By means of the questionnaire, information was obtained about the present and the desired occupation of the subject and about attitudes toward work in general. Over and above that, the main function of the underlying
1 While the responsibility for the analysis of the interview material rested mainly with the author of the present and the subsequent chapters, the Interview Schedule presented here is a joint product of the entire staff of this project.
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 305
questions guiding the interview in this area was to find out (a) the meaning which vocation has for the subject, in its work and social aspects, and (b) the determinants of the choice of his vocation.
More specifically, it was relevant to our problem to find out how much genuine interest and libido the subject has for his work. Does his work rep- resent for him a gratifying and constructive form of self-expression and achievement or does he consider his work as "drudgery" and as a mere means to some end such as attaining money, status, or power? Keeping in mind that the importance of success is a generalized pattern in our culture, we still expected that our material would differentiate people who are oriented primarily toward the subject matter of their work and toward real achievement from those for whom only the peripheral aspect of the work is meaningful, e. g. , as a means for placing them within a hierarchy (leader or follower, an adjutant to the boss). Vocation can thus be viewed from the angle of its possibilities as a means to group identification and especially to identification with higher social circles. The wish to be a link in a hierarchical chain seems of importance to many of our subjects. The emphasis on the constructive content or the social values of work as contrasted with em- phasis on mastery of technology and manipulation of resources and people is relevant in this connection. As an illustration of the background elements
continually entering into the construction of the Interview Schedule, the well-known connection between Nazi ideology and emphasis on technology may be mentioned here.
In the attitude toward work, however, as in all of our material, the possi- bility of orientation on different levels has to be kept in mind. The wish to escape a kind of work which is experienced as drudgery often goes hand in hand with a superficial emphasis on the importance of "hard work," both for reasons of success and for reasons of morality. A very general emphasis on the importance of work is often associated with an absence ? of concrete and specific ideas about the content of work. On the other hand, a more libidinized attitude toward work is often both more relaxed and more specific, and it differentiates less between work and pleasure. The role of the social aspects of work, e. g. , intergroup feeling, or general sociability and friendship, has also been explored. Attention of the interviewer has been directed, further, toward other personality needs as expressed in special cases.
The problem of how far identification with, or rebellion against, the parents determined the choice of vocation, was the starting point for further inquiry.
After listing the underlying questions which seemed relevant to the problem of vocation, a set of manifest, direct questions was suggested after the fashion described above. The part of the Interview Schedule dealing with vocation is presented here in full. Since most of the direct questions are self-
? J06 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
explanatory in their purpose and rationale, no further explanations will be made. (In order to structure the somewhat lengthy Interview Schedule when in use by the interviewer, key words and phrases which were in- tended especially to catch his or her attention were underscored or capital- ized. All such matters are left intact in the entire presentation of the schedule so as to reflect all shades of emphasis, using italics for underscoring. )
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
1. VOCATION
Underlying Questions (What it is that we want to find out):
a. Meaning of vocation to subject (in work and social aspects):
1. W ark-libido: subject-matter interest, relatedness to work, integra- tion of work, and leisure activities. Genuine Sublimations.
2. Aspirations: Real Achievement drive versus interest in "Success," Status, Prestige, Money, Power.
3? Technological-Manipulative attitudes?
4? Hierarchical thinking (leader-follower; the "lieutenant," etc. ).
5? In-group feeling. ?
6. Concern with "Social Value" of the work.
7? Role of Sociability and friendship on the job. (Distinguish super-
ficial gregariousness versus genuine friendship. ) 8. Attitudes re Wife working.
9? Other special personality needs.
b. Determinantsofchoice:
1. Parental identification or rebellion. 2 . Other .
Suggested Direct Questions:
(It is understood that in no interview can all of these questions be asked. The interviewer proceeds with his attention fixed primarily upon the underlying questions, using whatever direct questions seem most promising in the context of the moment. Moreover, it is not expected that the inter- viewer will always use the phraseology set down here. It is our belief, how- ever, that all of these questions are good; they are being used frequently by the interviewers at the present time, and as experience accumulates, there will be more and more subjects who have been asked exactly the same question. )
Appeal
a. In what ways does Appeal to you? (N. B. , Don't ask auto-
matically, "How does the job appeal": if subject is a janitor, e. g. , find out first Whether subject's job appeals to him; if appropriate, find out what Would appeal to him and inquire about this instead. )
What does offer you?
'Vhat are the main Advantages of (being a)
What it is like to be a ?
b. What are the Less Attractive aspects of (being a)
tages?
c. What does the Future look like in this field?
? Satisfactions?
? Disadvan-
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 307
Alternatives
d. Do you feel that you are "cut out" for this type of work (or profes- sion)?
What Other Things do you feel you might be "cut out" for?
Have you ever seriously considered other Vocations? Had Other dreams?
Under what conditions might you Change (i. e. , from present voca- tion)?
History
e. When did you Decide to be a ?
How didyoucometobeinterestedin____?
What made you decide to be a ?
What did your Parents (father, mother) want you to be? What do your Parents think of ?
How has your father liked his work?
(Get work history if striking jobs, or many changes. )
Wife
f. Does your Wife Work? (If subject is woman: Have you worked since your marriage? ) How do you feel about that? (How does your hus- band? )
z. INCOME
Here, as in the case of vocation, some gross information, e. g. , size of in- come, was gained by means of the questionnaire. The function of the inter- view was to find out the degree of "money-mindedness," the aspirations and fantasies centering around money. Is money per se important, or is it im- portant for what it can give? Of relevance here is the emphasis on status as narcissistic enhancement of one's own person, own power, or own security, which can be realistic or exaggerated. There can be a realistic emphasis on a good life or on exaggerated craving for luxuries; the latter is often observed in those of our subjects who are not rooted in the constructive task of daily living but whose repressed anxieties, aggressions, and infantile cravings call for an escape into a living that is full of excitement. Here again the orientation toward different levels is important. An extreme money-minded- ness as revealed in more concrete and specific contexts often goes hand in hand with denial of the importance of money on a superficial level and often even with an emotional rejection of the "rich. "
The attitude toward charity was also explored in this connection as a pos- sible manifestation of atonement which, in turn, is known to be a reaction to aggression. From a social point of view, charity often has the function of keeping the underprivileged in their place, kindness acting in effect as a humiliating factor.
Another important factor leading to a group of underlying questions is realism vs. autism with respect to thinking and to goal behavior in this field. A considerable discrepancy between fantasies and reality in the attitude to-
? Underlying Questions:
a. Money-Mindedness.
b. AspirationsandFantasies.
c.
1. Status (narcissistic).
2. Power, Manipulation.
3? Security (Realistic versus Neurotic).
4? Charity-Nurturance-GuiltFantasies.
5? Lavish Living, Excitement. (Q. Is a subject with "live dangerously-
win a lot or lose a lot"-attitudes really willing to take chances?
Realistic versus Autistic Thinking.
1. How much distance separates present from aspired status?
2. How well is the path to the goal structured for subject?
3? What are subject's Real Chances of reaching the goal?
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ward economic goals, combined with lack of a structured path and lack of readiness to work and to postpone pleasure, might make one susceptible to the use of socially destructive behavior as a means of attaining, by a short cut, fulfillment of one's infantile dreams and gratifications. Again, lack of a real readiness to work can be hidden behind general emphasis or overem- phasis on work, especially since work in these cases represents an unpleasant duty. Over and above this, psychoanalysts have claimed that the attitude to- ward money reveals early instinctual fixations and anxieties and the way of dealing with them, e. g. , anal retention or expulsion, or money as a symbol of potency.
Of particular theoretical importance is the set of questions which deals with socioeconomic background, especially the changes in economic level in the family of the subject. Sudden changes either up'fard or downward might be followed by a lack of adaptation in the whole socioeconomic sphere and might make this sphere similar to a "weak organ," especially susceptible to becoming a medium for the acting out of difficulties. This is what H. Hartmann has called the "compliance of social factors," in analogy to Freud's concept of the "compliance of organs" in the occurrence of physical disease. Inquiry was also made into the ways financial matters were handled by the parents. The role of economic frustrations was followed up.
A final question of interest is whether a certain personality structure alone is sufficient to establish a selection from among existing ideologies, e. g. , prej- udice, or if, in addition to that, a special socioeconomic history and condi- tion of the family is required for, or especially conducive to, the acting out of difficulties in the social sphere.
The underlying and manifest questions in the sphere of income are con- tained in the following part of the Interview Schedule.
INTERVIEW ScHEDULE
2. INCOME
? INTERVIEWS AS APPROACH TO PREJUDICED PERSONALITY 309
4? Is there a Discrepancy between subject's Fantasies and his Actual Expectations?
d. Determinants in Social Background.
1. Parental Attitudes toward money.
2. Parental Socioeconomic Level (including changes) during subject's
childhood and adolescence.
3? How much Status-Change has (an older) subject experienced since
youth?
4? What Economic Frustrations has subject experienced?
Suggested Direct Questions: Present Frustrations
a. How do you Get Along on (present income)?
Do you have a Car? (What make, model, and year? )
What do you Miss Most that your present income doesn't permit?
Aspirations and Fantasies
b. What would you Do with (Expected Income)? With Desired In- come? )
What would it Make Possible (Enable you to do? )
What would it Mean to you?
c. What is the Most Imponant Thing Money can Give a person?
Some people say that the best things in life are free; others say that when you come right down to it, money is really important. How Important is Money Really?
How much is an adequate income for, say, a family of four?
There's an old saying, "A penny saved is a penny earned"; but then again, some people prefer the idea of "Easy come, easy go. " How do you feel about-that?
Some people like to take Chances: "Win a lot, lose a lot"; then other people are more Cautious about money. What's your attitude?
Realism
d. What's the Likelihood of your making _ _ _ _ ten years from now? How good are your Chances of making ? How do you expect to Reach that income?
What are your Plans for Attaining that income?
History
e. How did you Get Along during the Depression?
