‘E'HE EFFECYS C}? PSYCHiC‘ DESTN‘ECE AND DQGMA‘flSM
3N 1‘92 PERCEWE?) QRIEDIEELEE‘Y €32" PGU'TI'ZAL
EEADERS

Wash: ‘30: We: Ejagree ed M. A.
:‘a‘UCHEGAZ‘é STAW QNWER537Y
‘é‘wiiliiam 33:31:29.3. White

119%3

|\\H\\\\l\\\\“\MW\\\\||[\\\\H\HH\H“\“IHHIW

3 1293 10 85 8712

LIBRARY

Michigan State -.
University .

:1
F
g :
j}- .
i?
E!
a;
rat
"a
'I
'!

 

 

 

, { a131,]:
~flln. r'nW . . . gann.‘ll.ifn{iu . .31.» .o- Klimt. s y . .. .

. . an a flimul .‘Irhudlzfiothficah. “t‘l ‘3‘

 

THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHIC DISTANCE
AND DOGMATISM ON THE PERCEIVED

CREDIBILITY 0F POLITICAL LEADERS

By

William.James'White

AN ABSTRACT OF.A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1963

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHIC DISTANCE
AND DOGMATISM ON THE PERCEIVED
CREDIBILITY OF POLITICAL LEADERS

by William James White

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of two
psychological variables upon the perceived credibility of political
leaders. The independent variables were: 1) the perceived discrepancy
between one's personal position on a scale of left-right orientation
and that of a party, called "psychic distance," and 2) the degree of
open or closedmindedness of the subject, called "level of dogmatism."
The dependent variable, source credibility, was measured by means of
a source credibility index developed by Berlo and Lemert @963). This
index purports to measure, by means of twelve word-pairs, three dimensions
of source credibility. In addition, the study was designed to investi-
gate 1) the ability of subjects to distinguish between a political party
and its leader as the distance between the subject's own political posi-
tion and that of the party being rated increased and 2) the effects of
high and low levels of dogmatism on a subject's ability to distinguish
between political parties and their leaders.

The four statistical hypotheses investigated were:

1. The farther one perceives a political party to be from his
own political position, the lower he will score its leaders on a source

credibility index.

W. James White

2. Individuals who score high on the Dogmatism.scale will per-
ceive their own party leader as more credible and leaders of the other
parties as less credible than will individuals who score low on the
Dogmatism scale.

3. The farther one perceives a political party to be from his
own political position, the less he will be able to differentiate be-
tween party leader and party on a source credibility index.

4. Individuals who score high on the Dogmatism scale will be
less able to differentiate between party leader and party on a source
credibility index than individuals who score low on the Dogmatism scale.

One hundred and eighty-seven Canadian college students were asked
to score each of the five national political parties and themselves on
a nine-point scale of left-right orientation, each of the parties and
their leaders on a source credibility index, and themselves on an abridged
form of the Dogmatism scale. The data were analyzed by means of analyses
of variance to determine the effects of psychic distance and dogmatism
level upon one's credibility rating of each of the political leaders on
the safety, competence, and dynamism.dimensions of credibility. The
hypotheses regarding the ability to differentiate between party and party
leader were similarly tested.

The first hypothesis was supported for four out of five party
leaders on the safety dimension of credibility; supported by two out
of five tests on the competence dimension of credibility; and not sup-
ported for any of the leaders on the dynamism dimension. The second
and third hypotheses were not supported for any of the leaders on any

of the dimensions. The fourth hypothesis was not generally supported.

W. James White
0n the basis of these results, it is suggested that a political
leader's perceived safety is strongly influenced, his competence possibly
influenced, and his dynamism.not influenced by the psychic distance be-
tween him and the person rating him as a source. Dogmatism does not
appear to be an important variable in determining how one will perceive
a source. Neither psychic distance nor dogmatism level appear to in-

fluence an individual's ability to differentiate within belief and dis-

belief systems.

THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHIC DISTANCE
AND DOGMATISM ON THE PERCEIVED

CREDIBILITY OF POLITICAL LEADERS

By

William James White

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State university
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1963

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his appreciation and thanks to the
members of his committee, Dr. Hideya Kumata, Dr. Verling C. Troldahl
and Dr. Gerald R. Miller. Special thanks go to Mr. John Hayhoe, who

helped collect the data, and Mrs. Virginia D. McIntosh, who typed the

thesis.

ii

Introduction

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Referenced Bibliography

Appendices

Table of Contents

iii

Page

12
27

40

49

53

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

List of Tables

Word-pairs used in the source credibility index .
Distribution of subjects' dogmatism scores . . .

Distribution of subjects according to groups and
60118368 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O C O I O O O O O 0

@e Of stlbjects O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of subjects according to occupational
status of fathers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stated party preference of subjects . . . . . . .

Distribution of subjects according to amount of
interest in politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of analysis of variance tests on credibility

ratings of five political leaders . . . . . . . .

Significant analysis of variance tests and treatment

and levels means for source credibility ratings of
party leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of analysis of variance tests on differen-
tiation ratings of five party-party leader pairs

Significant analysis of variance tests and treatment

and levels means for differentiation ratings . .

Average scores showing how subjects scored parties
on the left-right continuum . . . . . . . . .

Party preference by college and group . . . . . . . .

Distribution of subjects according to experimental

group and dogmatism level . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
13

16

19

19

21

22

22

28

29

35

36

37

39

39

List of Figures

Figure Page
1. Investigational design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7

2. Average of perceived positions of the political parties
on the left-right continuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

List of Appendices

Appendix Page
1. Items used in the Abridged Dogmatism scale . . . . . 54

2. Political Dimensions Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 57

vi

Introduction

The traditional approach to the study of source credibility has
been one of attributing the same message to a "high credible source"
and a "low credible source," presenting the message to two separate
groups and either asking them how fair they perceived the message to
be or measuring their attitude change. Studies done by Ewing (1942),
Hovland and Weiss (1951), Hovland and Mandell (1952), Kelman and
Hovland (1953), Haiman (1949), and Tannenbaum (1956) indicate that
audiences tend to perceive messages given by "high credible sources”
as more fair, honest and trustworthy than messages given by "low
credible sources." Similarly, audiences tend to change their attitudes
to a greater extent in the desired direction when the source is "high
credible" than when the source is "low credible."

In each of these studies, credibility of the source was the in-
dependent or manipulated variable and the fairness of the message or
the attitude change was the dependent variable. Little effort was
made to specify the exact components, constituents or qualities of
the sources which made them appear credible, trustworthy or competent.
Credibility level was usually based upon the ratings of judges.

Recent work by Berlo and Lemert (1963) indicates that the major
proportion of credibility can usually be measured by means of three
factors. These factors or dimensions have been named safety or trust-
worthiness, competence and dynamism. The first two dimensions, trust-
‘worthiness and competence, appear to be comparable to the two dimen-
sions of credibility hypothesized by Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953,
p. 21). Those authors distinguish between a communicator's expertness

-1-

-2-
and his trustworthiness but do not present any research findings to
support their theoretic model. The third factor hypothesized by
Berlo and Lemert (1963), which they call "dynamism," appears to refer
to those personality characteristics which reflect extroversion, energy
and boldness.

One of the few experiments done to test the effects of other var-
iables upon the credibility of a source was a study by Brehm and
Lipsher (1959). They studied the effect of differences, called dis-
crepancies, in opinion positions of subjects and message sources upon
the perceived trustworthiness of a source. They found that the greater
the difference of opinion which existed between a subject and a source,
the greater the likelihood that the source would be perceived as un-
trustworthy by the individual concerned.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects
of two psychological variables upon the perceived credibility of a
communication source. The independent variables are the perceived
distance between a subject and a potential communicator, called "psychic
distance," and the degree of the open or closedmindedness of the subject,
called "level of dogmatism." A source credibility index based upon
the work of Berlo and Lemert (1963) is used to determine whether or
not the findings of Brehm and Lipsher (1959) apply to the three sep-
arate dimensions of credibility. Individuals classified as "high dog-
matic" and "low dogmatic" on the basis of their scores on the Rokeach
Dogmatism.scale are compared on their credibility ratings of several
sources to determine whether or not one's level of dogmatism.influences

one's perception of a communicator.

-3-

Another part of the study is an investigation of l) the ability
to distinguish between a political party leader and his party as the
distance between the individual's own political position and that of
the party being rated on a credibility index increases and 2) the
effects of high and low levels of dogmatism on an individual's ability

to distinguish between political party leaders and their parties.

Chapter 1

Almost all studies of source credibility have been an investigation
of the effects of high or low credible sources upon attitude change.
One of the few studies found to investigate the effect of communicator-
communicatee variables upon the credibility of a communicator was done
by Brehm.and Lipsher (1959). They found that, as the size of the dis-
tance or discrepancy between the stated positions of the communicator
and of the communicatee on an issue increased, the amount of communi-
cator trustworthiness tended to decrease. This effect was limited to
a communication message that was simply a statement of opinion and to
moderate communicator-communicatee discrepancies. When supporting
data was included with the statement of opinion, the subject's trust-
worthiness ratings of the communicator did not decrease as the dis-
crepancy or difference in opinion on the issue increased. The authors
suggested that a simple statement of opinion extremely different from
that held by the communicatee will make the communicator appear highly
trustworthy. An examination of the published data showed, that in the
three cases tested, the level of significance was .20,.15, and .01.
The levels of significance indicate that little evidence is available
to support their conclusion that a simple statement of opinion ex-
tremely different from that held by the communicatee will make the
communicator appear highly trustworthy.

The Brehm and Lipsher (1959) study considered only the trust-
worthiness of a source. There is evidence that trustworthiness is
only one factor or dimension of source credibility. In their book
Communication and Persuasion, Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953)

suggested that communicator credibility has two components or dimensions--

-4-

-5-

namely, trustworthiness and expertness. They assumed that the effects
of the communicator are mediated by attitudes toward him by the members
of the audience. The influence exerted by a communicator may be de-
pendent upon any number of underlying variables or attitudes. These
may include feelings of affection, admiration awe.or fear. Other hm-
portant attitudes are those of trust and confidence. These are related
to perceptions of the communicator's credibility, including beliefs
about his knowledge, intelligence and sincerity. Before one accepts
a conclusion or platform.advocated by a communicator, one must perceive
him.as not only well informed and intelligent but m§st also perceive
the communicator as being motivated to make valid assertions. Hovland,
Janis and Kelley (1953, p. 21) state that "it is necessary to make
a distinction between 1) the extent to which a communicator is per-
ceived to be a source of valid assertions (his 'expertness') and 2)
the degree of confidence in the communicator's intent to communicate
the assertions he considers most valid (his 'trustworthiness')." The
authors do not offer any experimental research to validate their theo-
retic position. They considered credibility to be the summation of
the dimensions of expertness and trustworthiness but do not offer any
instrument to measure credibility.

In the past, the lack of a model which explains the components
of credibility or an instrument which allows objective measurement
of it has hampered research in the area. The source credibility index
recently developed by Berlo and Lemert (1963) provides an operational
definition and a measure of credibility of a message source. The index
was constructed by means of a principal axis factor analytic procedure

which utilized varimax rotation. The construction of the index was

m
b.

~6-
explained by Lemert (1963) as follows:

"A.list of 128 pairs of polar adjectives that describe
qualities of message sources was compiled by means of inter-
views and a review of the relevant literature. This sample
of adjectives was reduced to 83, using the criteria of over-
lap between word-pairs and of frequency of occurrence in
the English language. These 83 adjective pairs were made
the polar terms for scales. The 83 scales were then used
by 91 subjects to rate each of 18 sources who have appeared
or could appear in the press. Four factor analyses were
performed. The first was based upon subjects' ratings of
nine sources who have appeared in the news without any con-
sideration of their relation to any subject matter area.

The second was based upon subjects' ratings on the 83 scales
of three sources whom they knew personally. The third fac-
tor analysis involved ratings of six sources who have appeared
in the news, with each source presented as a speaker on a
topic. In each of these three situations, both positive and
negative sources were included. The final factor analysis
was made by combining all of the ratings made. In each of

the four analyses, three dominant factors emerged: safety

(or trustworthiness), competence and dynamism."

In order to construct a credibility index for each dimension, four
word-pairs were chosen. The word-pairs selected were highly loaded
on the dimension being measured and minimally loaded on the other two
dimensions.1
The first two dimensions found by means of the factor analysis
appear to be similar to what Hovland, Janis and Kelley (1953) called
trustworthiness and expertness. The third factor, dynamism, refers
to the personality characteristics of the communicator‘which are re-

lated to boldness, extroversion, energy, aggression, frankness and

colorfulness.

Credibility and Dogmatism
Research by Rokeach (1954, 1960) indicates that the perceived

credibility of a source may be influenced by the structure of an

 

1The selection of word-pairs was made by V. C. Troldahl and James B.
Lemert, their rationale being explained in an unpublished manuscript.

-7-
individual's belief system. Rokeach (1960) believes that belief-
disbelief systems can be differentiated on three dimensions: the organ-
ization of beliefs along a belief-disbelief continuum, a central-
peripheral continuum and a time perspective dimension. The only di-
mension which is of interest to this investigation is the belief-
disbelief continuum. All of the beliefs being investigated are lo-
cated within the intermediate region and are related to an individual's
perception of authority.

The belief system is "conceived to represent all the beliefs, sets,
expectancies, or hypotheses, conscious and unconscious, that a person
at a given time accepts as true of the world he lives in. The dis-
belief system is composed of a series of subsystems rather than merely
a single one and contains all the disbeliefs, sets, expectancies,
conscious and unconscious, that, to one degree or another, a person
at a given time rejects as false" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 33).

Within the belief-disbelief dimension, beliefs tend to be isolated
so that there is an accentuation of differences and a minimization of
similarities between belief and disbelief systems. "No two persons
have belief systems that are completely similar or completely different
from each other. However, in a controversy among men who differ in
belief systems we often hear strong denials of similarities between
their respective systems, and, instead an overemphasis on differences.
From a dynamic standpoint such accentuations of differences are viewed
as attempts to ward off a threat to the validity of one's system.

From a structural standpoint it is viewed in terms of isolation between
belief and disbelief systems" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 37). The various

disbelief systems cannot all be assumed to be equally isolated from

a‘

gd

-3-
the belief system. Degree of isolation can be conceived as varying

with the degree of perceived similarity of the various disbelief sub-
systems to the belief system. In terms of political behavior the party
which one feels closest to and supports can be thought of as the belief
system. The other parties can be thought of as disbelief systems which
can be arranged along a continuum with those closest to the belief sys-
tem at one end (i.e., the party which is most similar to one's own) and
those farthest from one's own at the other end (i.e., the party which

is perceived as being least like one's own). "The greater the dogmatism,
the greater the assumed degree of isolation or independence between

the belief and disbelief systems" (Rokeach, 1954, p. 197). In other
'words, the greater the degree of dogmatism, the more will the belief
system be perceived as different in content or aim.from the disbelief
system, e.g., Catholicism and Protestantism, the united States and
Russia, or fascism and communism.

Not only the structure, but also the content of an individual's
belief system is influenced by the degree of dogmatism. To the extent
that the centrally located beliefs are part of a closed system, they
form the cognitive bases for authoritarianism and intolerance. With
an increase in dogmatism there will be 1) "not only increasing admiration
or glorification of those perceived in positions of positive authority
but also increasing fear, hatred, and villification of those perceived
in positions of authority opposed to positive authority," 2) "an ins
creasing strength of belief in a single cause and concomitantly a de-
creasing tendency to admit the legitimacy of other causes," and 3)
"increasing polarized cognitive distinctions between the faithful and

unfaithful, orthodoxy and heresy, loyalty and subversion. Those who

-9-

disagree are to be rejected since they are enemies of God, country,

man, the working class, science or art" (Rokeach, 1954, p. 201).
Individuals who are high dogmatic tend to accentuate the differ-

ences and suppress and minimize the characteristics which they have

in common with others who do not belong to their group or party. They

also tend to overemphasize similarities between themselves and people

they like or causes they support.

Differentiatiog and Dogmgtism
In Thg Open and Closed Mind, Rokeach (1960) suggests that belief-

disbelief systems vary in their degree of differentiation or articu-
lation or richness of detail. Indicators of differentiation include
the relative amount of knowledge possessed and the ability to perceive
similarities and differences both within and between adjacent disbe-
lief subsystems. "Intuitively, it would seem.that most people know
more facts, ideas, events and interpretations consistent with their
belief system than with their disbelief system. That is, the belief
system is generally more differentiated than any one of the disbelief
subsystems" (Rokeach, 1960, p. 38).

In a recent study by Powell (1962) it was found that high dogmat-
ics are less able to differentiate between a source and a message than
are low dogmatics. ‘When they were asked to rate sources and messages
on evaluative scales, the low dogmatics were able to differentiate
between the source and the message to a greater degree than were high
dogmatics. Both sources and messages were used as reference points
in judging the other. This study tended to support Rokeach's funda-

mental distinction between high and low dogmatics -- the relative

‘C

-10-
ability to differentiate between and evaluate independently information

and source of information.

Statement of Hypotheseg

In order to replicate the work of Brehm and Lipsher (1959) on
the trustworthiness dimension and to investigate whether or not the
perceived competence and dynamism also decreased as the communicator-
communicatee discrepancy of opinion on an issue increased, the follow-
ing general hypothesis was tested:

The perceived credibility of a communicator or poten-

tial source will decrease as the perceived communicator-

communicatee discrepancy increases. (This hypothesis should

be true for all three dimensions of credibility.)

In order to test the theoretic proposition that "highly dogmatic
individuals tend to emphasize the differences and minimize the simi-
larities between their own belief systems and those of others" and
that "there is a tendency for highly dogmatic individuals to agree
very strongly with others who share their own.views and to reject all
other views," the following hypothesis was investigated:

Highly dogmatic individuals will perceive a representa-
tive of a political party which is a small psychic distance

from themselves as more credible and a representative of a

party which is a large psychic distance from themselves as

less credible than will low dogmatic individuals.

The following theoretic hypothesis was investigated in order to
test the proposition that "disbelief subsystems relatively close to
the belief system will be relatively highly differentiated, while those
farther away will be poorly differentiated":

As the distance between the belief system and the dis-

belief subsystems increases, the degree of differentiation
within the disbelief subsystems will decrease.

-11-

The hypothesis that:

Highly dogmatic individuals will be less able to dif-
ferentiate within their belief and disbelief systems than

will low dogmatic individuals.
was investigated to test the proposition that "the greater the dogma-
tism, the more differentiated the belief system will be compared to
the disbelief system."

In order to test the theoretic hypotheses it was necessary to find
an area where it was possible to measure varying distances between the
position of a communicator and a communicatee on an issue. It was
also necessary to be able to isolate a specific belief system or po-
sition and several disbelief subsystems or alternative positions which
are at varying distances from that belief system. The area of parti-
san political adherence and consequent beliefs as found in the united
States met the first but not the second of these criteria. The two-
party system found in the united States does not lend itself to an
investigation of the party leaders as potential sources of the parties'
belief systems because it is possible to compare only two leaders and
it is not possible to differentiate within the disbelief system. The
concept of subsystems within the disbelief system can only be investi-
gated if there is more than one party within the over-all disbelief
system. It was possible to overcome these problems by investigating
the five Canadian political parties and leaders. With a multi-party
system it is possible to consider the party which an individual con-
siders closest to his own political position as the belief system and
the other four as representing the disbelief system. The other parties
can be thought of as four disbelief subsystems which can be differen-

tiated between in terms of their position on an issue.

Chapter 2

In order to investigate the theoretic hypotheses, it was necessary

to restate them in terms of the subject matter area chosen. When oper-

ationalized in political behavior terms the theoretic hypotheses were:

1.

The farther one perceives a political party to be from
his own political position, the lower he will score its
leader on a measure of source credibility. (This was
hypothesized to be true for the safety, competence and
dynamism dimensions.)

Individuals who score high on the Dogmatism.scale will
perceive their own party leader as more credible and
leaders of the other parties as less credible than will
individuals who score low on the Dogmatism scale.

The farther one perceives a political party to be from
his own political position, the less he will be able

to differentiate between party leader and party on a
source credibility index.

Individuals who score high on the Dogmatism scale will
be less able to differentiate between party leader and
party on a source credibility index than individuals

who score low on the Dogmatism scale.

Source Credibility

The source credibility of each of the five political parties and

of each party leader was measured by means of the source credibility in-

dex developed by Berlo and Lemert (1963).1 This index purports to measure

 

1Berlo, D. K. and Lemert, J. B. Unpublished manuscript. 1963. (The index
was developed by means of a principle axis factor analysis utilizing vari-
max rotation. In order to check the reliability of the instrument Lemert
performed a similar factor analysis on this data. When the scores from
both the leaders and parties were combined into a single factor analysis
it was found that each of the twelve word~pairs loaded highest on the pre-
dicted dimension.)

III in" II Izllll ill ll" .' I III!!! III- Ill... I .l

 

[ t1 Illv I I Ill '1' I ll I'll ‘I ll Il'.| ll

-13-
three dimensions of credibility by means of twelve word-pairs. These
dimensions are safety, competence and dynamism. The scores used in the
statistical analyses were calculated by summing the individual scores
on the four appropriate rating scales for each dimension. Each of the

1 In

word-pairs was scored on a scale which extended from one to seven.
each case the "negative" word of the pair was put at the "one" end of
the scale and the "positive" word at the "seven" end of the scale. The
maximum possible credibility score for a party leader or party on each
dimension was twenty-eight and the minimumeas four. The word-pairs

which were used to measure each of the three dimensions are presented

in Table 1.

Table l. Word-pairs used in the source credibility index.

 

 

Dimension Items

 

Trustworthiness Objective-subjective
Honest-Dishonest
Safe-Dangerous
Openminded-Closedminded

Competence Educated-Uneducated
Trained-Untrained
Informed-Uninformed
Experienced-Unexperienced

Dynamism Colorful-Dull
Bold-Timid
Extroverted-Introverted
Frank-Reserved

 

1Scales‘were presented in this fashion:

educated : : : : : : uneducated

Scores: 7 6 5 4 3 2 l

-14-
The differentiation scores used in the second part of the investi-
gation were calculated by subtracting, without regard for sign, the
party leader score from the appropriate party score. In other words,
the credibility rating on each dimension for each party leader was sub-
tracted from the party ratings for the corresponding dimension. The
maximum possible differentiation score was twenty-four and the minimum

zero.

Psychic Distance

The perceived discrepancy or distance between one's own position
and that of the other political parties was called the "psychic distance."
It represents a measure of the communicator-cammunicatee discrepancy
and of the distance between the belief and the several disbelief sub-
systems. In order to measure the psychic distance between one's own
position and that of the five parties, each subject was asked to indi-
cate where he believed each of the political parties would fall on a
nine-point scale which had the word "left" at one end and "right" at
the other. For ease of scoring, each party was judged on a separate
scale. The final scale had the word "yourself" above it. The points
on the scale were numbered from one to nine with the extreme "left"
numbered one and the extreme "right" numbered nine. An individual's
psychic distance for a particular party was determined by subtracting,
without regard to sign, the score for that party from the score on the

"yourself" scale.

Dogmatism

The degree of dogmatism was measured by means of an abridged ver-

sion of the Rokeach Dogmatism Index, Form.E (Rokeach, 1960, p. 73).

to

ho.-

-15-
This index consisted of twenty items rather than the standard forty.
The items used were selected on the basis of an Item Analysis conducted
by Troldahl (See Appendix 1).1
Each subject was asked to score each statement from -3 to +3 with
the zero position excluded. These were transformed into numerical scores
of l to 6 and summed to provide a Dogmatism Score for each subject.
The distribution of scores is indicated in Table 2. The median value
of the distribution was 64, which is below the expected median of 70.2
This indicates that the group as a whole tended to be slightly open-
minded. This finding is in accord with the findings of Rokeach (1960).
In an effort to gain maximum differentiation between the very high
dogmatic and the very low dogmatic individuals Rokeach usually divides
his samples into quartiles and compares the two extreme groups. The
distribution of subjects and the small number of subjects in this study
did not lend itself to such a division of the sample. It was decided
to use three groups or levels of dogmatism rather than two in order to
achieve greater statistical precision. The subjects were divided into
three almost equal-sized groups on the dogmatism variable by classify-
ing all those who scored 59 or less as low; those from 60 to 69 as

medium; and those with scores of 70 and above as high.

 

1Troldahl, V. C. unpublished manuscript. 1963. (The item.analysis was
based on the responses of 227 suburban Boston residents. The 20 items
are those which correlated highest with the total Dogmatism score as
measured by Form E of the Rokeach Dogmatism Index. .A separate cross-
validation study found a correlation of 94 between individual's scores
on the abridged and regular Dogmatism scales.)

2Expected median is half way between minimum score of 20 and maximum
score of 120.

-l6-

Table 2. Distribution of subjects' dogmatism scores.

W

 

Scores Frequency
30-39 3
40-49 12
50-59 45
60-69 69
70-79 45
80-89 10
90-99 __._3
187

 

Research Design

The same statistical design was used to test the four hypotheses.
The design which is illustrated in Figure l is a standard treatment by
levels design used in the analysis of variance (Lindquist, 1953). The
disproportionate distribution of subjects in the cells of the design
made an approximate statistical test necessary (Walker and Lev, 1953).
This means that an approximate rather than an exact test of significance
was used. In the analysis the perceived discrepancy between an individ-
ual and each party, called psychic distance, was considered the "treat-
ment." There were nine possible distances or treatments in each anal-
ysis but the number of treatments was reduced so that each cell had at
least four observations. This criteria reduced the number of treatments
to four, five or six depending upon the distribution of subjects within
the party under study. Three degrees of dogmatism were used as the
"levels" in the statistical analysis. In testing the hypotheses regard-

ing credibility, each subject's score of the credibility of a leader was

-17-
entered in one of the cells. In testing the hypotheses regarding dif-
ferentiation, each subject's differentiation score was entered in the

appropriate cell.

Figure 1. Investigational design.

 

 

 

 

 

Degree of
Dogmatimn Psychic Distance
0 l 244_ 344i 4_J» 5 .- 6gjyf74: 8 A 9
IIIITHIII
Low Credibility Score or Differentiation Score
Medium
High

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each subject assigned himself to a treatment and a level on the
basis of his psychic distance from the party under study and his score
on the Dogmatism.scale. This meant that a subject's assignment to a
cell was not randomized, since he could not be randomly assigned to the
psychic distance or the dogmatism level. This lack of randomization
limits the confidence we have in the interpretation of the findings.
The inability to randomize each subject's assignment to the various
cells of the statistical design.means that the effects of variables
which are correlated with psychic distance have not been held constant.
A significant difference between the several psychic distances may in
fact be due not to an intrinsic or actual difference but may be due

to some uncontrolled variable which is correlated with psychic distance.

’0

v.

a». - . .9-

. EC...‘ o

I O

-13-
It was necessary to analyze each of the parties separately because
an individual's psychic distance from each of the parties could be dif-
ferent. The three dimensions of credibility were also analyzed sepa-
rately because the researcher wanted to observe whether or not the
three dimensions were all affected in the same way by the independent
variables. The investigation consisted of thirty Analysis of Variance
tests -- fifteen to test the hypotheses involving credibility and fif-
teen to test the hypotheses involving the ability to differentiate
between party and leader. All one-hundred and eighty-six1 subjects
were included in every statistical test. The level of significance

chosen was .05, two-tailed test.

Subjects

The subjects investigated were 187 male students from three col-
leges in Ontario. Six separate groups were surveyed: three at the
Ontario Agricultural College, Guelph; two at the university of Waterloo,
Waterloo; and one at the university of Western Ontario, London. The
distribution of the sample by group and college is given in Table 3.

Group One was made up of 25 juniors who were majors in general
and applied biology. Groups Two and Three consisted of 18 juniors and
16 seniors respectively, who were specializing in Agricultural Econo-
nomics. The 50 seniors in Group Four were enrolled in a five-year
alternate work-study program in engineering. The Fifth Group was com-

posed of 39 men taking a non-degree evening course in business management.

 

1The one subject who said that he was a Communist was included in all
of the descriptions of the sample, but was not included in the analysis
of the hypotheses. There was question as to the validity of his actual
political preference and no generalizations can be made from a sample
of one individual.

-19-
Mbst of the individuals in this group were skilled technicians and fore-
men employed by local manufacturing industries. Group Six consisted

of 39 first and second year master of Business Administration candidates.

Table 3. Distribution of subjects according to groups and colleges.

 

Group College Z

1 0.A.C. l3

2 O.A.C. 10

3 O.A.C. 8

4 Waterloo 27

5 Waterloo 21

6 Western 21
100

N=l87

 

As is the case with any group of college students, this sample
was not representative of the general population in terms of education,
age or status. The number of years in school, although not reported,
was well above the population average. Only students of voting age,

21 years and over, were included in the analysis. The distribution

of subjects according to age is given in Table 4.

Table 4. Age of subjects

W

 

Age 2
21-25 69
26-30 14
31-35 9
36-40 5
41-50 3

100

 

o ‘

'-

.
~ .
.l
.9-..
' I
I
).
,
~a...
...

-20-
When the status of their father's occupation1 was compared with
the Canadian Census (1951), a large discrepancy was found between the
percentage of individuals in the sample and in the general population
who belonged to the different status classifications. An occupational
scale2 developed by Blishen (1959) was used to assign the subjects to
seven status groups. Those individuals found in class one have the
highest status while those in class seven have the lowest status. Table
5 shows the distribution of subjects within the seven classes and the
percentage of people in the general population falling into each class.
The difference between the sample and the general population distribu-
tion was significant at the .01 level (X2 - 147.6; d.f. a 6). The four
highest class groups were over-represented in the sample while the low-
est two were severely under-represented. This means that the sample
is not representative of the population. Almost half of the subjects
were in the top three status groups, while less than a fifth of the

total Canadian population were in these status groups.

 

1The members of Group Five, because they were older and almost all were
employed, were asked to indicate their own occupation.

2The scale was based upon the average yearly income and the number of
years of schooling of each of 343 occupations.

-21-

Table 5. Distribution of subjects according to occupational status
of fathers.

 

 

 

Z in Canada
Class Score Z in Sample (1951 Census)
1 74 plus 1 l
2 57 - 73 36 ll
3 54 - 56 9 6
4 51 - 53 ll 7
5 46 - 50 34 34
6 42 - 45 8 20
7 41 less 1 21
100 100

N:187

x2 s 147.6; d.f. : 6; p<.01

 

The way in which the whole group perceived the relative positions
of the five national political parties on the left-right continuum is
illustrated in the graph below (Figure 2). The average score for "self”
was the same as the average score for the Liberal Party. This simi-
larity may be partly related to the fact that a large percentage of
the subjects stated that they felt closest to the Liberal Party.

Figure 2. Average of perceived positions of the political parties
on the left-right continuum.

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Left Right
1.6 3.8 4.9 5.9 6.3
Comm. N.D.P. S.C. Lib. P.C.
&

Self

 

-22-
The distribution of subjects according to stated political party

preference is given in Table 6.

Table 6. Stated party preference of subjects.

 

 

 

Party Z

Liberal 42
Progressive Conservative 39
New Democratic 15
Social Credit 3
Communist 1
100

N:187

 

Each of the subjects indicated his interest in politics on a four-
point scale extending from ”very much" to "none at all." The distri-
bution of subjects according to amount of political interest is shown
in Table 7.

Table 7. Distribution of subjects according to amount of interest
in politics.

 

 

Interest

 

Very Much A Good Deal A Little None at All Total

 

Z of Sample 18 52 29 l 100%
N3187

 

Further analysis by means of Chi Square tests to determine whether
there was a relationship between interest in politics and political
preference or interest in politics and the group of which the subject

was a part indicated that there was no significant difference in either

C883 .

-23-

The Questionnaire

Identical questionnaires1

were administered to all the subjects.
The first part was a series of nine-point scales which had the word
"left" at one end and "right" at the other. Five of the scales had
the names of one of the political parties above it. The sixth and
final scale had the word "yourself" above it. The subjects were asked
to indicate the positions of each party and of themselves on a left-
right continuum. The names of the two parties which were best known
‘were presented first so that the subjects would be faced with a rela-
tively easy decision at the beginning. Parties were presented in
alternate order of "left" and "right" as generally perceived.

The second part of the questionnaire consisted of ten identical
copies of the source credibility index. Each of the twelve polar-
opposite word-pairs was separated by a seven-point scale. The word-
pairs were ordered so that no two word-pairs of the same dimension
followed one another. The positive-negative ends of the continuum
were randomized. The name of one of the national political parties
was put at the top of each of the first five pages and the name of
the five national party leaders were put at the top of the last five
pages. The parties were presented in random order and the leaders
were arranged in the same order as the parties.

The third section of the questionnaire contained twenty-one items
of the Rokeach Dogmatism Index, Form E. The twenty items of the abridged
dogmatism scale were arranged in random order and one extra item*was

then placed at the beginning of the test in order to give the subjects

 

1See Appendix 2.

-24-
an opportunity to acquire practice in scoring the scale. Each subject
was asked to score each statement on a six-point scale from -3 to-t3
with the zero position excluded. These were later transformed into
numerical scores of l to 6 and summed over the twenty items in order
to get a Dogmatism score for each subject.
Additional information regarding sex, age, voting intentions,

father's occupation, interest in politics and party to which the sub-

ject felt closest was collected in the final section of the questionnaire.

Interviewing grocedure

With five of the six groups the researcher was able to have the
respondents fill out the questionnaire during or immediately after a
class. In three cases the professor introduced the researcher as a
student interested in collecting data for a research project. In one
case the students were told that an alumnus wished them to participate
in a survey and they went to a lecture room after the completion of
a laboratory period. The subjects were not forced to participate but
all chose to do so. In another case the students were instructed to
meet the researcher in a classroom and were not told the purpose of
the meeting prior to their arrival. In the sixth case the question-
naires were administered by a friend of the researcher to the subjects
at lunch and at the end of classes.

The interviewing procedures were not uniform because many sched-
uling problems were encountered. The timing of the survey coincided
with the end of the winter semester. A11 interviews were conducted
between March 21 and 26, 1963. Many professors were unwilling to give
up even part of a class because they had specific work designated for

each remaining class session. In order to get enough subjects without

-25-
without increasing the number of interviewing sessions considerably,
the researcher had to be flexible as to the time and the conditions

under which he interviewed the subjects.

mega

Throughout the questionnaire the order in which the five parties
and leaders were presented was randomized every time it was necessary
to list them. This was done in an effort to prevent the subjects from
getting the impression that the researcher had a party preference.

The items within the source credibility index were arranged so that
no two word-pairs which were a measure of the same dimension occurred
consecutively and the positive-negative ends of the scales were ran-
domized. The twenty-items used to measure Dogmatism were randomized
by means of a table of random numbers. An example was given and a
warm-up item was inserted at the first of the series of statements.

Before administering the questionnaire, the experimenter stated
very explicitly that he was not primarily interested in voting behavior,
that he had no affiliation with any political party, and that he was
interested only in the measurement of attitudes and that political atti-
tudes were being studied because the impending national election had
created a lot of interest in politics.

During the first interviewing session, it was found necessary to
identify Leslie Norris as leader of the Communist Party and to explain
the concept of "left-right." Leslie Morris was unknown to most of the
subjects. In order not to use the words Liberal or Conservative because
of their party connotations, an effort was made to explain the left-

right dimension in terms of Marxism-Fascism. Even though these instructions

5‘

-25-
were given to all groups, three individuals scored the Communist Party
at the extreme right position. This may have been due to a misunder-
standing or a failure to discriminate between Communists and Fascists.

The subjects were instructed to use the middle blank of the scales
if they were unable to make a judgment, felt neutral towards the concept
being scored, didn't know how to score the concept or felt that the

word-pairs did not apply.

Chapter 3

Results

One hundred and eighty-seven Canadian college students were asked
to rate the five national political parties and their leaders on a
Source Credibility Index. The subjects were divided into several groups
on the basis of their distance from each of the political parties and
on the basis of their scores on a Dogmatism Index. The credibility rat-
ings of each of the leaders was investigated to determine whether the
level of dogmatimm or the distance between an individual and a political
party influences an individual's perception of a communicator's credi-
bility. Further analysis of the data was done to investigate the influ-
ence of one's dogmatism level on the ability to differentiate between

a political party and that party's leader on a source credibility index.

§gggce Credibility

The hypothesis that the credibility of a party leader would decrease
as the psychic distance increased was said to be supported if the treat-
ment effect was found to be significant and an examination of the treat-
ment means indicated that they increased in the predicted direction.
This hypothesis was supported for the safety dimension, partially sup-
ported for the competence dimension and not supported for the dynamism
dimension.

The hypothesis that highly dogmatic individuals tend to rate their
own party leader as more credible and all other leaders as less credible
than do low dogmatic individuals was tested by means of an interaction
effect. A significant interaction would support the hypothesis only

if the interaction occurred in the cells of minimum psychic distance

-27-

-23-

and the cell means varied in the predicted direction. This hypothesis
was not generally supported. The findings on all of the dimensions
for both of these hypotheses will be discussed in more detail in the
next chapter.

The results of the fifteen analysis of variance tests are summa-
rized in Table 8. The treatment (psychic distance) means and the
levels (dogmatism) means are presented in Table 9 for all of the anal-
yses where a significant difference was found. In the cases where
there was a significant interaction, all of the cell means are given.

Table 8. Results of analysis of variance tests on credibility ratings
of five political leaders.

 

 

Test Party Leader

 

Pearson Diefenbaker Douglas Thompson Morris

 

Dimension Analyzed: Safety

Treatment .01 .01 .05 nsd .01
Level nsd .01 nsd .05 nsd
Interaction nsd .01 nsd .05 .01

Dimension Analyzed: Competence

Treatment .01 .05 .05 nsd nsd
Level .01 .05 nsd nsd nsd
Interaction .01 nsd nsd .05 nsd

Dimension Analyzed: Dynamism

Treatment nsd nsd nsd nsd .01
Level nsd nsd nsd nsd .05
Interaction nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd

 

-29-

Table 9. Significant analysis of variance tests and treatment and
levels means for source credibility ratings of party leaders.

 

 

Dimension: Safety

Party Leader: Lester Pearson

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum.of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
**
Psychic Distance 26.22 3 8.74 4.43
Dogmatimm 9.31 2 4.66 2.36
Interaction 3.65 6 .61
Error 174 1.97
Total 39.28 185
**p<.o1
Treatment means (Psychic Distance)

Psychic Distance 1 2 3 4
Average 20.6 19.3 19.7 16.6
Party Leader: John Diefenbaker

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 53.80 3 17.93 27.38**
Dogmatism 7.39 2 3.70 5.64“
Interaction 19.04 6 3 . 17 4.84“
Error 114 .65
Total 80.23 1 5
**p< .01 in all cases

Cell, Treatment and Levels means
Dogmatism Levels Treatments (Psychic Distance)
1 2 3 4 1’:

Low 18.7 14.5 13.3 15.4 16.0

Medium 19.3 18.3 16.0 14.9 17.8

High 19.4 17.2 14.7 10.5 17.5

x 19.2 16.7 14.7 13.6

us

nl.

-30-

Table 9--Continued

Party Leader: Tommy Douglas

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 58.09 5 11.62 5.46**
Dogmatismu .70 2 .35
Interaction 36.60 10 3.66 1.72
Error ‘168 2.13
Total 92.39 185
**p<.01

Treatment Means

Psychic Distance 1 2 3 4 5 6
Average 19.7 20.1 17.4 18.3 16.9 14.7

Party Leader: Robert Thompson

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 8.48 4 2.12 1.23
Dogmatimm 10.78 2 5.39 3.13*
Interaction 30.59 8 3.82 2.22*
Error 171 1.72
Total 49.85 1 5
*p< .05

Cell, Treatment and Levels Means

 

 

Dogmatism Levels Treatments (Psychic Distance)
1 2 3 4 5 '3
Low 18.1 15.4 16.1 16.5 11.3 15.9
Medium 17.4 17.2 15.7 15.5 14.3 16.4
‘gigh 15.8 17.5 16.9 18.1 19.2 17.3

X 17.1 16.7 16.3 16.7 14.9

-31-

Table 9--Continued

Party Leader: Leslie Morris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 17.07 4 4.27 14.16**
Dogmatism 1.60 2 .80 2.65
interaction 34.69 8 4.34 14.39**
Error {111 .30
Total 53.35 1 5
**p(.01 in all cases

Cell, Treatment and Levels Means
Dogmatism.Levels Treatments (Psychic Distance)
1 2 3 4 5 ii

Low 13.5 13.1 12.0 9.7 14.0 12.8

Medium 14.4 12.8 13.7 13.2 7.5 13.6

[gigh 12.3 15.0 14.2 12.7 11.1 13.2

X 13.4 13.6 13.3 11.9 10.7

Dimension: Competence
Party Leader: Lester Pearson

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 20.24 3 6.75 15.09**
Dogmatism 6.42 2 3.21 7.18**
Interaction 8.43 6 1.40 3.14**
Error 114_ .45
Total 35.09 185
“p (.01 in all cases

Cell, Treatment and Levels Means
Dogmatism Levels Treatments (Psychic Distance)
1 2 3 4 2

Low 26.0 26.3 26.1 25.2 26.1

Medium 24.1 22.0 23.1 23.6 23.3

High 24.3 22.2 25.2 20.8 23.3

'X 24.8 23.4 24.8 23.2

-32-

Table 9--Continued

Party Leader: John Diefenbaker

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 14.57 3 4.86 3.50:
Dogmatism. 11.85 2 5.92 4.27
Interaction 2.88 6 .48
Error 174 1.39
Total 29.30 185
*p (.05 in both cases

Treatment Means
Psychic Distance 1 2 3 4
Average 24.4 23.3 22.4 21.6
Levels Means
Dogmatism Low Medium High
Average 24.3 23.7 22.8
Party Leader: Tommy Douglas

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 31.48 5 6.30 2.32*
Dogmatism 1.90 2 .95
Interaction 6.64 10 .66
Error 168 2.71
Total 40.00 185
*p{.05

Treatment Means
Psychic Distance 1 2 3 4 5 6
Average 21.4 22.0 21.1 20.8 21.6 18.0

-33-

Table 9--Continued

Party Leader: Robert Thompson

 

 

 

 

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Squares F
Psychic Distance 20.65 4 5.16 2.37
Dogmatism 3.52 2 1.76
Interaction 35.90 8 4.49 2.06*
Error 111_ 2.17
Total 61.07 185
*p(.05 in all cases

Cell, Treatment and Levels Means
Dogmatism.Levels Treatments (Psychic Distance)
1 2 3 4 5 ‘i

Low 19.9 16.9 18.9 18.4 13.4 18.0

Medium 20.0 19.0 18 4 16.1 14 1 18.2

.High 16.4 19.8 18.5 18.6 19.4 18.4

x 18.8 18.6 18.6 17.7 15.8

Dimension: Dynamism
Party Leader: Leslie Morris

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 16.96 4 4.24 4.94**
Dogmatism 5.88 2 2.94 3.42*
Interaction 12.09 8 1.51 1.76
Error 171 .85
Total 34.92 1 5
**p < .01

*p ( .05
Treatment Means
Psychic Distance 1 2 3 4 5
Average 16.6 16.8 16.2 15.2 18.4
Levels Means
Dogmatism. Low Medium High
Average 16.0 17.5 16.6

-34-

Dogmatism.snd Differentiation

The hypothesis that the farther one perceives a political party
to be from.his own political position, the less he will be able to
differentiate between the party leader and party on a source credibil-
ity index was tested by means of the treatment effect. The statisti-
cal tests failed to support the hypothesis.

The hypothesis that individuals who score high on the Dogmatism
scale will be less able to differentiate between party leader and party
on a source credibility index than individuals who score low on the
Dogmatism scale was tested by means of the levels effect. The statis-
tical tests failed to support the hypothesis.

The results of the fifteen analysis of variance tests are summa-
rized in Table 10. The treatment (distance between the belief and
disbelief subsystems) means and the levels (dogmatismo means are pre-
sented in Table 11 for all of the analyses where either the treatment
or the levels were found to be significant. Since no hypotheses were
made which involved interaction effects, the means of the cells will

not be presented for those interactions which were significant.

-35-

Table 10. Results of analysis of variance tests on differentiation
ratings of five party-party leader pairs.

 

 

Test Party of Party-Party Leader Pair

 

Liberal Conservative Democratic Social Credit Communist

 

Dimension Analyzed: Safety

Treatment nsd .05 nsd nsd nsd
Level nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd
Interaction nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd

Dimension Analyzed: Competence

Treatment nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd
Level nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd
Interaction nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd

Dimension Analyzed: Dynamism

Treatment nsd nsd nsd nsd nsd
Level nsd nsd nsd .01 nsd
Interaction nsd nsd .05 nsd .01

 

-36..

Table 11. Significant analysis of variance tests and treatment and
levels means for differential ratings.

 

 

Dimension: Safety

Party: Progressive Conservative

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance 4.79 3 1.60 3.32*
Dogmatism .33 2 .17
Interaction 2.22 6 .37
Error 174 .48
Total 7.34 185
*p (.05

Treatment Means
Distance between belief and disbelief subsystems

Psychic Distance 1 2 3 4
Average 2.9 2.5 2.7 4.1

Dimension: Dynamism

Party: Social Credit

 

Source Sum of Squares d.f. Mean Square F
Psychic Distance .90 4 .23
Dogmatism. 10.07 2 5.03 4.76**
Interaction 12.44 8 1.55 1.47
Error 171 1.06
Total 23.37 1 5
**p<.01

Levels Means

Dogmatism Low Medium High
Average 4.9 4.1 3.3

 

-37-

Other Findings

Analysis of the data by means of analysis of variance tests to
determine the effect of party preference upon how individual scored
each of the parties on the left-right continuum indicated that the
differences were not significant. The way in which each party was
scored by the individual adherents of each of the other parties was
tested separately. The way in which the five Social Creditors and
the one Communist scored the other parties was not computed because
of the small number of subjects involved. Table 12 shows the complete
scoring of the parties on the left-right continuum. Note the high
agreement between the way in which party members score their own po-
sition and that of the party to which they feel the closest. This
agreement is an indicator of the reliability of the subject's scoring
of the left-right continuum.

Table 12. Average scores showing how subjects scored parties on the
left-right continuum.

 

 

Party Preference
of Subject Item.Scored

 

N. Self Comm. N.D.P. S.C. Lib. P.C.

 

N.D.P. 28 4.6 1.5 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.2
Liberal 80 5.3 1.3 3.6 5.0 5.9 6.2
P.C. 73 6.4 1.6 3.9 4.6 5.9 6.4
Social Credit 5 6.2 6.0

 

*Most extreme left position was scored 1 and most extreme right position
was scored 9.

-33-

A number of tests of significance using Chi Square were carried
out in an effort to determine whether the adherents to each of the
parties differed in respect to: distribution among each of the six
college groups; status and dogmatism level. A significant difference
was found in the number of party adherents who were found in each of
the six college groups (x2 2 65.8; d.f. = 15). At the Ontario Agri-
cultural College a disproportionate number of subjects preferred the
New Democratic Party. At Waterloo the Progressive Conservatives ap-
peared to have larger than expected number of supporters. At Western
a majority of the students interviewed preferred the Liberal Party.
The distribution of subjects according to political preference and
college group is given in Table 13.

No significant difference was found in the frequency with which
party adherents were distributed within the status groups. No signif-
icant difference was found in the frequency‘with which the adherents
of each party were distributed to the three levels of dogmatism. The
adherents of each party tended to be equally high, medium and low
dogmatic.

An analysis of the data showed that there was a very significant
difference between the members of the six college groups in their dis-
tribution to the three levels of Dogmatism (X2 : 28.9; d.f. = 10).

The engineering students tended to be much more dogmatic than average.
Group One, composed of biology students, also tended to be highly dog-
matic. The two groups of agricultural economics students tended to

be just slightly less dogmatic than average, while the business admin-
istration students scored particularly low on the Dogmatism Index. See
Table 14 for the distribution of party adherents to the three levels

of Dogmatism.

-39..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 13. Party preference by college and group.
Party
Preference Ontario Agricultural Waterloo Western
1 2 3 4 5 6 All Ss
S.C. 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 5% 3%
N.D.P. 44 50 0 10 3 5 15
P.C. 40 17 56 52 46 18 39
Lib. 16 33 44 _ 32 48 72 42
Comm. 0 0 O 2 0 O 1
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N=25 N'18 N=16 N=SO N=39 N=39 N-187
x2 : 65.8 at 15 d.f.; p<.01
Table 14. Distribution of subjects according to experimental group
and dogmatism level.
Dogmatism Group
1 2 3 4 5 6
Low 20% 33% 50% 24% 18% 56%
Medium 40% 39% 44% 38% 33% 33%
High 40% 28% 6% 38% 49% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
N:25 N=18 N316 N=50 N=39 N=39

x2 - 28.9 at 10 d.f.; p<.01

 

Chapter 4
Discussion

Summary of Findings

The four statistical hypotheses were tested with the following
results:

1. The hypothesis that the farther one perceives a political
party to be from his own position, the lower he will score its leader
on a source credibility index was supported for the safety dimension
of credibility, partially supported for the competence dimension, and
not supported for the dynamism dimension.

2. The hypothesis that individuals who score high on the Dogmatism
scale will perceive their own party leader as more credible and leaders
of the other parties as less credible than will individuals who score
low on the Dogmatism scale was not supported.

3. The hypothesis that the farther one perceives a political
party to be from his own political position, the less he will be able
to differentiate between party leader and party on a source credibility
index was not supported.

4. The hypothesis that individuals who score high on the Dogma-
tism scale will be less able to differentiate between party and leader
on a source credibility index than individuals who score low on the

Dogmatism scale was not supported.
Psychic Distagce and Source Credibility

Safety Dimension. The findings on the safety dimension support the
conclusions of Brehm and Lipsher (1959) that the farther one perceives

-40-

)a
II

-41-
a political party to be from his own position the less trustworthy

he perceives its leader. In four of the five tests of the hypothesis,
the findings were significant and in the direction predicted. In the
fifth test, an interaction was found to be significant. Further exam-
ination of the cell means indicated that the hypothesis was supported
by those who scored low on the Dogmatism scale, but not by those who

scored high.

Competence Dimension. The hypothesis that perceived competence de-
creases as psychic distance increases was partially supported. Two

of the five tests of the hypothesis supported it. In another test,

a significant effect was found, but not in the predicted direction;
competence increased rather than decreased as psychic distance in-
creased. In another test, where the main effects were not significant,
the interaction was significant and the hypothesis was supported for
those who scored low on the Dogmatism scale. In the fifth case no

significant difference was found.

Dynamism Dimension. The hypothesis that perceived dynamism decreases
as psychic distance increases was not supported. In the one test where
a significant main effect was found, the direction of the difference

was opposite to that predicted.

Critique of Methodglggy. The non-significant findings on the dynamism
dimension cannot be explained in terms of the inability of the scale
of left-right orientation to measure psychic distance because of the
significant findings on the safety dimension. The source credibility

index may not give as accurate a measure of dynamism as it does of

-42-
safety. Two of the word-pairs used to measure dynamism, colorful-dull
and bold-timid, loaded moderately on the competence dimension in the
factor analysis used to choose the word-pairs. The dynamism ratings

may be somewhat contaminated by ratings on the other dimensions.

DogmatismI Psychic Distance and Credibility
The hypothesis that high dogmatics will perceive their own party

leader as more credible and all other leaders as less credible than
will low dogmatics was tested by means of an interaction effect and an
inspection of the pattern of means. The hypothesis was not supported
for any of the party leaders on any of the dimensions.

The lack of significant findings on this hypothesis might suggest
that the abridged form of the Dogmatism scale was not discriminating
adequately between high and low dogmatics. This may be true, but it
should be remembered that in a cross-validation check of the abridged
Dogmatism scale, the 20 items correlated .94 with the total 40-item
scale. This indicates that the full 40-item scale would not have pro-
duced a very different distribution of subjects into the three levels

of dogmatism.

Differentiation Hypotheggg
Psychic Distance. The hypothesis that the degree of differentiation
will decrease as the distance between the belief and disbelief sub-
systems increases was not supported in any of the analyses. In one
case, a significant difference was found (John Diefenbaker of the safety
dimension), but the results were in the direction opposite to that

predicted.

-43-

Dogggtism. The hypothesis that low dogmatics are better able to dif-
ferentiate than high dogmatics was not generally supported. Where the
differentiation was based on judgments of "safety" or "competence,"
the hypothesis was never confirmed. 'Where differentiation was based
on "dynamism” judgments, the results were significant in one of the
five tests of the hypothesis. For three of the other tests, the dif-
ferences, although notsignificant, were in the predicted direction.
Two interactions were significant, and in one case, Leslie Morris on
the dynamism dimension, the differences were in the predicted direction.
These results tend to contradict those of Powell who found that
high dogmatics were less able to differentiate between message and
source than low dogmatics. The two studies differ in that the Powell
study (1962) compared subjects' ratings of a source and a message while
this study compared subjects' ratings of two potential sources, a party

and its leader. There was no actual message in this study.

‘Qgigique of Methodology. The generally non-significant findings on
the differentiation hypotheses could be due to inadequacies in either
the research methodology or the Dogmatism theory. Before the theory
is questioned, an evaluation of the methodology used in the study is
in order.

The failure to find a significant difference in differentiation
as psychic distance increases may have been related to the subject
matter area chosen. Each of the five political parties was assumed to
be representative of a belief or disbelief subsystem. It was assumed
that, with this number of parties, each subject would feel that one

of the parties was representative of his political philosophy (belief

-44-
system) and that the other four were representative of subsystems within
his disbelief system. It is possible that some individuals did not per-
ceive any of the parties as a belief system.nor any of the others as
disbelief subsystems. If an individual were slightly interested in
politics and did not have any strong party identification, he might per-
ceive all of the parties rather similarly. In such a case, he might
not distinguish between the belief and disbelief systems. However,
since 70 per cent of the subjects stated that they were either "very"
or "a good deal" interested in politics and 97 per cent of them said
that they intended to vote in the forthcoming election, political parties
and their leaders seemed to be a salient issue to most of the subjects.

When each individual's scoring of "self" on the left-right scale
was compared with his stated political preference, 23 per cent of the
subjects scored themselves closer to one of the other parties on the
left-right scale than they did to the party that they stated they felt
closest to. Most of these discrepancies in psychic distance were elimi-
nated when the nine possible psychic distance categories were reduced
for the final analysis.

The measuring instrument used in the study may have contributed
to the non-significant findings. The results on the credibility hypo-
thesis suggest that psychic distance, as measured by the scale of left-
right orientation was a meaningful measure of the distance between an
individual and a belief system. This unidimensional measure of an
individual's distance from each of the political parties may not have
been meaningful or accurate. The use of a scale which considered more
dimensions, such as the Radical-Conservative and Tough-Tender dimensions

used by Eysenck (1954), would have allowed more complete measurement of

ml“

-45-

the psychic distance but would also have complicated the experimental
design. Some or all of these aspects of the psychic distance measure
may have contributed to the non-significant findings.

One of the most obvious explanations of the lack of significance
on the differentiation tests would be that the difference between one's
rating of a political party and the party leader on a source credibility
index is not a precise measure of one's ability to differentiate within
a belief or disbelief system. Since an individual's perceptions, in
terms of credibility, of a party and a leader are usually fairly simi-
lar, one's differentiation score would always be quite small. The
seven-point scale may be too gross a measure for such small differences.
This may partly explain the lack of significant differences on the
psychic distance hypothesis.

The investigational design did not allow randomization of treat-
ments or levels because each subject assigned himself to a Dogmatism
level and a psychic distance. The lack of randomization reduces the
generalizability of the results and decreases our confidence in the
one hypothesis that was statistically supported. The significant dif-
ferences found may be due to psychic distance or to other uncontrolled
variables that are correlated with psychic distance, such as the amount
of information known about each party or leader, interest in politics,
previous voting behavior, parental voting record or area where one lives.

The results of the analyses on Leslie Morris, leader of the Commu-
nist Party, and Robert Thompson, leader of the Social Credit Party, may
not be as dependable as the others. Forty-three per cent of the sub-
jects scored Leslie Mbrris in the neutral position of the scale for all

the word-pairs in the credibility index. Very few of the subjects knew

.8

‘3

-45-
who he was. Only two per cent of the subjects scored the Communist
Party in this manner. This may have increased the differentiation
scores used in the analyses. The psychic distance between subjects
and party varied more with the Social Credit Party than with any other
party. The standard deviation of the perceived position of the Social
Credit party on the scale of left-right orientation was almost twice
as large as that of the other parties (S.D. I 2.5). This indicates
a great difference of opinion about the location of this party in re-
lation to the other parties. A number of people who perceived the party
quite differently were probably put into the same psychic category dur-
ing the analyses.

In retrospect, a more precise measuring instrument probably would
have increased the accuracy of the study. When differences are quite
small it is very difficult to measure them accurately. The use of the
Social Credit and Communist Parties and their leaders to test general
non-political oriented hypotheses is not recommended. They represent
atypical political parties; there is a lack of general agreement upon
their position or philosophy; and they are not well known to some

individuals.

Implications

The positive findings on the relationship between psychic distance
and credibility warrant some discussion. .A consistent relationship was
found between psychic distance and the "trustworthiness” dimension of
credibility. This finding is consistent with those of Brehm and Lipsher
(1959), who also studied the "trustworthiness" of a source. The hy-

pothesis concerning the relationship between psychic distance and the

-47-
competence dimension of credibility was only partially supported. No
relationship was found between psychic distance and the dynamism dimension.

Had a larger sample of persons been studied, it is possible that a
consistent relationship between psychic distance and competence would
have been found. However, even if this were the case, evidence in this
study suggests that the relationship would have been less consistent
than that found for psychic distance and trustworthiness. Therefore,
it seems that when a person compares his own party's leader and the
leader of another party he sees them as more different in trustworthi-
ness than in competence. Furthermore, there is no evidence in this
study that he sees any difference between them in terms of dynamism.

Why did the subjects studied rate leaders of other parties less
trustworthy? One possibility would be post-decision dissonance. If
a person is already committed to a political candidate and he finds
other candidates similar to the candidate he is committed to, he is
likely to experience dissonance. In order to reduce the dissonance,
he may perceive the other candidate as less trustworthy.

One might question why a person is more likely to utilize trust-
worthiness as the dissonance-reducing mechanism than competence or
dynamism. There seems to be one very plausible explanation. It stems
from the evaluative, connotative nature of trustworthiness. A person's
competence can usually be estimated more objectively than his trust-
worthiness because the amount of education, training, experience, and
information he has is more public than how objective, honest, safe or
openminded he is. Therefore, a person is less likely to be contradicted
if he changes his trustworthiness perceptions than if he changes those

concerning competence.

-43-

These findings would seem to have applicability in applied poli-
tics. A political leader, wanting to convert adherents to another
political leader, apparently should concentrate on increasing his per-
ceived trustworthiness to a level at least equal that of his opponents.
The findings of this study suggest that he should be more concerned
about his perceived trustworthiness than his perceived competence and
that he need not be greatly concerned about his perceived dynamism.

The data imply that there is no difference in the way high and
low dogmatics rate sources. This finding may indicate that either the
methodology was inadequate or no difference actually exists. Until
further study has been carried out, no further conclusions about this
hypothesis are justified.

The findings on the differentiation hypotheses imply that further
study of this area is also necessary. There appears to be a similarity
in the way individuals rate a party and its leader. There may be an
overriding party image which subsumes the leader. In such a case there
would be a tendency for individuals to rate the party and the leader
quite similarly. Such a rating would produce small differentiation
scores. Of course, it can be argued just as rationally that the image
of the leader is more important than that of the party and that an in-
dividual's perception of a party is a function of his perception of

the leader.

Referenced Bibliography

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, Else, Levinson, D. J., and Sandford,
R. D. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.

Aronson, E., and Golden, B. W. The effect of relevant and irrelevant

aspects of communicator credibility on opinion change. J.Pers.,
1962, 30, 2, 135-146.

Berlo, D. K., and Lemert, J. B. Unpublished manuscript. Department
of Communication, Michigan State university, 1963.

Birch, H. G. The effect of socially disapproved labelling upon a well-
structured attitude. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1945, 40, 301-30.

Blishen, B. R. The construction and use of an occupational class scale.
Canad. J. econg pol. sci., 1959, 24, 1, 519-531.

Bowden, A. 0., Caldwell, F. E., and West, G. A. A. A study in prestige.
Amer. J. sociol., 1934, 40, 193-204.

Brehm, J. W., and Lipsher, D. M. Communicator-communicatee discrepancy
and perceived trustworthiness. J. Pers., 1959, 27, 3, 352-361.

Coffin, T. E. Some conditions of suggestion and suggestibility. Psycho.
Monogr., 1941, 53, 4, 124.

Eulau, H. Class identification and projection in voting behavior. West. ./
pol. Quart., 1955, 8, 3, 441-452.

Ewing, T. N. Am A.study of certain factors involved in changes of opinion.
J. soc. Psycholy, 1942, 16, 63-88.

Eysenick, H. J. Tye psychology of politic . London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1954.

Festinger, L. A theory of social comparison process. Human Relat., 1954,
7, 117-140.

Fiedler, F. E. The psychological distance dimension in interpersonal
relations. J. Pers., 1954, 22, 142-150.

Gutherie, G., Bechker, S. W., and Siegel, S. Preferences and differences
in preferences for political candidates. J. soc. Psychol., 1961, 53,
25-32.

Haiman, F. S. An experimental study of the effect of ethos in public
speaking. Speech Mono r., 1949, 2, 190-202.

-49-

A...

-50-

Hovland, C. I. Assimilation and contrast effects in reaction to communi-
cation and attitude change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1957, 55,
244-252.

Hovland, C. 1., Harvey, 0., and Sherif, M. Assimilation and contrast
effects in reactions to communicator and attitude change. J. abnorm.
soc. Psycholy, 1957, 55, 244-252.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., and Kelley, H. H. Communication and Per-
suasion, New Haven: Yale University, 1953.

Hovland, C. I., and Mandell, W. An experimental comparison of conclusion
drawing by the communicator and by the audience. J. abnorm. soc.
Ps chol., 1952, 47, 581-588.

Hovland, C. I., and Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility on
communication effectiveness. Publ. opin. Quart., 1951, 15, 635-650.

Janowitz, M. and Marvick, D. Authoritarianism.and political behavior.
Publ. opin. Quart., 1953, 17, 185-201.

Kelman, H. C., and Hovland, C. I. Reinstatement of the communicator in
delayed measurements of opinion change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1953, 48, 327-335.

Kulp, D. H. Prestige as measured by single experience changes. J. educ.
Res., 1934, 27, 663-667.

Lane, R. E. Political personality and electoral choice. Amer. pol. sci.
Rev., 1955, 49, 173-190.

Lemert, J. B. Dimension of source credibility. Paper read at Assoc. Educ.
Journ., Lincoln, Nebraska, August, 1963.

Lindquist, E. F. Design and analysis of gyperiments in psychology and
education. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1953.

Lurie, W. A. Measurement of prestige and prestige suggestibility. ‘gy
soc. Psychol., 1938, 9, 219-225.

Matson, F. W. The political implication of psychoanalytic theory. J. pol.,
1954, 16, 4, 704.

MeC1oskey, H., and Dahlgren, H. E. Primary group influence on party (,‘
loyalty. Amer. pol. sci. Rev., 1959, 53, 3, 757-776.

McGrath, J. E., and MeGrath, M. F. Effects of partisanship on perceptions
of political figures. Publ. opin. Quart., 1962, 26, 2.

Mbos, M., and Koslin, B. Political leadership re-examined: an experimental
approach. Publ. opin. Qpprt., 1951, 15, 563-574.

-51-

Moos, M., and Koslin, B. M. Prestige, suggestion and political leader-
ship. Publ. opin. ngrt., 1952, 16, 77-93.

Osgood, C., Suchi, G., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of meaning,
Urbana: university of Illinois, 1957.

Powell, F. Open and closedmindedness and the ability to differentiate
source and message. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1962, 65, 61-64.

Rokeach, M. Dogmatism and opinionation of the left and right. Amer.
Psychologist, 1952, 7, 310.

Rokeach, M. The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychol. Rev., 1954,
51 , 194-2040

Rokeach, M. Political and religious dogmatism. Ps chol. Meno r., 1956,
70, 18.

Rokeach, M. [Theggpen and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Rokeach, M., and Fruchter, B. A factorial study of dogmatism.and related
concepts. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1956, 53, 356-360.

Rokeach, M., and McGovney, W. C. A distinction between dogmatism and
rigid thinking. J. abnorm. soc. Psychqu, 1955, 51, 87-93.

Saadi, M., and Farnsworth, P. R. The degree of acceptance of dogmatic
statements. J. abnorm. soc. Psycholy, 1934, 29, 143-150.

Tannenbaum, P. H. Initial attitude toward source and concept as factors
in attitude change. Publ. opin. Quart., 1956, 20, 2, 413-425.

Walker, Helen M., and Lev. J. Statistical inference. Holt, Rinehart &
Winston: New York, 1953.

Weiss, W., and Fine, J. B. Opinion change as a function of some intra-
personal attributes of the communicatees. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol.,
1955, 51, 246-253.

A.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1

Abridged Dogmat ism Scale

10.

Items used in Abridged Dogmatism scale

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause
that life becomes meaningful.

Mbst people just don't give a "damn” for others.

It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the
future.

Even though freedom of speech is a worthwhile goal, it is un-
fortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain
political groups.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for
the truth and those who are against the truth.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only
the future that counts.

The highest form of government is a democracy, and the highest
form of democracy is a government run by those who are most
intelligent.

Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have discussed
important social and moral problems don't really understand
what's going on.

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something
important.

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit

he's‘wrong.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

-55-
In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and
associates whose tastes and_beliefs are the same as one's own.
In this complicated world of ours, the only way we can know
what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be
trusted.

In times like these it is often necessary to be pppg on guard
against ideas put out by people or groups in one's pyp_camp
than by those in the opposing camp.

A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion among
its own members cannot exist for long.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because
it usually leads to betrayal of our own side.

Mest of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the
paper they are printed on.

Most people just don't know what's good for them.

When it comes to differences of opinion in religion, we must be
careful pp; to compromise with those who believe differently
from the way _w_e_ do.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in the world,
there is probably only one which is correct.

In a discussion, I often find it necessary to repeat myself

several times to make sure I am being understood.

Appendix 2

Political Dimensions Questionnaire

Political Dimensions Questionnaire

We are interested in getting your reactions toward the national
political parties and their leaders. The purpose of this survey is
to collect data for a thesis and is in no way connected to any politi-
cal organization. It is hoped that you will give your frankest eval-
uation of each of the parties and leaders in terms of the characteristics
mentioned in the questionnaire. Do not spend much time thinking over
each answer because it is your first impression which is important.
Please complete all pages and all items because meaningful comparisons
will not be possible if the entire questionnaire is not completed.
Please do not put any personal identification on the questionnaire.

We want it to remain completely anonymous.

-58-
We are interested in finding out how people think of the five
national political parties: New Democratic; Social Credit; Liberal;
Coumunist; and Progressive Conservative, in terms of left-right wing
political orientation. Please put a check mark in the space which
you feel best represents the relative position of each of the parties
on the five scales and place yourself on the final scale in terms of
your own political preference or leaning. Place your check marks in
the middle of the spaces, not on the boundaries. Be sure to check
the scale for every item. Do not omit any. If you have any questions

please do not hesitate to ask.

Progressive Conservative

left : : : : : : : : right
Liberal
left : : : : : : : : right

left : : : : : : : : right
Communist
left : : : : : : : : right

left : : : : : : : : right

left : : : : : : : : right

1."

-59-

We are interested in the way in which people describe the various
political parties and their leaders in terms of a number of common con-
cepts. At the top of each of the following pages will be either the
name of one of the five national political parties or the name of one
of the national party leaders. Below each name will be a number of
seven-point scales with a word or concept at each end. We would like
you to score each of the parties or party leaders in terms of the con-
cept or word at the end of each scale.

Below is a sample scale:

John Kennedy

weak : : : : : : : : strong

If you feel that John Kennedy is strong, place a check mark in
space-+3. If you feel that he is slightly weak, place the check in
-1. If you feel that he is neither weak nor strong or the concept
does not apply to John Kennedy, place your check mark in space 0.
You may find it helpful to think of 1 as slightly, 2 as mostly, 3 as
completely and O as neutral, undecided, or not applicable to the man
at the top of the page.

Important:

1. Place your check marks in the middle of the spaces, not
on the boundaries.

2. Be sure to check the scale for every concept. Do not omit
any items.

3. Never put more than one check mark in a single scale.

4. Do not look back and forth through the items. Make each
item a separate and independent judgment.

5. Your first impression, the immediate "feeling" about each
item, is what we want.

educated
subjective
frank
untrained
honest
introverted
safe
informed
timid
unexperienced
colorful

closedminded

-60-

The national Liberal Party

 

 

uneducated
objective
reserved
trained
dishonest
extroverted
dangerous
uninformed
bold
experienced
dull

openminded

-61-

The national Social Credit Party

 

educated : : : : : : uneducated
subjective : : : : : : objective
frank : : : : : : reserved

untrained : : : : : : trained
honest : : : : : : dishonest
introverted : : : : : : extroverted

safe : : : : : : dangerous

informed : : : : : : uninformed
timid : : : : : : bold
unexperienced : : : : : : experienced

colorful : : : : : : dull

closedminded : : : : : : openminded

Ill] r1

-62-

The national New Democratic Party

 

educated ____3 : : : : :
subjective ___:____:____:__:____:__:___
frank .____g____g____g____g____g____g____

untrained : : : : : :

honest .____g____g____g____g____g____g____
introverted ____:_____:__:_____:___:___:____
safe ____:___:___:__:___:____:____
informed ___:___:_____:____:____:___:___
timid .____g____g____g____g____g____g____
unexperienced ____:____:___:____:_____:____:__
colorful ____:___:___:____:___:___:____
closedminded : : : : : :

uneducated
objective
reserved
trained
dishonest
extroverted
dangerous
uninformed
bold
experienced
dull

openminded

-63-

The national Progressive Conservative Party

 

educated _: : : :_ :_ :_ uneducated
subjective _____:___:____:___:____:__:____ objective
frank ___:____:___:__ :___:___ :_ reserved
untrained : : : : : : trained

honest : : : : : : dishonest
introverted : : : : : : extroverted
safe : : : : : : dangerous
informed : : : : : : uninformed
timid : : : : : : bold
unexperienced : : : x : : experienced
colorful : : : : : : dull

closedminded : : : : : : openminded

 

1"

educated
subjective
frank
untrained
honest
introverted
safe
informed
timid
unexperienced
colorful

closedminded

-64-

The national Communist Party

: : : : : : uneducated
____:____:__:____:___:___:__ objective
: : : : : : reserved

: : : trained

: : dishonest

: : : : : : extroverted
: : : : :~ : dangerous

: : uninformed
: : : bold

: : : : : experienced
: : : : : : dull

: : : : : : openminded

 

-4
.‘C
a a

. . o
.-

. . a
.o .

a
-.—
a
- O
.4.
C a

 

educated
subjective
frank
untrained
honest
introverted
safe
informed
timid
unexperienced
colorful

closedminded

-65-

Lester Pearson

uneducated
objective
reserved
trained
dishonest
extroverted
dangerous
uninformed
bold
experienced
dull

openminded

 

”a
a
0
a
I
O
-...
o
a
—-
a
.9
O

o
D

I o

a u

0 s

o—«a

n—v‘-

s o .
. .

a
--Q
o
a.
..
-v

-55-

Robert Thompson

educated : : : : : : uneducated

subjective : : : : : : objective

frank : ° ° ’ : : reserved

* _.“.*.— _ *

untrained : ° : : ° : trained

honest : : : : : : dishonest

introverted : : : : : ° extroverted

safe : : : : : : dangerous

informed : ' : ' : ° uninformed

timid : : ° : : ° bold

unexperienced : : : : : ° experienced

colorful : : : : : : dull

closedminded : : : ° ' : openminded

 

 

.4.

O.

-57-

Tommy Douglas

educated : : : : : : uneducated

subjective __:_____:____ :_ :__:___:__ objective
frank : : : : : : reserved
untrained : : : : : : trained
honest : : : : : : dishonest
introverted : : : : : : extroverted
safe : : : : : : dangerous
informed : : : : : : uninformed
timid : : : : : : bold
unexperienced : : : : : : experienced
colorful : : : : : : dull

closedminded : : : : : : openminded

 

 

'-

-
u-.
a

.0

. o
a. .
. a
o

- 0
Or.
. -

-68-

John Diefenbaker

educated : : : : : : uneducated
subjective : : : : : : objective
frank _____:__:___:___:___:___:___ reserved
untrained : : : : : : trained
honest : : : : : : dishonest
introverted : : : : : : extroverted
safe : : : : : : dangerous
informed : : : : : : uninformed
timid : : : : : : bold
unexperienced : : : : : : experienced
colorful : : : : : : dull

closedminded : : : : : : openminded

 

educated

subjective

untrained
honest
introverted
safe

informed
timid
unexperienced
colorful

closedminded

-69-

Leslie Morris

uneducated
objective
reserved
trained
dishonest
extroverted
dangerous
uninformed
bold
experienced
dull

openminded

 

 

I44

-70-

We want to get a measure of how strongly you agree or disagree
with each of the following statements. Please score each statement
in the blank at the left hand side of the statement. Use the follow-
ing scoring key:

Example:

+3 I agree very much
+2 I agree on the whole
+1 I agree a little

-1 I disagree a little

-2 I disagree on the whole
-3 I disagree very much

It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.

If you agree very much, write a 3 at the left of the statement;
if you.mostly agree on the whole, write a 2; if you disagree slightly,
a -1, etc. Remember, write not only the number but also its sign every
time. Work quickly, giving your first impression.

If given a chance, I would do something of great benefit
for the world.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or
cause that life becomes meaningful.

Mest people just don't give a "damn" for others.

It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of
the future.

Even though freedom of speech is a worthwhile goal, it
is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of
certain political groups.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who
are for the truth and those who are against the truth.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is
only the future that counts.

The highest form of government is a democracy, and the
highest form of democracy is a government run by those
who are most intelligent.

Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have dis-
cussed important social and moral problems don't really

understand what's going on.

-71-

-+3 I agree very much
-+2 I agree on the whole
4-1 I agree a little

-1 I disagree a little
-2 I disagree on the whole
-3 I disagree very much

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do
something important .

my blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to
admit he's wrong.

In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends
and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as
one's own.

In this complicated world of ours, the only way we can
know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts
who can be trusted.

In times like these it is often necessary to be more on
guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's
own camp than by those in the opposipg camp.

A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion
among its own members cannot exist for long.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous
because it usually leads to betrayal of our own side.

Mest of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren’t worth
the paper they are printed on.

Mest people just don't know what's good for them.
When it comes to differences of opinion in reli ion, we
must be careful not to compromise with those who believe

differently from the way we do.

Of all the different philosophies which exist in the
world, there is probably only one which is correct.

In a discussion, I often find it necessary to repeat
myself several times to make sure I am being understood.

Just a few more questions:

Do you intend to vote in the April 8 election:

How interested are you in politics:

Which political party do you feel closest to:

Sex: Male Female

Age:

Your father's occupation (Be specific):

Yes No

 

 

Very Much
A Good Deal
A Little

None at All

Social Credit_____

New Democratic
Progressive Conservative
Liberal______

Communist

 

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

u

"1‘ l,

.. , . ; 7
,. j, . , .
g s This r

 

 

{:1

new

 

umumumgummufigflifflifl ”1171171111171 ES

8712