my.” 4. u.... t .. 35‘ ”0"» 0 CC. 9‘ 3.4;. . .L .- h . .15 . .~ I . :4 .O« I. f .0 .‘ our. / \ ,J O a‘c.¢5 ,. . .o . I.» .... 5.. y. tip. ' "LL—Fr .l__ . NWmglellnslflgmlwnmuul1 This is to certify that the ‘ '- i “' thesis entitled DOMATISM AN) RIGIDITY AS DETERMINANTS OF CCGNITIQN presented in; WARREN CARL McGovm has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ___——M 'A ' degree in _ psychology Date ‘ I“ . ‘A‘A— -’._ - :v-‘. - A- 5..-. d I -‘ _-. _..a._. . A_ n - < _---- _ l n .r‘ -.-_. ' 5"- mm 1 up. ' v'. . (’3... ’3’” I a 3" \‘50 k- {ff-1 1 -cu-.-'€-IH-.'-.—MJ':I—, . :- .'.' .- / " 517nm 4 31 \ 08 31 '53 pup/a '53 I‘ n;- Qti. ’54. .‘fl ‘ Apr] 'F'A JO hm 9 '5’/‘ ,., A. DCGQAIISE ABD RIGIDITY AS DETERJIBARTS OF COGKITICN BY Warren Carl KcGovney A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1953 ACKN‘WLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his most sincere thanks to Dr. Hilton Rokeach, whose guidance, interest and encourage- ment made this investigation a valuable and fascinating experience for the author. Loving thanks are also due the writer's wife, Suzanne, for her constant patience and help. ‘?,)‘lr‘ ’T. ‘. U\ L31)L}{I TABLE OF COKTERTS I. Introduction II. The Denny Doodlebug Problem III. Subjects and Procedure IV. Results V. Discussion VI. Summary and Conclusions Bibliography Appendix A The California Psychological Inventory Rigidity Scale Appendix B The Dogmatism Scale Appendix C Battery of Tests Administered to the 109 Subjects Page Page Page Page Page 11 18 28 33 TAB LE TABLE TAB LE LIST OF TABLES MEAN DOGMATISM AND RIGIDITY SCORES FOR THE GROUPS TESTED COMPARISON BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW DOGHATIC GROUPS AND BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW RIGID GROUPS ON "HE TOTAL TIME TAKEN TO SOLVE THE DENNY DOODLEBUG PROBLEM CORPARISOK BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW RIGID GROUPS AND BETWEEN HIGH ADD LOH DOGMATIC GROUPS ON THE VARIOUS KEASURES INVOLVING THE OVERCOHIEG OF SETS TIME TAKEN TO SOLVE THE DEEH‘ DOODLEBUG PROBLEM AFTER THE FIRST, SECOLD AKD THIRD SETS HERE OVER~ COME BY HIGH AND LOW DOGMATIC GROUPS AKD HIGH AND LOW RIGID ROUPS Page Page Page Page 19 22 24 INTRODUCTION The present study is part of a larger project presently underway under the direction of Dr. Milton Rokeach of Michigan State College on the phenomenon of dogmatism. The primary aim here will be to investigate certain cognitive aspects of dogmatism and to distinguish such aspects from rigidity. With- in the past several years, a great volume of research has been done concerning the concept of rigidity (l) (3) (4) (5) (6). On the contrary, very little has been undertaken concerning the nature of dogmatism until quite recently (7) (8). It is not the intent of this research to present the historical develop- ment of the concept of rigidity since the data available is so voluminous that this would constitute a major task in itself. However, the concept of dogmatism is a relatively new one and will be discussed rather fully in the paragraphs to follow. Rokeach (8) bases his concept of dogmatism on the obser- vations of a number of persons in real life situations who, in various social contexts, were observed to be dogmatic. He defines dogmatism as follows: "(1) a closed cognitive system of thinking and believing about reality, (2) organized around a set of authoritarian beliefs and (3) providing a frame of reference for attitudes of intolerance and qualified tolerance toward peOple in general." (8, p. 3) ‘ This investigation concerns itself primarily with the first defining characteristic of dogmatism, namely, its closed character. Rokeach conceives further of two levels of resis- tance to change, rigidity and dogmatism. "Rigidity refers to person-to-thing or animal-to-thing relations (and) dogmatism by its very nature refers to person-to-person communication." (8, p. 4) Dogmatism is distinguished from rigidity as follows, according to Rokeach: Both dogmatism and rigidity refer to forms of resis- tance to change but dogmatism is conceived to represent a relatively more intellectualized and abstract form than rigidity. Where dogmatism refers to organizations of ideas, beliefs and attitudes into closed ideological systems, rigidity has been generally defined in terms of the way a person or an animal attacks, solves or learns specific tasks and problems having alternative solutions. Thus dogmatism is seen as a higher-order more organized form of resistance to change (8, p. 4). Experiments on rigidity have been confined to the subject's ability or inability to overcome a single experimental set or approach to a problem. This is true of the map studies under- taken by Rokeach (5), the jar problems of Luchins (4) and many of the various measures reported by Cattell and Tiner (1). It is also evident in the following definition of rigidity: Rigidity is defined as "...the inability to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it, as the inability to restructure a field in which there are alternative solutions to a problem in order to solve that problem more efficiently." (5) Dogmatism, on the other hand, refers to organizations of sets rather than single sets. These closed sets are organized into a belief system and a disbelief system. The former refers to those beliefs accepted as true; the latter refers to all other alternatives accepted as false. These alternatives are not all salient to the belief system, but those which are the closest are the ones most vehemently attacked. Thus while the Communists attack Capitalism they are most vehement in their attack on the Trotskyites (8). The cognitive structure of the dogmatic individual is further differentiated in terms of central and peripheral parts. The central part has to do with those about positive and nega- tive authority; peripheral are those which are seen to emanate from positive and negative authority. Those beliefs seen to emanate from positive authority are perceived as true and those seen to emanate from negative authority are perceived as false. It is this relationship between central and peri- pheral which gives the closed system its systematic character. Dogmatic individuals do not resist change per se, for a change can be brought about rapidly if it is initiated by the central authority figure. Rokeach points out further that there is no communication between the peripheral beliefs but only between central and peripheral parts. A change in one peripheral belief will not affect a change in any other peripheral beliefs; the cognitive structure remains the same although the content may change. Thus it can be said that while various peripheral beliefs are systematically related to each other via the central authority region there is nevertheless a lack of intercommunication or integration among the various peripheral beliefs. Rokeach points out further differentiaticn between dogmatism and rigidity (8) by stating that one can tie his shoelaces rigidly but he can never tie his shoelaces dog- matically. The expression of dogmatism depends upon a social situaticn; an individual can never be dogmatic when alone, its expression depends on the interchange of ideas or beliefs. It is in regard to this social aspect that Rokeach has introduced the idea that the dogmatic individual has a closed cognitive system (8) in that his own views are impervious to change. He insulates himself from the recog- nition of views which are in opposition to his own beliefs. In this respect Rokeach discusses a number of cognitive mechanisms which the individual may use to coerce reality so that it conforms with his own particular belief system (8). hethods designed to preserve one's belief-disbelief system intact are: (a) cognitive isolation between belief and disbelief system, (b) assimilation into the belief sys- tem, (c) cognitive isolation within the belief system, (d) de-differentiation within the disbelief system; the accen- tuation of similarities and the minimization of differences and (e) cognitive narrowing. Set may be defined as an expectancy that a particular type of behavior will lead to a particular result. The purpose of the present investigation is to demon- strate experimentally the difference between dogmatism and rigidity. The intent is to confront subjects with a cogni- tive task which, if it is to be solved, involves two discrete stages of problem solution: (1) the overcoming of two or more separate sets and (2) the integration of the sets over- come into a solution of the problem. It is the general hypothesis that individuals high and low in rigidity, as measured by a personality scale, will be distinguished from each other on (1) above, namely, their relative ease in overcoming separate sets. On the other hand, it is further hypothesized that individuals high and low in dogmatism, as measured by a personality scale, will be distinguished from each other on (2) above, namely, their relative ease in integrating sets already overcome. More specifically, the following six hypotheses will be tested: A. Concerning total time taken to solve the problem which involves both the overcoming of sets and their integration: 1. Persons high in rigidity should take more time to complete the '0 roblem than persons low in rigidity. 2. Persons high in dogmatism should take more time to complete the problem than persons low in dogmatism. B. Concerning the overcoming of specific sets: 1. Persons known to be high in rigidity should take more time in the overcoming of the sets than persons low in rigidity. 2. Persons high in dogmatism should take no more time in overcoming the sets than persons low in dogmatism. C. Concerning the integration of sets already overcome: 1. Persons high in dogmatism should take more time in integrating the sets already overcome than persons low in dogmatism. 2. Persons high in rigidity should take no more time in integrating the sets already overcome than persons low in rigidity. THE DEANY DOODLEBUG PROBLEM The cognitive task employed will be called the Denny Doodlebug Problem. This problem was devised by Dr. M. Ray Denny of Michigan State College while he was a student at the Dr. THE THE University of Iowa and revised by Dr. Milton Rokeach, M. Ray Denny, Mr. Elliot Eeitner and the writer. The problem as given to the subjects is as follows: CONDITIONS: Joe Doodlebug is a strange sort of imaginary bug. He can and cannot do the following things: 1. He can Jump in only four different directions, north, south, east and west, not diagonally. (Not southeast, northwest, etc.) 2. Once he starts in any direction, that is north, south, east or west, he must Jump four times in that same direction before he can switch to another direction. 3. He can only Jump, not crawl, fly or walk. 4. He can Jump very large distances or very small distances, but not less than one inch per Jump. 5. Joe cannot turn around. SITUATION: Joe has been Jumping all over the place getting some exercise when his master places a pile of food three feet directly west of him. Joe notices that the pile of food is a little larger than he. As soon as Joe sees all this food he stops dead in his tracks facing north. After all his exercise Joe is very hungry and wants to get to the food as quickly as he possibly can. Joe examines the situation and then says, "Darn it, I'll have to Jump four times to get the food!" THE PROBLEM: Joe Doodlebug was a smart bug and he was dead right in his conclusion. Why do you suppose Joe Doodlebug had to take four Jumps, no more and no less, to reach the food? The correct solution is that Joe had already taken one Jump east before the food was placed down and therefore had to take three more Jumps east before he could change his direction and then take one big sideways Jump west to the food; a total of four Jumps as required by the problem. To be noted first is that this problem includes three discrete sets or, if you will, three isolated beliefs which must first be overcome and then interrelated in order to arrive at the correct solution. The mere overcoming of the three sets will not in itself lead to the solution. ihe sets must also be integrated. The sets in the problem are as follows: (a) The facing set: Joe does not have to face the food in order to eat it. (b) The direction set: Joe can Jump sideways and back- wards as well as forward. (0) The movement set: Joe was moving east when the food was presented. The overcoming of each of these sets necessitates the removal of older sets. The subject is asked during the experiment to go along with a hypothetical system of reality which con- tradicts present reality and which involves the overcoming, at least temporarily, of sets inherent in present reality for the sake of solving the problem. In the case of set (a) above (the facing set) the subJects must overcome the notion that the food must be faced from the north, south, the east or the west and arrive at the notion that Joe can face the food by landing on top of it. As can be seen from the conditions set forth the food is a bit larger in area than Joe. In the case of set (b) the subJects had to overcome the idea that Joe could only Jump forward. He could, of course, also Jump sideways and backwards. Set (0) requires the subJect to perceive Joe in the process of moving rather than at the beginning of a sequence of four Jumps in a given direction as the problem begins. It should be noted further that the overcoming of each of the sets itself will not necessarily lead to the solution. An integration of these three sets is indispensable for the solution. The solution of the problem, namely, that Joe Jumps three times sideways to the east and once sideways to the west to land on top of the food, involves the integra— tion of each of the three sets. If the theoretical distinction between the two Concepts, dogmatism and rigidity, is a valid one then one should ex- pect that subJects high in rigidity, as measured by a per- sonality scale, should take more time to overcome the first set, more time to overcome the second set and more time to overcome the third set than subJects low in rigidity (Hyp- othesis B,l). Conversely, subJects high in dogmatism, as “measured by another personality scale, by virtue of the greater strength of their closed system should take more time to integrate the sets already overcome into a new system as compared with those low in dogmatism (Hypothe- sis C,l). Furthermore, one should not expect that sub- Jects differing in dogmatism would differ significantly in speed of overcoming specific sets (Hypothesis B,2), nor should one expect subJects differing in rigidity to differ significantly in speed of integration (Hypothesis 0,2). ll SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURE One hundred and nine students, mostly sophomores, enrolled in Psychology 201 at Michigan State College were employed as subJects. These students were all native white and non-Jewish with a mean age of 20.44 years. There were 64 males and 45 females in this group. These subJects were given a battery of tests which included the twenty- two item "California Psychological Inventory Rigidity Scale" devised by Dr. Harrison Gough and Dr. Nevitt Sanford (3). This test is shown in Appendix A. Dr. Gough and Dr. Sanford report an uncorrected split-half reliability of .93. In another study by Rokeach, it was found to have a reliability of .83, corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula. Also given was the "Dogmatism Scale" (7) as devised by Dr. Milton Rokeach. This is a thirty-sin item test and is shown in Appendix B. This test, in the present study, was found to have a reliability of .73, corrected by the Spear- man-Brown formula. Both of these tests were scored by the use of a Likert-type scale ranging from plus three for com- plete agreement to a minus three for complete disagreement. From the total group of 109 subJects, four groups of fifteen subjects each were chosen as follows: A. Fifteen subJects, eight males and seven females, who scored highest both on the Rigidity and the Dogmatism Scales. B. Fifteen subJects, seven males and eight females, who scored lowest both on the Rigidity and the Dogmatism Scales. 0. Fifteen subJects, eleven males and four females, who scored low on the Rigidity Scale and high on the Dogmatism Scale. D. Fifteen subJects, seven males and eight females, who scored high on the Rigidity Scale and low on the Dogmatism Scale. Thus there were a total of thirty subJects high in rigidity, (Groups A and D) and thirty subJects low in rigidity (Groups B and C). There were also a total of thirty subJects high in dogmatism, (Groups A and C) and thirty subJects low in dogmatism (Groups B and D). These sixty subJects were then individually scheduled to take the Denny Doodlebug Problem.1 Each problem inter- view required approximately forty-five minutes and the sixty interviews were conducted over a three and one-half week period. All of the interviews were conducted within the space of one school quarter. At no time was the writer aware of the scores obtained by the subJects on the per- sonality tests. This information was obtained only after the data on the Denny Doodlebug Problem were analyzed by the writer. for the sixty subJects initially selected for individual testing, 58 showed up. Two additional subJects were selected from the larger pool of subjects to complete the sample. Each interview was conducted in the same manner and timed with a wrist watch. The procedure and in- structions were as follows: "Today you are going to be given a newly devised -test of general intelligence. The problem is not a simple one but the solution can be reached by good logical analysis. Here is the problem. Read it over carefully." After the subJect reads the problem, the experimenter continues: "I'd like to ask you to think out loud as you work -the problem so I can let you know whether you are correct or not. You may ask questions as you go along and may refer to the problem at any time and you can use the scratch paper any way you see fit. Now let's read the problem over to— gether." The total time allowed for the solution of the problem was thirty minutes. The experimenter willingly answered all questions pertaining to possible solutions. For the first fifteen minutes of the problem the sub- Ject was permitted to work continuously regardless of whether he was able to overcome any or all of the three sets by himself. If he overcame any of the three sets by himself, the time taken to overcome the set was recorded. At the end of the fifteen minutes the experimenter inter- rupted the subJect and asked: "Have you figured it out yet?" If the subJect had not, the experimenter gave a hint de- signed to overcome one of the three sets. Which hint was given by the experimenter depended upon which sets the subJects had overcome on their own. If the subJects had not solved the problem and had not overcome any of the sets, as indicated by verbal report, then the experimenter gave the first hint designed to overcome the facing £23. The subJects were then told that they would be given five minutes more to solve the problem. If no solution was forthcoming at the end of this time, the subJects were given a second hint designed to overcome the direction set. The subJects were then told that they would be given five minutes more to solve the problem. If no solution was forthcoming at the end of this time, the subJects were given the third hint designed to overcome the movement set. The subJects were then told that they would be given five minutes more to solve the problem. The problem was termi- nated at the end of thirty minutes whether or not a solu- tion had been reached. In the case where subJects overcame one set on their own within the first fifteen minutes of the problem, they were given the second set at the end of that fifteen min- ute period and the third set at the end of the twenty min- ute period. In the case where subJects overcame two sets on their own within the first fifteen minutes of the prob- lem, they were given the third hint at the end of that fifteen minute period. By means of the procedure outlined above, three types of time measures were obtained as follows: 15 1. Total time taken to solve the problem. This total time was then broken down into two types of set scores as shown below. 2. Time taken to overcome sets. a. Time taken to overcome the first set. b. Time taken to overcome the second set. c. Time taken to overcome the third set. 3. Time taken to integrate sets already overcome. a. Time taken after the first set was overcome. b. Time taken after the second set was overcome. c. Time taken after the third set was overcome. The subJects began working on the problem after the following instructions were given: "Unless you have any questions about the problem -itself, we will begin. You have fifteen minutes to solve the problem." If the correct solution had not been reached within the fifteen minutes, the experimenter then said: "OK, time's up. Have you figured it out yet?" The hints were given as needed and as follows: 1. The facing set was given in the following way as needed: "I'm going to give you a hint. 'Joe does not -have to face the food in order to eat it.’ (Repeat hint.) OK, I'll give you five more minutes." 2. The direction set was given in the following way as needed: "I'll give you another hint:'Joe can Jump side- -ways and backwards as well as forward.‘ (Repeat hint.) I'll give you five more minutes." 3. The movement set was given in the following way as needed: "Let's read the problem again. (E and S reread .the problem.) Now here is a last hint: 'Joe was moving east when the food was presented.' (Repeat hint.) You have five more minutes." The interview w"s concluded with the following instruc— tions: "write down on the sheet of scratch paper Just what you thought of this problem as a test of your intelligence. Your opinion is valuable to us." When this was completed, the experimenter continued as follows: "Before you leave I want to tell you a couple .of things about the problem. First of all, it was not a test of general intelligence. Secondly, here is the solution. (This was told if S had not solved the probled.) Mrs. Thomas (the subJects' class teacher) will give you some idea as to how this problem is related to the other tests you took in class. It is extremely important that you do not discuss this problem with your classmates for previous knowledge of the problem would ruin the experiment. I might also tell you that your name will in no way be connected with the results of this experiment. Thanks for your help." During the interview period, the experimenter recorded all the statements made by the subJects. As an illustration of the scoring technique em;loyed, the writer will present a typical case and indicate how it was scored. After five minutes of the problem lad elapsed, the subJect stated that Joe could Jump sidewajs. At the ‘4‘; and of the fifteen minute :erio only this set had been overcome and the experimenter then gave the subJect the hint which gave him the facing set. After a total of twenty minutes had elapsed and the subject had not overcome the third set, it was presented to him by the experimenter in the form of a hint. Four minutes later, twenty-four minutes after the start of the problem, the subJect reached the correct solution. In this illustration, the following scores were ob- tained: l. The total time taken to solve the problem was twenty-four minutes. 2. Time taken to overcome sets. a. Time taken to overcome the first set was five minutes. b. Time taken to overcome the second set was fifteen minutes. 0. Time taken to overcome the third set was twenty minutes. 3. Time taken to integrate sets already overcome. a. Time taken after the first set was overcome was nineteen minutes. b. Time taken after the second set was overcome was nine minutes. 0. Time taken after the third set was overcome was four minutes. This scoring procedure was followed for all of the subJects. 18 First some relevant findings of the initial group of 109 subjects will be presented. The mean personality rigidity score was a plus 4.74 and the mean personality dogmatish score was a negative 19.05. A Pearson r was computed between rigidity and dogmatism which was found to be a positive .47. American Council of Education total scores were available for 93 of these subJects. The Fear— son correlation between these scores and dogmatism was a plus .13. The Pearson correlation between these scores and rigidity was a negative .22. These correlations sug- gest that dogmatism and rigidity are related to I.Q., as measured by the American Council of Education test, to a very small extent. For the sixty subjects who were given the Denny Doodlebug Problem, the mean rigidity score was a negative 4.42 and the mean dogmatism score was a negative 19.75. The mean dogmatism and rigidity scores of each of the four groups of fifteen subjects is shown in Table 1, page 19. Table l is merely an informative table indicating the actual mean differences between he four selected groups. It should be noted that the mean rigidity scores 5 \f' TABLE I MEAN DOGMATISM AND RIGIDITY SCORES FOR THE GROUPS TESTED Kean Dogmatism Mean Rigidity Group Score Score Group A High In Dogmatigm And High In Rigidity 3-40 21.00 Group B Low In Dogmatism And Low In Rigidity -45-00 -18.27 Group C High In Dogmatism And Low In Rigidity - 5.80 - .07 Group D Low In Dogmatism And High In Rigidity ~30.60 15.00 TABLE 2 COMPARISON BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW DOGMATIC GROUPS AND BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW RIGID GROUPS ON THE TOTAL TIME TAKEN TO SOLVE THE DENNY DOODLEBUG PROBLEM’ Fest- Signif- inger's icance Group N Mean 0- F D .F .** Level High Dogmatic 30 22.62 5.13 . L=lO22 Low Dogmatic 30 21.37 5.18 1-05 5:1168 5% High Rigid 30 23.05 4.31 L: 786 Low Rigid 30 20.93 5.78 1.10 5:1714 5% * Using a one tail test of significance. ** Under Degrees of Freedom, L stands for the larger variance and S stands for the smaller variance. :range from a plus 21.00 to a minus 18.27 and the dogmatism scores from a plus 3.40 to a minus 45.00. From this it can be noted that while the rigidity scores are relatively equally distributed, the dogmatism scores are definitely positively skewed. The N of 109 from which this sample was chosen was similarly skewed for the dogmatism measure and skewed in the opposite direction, to a lesser degree, for the rigidity mea sure 0 In Table 2, page 19, is presented the mean total times taken to solve the problem by those high and low in dogmatism and those high and low in rigidity. As can be seen from this table, the highly dogmatic group took a mean total time of 22.62 minutes to solve the problem as compared with a mean total time of 21.37 minutes for the low dogmatic group. Simi- larly, the highly rigid group took a mean total time of 23.05 minutes to solve the problem as compared with a mean total time of 20.9} minutes for the low rigid group. Because of the fact that the distributions of the various time scores were positively skewed, a one-tailed2 application of Festinger's F test was employed throughout (2). The test assumes that the measure used varies freely from zero to in- finity. When the values of both p and n are greater than fifteen there is little difference between this test and the normal t test since the larger the value of p the less the skewness of the population (2). With the present data p was often less than 15. 2 It should be pointed out that ordinarily the F test is a two tail test but since the direction of the differences was predicted in advance, a one tail test should be used. The general formula of this non-parametric test M1 is as follows: F: where M1 is the larger mean. The degrees of freedom for the larger and smaller vari— ance is obtained by the formula: df 2np where n is M2 4.2 p are found for both the larger and smaller variances the number of cases and p: . The values of n and by the use of this group of formuli. The significance of the F obtained may be determined by reference to Snedecor's Tables of F. The difference in the mean total times taken by the High and Low Dogmatic groups were found to be signifi- cantly different from each other beyond the five percent level of confidence when Festinger's F test was employed. The difference in the mean total times taken by the High and Low Rigid groups were also found to be significantly different from each other beyond the five percent level. These findings corroborate the first two hypotheses (A,l and A,2), namely that persons high in rigidity should take more time to complete the problem than persons low in rigidity and that persons high in dogmatism should take more time to solve the problem or to complete it than persons low in dogmatism. The total time taken to complete the Denny Doodlebug Problem differentiates significantly the High from the Low dogmatic groups and also the High from the Low rigid groups. The analysis thus far, however, does not tell one to what extent these TABLE 3 COMPARISON BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW RIGID GROUPS AND BETWEEN HIGH AND LOW DOGMATIC GROUPS ON THE VARIOUS MEASURES INVOLVING THE OVERCOMING OF SETS* I. Number of minutes taken to overcome first set. Fest- Significance inger's Group N Mean c' F D.F.** Level High Rigid 30 8.55 5.49 L: 145 4 Low Rigid 30 5.85 5.17 1-46 3.: 77 SR High Dogmatic 30 7.40 5.39 I.: 92 Low Dogmatic 30 7.00 5.64 1-05 ~s= 113 N-S~ II. Number of minutes taken to overcome second set. Fest- Significance inger’s Group N Mean 4— F‘ D.F.** Level High Rigid 30 15.95 1.55 L=1049 Low Rigid 30 14.37 3.45 1-11 5:6334 1% High Dogmatic 30 15.28 2.84 L=l238 Low Dogmatic 30 14.93 3.29 1-02 s=1745 N-S- III. Number of minutes taken to overcome third set. Fest- Significance inger's Group N mean a- F D.F.** Level High Rigid 30 19.87 2.73 L=1364 ‘ LOW Rigid 30 18.37 3.85 1°08 3.3179 1% High Dogmatic 30 19.23 3.05 L=1343 Low Dogmatic 30 19.00 4.02 1-01 5:2383 N-S- IV. Number of sets overcome within the first fifteen minutes. Fest- Significance inger's Group N Mean 6— F D.F.** Level High Rigid 30 .80 .70 Ls 115 % Low Rigid 30 1,30 ’94 1.62 S, 79 1, High Dogmatic 30 1.07 .93 L‘ 80 r q Low Dogmatic 30 1.03 .80 1'04 S: 100 h-~- * Using a one tail test of significance. -** Under Degrees of Freedom, L stands for the larger variance and S stands for the smaller variance. 23 differences are attributable to relative differences in ease or difficulty of overcoming individual sets or to ease or difficulty of integration of new sets after the old sets had been overcome. let us consider first the problem of the amount of time taken to overcome the individual sets. The results relevant to this are shown in Table 3, page 22. With respect to time taken to overcome the first set, one finds that the High and Low Rigid groups are significantly different from each other in the amount of time taken. The former took a mean time of 8.55 minutes while the latter took a mean time of only 5.85 minutes. This difference is significant at the five percent level of confidence. In contrast, the High Dogmatic group is not significantly different from the Low Dogmatic group on this measure. This same method of interpretation may be used on all of the measures presented in Table 3. It will be noted that for the time taken to overcome the second and third sets, the High and Low Rigid groups are also significantly different from each other at the one percent level of confidence. Furthermore, as was found to be the case with the first measure, the High and Low Dogmatic groups again do not differ significantly from each other. The results shown on time taken to overcome one, two or three sets are further corroborated by a fourth measure TABLE 4 TIE-E TAKEN TO SOLVE THE D3111?! ZOCDLEEL'G ERCBLEZ-Z AFTER THE FIRST, SECCKD ARE IEIRD SETS FERE OVEECCKE BY HIGH AKD LOW DCGKATIC GROUPS AKD HIGH AKD LOW RIGID GROUPS* I. Number of minutes taken to solve problem after first set 0V8 I‘C one o Fest- Significance inger's Group N Mean 0- F D.F.** Level High Dogmatic 30 15.22 5.68 , L= 431 . Low Dogmatic 50 14.57 5.35 1-00 s: 435 k-S- High Rigid 30 15.08 5.59 L: 437 , Low Rigid 50 14.50 5.50 1.08 s: 418 1M5- II. Number of minutes taken to solve problem after second set OVGI‘C 0:38 o Fest- Significance inger's Group N Mean. 0- F D.F.** Level High Dogmatic 30 7.68 4.35 , L= 187 5 Low Dogmatic 50 6.08 3.57 1-20 s- 174 5» High Rigid 50 7.20 4.09 La 187 . Low Rigid 50 6.57 3.98 1-10 81-153 k-S- 111. Number of overcome. minutes taken to solve problem after third set Fest- Significance inger's Group N Mean 0' F D.F.** Level High Dogmatic 30 3.25 3.37 L‘~ 56 Y Low Dogmatic 50 2.50 2.99 1-30 s=- 42 h~5- High Rigid 30 3.82 3.16 6 L‘ .88 Y Low Rigid 30 2.80 2.16 1'3 s= 101 8-S- * Using a one tail test of significance. ** Under Degrees of Freedom, L stands for the larger variance and 5 stands for the smaller variance. 25 number of sets overcome within the first fifteen minutes. These data are also shown in Table 3, page 22. In support of the findings discussed with respect to time taken to overcome the first, the second and the third sets, it is found that the High and Low Rigid groups are significantly different from each other but that the High and Low Dogmatic groups are not. The mean number of sets over- come by the High Rigid group was .80 while the mean num- ber of sets overcome by the Low Rigid group was 1.30, this difference being statistically significant at the one per- cent level of confidence. In contrast, the mean number of sets overcome within the first fifteen minutes by the High and Low Dogmatic group are 1.07 and 1.03 respectively. This difference is not significant. It is thus seen that the High and Low Rigid are significantly different from each other on all four measures involving ease of overcoming individual sets while High and Low Dogmatic groups are insignificantly different from each other on all four measures. These findings confirm, in a dramatic way, Hypotheses B,l and 3,2 namely that persons known to be high in rigidity should take more time in the overcoming of sets than persons low in rigidity and persons high in dogmatism should take no more time in overcoming the sets than persons low in dogmatism. Table 4, page 24, indicates the results on time taken to solve the Denny Doodlebug Problem after he first, second and third sets were overcome. In line with Hypotheses 0,1 and 2, it is anticipated that the High and Low Dogmatic groups will differ significantly on time taken to integrate the new sets after the older sets were no longer operating (Hypothesis 0,1) but that the High and Low Rigid groups would not (Hypothesis 0,2). Accordingly, the writer does not expect either the High and Low Dogmatic groupaor the High and Low Rigid groups to differ significantly from each other on time taken to solve the problem after the flpgp set was overcome. For integration implies g; the very least the presence of two elements to be interrelated. One must look to the second and third measures, namely (1) time taken to solve the problem after the second set was overcome and (2) time taken to solve the problem after the third set was overcome, to provide one with a measure of integra- tion of new sets. Turning now to the first measure shown in Table 4 (time taken to solve the problem after the first set was overcome) one finds that the mean times taken were not significantly different either between the High and Low Dogmatic groups or between the High and Low Rigid groups. This is as expected. However, on the time taken to solve the problem after the second set was overcome, the High and Low Dog— matic groups are significantly different from each other and.the High and Low Rigid groups a3; 23;. The High Dog- matic group took a mean time of 7.68 minutes while the Low Dogmatic group took only a mean time of 5.C8 minutes. This difference is significant at the five percent level of confidence. In contrast, the High and Low Rigid groups took mean times of 7.20 minutes and 5.5? minutes respec- tively. This difference is not significant. Turning finally to the third measure (the time taken to solve the problem after the third set was overcome) no significant differences either between the High and Low Dogmatic groups or between the High and Low Rigid groups was found. The American Council of bducation test total scores were correlated with time taken to overcome the first set, number of sets overcome in the first fifteen minutes, total time taken to solve the problem after the second set was overcome and total time taken to solve the problem. The Pearsonian correlations were -.23, -.24, -.21 and plus .35 respectively. Only the last correlation between total time taken to solve the problem and total American Council of Education test scores was significant. With such low correlations, intelligence was n93 considered to be a significant variable affecting the results, eSpecially since the correlation between American Council of Education test scores and speed of overcoming sets or between American Council of Education test scores and speed of integrating sets overcome were not significant. DISCUSSIOR In general the findings are regarded as having substantiated the hypotheses presented. Both the High and Low Dogmatic groups and the High and Low Rigid groups were found to differ significantly on the total time taken to solve the Denny Doodlebug Problem. That these findings were not necessarily due to the operation of similar thought processes was demonstrated by the further findin qu \ . ‘2 regarding time taken to overcome sets and time taken to solve the problem after the various sets were overcom«. As will be recalled, the High and (D L), Low Rigid group vid and the High and Low Dogmatic groups - —_ did not differ significantly from each other on the time taken to overcome the first set, time taken to overcome the second set, time taken to overcome the third set and the number of sets overcome within the first fifteen minutes. Furthermore, the High and Low Dogmatic groups did and the High and Low Rigid groups did no_ differ significantly on the time taken to solve the problem after the second set was overcome. been pointed out why neither the H 5h H (+- :3‘ m m m d H *3 (D (a {1. <4 ()1 H F.) ’4) (D "'5 (D p; (D H 'nificantly on the time taken to solve the problem after the first set was overcome. Namely that the integration process cannot begin to operate until at least two sets have been overcome. Indeed, the fact that no significant differences were found in this connection lends strong support to the significant differences found on the time taken to solve the problem after the second set was overcome. If the integration process should make itself evident after the overcoming of two sets surely, it may be argued, it should be even more evident after three sets were overcome. Hence, in accordance with Hypothesis C,l, it should be expected that the High and Low Dogmatic groups should have been found to differ significantly on time taken to solve the problem after the third set was overcome. This was not found to be the case. Keither the High and Low Dogmatic groups nor the High and Low Rigid groups differed significantly on this measure. Some possible explanations for the positive findings with respect to the second measure (Table 4) and the negative findings with respect to the third measure (Table 4) should be considered. The subject in the experiment did not know how many sets the Denny Doodlebug Problem contained. The only basis he had for integration was after the first two sets had been given by the experimenter or overcome by the subject. Hence the measure of the time taken to solve the problem after the first two sets were overcome is considered to be the best measure of the integration period. By the time the subject had been given the third set or had overcome it by himself, too much time spent in integrating had already expired. In a sense then the third measure provides one only with a measure of the "tail-end" of the integration period rather than the Eggs; inteération period which began after the overcoming of the second set and ended at the completion of the problem. It is furthermore hardly reasonable to suppose that the integration period pegap after the third set was overcome. In line with these considerations, no significant difference between the High and Low Dogmatic groups should have been expected on time taken to solve the problem after the overcoming of the third set. To be considered next are some of the qualitative findings which distinguished the High Dogmatic from the Low Dogmatic subjects. A record was kept of all the comments made by all of the subjects during the experi- ment. In line with Hokeach's formulation of dogmatism as involving not only closed systems of thinking and believing but also the rejection of people and alternatives who threaten such closed systems, it is hypothesized that subjects high in dogmatism would more frequently make comments indicative of such rejection than those low in dogmatism. One person high in dogmatism wrote the follow- ing when asked her opinion of the Denny Doodlebug Problem as a test of general intelligence: "The problem without a doubt was a good one for Einstein but under the circumstances of being nervous and being watched I don' t think it was quite fair for a college freshman." Cther subjects known to be high in dogmatism made statements implying rejection of the experiment or the experimenter as follows: "Stupid bug, he could get there in one jump it seems to me.” "Let him starve to death'" "There is probably a catch here." "I don' t believe he has to jump four times." "What if you don't agree with it?" "That' s crazy'" "That' s irrelevant'" In collaboration with Rokeach, the numerous comments made by the subjects were categorized as dogmatic and non-dogmatic. In making these categori- zations the identification of the subject was deleted. A total of fifty comments were categorized as dogmatic. Of these, 33 were made by the High Dogmatic group and 17 by the Low Dogmatic group. By Chi Square, after the application of Yate's Correction, this difference was found to be significant at the five percent level of confidence (Chi Square = 4.50). These findings do not differentiate between the High and Low Rigid groups for after applying Yate's Correction, a Chi Square of .02 was obtained. This value of Chi Square is not significant. In spite of the fact that the hypotheses were confirmed, it is believed that these are certain phases of this research which could have been im- proved. For instance, at the end of thirty minutes the problem was stopped whether or not the subject solved the problem. The writer feels that the methodology colud be improved in future experimenta- tion with the Denny Doodlebug Problem by extending the time limit. Second, while the problem was given under ego-threatening conditions the contents of the problem appeared ludicrous to some of the subjects who conse— quently remained in relatively good humor throughout the experiment. Kinor revisions in the wording of the problem would overcome this. Third, the time was gauged by a standard wrist watch. It is believed that a stop catch would have given more exact data and would have discriminated better the differences between the groups investigated. 33 SUHRARY AND CCACLUSICKS The primary aim of this study was to investigate certain cognitive aspects of dogmatism and to distinguish such aspects from rigidity. Dogmatism was defined as "(1) a closed cogni- tive system of thinking and believing about reality, (2) orga- nized around a set of authoritarian beliefs and (3) providing a frame of reference for attitudes of intolerance and qualified tolerance toward people in general." (8, p. 3) It is a higher level of resistance to change than rigidity. Rigidity was defined as "... the inability to change one's set when the ob- jective conditions demand it..." (5) In the study the following hypotheses were tested: A. Concerning total time taken to solve the problem which in- volves both the overcoming of sets and their integration: 1. Persons high in rigidity should take more time to com- plete the problem than persons low in rigidity. 2. Persons high in dogmatism should take more time to com- plete the problem than persons low in dogmatism. B. Concerning the overcoming of specific sets: 1. Persons known to be high in rigidity should take more time in the overcoming of the sets than persons low in rigidity. 2. Persons high in dogmatism should take no more time in overcoming the sets than persons low in dogmatism. C. Concerning the integration of sets already overcome: 1. Persons high in dogmatism should take more time in in- tegrating the sets already overcome than persons low in dogmatism. 2. Persons high in rigidity should take no more time in in- tegrating the sets already overcome than persons low in rigidity. In order to test these hypotheses, the subjects were con- fronted with a cognitive task, The Denny Doodlebug Problem. The problem contained three separate sets which had to be overcome and then integrated by the subject before the correct solution could be reached. By the use of the problem, three types of measurements could be obtained: (1) total time taken to solve the problem, (2) time taken to overcome the specific sets and (3) time taken to solve the problem after the sets were overcome. One hundred and nine subjects were given a battery of tests including The California Psychological Inventory Rigidity Scale and the Dogmatism Scale. From this group sixty subjects were chosen on the basis of their scores on the dogmatism and rigi— dity tests. Thirty of the subjects were high in dogmatism and thirty were low; thirty of the subjects were high in rigidity and thirty were low. These sixty subjects were then given the Denny Doodlebug Problem. The results indicated that the High and Low Rigid groups ‘ggg and the High and Low Dogmatic groups did p23 differ signi- ficantly from each other on the time taken to overcome the :Eirst set, time taken to overcome the second set, time taken 'to overcome the third set and the number of sets overcome with- .in.the first fifteen minutes. Furthermore, the High and Low 35 Thogmatic groups did and the High and Low Rigid groups did p93 differ significantly on the time taken to solve the problem gftgg the second set was overcome. The reasons why this measure of integration was considered to be the best possible measure were discussed. The measure of dogmatism was supported by the analysis of qualitative data. All of the hypotheses were considered to be confirmed and in addition, the following conclusions were reached: (1) The research provides experimental confirmation of the theoretical distinctions drawn between dogmatism and rigidity. (2) The research provides evidence that personality factors, in this case dogmatism and rigidity, can be demonstrated at the cognitive level. BIBLIOGRAPHY (l) Cattell, R. B. and L. Ghose Tiner, "The Varieties of Structural Rigidity", Journal 3: Personality, 17: 321-341,1949 (2) Festinger, L., "A Statistical Test For Ieans of Samples From Skew Populations", Psychometrika, 8: 205- 210, 1943. (3) Gough, Harrison G. and Nevitt Sanford, "The California Psychological Inventory Rigidity Scale", An unpublished manuscript. . (4) Luchins, A. S., "Idechanization In Problem Solving: The Effect of Einstellung", Psycho.I nfonogr., 54, Do. 6, 1942. (5) Rokeach, Milton, "Generalized Mental Rigidity As A Factor In Ethnocentrism" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.-43, K0. 3, July, 1943. (6) Rokeach, Hilton, uRigidity and Ethnocentrism: A Rejoinder", Journal 9: Personality, 17:467-474, June, 1949. . (7) Rokeach,Mi1ton, "Dogmatism and Opinionation On the Left and On the Right" , Paper presented at American Psychological Association meetings in September, 1952. (8) Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism" An unpublished manuscript. I l. 2. 3. 10. ll. 12. 13. AFFEEDIX A THE CALIFCRLIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVEKTORY RIGIDITY SCALE* by Dr. Harrison G. Gough and Dr. Kevitt Sanford I wish people would be more definite about things. I don't like to work on a problem unless there is the pos- sibility of coming out with a clear—cut and unambiguous answer. I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no matter what the consequences. For most questions there is Just one right answer once a per- son is able to get all the facts. The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough. It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily routine. I often start things I never finish. I set a high standard for myself and feel others should do the same. People who seem unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfortable. Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle. I don't like things to be uncertain and unpredictable. I think that I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem to make up his mind as to what he really believes. Once I have my mind made up I seldom change it. I always see to it that my work is carefully planned and organized. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. * APPEEDIX A (Continued) Cur thinking would be a lot better off if we would ju forget about words like "probably", "approximately", "perhaps". - st and I like to have a place for everything and everything in its place. I never make Judgments about people until I am sure of the facts. I am known as a hard and steady worker. I find that a well-ordered mode of life, with regular hours and an established routine, is congenial to my temperament. A strong person will be able to make up his mind even on the most difficult questions. It is hard for me to sympathize with a person who is always doubting and unsure about things. This is from an unpublished manuscript by Drs. Gough and Sanford. l. 2. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. m! U ; IX B APPE " 113:: DOGIA’I‘ISA SCALE" by Dr. Hilton Rokeach A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived. I am afraid of peeple who want to find out what I'm really like, for fear they'd be disappointed in me. Ky blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. The worst or me a person could commit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. It is when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that he becomes important. Lan on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what's going on. It is sometimes necessary to resort to force to advance an ideal one strongly believes in. Ky hardest battles are with myself. When it comes to diffierences of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe dif- ferently from the way we do. To one who really takes the trouble to understand the world he lives in, it's a relatively eas* matter to predict future events. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own personal happiness. At times I think I am no good at all. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. APPENDIX 3 (Continued) To achieve the happiness of mankind in the future it is sometimes necessary to put up with injustices in the present. Communism and Catholicism have nothing in common. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is the future that counts. All too many people are failures and it is the system which is responsible for this. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes necessary to gamble 'all or nothing at all.' A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is be- neath contempt. If I had to choose between happiness and greatness, I'd choose greatness. There is nothing new under the sun. It is only natural for a person to have a guilty conscience. I have often felt that strangers were looking at me critically. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal or our own side. If given the chance I would do something that would be of great benefit to the world. It is by returning to our forgotten and glorious past that real social progress can be achieved. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, I sometimes have the ambition to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. I have often felt that people say insulting and vulgar things about me. To compromise with our political opponents is to be guilty of appeasement. It's all too true that most people just won't practice what they preach. APEEIDIX B (Continued) Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop. I am sure I am being talked about. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward. 11153 1. APPEIID IX C PAR‘I‘I . Please fill in the following information. DO NOT SIGN YOUR NATE. Date Sex Date of Birth City and state of birth Religion Race or national extraction What is your year in college? What is your major or planned major? What career are you planning for? What is your all-college grade point average? (Note: Ash. 3:3, 0:2, Dal, F=O) With what political party are you affiliated or which political party do you favor? With what political party are your parents affiliated or whiohpolitical party do they favor? What is the approximate population of your home town? What is the'approximte yearly income of your father? Circle one number. 1. 31000-2000 6. $6000-7000 ' 2. $000-$000 7. {1000-3000 3. $3000-u000 s. mom-9000 n. 94000-5000 9. mom-10,000 5. 45000-6000 10. our $10,000 msrnuc'riors 2. The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of important social and personal questions. The best antiwar to each statement below is y_o_ur_ Ersonal Opinion. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing with sane of the statements, disagreeing with others, and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement , you can be sure that many other people feel the same way you do. Mark each statement in the left margin according to how you feel in each / case. Write in 1 if you disagree with the statement, 2 if you agree with the statement in part, and 3 if you agree with the statement. Please mark every one. 1: I DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT 2: I AGREE WITH THE STATENIEN'I' IN PART 3: I AGREE wITH THE summer 1. Only a misguided idealist would believe that the United States is an imperialistic war-manger. 2. A person must be pretty stupid if he thinks that the United States is doing all it can to prevent a third World War. ***#** 3. It is perfectly clear to any intelligent person that America's economic program to help backward countries is really the same old imperialism in a new disguise. 1+. Anyone who is really for democracy knows very well that the only way for America to head off revolution and civil war in backward countries is to send economic aid. *#**** 5. There were two kinds of people who fought Truman's Fair Deal program: . the selfish and the stupid. 6. It's the people who have no initiative and no ambition who want a welfare state. ****** 7. Any person with even norml intelligence can plainly see that the real reason America is reaming is to step aggression. 8. Make no mistake about it! The real reason America is re-arming is to head off a depression. - 11. 12. 130 11!». 15. 16. 17. 16. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23 0 2h. l: I DISNGREE‘WITH THI:STAITNE$HT 3. 2: I AGRE32WITBZTH133TATEMENT IN'PART 3: I AGREIVWITHITHE STATEMENT It's the peOple who foolishly believe everything they read in the papers who are convinced that Russia is pursuing a ruthless policy of imperialistic aggression. It's the fellow travellers and Reds who try to tell us that Russia is interested only in peace. ##**** .Any person with even a brain in his head knows that it would be dangerous to allow the Uhited States to be run by men like General MecArthur. It is perfectly clear to all thinking persons that General MacArthur is one of the truly great men of our times. ****#* .A person must be pretty stupid if he still believes in differences between the races. It's usually the trouble—makers who keep yelling that all races deserve equal rights in everything. ****** Anyone who really knows his history knows very well that human freedom and private enterprise go together. History clearly shows that it is the private enterprise system which is at the root of depressions and wars. '****** It's the reactionaries who try to make us believe that labor has too much power. It's the agitators or labor racketeers who yell the loudest about labor's right to strike. ‘ ****** History will show that Churchill's victory over the labor Party in 1951.was a step backward for the British people. History will show that Churchill's victory over the labor Party in 1951 was a step forward for the British people. ****** It's simply incredible that anyone should believe that socialized medicine will actually help solve our health problems. It's the gullible people who have been taken in by the propaganda line of the A.M.A.(Amarican Medical Association) who are against socialized medicine. #***** It's perfectly clear to all thinking persons that.America's increasing friendliness toward Franco Spain has harmed the cause of democracy. EVen a person of Just average intelligence knows very well that the United States, in order to defend itself against aggression, should welcome all help -- including Franco Spain. ****** 31. 32. 1: I DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT 2: I AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT IN PART 3: I AGREE WITH THE STATW You just can't help but feel sorry for the person who believes that the world could exist without a Creator. It's the people who can't stand on their own two feet who have to believe in some supernatural being. *e#*** The plain unadulterated fact is this! Chiang Kai-Shek is and always was a corrupt politician who never really cared about the Chinese people. This much is certain: The only way to defeat tyranny in China is to support Chiang Kai-Shek. **#*** It is perfectly ridiculous to think that Eisenhower‘will really try to strengthen American democracy. .A person.must be pretty ignorant if he thinks that Eisenhower is going to let the "big boys" run this country. ****** . Anyone who really knows what's going on will have to edmdt that America's rearmament program.is designed to increase profits. The American rearmament program.is clear and positive proof that the United States is willing to sacrifice to preserve its freedom. ****** FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS mark each of the following statements according to how much you agree or disagree with it. ‘Write in +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, ~3, depending on how you. feel in each case. Please mark every one. +1: +2: +3: 33- an. I AGREE A LITTLE --l: I DISAGREE A II'I'I‘IE I ACHIEE PRETTY MUCH «.2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH labor unions should become stronger and have more influence gener- ally. EVen though.many atheists become religious when old or dying, this does not constitute proof for God's existence. ‘Whether it's alright to manipulate people or not, it is certainly alright when it's for their own good. A.man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. “380 “O In. M. 1:9. 5o. 51. +1: I AGREE A HTTIE -1; I DISAGREE A LITTIE +2: I AGREE PRM‘TY MIDH -2: I DISAGIEE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH I work under a great deal of tension. I wish people would be more definite about things. A person should be free to believe in whatever he wishes, even the our country's enemies may believe in the same things. I am afraid of people who want to find out what I'm really like, for fear they'd be disappointed in me. A person who Ins bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along with decent people. Most government controls over business should be continued and even strengthened. I have nightmres every few nights. If a man fails to practice what he preaches, there's something wrong with what he preaches. In certain things Stalin is right. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit ‘hfl' 8 Wrong. If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off. My sleep is fitful and disturbed. I don't like to work on a problem unless there is the possibility of coming out with a clear-cut and unambiguous answer. The worst crime a person could conmit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. If a man believes that being questioned about his beliefs is un- American then, whether he is a conmunist or not, he is justified in refusing to testify before Congress. Men like Henry Ford or J.P. Morgan, who overcame all competition on the road to success, are models for all young people to admire and imitate. The business man and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor. The fact that God exists is proven by the fact that so many millions of people believe in him. It is when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that he becanes important. __ 59. w 60. 61. 62.. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. +1: I am A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE 6. +2:IAGREEPRE1'I'YMUCH ~2:IDISAGREEPRETTYMUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. Whether Russian scientists are free or not, they have advanced our knowledge of nature. I frequently notice my land shakes when I try to do something. Young peOple sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. I frequently find myself worrying about something. In general, full economic security is bad; most men wouldn't work if they didn't need the money for eating and living. Even in war, if a person refuses to testify before a Senate conmittee on the grounds that it violates his personal integrity, he is to be admired. Do unto others as they do unto you. I'd like it if I could find saneone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. What this country needs meet, more than laws and political programs, is a few courageous, tireless, devoted leaders in whom the people can put their faith. I get anxious and upset when I have to make a short trip away from home. I am in favor of a very strict enforcement of all laws, no matter what the consequences. 70. Whether you approve of Comunism or not, you have to admit that 71. 72. 73- 71+. Karl Marx has made an important contribution to our understanding of econanics. Unfortunately, a good mny people with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what's going on. . .' I am often afraid of the dark. America may not be perfect, but the American Way has brought us about as close as human beings can get to a perfect society. For most questions there is jmt one right answer once a person is able to get all the facts. +1: I AGREE A IITTIE -1: I DISAGREE A II'ITIE 7. +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH Whether one approves of filibustering or not, it is alright if it's for a good cause. The Us, the Vatican, and Russia have a number of things in common. It is sometimes necessary to resort to force to advance an ideal one strongly believes in. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative. I have often been frightened in the middle of the night. The trouble with many people is that they don't take things seriously enough. My hardest battles are with myself. I admire the courage of those who risk contempt proceedings for refusing to testify before a Senate committee on the grounds that being questioned about one's beliefs is not Justified. Nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffering. Several times a week I feel as if something dreadful is about to happen. The reason we should show consideration for others is that they will reciprocate and show consideration for us. When it canes to differences of opinion in religion we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do. I am a high-strung person. There are, after all, some things about Russia which we might well try to imitate. tht the youth needs is strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will to work and fight for family and country. It bothers me when something unexpected interrupts my daily routine. To one who really takes the trouble to understand the world he lives in, it's a relatively easy matter to predict future events. An insult to our honor should always be punished. I am troubled by discomfort in the pit of my stomach every few days 01' Oftenflre I set a high standard for myself and I feel others should do the same. +1: I AGREE.A LITTLE -l: I DISAGREE.A IITTIE 8' +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2; I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 95. The fallacy in Hitler's theories is Shown by the fact that, after all, he lost the'war.; 96. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own personal happiness. 97. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped, or worse. 96. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot sit long in a chair. 99. People who seem unsure and uncertain about things make me feel uncomfor- table a ' 100. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude, and respect for his parents. 3853 9. D“°__. Sex Date of Birth Race or national extraction Religion City and state of birth PART II The following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a number of hmportant social and personal questions. The best answer to each statement below is 2223 personal opinion. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing Just as strongly with others, and perhaps un- certain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many other people feel the same way you do. Mhrk each statement in the left margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. ‘Write in +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case. +1: I AGREE A LITTLE -l: I DISAGREE A II'I'I‘IE +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE Vm MUCH ~3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 101. At times I think I am no good at all. 102. Most of our social problems would be solved if we could sanehow get rid of the innnoral, crooked, and feebleminded people. 103. I am easily embarrassed. 101+. Most of the arguments or quarrels I get into are over matters of principle. 105. Appreciation of others is a healthy attitude, since it is the only way to have; them appreciate you. 106. To achieve the happiness of mankind in the future it is sometimes necessary to put up with injustices in the present. 107. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished. 106. I feel anxiety about something or someone almost all the time. —* 109. 110. 111. 113. 11A. 115. 116 O 117. 116. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 12”. 125. 126. 127. 126. +1: I AGREE A IITTIE -1: I DISAGREE.A IITTLE 10. +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH ~2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 'When a person.has a problem.or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. Zootsuiters prove that when people of their type have too much money and freedom, they Just take advantage and cause trouble. Communism and Catholicism.have nothing in common. Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power ‘whose decisions he obeys without question. The future is too uncertain for a person to make serious plans. I think that I am stricter about right and wrong than most people. What is wrong with socialization, as seen in England, is that it results in severe rationing. Negroes have their rights, but it is best to keep them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too much contact with Whites. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is the future that counts . Some people are born with an urge to Jump from.high places. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over something that really did not matter. It is annoying to listen to a lecturer who cannot seem.to make up his mind as to What he really believes. .All too many people are failures and it is the system.which is responsible for this. One trouble with Jewish business men is that they stick together and prevent other peOple from having s fair chance in competition. PeOple can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces. The reason you should not criticize others is that they will turn around and criticize you. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it is sometimes necessary to gamble 'all or nothing at all'. I am.sasily awakened by noise. The worst danger to real Americanism during the last 50 years has come from foreign ideas and agitators. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 131+. 135 e 136 . 137. 138. 139. 1N0. 1+1. 1A2. 1A3. 11m. 11:5. 116. 11:7. 1%. 11:9. 11. +1: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH I often start things I never finish. There seems to be a lump in my throat much of the tune. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt. Some day it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things. I have diarrhea once a month or more. Once I have my mind made up I seldom.change it. It's better not to talk about people behind their back, because_ sooner or later it gets back to them, and you get a reputation as a gossip. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew. If I had to choose between happiness and greatness, I'd choose greatness. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole world. I find it hard to keep my.mind on a task or Job. I always see to it that my work is carefully planned and organized. There is nothing new under the sun. It would be a.mistake ever to have Negroes for foreman and leaders over‘Whites. - No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough will power. I am worried about sex matters. Radio and TV programs should employ only loyal Americans, so as not to lose their audiences. It is only natural for a person to have a guilty conscience. Sometimes, when embarrassed, I break out in a sweat which annoys me greatly. There may be a few exceptions, but in general, Jews are pretty much alike. It is best to use some prewar authorities in Germany to keep order and prevent chaos. 167 . 168 . 169 . 12. +1: I AGREE.A LIPTLE -l: I DISAGREE.A LITTLE +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH Our thinking would be a lot better off if we would Just forget about words like 'probably',‘approximately', and 'perhaps'. I have often felt that strangers were looking at me critically. Mbst people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places. life is a strain for me much of the time. I like to have a place for everything and everything in its place. The trouble with Communism is that, in all of human history, it has never worked. If Negroes live poorly, it's mainly because they are naturally lazy, ignorant and without self-contrdl. To compromise with out political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. I cannot keep my mind on one thing. Taxation without representation is wrong, because sooner or later people rebel., If given the chance I would do something that would be of great benefit to the world. The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. Almost every day something happens to frighten me. It is by returning to our forgotten and glorious past that real social progress can be achieved. Generosity is a healthy way of life, because he who casts his bread upon the waters shall have it returned ten-fold. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, I sometimes have the ambition to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. I feel uneasy indoors. Now that a new world organization is set up, America must be sure that she loses none of her independence and complete power as a sovereign nation. I am.known as a hard and steady worker. 170 e 171. 172. 173. 17A. 175. 176. 177 . 178. 179. 180. 161. 182. 183. 18A. 185. 186. 187 . 166. 169. +1: I AGREE A 11mm -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE 13. +2: I AGREE PRETTY MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH The American economic and political system is preferable to the Russian, because the Soviet system.means long hours at poor wages. I have often felt that people say insulting and vulgar things about“ me. Familiarity breeds contempt. I worry quite a bit over possible misfortunes. I find that a well-ordered mode of life, with regular hours and an established routine, is congenial to my temperament. The reason that criticism is a poor policy is that it prevents you from.making and keeping friends. To compromise with our political Opponents is to be guilty of appeasement. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself especially care- fully against catching an infection or disease from them. It makes me nervous to have to wait. A.strong person will be able to make up his mind even on the most difficult questions. I am.sfraid of finding myself in a closet or a small closed place. It's all too true that most people Just won't practice what they preach. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. It is hard for me to sympathize with a person who is always doUbting and unsure about things. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I Just can't stop. Negroes deserve equal treatment, because there is as yet no scientific evidence showing that there is any real difference in body odors. I am sure I am being talked about. The wild sex-life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame compared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it. I never make Judgments about people until I am sure of the facts. The united States and Russia have Just about nothing in common. +1: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE .14. +2: I AGREE PREI'I'Y MUCH -2: I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH +3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH 190. The reason it's better to let people make up their own minds is because they won't follow your advice anyway. 191. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. 192. I don't like things to be uncertain and unpredictable. 193. It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward. 19”. You should only criticize others when you are above reproach ~yourself. \\\\\ - . u .v.. ..-.... .- :.¢.|n.|.l-II-|.I|:|-.le..l....ltluu~.|._l.... .n’l ll - t, , _ .I'I. .li'lllvtl‘lf'll'l. 'I .v'...+7nr:7.l . L ill-ll rrrrr um max-4 "7'71 MATTHEW'1“