F 1 i343 Illlll TH _ A STUDY OF THE RELATKDNSHW BETWEEN TEME FIRSPECTNE AN!) OPEN-CLOSED BELIEF SYSWMS M: for em Dogma a? M. A. WWW SKATE UNEVERSITY $5:th Jaseph Bonim‘ Wfi? n1!!!- LIBRA R Y Michigan State University A STUDY OF THE BEATIONSHIP EfiTNEEN TIRE 173%?me AND OPEN-CLOSED 3:11:13“ SYSZEB By \ Richard Joseph Bonier A TEESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of lichigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of METER OF ARTS Department of Psycholcgy 1957 Rokeach's theory of open and closed belief systems states in part that individuals of high dogmatim more frequently possess “narrow" time perspectives, emphasiz- ing one time area to the detriment of a more comprehensive integration of past, present, and future. High dogmatics, maintaining an extreme intolerance of ambiguity, are over- ly preoccupied with the future, perhaps the most ambiguous medium in Man's conceptual environment. This study is an attempt to test the above assertions as well as others do- riving from the same body of theory. A group of fifteen introductory psychology students scoring as high dogmatics on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and a group of fifteen students scoring low on the scale were given the following battery of tests; five TAT cards ( 2, 4, 7m, 9H, 12%), a set of semantic differential items to rate with reference to their TAT stories, and a “Time Scale" upon which the temporal orientation as well as the temporal scope of each story was Judged. These three measures were employed to assess the nature of the subjects' time perspective, tendency to structure their temporal sur- rounds, and the breadth of their time perspective. A second study was completed two terms later. Since individuals who were barely one standard deviation from the mean of the total group dogmatism score were tested in the first study, it was felt that individuals with more extreme scores should yield more clear cut results. The second _ study was identical to the first except that the semantic differential was dropped and each subject was given the Army version of the Heineman Forced Choice Anxiety Scale. (Anxiety is asumed to be a concomitant of intolerance of ambiguity and acessive preoccupation with the future.) In the second study all subJ sets were rated by three Judges with respect to degree of manifest anxiety and degree of future orientation. In both studies individuals of the high dogmatic group produced a greater percentage of future tense and less pre- sent tense than subJectsin the low dogmatic group. Both groups gave almost identical percentages of past tense res- ponses. Judges' ratings corroborated this finding. The semantic differential items failed to differentiate, with the exception of item #2. Low dogmatics more frequently perceived their stories as ”active“ than as "passive”. This difference was significant at the .05 level of confidence. Both Judges' ratings and the anxiety scale indicated a significant tendency for anxiety to increase with an increase in dogmatism. The time scale failed to differentiate groups with respect to apperceived time perspective. High dogmatics had a ten- dency, significant at the .07 level, to rate their productions as encompassing a greater breadth than the ratings of low dog- matics e ‘A content analysis of twenty subjects' TAT protocols suggested that stories of a threatening nature are not un- common to the high dogmatic group, but are virtually nonex- istent in the protocols of the low'dogmatic group. The writer feels that the results of the two studies support the theoretical framework upon which the studies 'were based. It seems that the tendency of high.dogmatics to rate their stories as having greater scope may be a de- fense designed to help the individual perceive himself as possessing adequate resources to protect against the ambi- guity of the future. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer of this thesis would like to express his sincere gratitude for the aid and helpful advice given to him throughout this study by Dr. Milton Rokeach, his maJor professor. The writer is also grateful for the guidance of Drs. Earl Carlson and Alfred Dietze. Without the exper- ienced assistance of these professors, the task of carrying out this proJ ect and writing the thesis would have been much more difficult. The writer wishes to express his appreciation for the help of John Laffey, Alfred Cram, and Theodore Swanson for listening to and Judging interminable hours of taped TAT protocols, representing the TAT stories of all thirty sub- Jects in the second study. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION mimics-Owes or 21:3. FIRST merinmr misnomer, mania Mimi’s 2......”. DISCUSSION......................................... BIlEImPAPHY-O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.0... Page 12 18 25 50 42 48 52 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I. Study Number 1. Percentage Future Tense 18 in TAT Protocols (Five Cards massed) for Thirty Subjects. 'White's T Test. II. Study Number 1. Percentage Present Tense 19 in TAT Protocols. (Five Cards Lassen) for Thirty Subjects. White's T Test. III. Study Number 1. Percentage Past Tense in 20 TAT Protocols (Five Cards Massed) for Thirty Subjects. 'White's T Test. IV. Proportion onFuture Pesponses to Each 22 TAT Card; t Tests. V. Proportion of Past, Present, and Future 22 Responses to TAT Cards, Stuay Number 1. VI. Comparison of Semantic Differential Scores 23 of Low and High Dogmatic Groups. VII. Analysis of Variance: Future Responses of 50 Low and High.Dogmatic Groups to Five TAT Cards. VIII. Study Number 2. JUdges' Ratings of Degree 31 of Future Orientation. White's T Test. IX. Analysis of Variance: Present Eesponrs of 32 Low and High.Dogmatic Groups to Five TAT Cards. Study Number 2. X. Proportion of’Past, Present, and Future 35 Responses, TAT, Study NUmber 2. XI. Study NUmber 2. Percent Past, Present, and $4 Future Tense in TAT Protocols. Five Cards 34a massed. High.and Loquogmatic Groups. XII. Study Number 2. Subjects' Scope JUdgments 35 (Five Cards massed), on TAT Stories. White's T Test. XIII. Study NUmber 2. Judge's Patings of Anxiety. 37 ”White's T Test. litlll I‘ll-I'll I III [I'll I.‘ INTRODUCTION Definitive work on the nature of time orientation, or time perSpective, as a personality variable has only recen- tly begun to appear in psychological literature. The philo- sophical treatment of this subject has, however, a long his- tory. Originally the concept of time was treated indepen- dently of human experience. In.Aristotle's Physics we find that Zeno's concept of time approached that which is now generally accepted, 1.6., a postulated necessary relationship between the three dimensions of space and the fourth.dimen- ‘ dion, time. Bergson, who, in his book puree g3 Simultaneite 'was the first to specifically relate the passage of time to human consciousness, (quinzieme edition, p. 00). “Thus our duration and a certain felt and lived participation of our material environment to this interior duration, are experi- mental facts. One cannot speak of a reality which.lasts without introducing consciousness. The metaphysician will bring into play the direct intervention of a universal cons sciousness. The common mortal will only think about it vaguely. The mathematician will not need to take it into consideration, for he is interested in the measurement of things and not in their nature. But should he ask himself ‘what he measures, and fix his attention on time itself, he would necessarily visualize succession, and in consequence the before and the after and therefore a bridge between the two (otherwise there would only be one of the two, a pure instantaneity). Now, we repeat once more, it is impossible to imagine or to conceive a hyphen between the before and the after without an element of memory and, consequently, of consciousness. The use of this word may perhaps repel if an anthro- pomorphic meaning is attached to it. But to visualize a thing which lasts, it is not necessary to transport into the interior of the object one's personal memory, even though.attenuated. No matter how much it is dimished in its intensity a certain amount of variety and richness of the interior life would remain there and it would therefore conserve its personal or, at any rate, human character. we should consider one moment or the unrolling of the universe, that is an instantaneity existing independently of all cons sciousness, then try to evoke conjointly another moment as close as possible to the first, and thus bring into the world a minimum of time without allowing the faintest gleam of memory to pass with.it. ‘Without an elementary memory linking one instant to another there will be one or the other of the two, consequently, a unique instant, and no before and after, no succession, no time. This elementary memory can be reduced to only Just what is needed to make this link. It can be the link itself, a simple prolongation of the before into the immediate after with a perpetually renewed forget- fulness of what is not the immediate anterior moment. Never- llil Ii I II { I I 'I ‘illllll theless, memory will have been intrOduced." (15, p. 128). In this rather extended quotation it can be seen that Bergson has transformed the previously impersonal notion of time into a concept that has no reality divorced from human consciousness. Yet he still perceives time as something ”out there”, something that has a uniform reality for all people who can be aware of its sequential nature through their consciousness and memory. Du Nofi'y refers to this as- pect as 'sidereal time,” and attacks it as being an abso- lute notion of time invalidated by the current theories of relativity. Sidereal time is based on the ”constants“ in Man's environment, such as the rotation of the earth. There is, however, question as to the utility of relying on these constants when they are in a sense no more reliable than other aSpects of human aperience. As Karl Pearson says, ”Many identical things happen at intervals of identical time. When we say it is four hours since breakfast, we mean in the first place that the large hand of our clock or watch has gone around the dial four times, a repeated sense-impression which we could, if we please, have observed. But how shall we decide whether each of these four hours represents equal amounts of consciousness, and the same amount today as yes- terday? It may possibly be that our time-keeper has been compared with a standard clock regulated perhaps from Green- wich Observatory. But what regulates the Greenwich clock? Briefly, without entering into details, it is ultimately re- gulated by the motion of the earth around the sun. Assuming, 4 however, as a result of astronomical experience, that the intervals day and year have a constant relation, we can throw back the regulation of our clock on the motion of the earth about its axis. Now we may regulate what is termed the "mean solar time“ of an ordinary clock by "as- tronomical time" of which the day corresponds to a com- plete turn of the earth on its axis. If an observer watches a so-called circumpolar star, or one that remains all day and night in relatively the same position above the horizon, it will appear, like the end of his astronomical clock-hand, to describe a circle. It will appear to the observer to describe equal parts of its circle in equal times by his clock, or while the end ofthe clock hand describes equal parts of its circle. In this manner the hours on the Green- wich astronomical clock, and ultimately on all ordinary watches regulated by it, will correspond to the earth turning through equal angles on its axis. We thus throw back our measurement of time on the earth which is taken as a time- keeper. We admit that equal rotations correspond to equal intervals of conscience. But all clocks being set by the earth, how shall we be certain that the earth itself is a regular time-keeper? If the earth were gradually to turn more slowly Upon its axis, how should we know it was losing time, and how measure the amount? It might be replied that we should find that the year had fewer days in it. But then, how could we settle that it was the day that was growing longer and not the year that was growing shorter...“ (lj,p.159). Lecomte du Nohy felt that since the passage of time was a phenomenon subject to human consciousness and memory, the basis of reference to passage of time should be a psycho- physiological one. In his own experiments he noted that the duration of cicatrization of wounds, or healing, bears a cur- valinear relationship to increase in age. He derived a “Co- efficient A” which showed a reliable rate of healing for each age group. Internal processes are faster for younger people, and consequently more things “happen" to them in a given Span of sidereal time than do things happen for someone of more advanced age. It is a truism therefore, to say that in any stated interval or sidereal time, "time goes slower“ for the younger person. An experiment by M. Marcel Francois gives us more insight into the underlying physico-chemical processes eventuating in a physiological concept of time. The test consisted in striking a Horse key three times a second; be- fore and after a diathermic application. After the applica- tion, the internal temperature rose an average of .b° cen- tigrade. He observed an acceleration in the temporal stan- dard, correSponding to a shortening in the appreciation of time, in respect to the increase in temperature. Du Notiy felt that these and other experiments demonstrated the rela- tionship between rate of cicatrization of wounds (and thus age) and the psychological appreciation of time. That is, they both rest in the last analysis on a chemical basis. "Thus there is a physiological time which has no significa- tion excepting for organisms capable of being born, of ageing, and of dying normally." (13, p. 109). "Young and old, united in the same space, live in a separate universe where the value of time is radically different. Pedagogues and psychologists do not seem as yet to have taken into account the considerable importance of the disaccord.“ (13, p. 109). I Obviously, du Nofiy and Pearson have bridged an impor- tant gap in the relationship of time and human nature. Time is now not only a concept meaningless without human referents, but there is an nternal physiological basis for the appre- ciation of time, a counting for differences in age groups ‘with.regard to the estimation of time. For du Nony, these differences were a function of the biology of the individual. Since then, some work has been done indicating the importance of personality as a factor in the appreciation of time. H.H. Fink, in a thesis, "The Relationship of Time Perspective to Age, Institutionalization, and Activity" found, as du Nouy 'would predict, that aged people are more concerned with the past and less with the future than younger people. However, Fink also found that aged institutionalized people were more "past oriented" than were their non-institutionalized age- equals. One of Fink's primary tools was the Thematic Apper- ception Test, about which I shall say more later. (4) (l7). L.L. LeShan, extending investigation of time orienta- tion even further into non-physiological determinants, found a marked relationship of time orientation with social class, holding age constant. Lower-lower class children were found to have short-range goals and a present time orientation, ‘l\[r (II. I! . I'll-al- lllllll. Ill.“ lll’.‘ I'll I! I i‘iil‘ while upper-lower, middle, and lower upper class children were more future oriented, with.long-range goal systems.(l4) *Wallace investigated the phenomenon of time perSpective with.regard to ”extension" and "coherence" of future time perSpective. He found that the leggph of future time span and the QQgpgg q; organizatiqn of its contents is significan- tly reduced for a sample of schizophrenic patients as compared with a group of normal controls. He further noted that the performance of a sample of ”long term" schizophrenic patients did not deviate to any significant degree from.that of a ”short-term" schizophrenic group on either variable. (27) R.J. Barndt, in a master's study on ”Time Orientation in.Deliauents” found that delinquent children, holding class and age constant, were more present oriented than their more future oriented nonrdelinquent brethren. (l) _ These psychological studies have apparently been tests of common sense notions about the relationship of time orien- tation to psychological or social variables that have been prevalent for some time. Florence Kluckhohn, an anthropolo- gist, has noted characteristic time orientations for various groups in a number of cultures. E.g., the industrial Western cultures appear to be primarily or characteristically future oriented, Catholic Nexico seems predominantly present-oriented, and traditionerich Japan seems to be past-oriented. (10). Kluck- hohn also noted the class differences which LeShan tested. There is an apparent increase in future orientation and de- crease in present orientation with upward social mobility. (14). Consequently, from.biophysiology, common sense lore, and anthropological observations, we expect to find differ- .ences in time orientation with age, sacial class, occupa- tion, culture and subculture, and personality. One personality theory to explicitly posit a definite relationship between types of time orientation and certain ' personality variables is that of Bokeach in his paper on the nature of thought and belief. (23). Bokeach.implies in dogmatism a fear of’ambiguity, a “closed mind", and a tendency towards black and white thinking. Lack of dogma- tism.conversely implies a tolerance of ambiguity, a minimum of black and white thinking, and so forth. .A highly dogma- tic individual would be one with a relatively closed belief system, extremely resiStant to the incorporation and even awareness of information that may contradict and threaten his existent belief system. (23). There is apparently a 'high.level of involvement in the maintenance of a status quo; change, or anything threatening change, is perceived as extremely dangerous, and defenses must be erected to cope 'with the threatening agents. The intolerance of ambiguity found in the highly dogmatic individual may.stem from early childhood experiences in which the parents instilled in the child a fear of having ambivalent feelings toward themselves. The pressure to like or’dislike, one way or the other, rather than tolerate shades of feeling, may generalize, through anxiety, to apply to all aspects of belief and thought. Consequently the developing child learns to see one side of a situation and avoid looking at the other side, since more material may render a definite one-sided orientation untenable. In time, anything threatening crystallized be- liefs may trigger the anxiety associated with ambiguous experiences. According to Bokeach, the high dogmatic has a ”narrow" time perspective. That is, the dogmatic individual does not appreciate the present for its own sake, and is likely to be more concerned with the future or the past as the imp portant time periods. The high.dogmatic tends to exhibit assurance as to knowledge of what the future may hold. One might ask, why should fear of ambiguity be causally related to future time orientation? The dogmatic person has a need to structure his environment, his whole cognitive world. His belief system is closed. As previously noted, this is a defense against the intrusion of ideational material that may threaten his tenuous command of his 'un-ambiguous' thought-belief system; there must be one correct answer, one way of perceiving every aSpect of his physical, social, and psychological environment. The threat of opposing ideas and beliefs is minimized. The dogmatic individual's thought- belief system is organized to prevent the occurrence of any ideational material that would controvert the acceptability of the belief system already existent in the individual. The 10 future is therefore of great com em to the high dogmatic; the future may be said to be the most ambiguous medium in the cognitive world of Man; the future, having not yet occurred, may "possess“ events favorable or unfavorable to one's extant cognitive structure. Consequently, the future poses perhaps the greatest threat to a high dogmatic's be- lief system. Thus, the dogmatic person should be highly concerned with the future. He must structure his future so that it w__i_J_._l_ n9}; pose a threat. He must organize and plan his life so that he knows what the future holds in store. The very fggling that he is unsure of the future would pro- duce anxiety. Therefore the high dogmatic is future oriented in two ways; (1) he manifests an exceptional concern with the future and (2) he diSplays exceptional assume as to what the future holds in store for him. He also tends to deval- uate the present as a secondary function of his high valua- tion of the future. This paper will not address itself fur- ther to the latter assumption, but will attempt to test the following hypotheses derived not only from the first assump- tion but also from other theoretical statements previously discussed: ' (la) the high dogmatic shows a greater degree of concern with the future than does the low dogmatic. (lb) the high dogmatic shows less concern, less valuation, of the present than does the low dogmatic. 11 (2) the high dogmatic shows a greater tendency to gpggg- tqrg the future than.does the low dogmatic.* (3) the gross ggqu of a high.dogmatic's time orientation, the extent of time span, will be more limited than that of a low dogmatic individual. (4) high.dogmatic subjects will manifest greater anxiety.** This study was performed originally with subjects not as extreme in dogmatism (high and low) as may be desirable for clear-cut results. Consequently it was repeated subse- quently with more extreme groups. Since the groups are not really comparable and some variation in the two procedures 'was used, each experiment will be reported separately. The discussion and summary, however, will treat both experiments simultaneously. * assumption tested only in the first study. ** assumption tested only in the second study. [{fi. it! 12 II. METHODOLOGY OF THE FIRST EDCPERIMEM A. Subjects: Thirty subjects were selected from an introductory (sophomore) psychology course at Michigan State University (Psychology 201). The ages of the sub- Jects ranged from 18 to 29, the mean age being 21.4. Their A.C.E. scores ranged from 2 to 10, with a mean score of 5 .80. Earlier in the term, all of the Psychology 201 students had been given Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (21). Fifteen students scoring between 173 and 182 (mean 174) were selected as high dogmatics. Fifteen students scoring between 128 and 130 (mean 128.8) were selected as low dog- matics. These two groups are not extremes; of the 027 students given the Scale, scores ranged from 00 to 232. The mean of the total group was approximately 150, conse- quently it is apparent that our means of 174 and 129 do not devi ate too greatly from the total group mean. These subjects were contacted by their course instruc- tors or by telephone by the exp eriment er and informed that they had been selected at random to participate in a psy- chology experiment. To avoid any selective factors that could bias the results, every forgetful subject contacted was persistently pursued until he or she gig show up for the experiment. These two groups, then, of high and low dogmatics, were tested with the following measures, with 15 the expectation that highs would differ from lows in a pre- dicted direction. B. All subjects were shown five TAT cards. The cards used were numbers 2, 4, 73:1, 93M, and 12K}. These same cards were used in a prior study by Fink (a study relating time orientation to old age and institutionalization)(4); they had also been previously judged as being eSpecially susceptible to elicitation of stories with.a time orienta- tion. The cards were presented to the subjects (randomiz- ing the order from subject to subject) with.the instruc- tions, "I'm.going to shoW'you a number of cards with.diff- erent situations depicted upon them; I'd like you to look at each card and then tell a fictional type of story ------ you have as much time as you wish to take; we use this tape recorder because I can't take notes fast enough, and it's more convenient than having you write out the story. ‘You needn't Speak into the microphone, however.” Later the TAT protocols were played back and analyzed with.regard to percentage of past, present, and future res- .ponses per card. Time responses included only than of past, present, and future pgnge used in the stories. (The dogma- tism score of the subject was not known by the scorer durirg percentage analysis of time responses.) On a number of TAT protocols more than one scorer was used in order to derive an estimation of scorer reliability. Since the reliability was near / 1.00, the majority of subsequent protocols were 14 scored by only one individual. The assumption was that high dogmatics, if they were more future oriented than lows, would manifest a higher percentage of ”future" responses than low dogmatics. It was also hypothesized that low dogmatics would diSplay a greater percentage of ”present" res) onses than high dogma- tics. That is, high dogmatics would show greater concern with the future, and lows would tend to valuate the present more highly. C. After responding to each of the five cards, each i..shown below, with the following instructions: "Each of these adjective pairs can be used to describe the feeling represented in the pictures.....P1ease indicate the degree to which you feel each adjective represents a particular meaning by placing a check mark at the appropriate place on the scale.“ The subject rated the same set of seven differ- entials for each of the five cards. The following set of semantic differential items was repeated for each of the five cards: ou'Icowm OBVIOUS ' ° ' ' ' cursors UNSURE ACTIVE ' ' ' ' ' PASSIVE FUTURE ' ' ' ' ' PAST DEFINITE ' ' ' ' ' Immemrra IS 0 O O 0 O WAS WAS ' ' ' ' ._ WILL HE IS ' ' ‘ ° T WILL BE 15 This part of the study was designed to test for differ- ences between low and high.dogmatic groups with.regard to tendencies to (1) structure their cognitive environment, and (2) emphasize future or present time perSpective. The subjects were able to rate these adjective pairs in rela- tion to the five TAT cards on the five point scale. The responses were scored from.one to five, a score of five in- dicating greatest tendency towards structurization of the cognitive environment or future time perSpective. Each.ad- jective pair was scored separately and averaged with the correSponding adjective pair in the other four cards. Each subject, therefore, received seven scores on the semantic differential sheet. ‘D. The final part of the study was designed to test for (l) breadth or scope of the subject's time perSpective. .As previously noted, a high dogmatic iniividual is expected to have less of an integration of past, present, and future, and thus a "narrower” time perspective; (2) time orientation. The subject was shown a tune scale, divided into past, pre- sent, and future, each sub-area divided into four equal parts. The "Time Scale”: PAST PRESENT FUTURE .0 I .l j l i I j S _l L __I_ 1 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 10 11 12:“ lb The instructions were to indicate upon the scale Eggpg and pgg_mggh.action is suggested by the situation depected on each.TAT card. Amggnp of time would be indicated by the nqmpgp of units involved (scope): time orientation would be suggested by position on the scale (past, present, or future). For each unit indicated, the subject received a score of one. All units from.one to six were scored as “past" responses, all units from.seven through.twelve were scored as "future” responses. The hypothesis stated that high.dogmatics would again be more future oriented but would score lower on the measure of scope than would the low dogmatic group. E. Statistical Analysis: .Although a variety of sta- tistical approaches were tried, the writer chose White's T test, a non-parametric method, and t test for unmatched independent groups. (2) 1. The'White's T was used to establish the existence of differences between high and low groups combining the responses on all TAT cards for each subject. The mean per- centages of past, present, and future responses for each subject were converted to ranks, each subject therefore being ranked three times, once on each variable. The two groups were then compared with respect to relative degree of possession of the three variables in question. 2. The t tests were run on the differences between groups for each card. In this way it was possible to observe 17 any possible differential effects in eliciting tense that any of the three cards may possess. The t tests were also used to test for significance of differences between groups on the semantic differential items, using twenty eight de- grees of freedom. 18 III. RESst A. 1. The White's T test, used to test for differences between high.and low groups on massed TAT data found that the high dogmatic group manifests a greater proportion of future responses than low dogmatics, the difference being significant at the .01 level of confidence. (TABEE I). TABLE I STUDY NUMBER 1. PFRCENTAGE FUTURE TETTSE IN TAT PROTOCOLS (FIVE CARDS MISSED) FOR THIRTY SUBJECTS. WHITE'S T TEST. Percent FutureIRe8ionse I‘ Banks ED ; 1m) " 1T) : L22 38 0 O J- 30 2 35 3 35 4 35 5 if ° 51 E 24 9 20 20 ll 11 20 11 19 13 13 13 14.5 14.5 11 10 10 17.5 10 17.5 7 19.5 19.5 5 21 4 4 25 23 4 23 5 25 2 20.5 2 20.5 1 28 o 29.5 0 . __ 2 Significant a? .01 level: T 153.0 312.0 I I 3 U P l9 2. The low dogmatic group manifested a greater pro- portion of present responses than the high dogmatic group; the difference was significant at the .05 level of confi- dence. (Table II). TABLE II STUDY NUMBER 1. PERCENTAGE PRESENT TENSE IN TAT PROTOCOIS. (FIVE CARDS MSED) FOR THIRTY SUBJECTS. WHITE'S T TEST. Percent Present Bequnsefi Banks ‘ Il> .32.. ED "53‘ ’1'— :3 § 8“ A 7 78 ;§ 0.5 5.; 73 8.5 72 10 07 11 00 12 05 13 01 01 14.5 14.5 a a 53 18 52 19 5O 20 40 21 40 22 39 39 23.5 23-5 30 25 27 26 10 _ 2 8 2 0 29 4 30 Significant at .051eve1. T ~289.5 175.5 20 It was felt that massing the data may have obscured more striking group differences between reSponses to each separate card. The writer employed t tests to detect these differences. 3. The White's T test failed to show any real dif- ference in frequency of usage of past tense for the two groups. (Table III). The t testS‘were used on the past tense data for each card also, in case the massed approach concealed tendencies for any of the individual cards to differentially elicit past tense. *‘TABLE III STUDY NUMBER 1. PERCENTAGE PAST TEST: IN TAT PROTOCOIS LEIVE CARDS KéggfiD) FOE THIRTY SUBJECTS. WHITEIS T TEST. PeTCefitIPE . ““‘ Response .HanKs 1w) __ HI) ID ‘8' 83 l 2 21 ' 2 o 42 5O 6 5 £35 3'? 35 34 9 10 31 11 27 12 26 13 25 24 14 15 23 1b.5 23 1o.5 21 18 2o l9 17 2O 15 1° 22.5 21 i2 32-5 o 13 36.; 25 b 5 b. 28.5 4 5 3o 28‘5 Not Significant. r3 u) re E" O IU p O O 21 B. t tests. 1. On all five cards, high dogmatics showed greater future orientation than low dogmatics. The differ- ences were significant in the expected direction at the following levels of confidence: (For a fuller presentation of relevant data see Table IV and V.) Card 2, .05 level; Card 4, .001 level; Card 73M, .005 level; Card 93M, .05 level;. Card 123G, .005 level. 2. On all five cards, low dogmatics showed greater present orientation than high dogmatics. The differences were significant in the predicted direction as follows: Card 2, .05 level; Card 4, .01 level; Card 73M, .01 level; Card 93m, not significant; Card 1230, not significant; (See also Tables IV and V). 3. High dogmatics displayed a greater frequency of "past” responses than low dogmatics. The differences were not significant, however. Since no particular relationships of past time perSpective with.dogmatism was postulated the present study will not handle the data except insofar as they are directly relevant to other parts of the study. For the relevant data in past time perspective the reader is referred to Table IV below. (p. 22) TABLE IV 22 PROPORTION OF FUTURE RESPONSES TO EACH TAT CARD; 1: TESTS. /7 TAT Hi hDo tic Gro ’ Low Do tic Gro __ __ C rd .' ean propor. afi 235333310335. s.%./ Iutu_r_e reap. 828g. ___t__ _p_ BM 1..00 1 . 4.7 . 2.15 .05 1330 23.30 15.54;; 8'33 0.23 3.33 .005 73M 28.07 21.77 /' .07 11.35 3.15 .005 4 37.73 18.26_/7 12.13 11.10 4.49 .001 2 17.20 13.80 ./ 7.73 9.88 2.10 .05 PROPORTION OF Panswnmzaasroyeas TO EACH TAT CARD 12% 332-28 3223/ 3228 €215}. 132 3'2: 7am 52:00 30202;? 74:00 24:19 2:14 .05. 4 38.70 22.94 x 05.00 24.10 3.03 .01 2 40.20 27.31 09.90 27.24 2.31 .0 3030211011 or PAST 133320114 TO EACH TAT CARD 93M 29.70 30.48 67' 30.37 20.72 ---- 0.0. 1230 47.00 34.021// 43.20 31.38 ---- n.s. 2“ 33:24 3292/ 23:2; 22:53 :2 2:2: TABLE v PROPORTION OF PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE RESPONSES TO TAT CARDS, STUDY NEEBER 1 TAT 22.2. 93» 1 2B} 7111 4 2 47.00 32.10 20.30 100.0 19.33 52.00 28.07 100.0 23.57 38.70 37.73 100.0 30.00 40.20 17.20 100.0 fiean (all eards) 31.30 44.86 23.78 100.0 High Dogmatic Group / Low Do tic Gro as es. Fu ure 0 a Past fies. Future Total: 29.70 55.30 15.00 100.0 30.37 04.90 4.73 100.0 /' / 43.20 51.50 /'17.93 74.00 // 22.27 05.00 12.13 100.0 // 22.37 09.90 7.73 100.0 .30 100.0 .07 100.0 .x/ 27.23 05.18 7.59 100.0 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIII OOOOOOOOOO IIIIIIIIIIIIIII OOOOOOOOOO lllll 00000 IIIII ooooo 23 4. 0n the semantic differential items, low dogmatics consistently scored higher than high.dogmatics, except on items 1 and 0. This indicates a general reversal from.the predicted direction. The differences between groups were insignificant in every case except item 2, however. (Table VI). TAKE VI COLEPARISON OF SELANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCORES OF LOW AND HIGH DOGLZATIC GROUPS -‘_ Item High Doggt’ic Grom7 LowTngnatic firepp _ Mean Score 3 d Mean Score 3 d t p ——70——2. 7.0 / -—-40--2. 14". n... 2 2.70 . / 3.21 .45 2.22 0 5 3 2.00 . .09. / 3.05 .83 1.58 11.8. 4 2085 0%: / 3001 .83 ---- n08. 5 2.93 o / 3.64 .32 ---- 11.8. b 2.90 .84 / 2.73 070 "" nos. 7 2090 089 // 3025 077 ---- n08. {. ‘ 5. The third part of the study yielded no significant findings; high and low dogmatic groups had essentially simi- lar "time scope"I or "breadth" scores. High dogmatics gave more future responses and low dogmatics gave a greater pro- portion of past responses. The differences were not great, however. The mean score on time scope for the low dogmati cs was 22.53 (units of length iniicated on the scale) and 21.73 for the high dogmatic group. Low dogmatic subjects indicated that 02.40 percent of their stories transpired on the "past” side of the midpoint on the time scale, while 59.20 percent of the high dogmatics' stories were seen as being involved in ....... 0000000 IIIIIII IIIIIII 0000000 nnnnn 24 the past. The difference is obviously not significant. Low dogmatic subjects felt that 37.00 percent of their stories took place in the future, and high dogmatics placed 40.80 percent of their stories in the future. Again, the differences are, by visual inSpection, not significant. 25 IV. METHODOLOGY, EXPERIMENT NUMBER 2 The foregoing study was subsequently repeated, with certain.modifications. In the first study the high and low dogmatic groups were composed of subjects whose scores were not as extreme as to fully Justify placing them in "high" and "low" categories. With.more extreme grOUps the statistical results may be more clear-cut. Most procedures were essentially the same; thirty subjects were selected in the aforementioned manner (testing introductory psych- ology students enrolled in the course). .A.C.E. scores were not tabulated for this group, since all correlations between A.C.E. and dogmatism scores to date have been non- significant. (20,26). Fifteen students scoring 175 and 202 (mean 184) were selected as high dogmatics. Fifteen students scoring between 00 and 122 (Mean 114) were selec- ted as low dogmatics. The mean of the total group of 225 students from which these two subgroups were drawn had a mean score of 148. .A. .All subjects were contacted in the aforementioned manner, and shown the same five TAT cards. Instructions to each subject remained unchanged and all interviews were tape recorded. The TAT protocols were later played back and an- alysed for percentage of past, present, and fhture responses 26 per card. Time was analysed in this manner only with.re- gard to tense. B. Three judges also listened to the recorded pro- tocols and rated each subject on relative degree of concern 'with the future, i.e., degree of future time orientation. The operational definition of future orientation agreed upon was (1) frequency of’statements utilizing the future tense, (2) relative stress on importnce of the:future as indicated by both.the content and inflections of voice, etc. No for- mal weighting of the two factors was attempted, yet the inter-rater reliability was high (pooled r, .85). (Derived by intercorrelating judges' ratings). All subjects were rated ”blind” on a five-point scale, a score of 1 being virtually no future orientation and a score of 5, a great deal of future orientation. The judges listened to ten pro- tocols, selected randomly from the total pool of protocols, 'initially, without rating, to establish their frames of re- ference for high or low future orientation. 0. The semantic differentials were not used with this group, since no significant directions were suggested in the statistical analysis of the semantic differential scores of experimental group number 1. D. The "time scale" was used in this group also. The method was slightly different, however. The subject was shown five sheets of paper; each sheet had a straight line six inches in length.printed across the center of the page. A 27 center point was marked on each line. The subject was asked to intersect the line at two points, (1) where he felt the particular TAT story began, begins, or will be- gin, and (2) where the story ended, is ending, or will end. One "time scale“ was provided for each of the five TAT cards that the subject had previously responded to. The subject did not respond to these scales until after having told a story to all of the five TAT cards. Statistical an- alysis of the position and breadth of the two intersections could provide a measure of dominant time orientation and breadth, or Span of that orientation. E. All subjects had previously been given the Army version of the Heineman.Forced-Choice Anxiety Scale. (7,9) This test correlates .00 with the Taylor A Scale. The ex- pectation would be, of course, that high.dogmatism.is assoc- iated with higher anxiety. This relationship between.dog- matism.and anxiety has been observed in other experimental studies. (11,19,24). The purposes of further testing for this relationship are two-fold; the tests had been admin- istered to all subjects in this pool and were consequently available to be used in this instance not only as (l) a reliability check in previous findings, but also as (2) a further index of the degree of comparability of this exper- imental group with groups tested in the past. F. The same three judges also rated each subject on manifest anxiety. Two criteria of anxiety were again used: 28 (1) factors related to the subjects' presentation of the story suggesting situational anxiety, such as excessive hesitation, coughing, voice tremor, etc., and (2) content in the protocols themselves that may indicate considerable apprehension and anxiety. These criteria were agreed upon beforehand. As before, the judges listened to the same ten protocols to establishutheir own frames of reference for high and minimal anxiety. The five point rating scale was used in this instance as well. It should be made clear at this point that the judges rated each subject on.pgph page iables (anxiety and time perspective) simultaneousiy. In- ter-rater reliability was still high, though not quite as high as for ratings of future orientation (pooled r of .82). The two criteria of anxiety were not given relative weights. As it turned out, however, the second criterion was generally useless; very little story content manifested apprehensive- ness in the theme or general content. G. Statistical Analysis: The writer used complex analysis of variance, (28)'White's T test (2), and the Hartley Test for Homogeneity of variance.(2) 1. .Analysis of variance was used with the data on per- centage of present and future tense in the TAT protocols of lOW'and high.dogmatics. Analysis of variance answers three questions about the data: (1) is there a difference be- tween low and high.groups with.regard to percentage of present and future tense, and is the difference in the . illllalx I‘ I ‘LflI‘l .: . Ill 0' Illiul I All. I I I II 29 in the predicted direction, (2) do the various TAT cards exert differential effects upon elicitation of present_ and future tense, (3) is there any interaction between variables (1) and (2). 2. The White's T test was used to test for signifi- cance of differences between high and low dogmatiCS'with regard to judges' ratings on anxiety and future time per- spective. The ratings were converted to ranks, thereby fitting the assumptions of the test. White's T was also used to test for differences in the apperceived §§gp§ of the subjects' TAT stories. The total number of inches span on the time scales were come pared for the two groups, the expectation.being that low dogmatics' stories would encompass a broader span of time as measured by the distance between the two intersections on the time scale. 3. A simple Pearson r was computed between the dog- matism score of all 225 subjects in the pool and their score on the Heineman.Forced Choice Anxiety Scale. The expectation was of a significant positive correlation, i.e., a concomitant increase in anxiety with increase in degree of dogmatism. The Pearson r was also used to assess inter- rater reliability. 30 V. RESULTS Hypothesis number (la): the high.dogmatic shows a greater degree of concern with the future than does the low dogmatic. As shown in Table VII, the analysis of variance found that (a).highs manifested a significantly greater percenr tage of future oriented statements in the TAT protocols than did low dogmatics. (In fact, Table X shows the absence of any overlapping betWeen groups). (b) the five TAT cards differed significantly among themselves in power to elicit future response. There was no Card x Group interaction: the above differences were significant at the .01 and .05 levels of confidence, respectively. TABLE'VII .ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: FUTURE RESPONSES OF LOW AND HIGH DOG- EATIC GROUPS TO FIVE TAT CARDS Source ofPVariation Sum s s. de mn. sq. F p Between.Groups 21840.0 1 21840.08 95.02 .01 Between Subjects in 0395.23 28 228.40 same group Total between subjects28235.90 29 4 Between Cards 7015.03 1753.91 12.07 .05 Interaction: Cards 1 groups 512.13 4 128.03 .925 Interaction: pooled subjects x cards 15504.24 112 138.43 Total within subjects 23032.00 120 TOTAL 51207.89 149 "m ”-—-0-‘.v ————- -——— W '---— 31 JUdges' ratings also separated the groups in the pre- dicted direction, highs being more future oriented than lows. This difference, according to the White's T test, was also significant at the .01 level. (See Table VIII). The "time- span” cards showed that both groups of subjects felt that 50% of their stories took place in the future. There were no differences in apperceived time orientation by the two groups. TABLE'VIII STUDY NUMBER 2. JUDGES' RATINGS OF DEGREE OF FUTURE ORIEN‘ TATION. WRITE'S T TEST. Future 0rientation§atingsw Hanks HD LD HD LD 5:00 1.5 5.00 1.5 4.00 5 4.00 5 4.00 5 4.00 5 4.00 5 4.33 4.33 9.5 9.5 4.33 9.5 4033 9’05 - 4.00 4.00 13.5 13.5 4.00 13.5 4.00 13. 3.00 . l? 3.00 10 2.00 1 18 2." 35 2.00 9 21 2.00 21 2.00 21 1.00 24.5 1.00 24.; 1.00 24. 1.00 24.5 i053 3705 1.88 2%.? §ignificant 1-00 29.5 at: .01 level T 133 332.0 “ 32 Hypothesis number (lb): the high dogmatic shows less con- cern, less valuation, of the present than does the low dogmatic. The analysis of variance further showed a greater pro- portion of present-oriented statements in the protocols of low dogmatics than those of high dogmatic subjects. This difference was at the .01 level. In this instance also, cards differed significantly among themselves in capacity to elicit present-oriented statements. Again there was no interaction between cards and dogmatic groups. (See Table IX). TABLE IX ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: PRESENT RESPONSES OF LOW AND HIGH DOGIATIC GBOUBS TO FIVE TAT CARDS. STUDY NULBER 2. Sum of Mean Source ofpyariapion ‘Squares ‘df ' Square ' F ' p: Between groups 22497.12 1 22497.12 44.208 .01 Between subjects in same group 14229.47 28 .508.195 Total between subjects 30720.59 29 Between cards 0440.42 4 1010.105 0.20 Interaction: cards x groups 140.52 4 30.03 .141 Interaction: pooled subjects x cards 302 0.00 112 259.079 Total within subjects 308 3.00 120 TOTAL 73010.93 149 N0te that in Table V there are virtually no differences between grOUps with.regard to proportion of past tense given in the five TAT stories. The results of Study number 2 are still more striking in this respect (Table IX). However, I 1 I..." I I‘ll- .I. 33 while both groups are identical in frequency of usage of past tense, all subjects in Study number 2 use the past tense in their TAT stories 1§§§ than all subjects of Study number 1. (See Tables V and IX). Apparently degree of usage of past tense is a function of the degree to which one's dogmatism.acore diverges from the mean of the total population.fromfiwhich.the two groups were drawn. In the framework of this study these data indicate that concern.wi§h.phe past is less with individuals re- presenting extremes of dogmatism than it is with.peop1e who are nearer the mean. Relative preoccupation with the future or present media is consequently derived by the diminution of concern with the past. TABLE 2X PROPORTION OF PAST, PBESENT, AND FUTUFE BESPONSES,TAT,STU§§_2. TAT High.Dogmatic Group low Dogmatic Group cardfi past ' pres‘future tot! '_past'pres.'future tot‘ 9am 29.33 47.20 23.47 100.0 25.47 70.73 3.80 100.0 1200 30.13 44.07 25.80 100.0 27.0 07.00 55.33 100.0 7BM 14.87 54.33 30.80 100.0 12.0 82.32 .00 100.0 4 0.27 45.93 47.80 100.0 10.73 1.20 1 .07 100.0 2 7.14 01.91 30.95 100.0 10.13 3.95 5.92 100.0 E555 (all 17.55 50.09 31,70 100.0 17.22 75.10 7.02 100.0 cards) 34 TABLE IXI STUDY NUMBER 2. PERCENT PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE TENSE IN TAT PROTOCOLS. FIVE CARDS AASSED. HIGH AND LOW DOG- LATIC GPOUPS.. PAST TENSB rename” vasE FUTUFB TENSE HID LD 110 1:0 an no 157 848 82 81 80 78 73 72 70 b 0 b7 00 00 5 5? 0 0 55 54 54 0 48 45 44,44,44 44 41 41 4o ‘ 3 38 38 30 35 34 $3 32 30.30.50 29 28 27 24 24 23:23.23 23 21,21 21 207 17 1 17,1 15 14 ------------------ (continued on next page)----------------- TAKE XI. . (continued) past tense present tense future tense ED _ LD __ HD LD HD LD 12,12,12 12 12 11,11,11 10,10 10,10, 10,10, 10,10 9 9 7 7 b b 5 5 4,4 3 3 Hypothesis number (2): the high.dogmatic shows a greater tendency to structure the future than does the low dogmatic. Not tested in this experimental study. Hypothesis number (3): the gross scope of a high dogmatic's time orientation, the extent of time span, will be more limited than that of a low dogmatic individual. The time span cards indicate that high.dogmatic sub- jects feel that their stories covered a greater scope in time than the low dogmatics' stories. This is a reversal from.predicted direction and is significant at the .07 level, using White's T. See Table XII). TABLE XII STUDY 1mm 2. SUBJECI'S' seem JLlGl-EEJTS (FIVE CARDS LASSED), 0N TA STOEIBS. ‘WHITE'S T IEST............ LASSED SCOPE ESTIMATIONS BANKS ED LD ED LD 207 1 ‘ 191 2 184 3 100 4 155 5 150 o 131 7 .. 127 8 120 9 . 5 120 9 .5 11" 11 10 12 104 15.5 104 13.5 105 15 '5 lo 9 l 87 1 85 19 7b 7b 20.5 20.5 05 22 co 2 3 57 24 50 25 51 2o 41 2 38 2 35 29 33 3O Signif. at .07 level T 192.5 272.5 3b Hypothesis number (4): high dogmatic subjects will manifest greater anxiety. (a) High.dogmatics are, according to the Heineman Forced Choice Anxiety Scale, more anxious than low dog- matic students. The Pearson r yielded a positive corre- lation of .305. It may be noted, however, that this re- lationship is lower than that obtained in testing previous groups with the Taylor Anxiety Scale. (11,18,23) The dis- crepancy is in part a function, no doubt, of the fact that the two scales correlate only .00. (9) (b) Judges' ratings on anxiety for all thirty subjects separate the two groups in the predicted direction. The difference is significant at the .05 level, according to White's T test. (See Table XIII). ‘Illl II II. I!" 37 TABLE XIII STUDY NULE’ER 2. JUDGE'S IATINGS OI' DCIETY. WETI'E'S T TEST. Anxiety Level Ratings Ranks IE) LD HD LD 5.00 1 4.33 2 4.33 4-33 3.5 3.5 5.00 7.5 3000 705 3.00 7.5 $000 705 5.00 5.00 7.5 7.5 3.33 11 5.00 12 2.00 2.00 14.5 14.5 2.00 2.00 14.5 14.5 2.55 2.55 18.5 18.5 2.55 18.5 2.55 18.5 2.00 2.00 21.5 21.5 1.00 1.00 24.5 24.5 1.33 28 1.33 28 1.55 28 1.00 30 Significant at .05 level. T 174.0 291.0 .Although without the justification of an hypothesis, a brief notation of the content of each TaT story for twenty of the thirty subjects in the secondsstudy was made. Ten subjects were chosen randomly from.each group. The hope was, of course, that the two groups may differ in some 1': I .7 I'll ' I'll l' I III: I] nnnnnnnn oooooo lllllll 58 way on the nature of the content manifested in their stories. Such was not the case, how ever, except for (l) a few highly anxious subjects in the high.dogmatic group, and (2) differences in content already treated by. methods previously mentioned. Three very anxious high.dogmatics repeatedly per- ceived threatening situations on the TAT cards. Some examples of these are as follows: "criminals on the lam” (card 2), "sinister old man advising anxious young man," "student in trouble," "corrupt boss" (card 4); "murder story," "unreal, bizarre situation," (card 73E). Stories of like unpleasant nature were found only in the high dogmatic group. The following TAT protocols are fairly typical of the threatening theme found in the productions of some high dogmatics. CARD 2. “There are possibly three Negroes and one white. And they look like they were of a low class of people. They are ex-cons and they've escaped. They were walking in a wilderness and they're resting. A couple of them.could be---a couple look like he was on the watch and the other two are hiding their faces. They will pro- bably run into the police and get caught, but not before one of them is killed in a gun battle." 39 CARD 7Ek. "A man who expresses anger- a temperamental sort of anger---he's pulling away from her. She went out with another man. She's trying to explain to him but he won't listen to her. Pe's going to leave and kill the other man. She‘s trying to hold him.back, but he's full of hatred. He's going to go out and fight, and very likely kill the other man." CAED 93M. "Two men. They look very sinister. The older one is a corrupt city boss, and he's instructing the younger man to go out and take care of an old lady who's got the goods on him. The young man is holding out for some more money. He goes finally to the old lady's house but she's not there. She's left for the State Capitol to tell the authorities about the boss. She'll get there and tell her story, only to discover that the state officials are on the city boss's side.” In the high dogmatic group, sixteen of the fifty stories analyzed for content dealt with fearful situations similar to those described above. None of the fifty stories of the low dogmatics were of this nature. Generally the subjects concerned themselves with fairly bland, banal topics common to both groups. Although the truly fearful stories were confined to the high dogmatic group, the low dogmatics did not completely avoid unpleasant themes; this group occasion- ally produced themes of domestic problems being solved by two 40 or more people. These protocols never verged on the threat- ening, however, as do such stories dealing with murder, criminals, sinister characters, all of which have been noted in the protocols of the high.dogmatic group. The stories of the two groups were organized in char- acteristically differing ways, however, as would be exacted from.the tense-analysis findings, High dogmatic subjects more frequently inserted statements about the resolution of the various themes or situations depected. E.g., on card 2 a common response was, "These are men (laborers or soldiers) who are tired and are resting. The low dogmatic individuals generally left off at this point. The high dogmatics, how- ever,.frequently added such statements as, "They will return to their job after a break,", "They will go on to the (battle) front," "They won't be caught by the boss," etc. These differences are strictly speaking not differences in content but rather differences in organization of the content. The nature of the divergence has already been predicted as a diffuse future orientation characteristic of the high dog- matic group. Of course, it is possible that this difference in orien- tation in the high.dogmatics is explainable as a need to achieve "closure” in the story. That is, the story must have an ending or the sequence of events must come to a logical stopping place for the high.dogmatics. They have 41 to tie up the details into a neat package, leaving no loose ends. This type of behavior on the part of the high.dogma- tics may even be one of the reasons for greater future orien- tation. That is, not only is the high dogmatic group mae anxious about the future, but he must project into the future the outcome of events taking place at the present time. 42 VI LISCUSSION Both of these studies are in accord with.other exper- iments using TAT protocol tense-analysis to test for time orientation. (See 1,4,14). Both studies show that high dogmatic individuals are considerably more future-oriented than people of lower dogmatism. The second study also shows a strong relationship between increasing degrees of dogma- tism.and an increase in anxiety. The relationship feund in this study is less than that reported elsewhere, probably because of the different Anxiety Scales used. As previously noted, the Heineman Scale correlated only .b0 with the Tay- lor Scale. For'both future and present time orientation, and differential degrees of anxiety between.groups, we have two independent criteria of the variables under consideration; future time orientation has been estimated not only by tense- analysis of the TAT protocols but also by judge's ratings. Similarly, degree of anxiety has been estimated not only by an anxiety scale but-also by judges' ratings. The results are unequivocally in the predicted direction, substantiating the hypotheses and the theory fromxnhich they stem. From.the fact that high dogmatism, high future orientation, and high anxiety are all associated, it seems reasonable to assume an effective interrelationship, in which, the high anxiety 43 establishes and maintains a defensive system consisting of, among other things, pronounced future orientation and high dogmatism, These defensive systems protect the indi- vidual's ideational system from.intrusion by material that would necessitate revaluation or dissolution of the high dogmatic's way of thinking. The future aientation is a state of constant alert and apprehension, of being on guard to avoid threatening situatidns before they become over- whelming. Here the functional relationship between anxiety and future orientation is eSpecially clear. Anxiety pre- supposes a state of tension and apprehension of things yet to come. many considerations are of note in interpreting these findings. In a University setting especially, ”high.dog- matism! has a deprecatory connotation when applied to an individual. The same connotation holds in varying degrees for almost all social, economic, and educational strata. To be called narrow-minded is to be insulted. Yet, future orientation is supposedly a desirable trait, especially in the U.S. business and university settings. High anxiety is similarly a psychologically and socially undesirable aSpect of personality. This study has established a relationship between two undesirable variables, anxiety and dogmatism, and one de- sirable aspect, i.e., future orientation. Future orientation 44 is an essential part of the achievement motive, as studied by HbClelland (13). ‘what possible conclusions can we draw about these interrelationships? Do high.dogmatics, by vir- tue of their greater future orientation, possess greater achievement motivation? If so, is their motivation reflected in actual achievement? It seems probable that if there 1821 direct relationship between achievement and achievement motive, the leaders in business, politics, etc., would be also relatively high in dogmatism. For many reasons, such a situation seems undesirable. We assume that an "open- mind" is the best vehicle for attaining a goal, however, the writer doubts that an open mind is as capable of settigg the goal as is that of a dogmatic individual. We usually agree that the scientific method, which necessitates tolerance of ambiguity and detached collection and evaluation of data, most effectively expedites progress towards a goal. we must further admit that the establishirg of goals is based on values, something outside the realm.of the scientific attitude. Insofar as the establishing of goals is a necessity, perhaps the "dogmatic mind” is the best vehicle for its accomplishment. Before we accept the inevitability of the above situation, however, further consideration is essential. First, the de- sirability of future orientation may be explored. Implicit in the term ”future orientation" are the concepts of planning and substitution of the reality principle for the more infantile 45 pleasure principle. A degree of future orientation is therefore essential for adequate adjustment to man's social and physical environment. However, the question is one of degree; is it possible that the high.dogmatic individual, instead of living in a present where the future never comes, lives in a future where the present never is? Both high.and low dogmatic groups possess a degree of future concern; perhaps the concern with the future manifested by the high dogmatic grOUpzassumes more of an obsessive, hence intrapsychically maladaptive, nature. Furthermore, it must be realized that future plannigg, although it may be a concomitant of future orientation, is not a sine qua non of it. Future orientation specifi- cally refers to a thinking about, or coneern, with the yet-to-come and at the same time a lack of concern with the present, pg; gg. Concern without a plan of action is not an especially desirable trait; this Study esta- blishes a relationship between concern,or apprehension, about the future, and dogmatism, but does not imply a di- fferential degree of future planning between high and low dogmatic groups. Another point to be explored is the relationship be- tween dogmatism and(:§hievement. be high dogmatic indivi- duals occupy the more desirable posts in our businesses 4b and universities? Fragments of experimental results suggest that this is not the case; repeated correlations between dogmatism.scores and college achievement (measured by students' ACE scores) have been consistently close to zero. Assuming that there is a direct relationship between college achievement and past-graduate achievement, it seems highly improbable that there is a positive relationship between dogmatism and vocational achievement. The results obtained in measuring apperceived sggpg of the subjects' TAT themes are in an unpredicted direction. If one were to rely on the subjects' apperceptions we would have to say that high dogmatic individuals perceive temporal relations in a broader scope. If we are to accept the data at face value, they look farther into the future and the past, thus considering the present as part of a more expan- sive perspective than the relatively limited orientation of the low dogmatic. Is this true, or have we made an incorrect assumption in establishing this scale as a criterion of ab- solute scope of time perspective?' It seems to me that the latter consideration is more reasonable. By asking the sub- jects how much.time they felt was covered in their stories, we do not have a valid measure of actual time span in the TAT protocols. Rather, the subject has given his own impre- ssion of temporal breadth in his productions. There is no reason to expect a correlation between real and perceived 47 scope; in fact, content analysis of the protocols failed to distinguish the groups with regard toiemporal scope. Although the reverse was predicted, the results obtained 'are actually more compatible with theoretical eXpectations. High.dogmatic individuals, possessing greater anxiety. about the amorphous future, derive a measure of security by feeling that they not only have integrated future and present, but actually have a cognitive hold on the future. They can think about it, manipulate it, and in short avoid the anxiety inherent in being unsure of what is yet to come. The low dogmatic, having less concern about the future, is able to acknowledge less of a grasp on the future and what- ever new material it may present, and more of a grasp on the present. 48 VII. SUKEARY According to Hokeach's theory, people of high dogma- tism.have a "narrow" time perspective dimension. That is, they tend to feel that the present is unimportant in its own right and believe that it is the future that counts. This type of orientation is apparently a function of high anxiety related to an intolerance of ambiguity. The high dogmatic has evolved a rigidly held belief system.which must be maintained to prevent further incursions of anxiety. The intolerance of ambiguity may stem.from.early childhood experiences of punishment of ambivalentfeelings. Assumdng that the anxiety associated with.the appearance of ambivalence or factors creating ambivalence, is considerable, it is fur- ther postulated that anxiety associated with ambivalence generalizes to anxiety released upon the appearance of any ambiguous stimulus. The high dogmatic has erected a non— ambiguous, ”black and white” belief system, as well as pro- tecting against any ideational material thatwwould challenge the tenability of the belief system. Since the future is perhaps the most ambiguous, unknowable medium.in.Man's cog- nitive world, it is a threat to the dogmatic individual. Some experiences yet to occur could shatter the whole belief sys- tem of the high dogmatic, releasing the heretofore controlled 49 anxiety. Consequently, the individual must protect against the future by remaining alert for the appearance of threat- ening material. rThe high dogmatic possesses a high.degree of concern about the future, because of its threatening as- pect. The following hypotheses were constructed from assump- tions inherent in.Eokeach's theory: (la): the high.dogmatic shows a greater degree of concern with the future than does the low dogmatic. (lb): the high dogmatic shows less concern, less valuation, ‘with the present than does the low dogmatic. (2):the high.dogmatic Shows a greater tendency to structure the future than does the low dogmatic.* (3) the gross scope of a high dogmatic's time orientation, the extent of time Span, will be more limdted than that of a low dogmatic individual. (4): high dogmatic subjects will manifest greater anxiety.** The study was performed, with.some variations, on two different occasions with different groups. The primary rea- son for repeating the experiment was that the first group of high and low dogmatic subjects did not possess as extreme scores as was desirable. * tested in first experiment only. **tested in second experiment only. 50 All students in a sophomore introductory pychology course were given Bokeach'stogmatism.Scale. The high and 1ow scorers were later asked to participate in the experi- ment. Thirty subjects were tested in each.eXperiment, fif- teen low scorers and fifteen high scorers. All subjects were asked to respond to five TAT cards, a set of semantic differentialsfi and a ”time scale.” Subjects in the second experimental group had also been given a version of an an- xiety scale. The TAT protocols were scored with regard to frequency and proportion of past, future, and present tense. In addi- tion, judges rated the taped protocols on degree of future orientation present, as well as degree of anxiety manifested.** Subjects were asked to rate their stories on a number of se- mantic differential items designed to elicit indices of con- cern with the future and need to structure. In addition, the subjects were asked to indicate on a "time scale“ not only when their stories began and ended, but also how much time they spanned. Results of TAT protocol tense analysis were significantly in the eXpected direction; high dogmatics manifested more future responses than did low dogmatic subjects. The differ- ences between the two grOUps on the basis of judges' ratings on both.future orientation and degree of anxiety were also significantly in the predicted direction. High dogmatic indi- 51 viduals were more conistently seen by the judges to be not only more future oriented than low dogmatics, but also to be considerably more anxious. The anxiety scale corrobor- ated the judges' ratings; there was a .31 Pearson corre- lation between dogmatism scores and anxiety scores. Pre- vious studies using the Taylor A-Scale have shown a greater relationship. The discrepancy is probably a function of the Anxiety Scale used in this study, which correlates only .00 with the Taylor Scale. Analysis of the reSponses to the time scale revealed no significant group differences in apperceived time orien- tation; both.groups felt that 50% of their staries had been concerned with the past, and 50%‘with.the future. However, high dogmatics felt that their stories covered a greater over-all Span of time than.did low dogmatic subjects. This finding is in accord with.£okeach's assumption that the highly dogmatic person.must alleviate anxiety related to uncertainty of the future by deluding himself into feeling that his time perSpective is comprehensive, and that he is adequately prepared for contingencies that may yet arise. 9. 52 BIRLIOGRAPHX’ Barndt, Rt, "Time Orientation in Delinquents " Un- published N.A. Thesis, N.S.U., l 53. Edwards, A.L., Statistipgl pethods for phe Eghaviopam Sciences, N.Y., Rinehart, 1954. Festinger, L.K., and Katz, D., Researph methodp in php fiehavioral Sciences, N.Y., Dryden, 1553. Pink, H., "The Relationship of Time Perspective to Age, Institutionalization and Activity," Un- " published doctoral d ssertation, M.S.C., 1953. Frank, L.K., Society pg ppp Patiepp, New Brunswick, Rutgers Univ. Press, 1948. Goodman, L.A. "KolmogorOVHSmirnov Tests for Psychologi- cal Research,‘ Psychological Bulletin,r 1954, 51 ’ 100-108 0 Hammock, J.C., “Anxiety Scales for USe in.Army Training Research,” George Washington Univ., Dept. of the.Army, JUne, 1954. Heath, L.R., Th? Concept 9: Time, Univ. of Chicago Press, 193 . Heineman, C.E., "A Forced Choice Form.of the Taylor An- xiety Scale," g. 9: Consulting ngchology, 1953. 17. lO.Kluckhohn, C., and H.A. Murray, Personality 1p Nature, Society, apd Culture, N.Y., Knopf, 1949. ll.Koons, P.B. Unpublished thesis for the degree of M;A., on psychological stress and problem solving, 1957, Hmchigan State University. 12.Kruskal,'W.H. and‘W.H.'Wallis, "USe of Rank in Pre-Crit- erion'Variance.Ana1ysis," g; Aneru Stat. Assoc. 1952 , 47 , 583-621 a 13. 14. 15. lo. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 2b. 27. 53 Lecomte du Nouy, Biological Time, N.Y., Naclillan, 1937. LeShan, L.L., "Time Orientation and Social Class," .g. App. and Sec. ngchol., 1952, 47, 589-592. Lewin, K., Field Theory and Social Science, D. Cartwri- ght, Eda, NOY.’ HaI‘per’ 19510 NbClelland, D.C., Studies pp Lotivation, N.Y., Apple- ton Century-Crofts, 1955. Murray, H.A., "The Thematic Apperception Test: Adminis- tration and Interpretation," Harvard Univ. Press, 1951. Osgood, C. Epthod gpd Theory pp Experimental Ppyphology. Oxford Univ. Press. 1955. Rokeach, H. and Fruchter, "A.Factorial Study of‘Dogma- tism.and Related Concepts,” g; gbnp and 809; BSYCho, 195b, 39 359. Rokeach, N., NeGovney, W.C., and MiRt Denny, "A.Distinc- tion between Dogmatic and Rigid Thinking," 5. $290 QQQ,§QQo 2§X929l5 lfifijt 51: 87'930 Rokeach, N., “A method for Studying Individual Differences in Narrow Nindedness," gpIPers., 1951, 20, 219-233. Hokeach, H., ”Narrowmindedness and Personality," g; Pers,, 1951, 20, 234-251. Rokeach,‘M., "On the Unity of Thought and Belief," Aug., 1955. Rokeach, Ht, "Political and Religious Dogmatism: An Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality," Psychol. Nonogpaphz, 70, 39-40. Rokeach,lm., "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism," 2.92%. we, 01, 194-2040 Vidulich, RJN., ”The Integration of Mbltiple Sets into a New Belief System," Unpublished R.A. thesis, M.S.U. , 1956. Wallace, M. "An Investigation of Future Time Perspective in SchiZOphrenia," Doctoral Dissertation, M.S.C. 1954. 54 28. Watson, et. al., Civilian Lprale, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1942. 29. Wilcoxon, F., ”Some Rapid Approximate Statistical _ Procedures,f N.Y}, Agricultural Chemicals Division, 1949. MUM USE OAJ \ IIHI“llllill(IllNI”Hill!"HHIIHIIIWllllllIHHIHWI 010582454