qq y i dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes thesis/67531/metadc663835/... · dogmatism scale, and a...

NIMO m

qq Y

DOGMATISM, ANXIETY, AND ATTITUDES

TOWARD THE VIETNAM WAR

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

By

Phillip Aldon Puddy, B. A.

Denton, Texas

December, 1971

I

Puddy, Phillip A., Dogmatism, Anxiety, and Attitudes

Toward the Vietnam War. Master of Arts (Clinical Psychology),

December, 1971, 64 pp., 4 tables, bibliography, 41 titles.

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is

a relationship between dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes

toward the Vietnam War, and, in the process of doing so, to

test Rokeach's hypothesis of independence of belief structure

and content in the contextual atmosphere of recent attitudes

toward the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War Scale, Form E of the

Dogmatism Scale, and a five-situation version of the S-R

Inventory of Anxiousness were administered to 104 male students

who were enrolled in introductory psychology classes at North

Texas State University.

It was hypothesized

I. That there would be a significant positive relation-

ship between dogmatism (as measured by the Dogmatism Scale)

and anxiety (as measured by a five-situation version of the

S-R Inventory of Anxiousness).

II. That there would be a significant positive relation-

ship between closed-mindedness (as measured by the Dogmatism

Scale) and attitudes toward the Vietnam War (as measured by

the Vietnam War Scale).

III. That the Hawks would show a significantly higher

level of dogmatism than the Doves.

1

2

IV. That the Hawks would show a significantly higher

level of anxiety than the Doves.

Hypotheses one, two, and three were supported.

Hypothesis number four was in the predicted direction, but

was not statistically significant.

The conclusion of the study was that a relationship

exists between dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes toward

the Vietnam War. It was also concluded that Rokeach's

hypothesis of independence of belief structure and content

does not apply to the contextual atmosphere of recent attitudes

toward the Vietnam War.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .a 1

Statement of the ProblemPurpose of the StudyHypotheses

II. RELATED STUDIES - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Dogmatism and AnxietyVietnam War AttitudesRight and Left Wing Characteristics

III. THE INSTRUMENTS - - - . . - - - - * . . . . . . 28

The Vietnam War ScaleThe Dogmatism ScaleThe S-R Inventory of Anxiousness

IV. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE. - - - .- . . - . . 36

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.--.-.*.. . . . ... 38

VI. SUMMARY . . - - - - - - . . . - . . . . . . . . 45

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .t o * .47

BIBLIOGRAPHY S-0-0-0-0-0-a-f- - - - - 0 . . . . . . . . . 61

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. Means, Standard Deviations and PearsonProduct-Moment Coefficient of Correlationfor the Variables of Dogmatism and Anxiety. . . 38

II. Means, Standard Deviations, and PearsonProduct-Moment Coefficient of Correlationfor the Variables of Dogmatism and VietnamWar Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

III. Means, Standard Deviations, and Fisher's t forthe Variable of Dogmatism Among Hawks andDoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

IV. Means, Standard Deviations, and Fisher's tfor the Variable of Anxiety Among Hawks andDoves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

iv

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Rokeach (17, 18, 19) postulated the theoretical construct

of dogmatism as an alternative to that presented in The

Authoritarian Personality, by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik,

Levinson, and Sanford in 1950. Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale is

a measure of general authoritarianism, whereas the California

F Scale of The Authoritarian Personality has been found to be

primarily a measure of the political right (11).

Rokeach defines dogmatism as

(a) a relatively closed cognitive system of beliefsand disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized arounda central set of beliefs about absolute authoritywhich, in turn, (c) provides a framework for patternsof intolerance and qualified tolerance towardothers (17, p. 195).

Anxiety is a focal point in the hypothetical construct

of dogmatism since dogmatic people are more anxious and

susceptible to anxiety (12). Theoretically, dogmatism is a

defense against anxiety (5). It is a systematized method

of handling situations and anxieties which relies on

authority and absolute or unqualified rejection of the

beliefs of others which are incongruent with a person's own

beliefs (12, 13, 14). Numerous studies (1, 4, 6, 7, 8,

1

2

16, 19, 20, 21, 22) have found significant positive rela-

tionships between anxiety and dogmatism. Rokeach extended

this assumption further by concluding that anxiety and

dogmatism are "part of a single psychological faction"(19,

p. 349).

Studies dealing with the differences of makeup among

open-belief systems and closed-belief systems (17, 18, 19)

have found open systems to be adaptable and willingly able

to incorporate novel ideas, whereas closed-belief systems

are marked by rigid thinking and authoritarianism. The

same studies indicate that dogmatism and intolerance cut

across all spheres of thought and are not related to a

specific content or ideology. However, inconsistent

evidence (2, 3, 9, 10, 15) has been found which shows that

persons who possess right-wing beliefs tend to be more

dogmatic than persons holding left-wing beliefs. Thus a

relationship not predicted by Rokeach's theory has been

found between belief structure and content.

The Vietnam War has been the target for many con-

flicting opinions. Extremely polarized attitudes have

developed among the strong supporters of the Vietnam War

(Hawks) and its strong opponents (Doves). Both Hawks and

Doves have been described in terms of their closed-mindedness,

3

intolerance, and anxiousness towards other persons sharing

incongruent beliefs about the Vietnam War.

The Problem

The problem of this paper is to determine if there is

a relationship between dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes

toward the Vietnam War.

The Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to test Rokeach's hypo-

thesis of independence of belief structure and content in

the contextual atmosphere of recent attitudes toward the

Vietnam War.

Hypotheses

In keeping with the above information, it was

hypothesized

I. That there would be a significant positive rela-

tionship between dogmatism (as measured by the Dogmatism

Scale) and anxiety (as measured by the S-R Inventory of

Anxiousness).

II. That there would be a significant positive rela-

tionship between closed-mindedness (as measured by the

Dogmatism Scale)and attitudes toward the Vietnam War (as

measured by the Vietnam War Scale).

4





CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adams, H. E. and R. N. Vidulich, "Dogmatism and BeliefCongruence in Paired Associate Learning," PsychologicalReports, X (February, 1962), 91-94.

2. Bailes, D. W. and I. B. Guller, "Dogmatism and AttitudesToward the Vietnam War," paper presented at theAmerican Psychological Association Convention,Washington, D. C., 1968.

3. Barker, E. N., "Authoritarianism of the Political Right,Center, and Left,?" Journal of Social Issues, XIX(April, 1963), 63-74.

4. Bendig, A. W. and Peter T. Hountras, "Anxiety, Authoritar-ianism and Student Attitude Toward DepartmentalControl of College Instruction," Journal of EducationalPsychology, L (February, 1959), 1-7.

5. Byrne, Donn, Barbara Blaylock, and June Goldberg,"Dogmatism and Defense Mechanisms," PsychologicalReports, XVIII (February, 1966), 739-742.

6. Davids, Anthony and Charles W. Eriksen, "Some Socialand Cultural Factors Determining Relations BetweenAuthoritarianism and Measures of Neuroticism,"Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXI (April, 1957),155-159.

7. Fillenbaum, Samuel and Arnold Jackman, "Dogmatism andAnxiety in Relation to Problem Solving: An Extensionof Rokeach's Results," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LXIII (July, 1961),~212-214.

8. Fruchter, B., Milton Rokeach, and E. G. Novak, "AFactorial Study of Dogmatism, Opinionation andRelated Scales," Psychological Reports, IV (March,1958), 19-22.

9. Karabenick, Stuart A. and Ward R. Wilson, "DogmatismAmong War Hawks and .Peace Doves," PsychologicalReports, XXV (October, 1969), 419-422.

5

6

10. Keniston, K., Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth,New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968.

11. Kerlinger, F. and Milton Rokeach, "The Factorial Natureof the F and D Scales," Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, IV (October, 1966), 391-399.

12. Kirscht, John P. and Ronald C. Dillehay, Dimensions ofAuthoritarianism: A Review of Research and Theory,Lexington, Kentucky, University of Kentucky Press,1967.

13. Martin, James G., The Tolerant Personality, Detroit,Michigan, Wayne State Univer'ity Press, 1964.

14. Martin, J. G. and F. R. Westie, "The Tolerant Personality,"American Sociological Review, XXIV (June, 1959),521-528.

15. McClosky, H., "Conservatism and Personality," AmericanPolitical Science Review, LII (March, 1958), 27-45.

16. Pilisuk, Marc, "Anxiety, Self-Acceptance, and Open-Mindedness," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIX,(January, 1963), 387-391.

17. Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,"Psychological Review, LXI (May, 1954), 194-204.

18. , "Political and Religious Dogmatism:

An Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality,"Psychological Mongoraphs, LXX, No. 425, 1956.

19. , Th Open and Closed Mind, New York,Basic Books, Inc., 1960.

20. Schulze, Rolf H. K., "A Shortened Version of the RokeachDogmatism Scale," Journal of Psychological Studies,XIII (June, 1962), 93-97.

21. Siegman, Aron Wolfe, "Authoritarian Attitudes inChildren. I. The Effect of-Age, IQ, Anxiety andParental Religious Attitudes," Journal of ClinicalPsychology, XIII (October, 1957), 338-340.

7

22. Singer, Robert D. and Seymour Feshbach, "Some Relation-ships Between Manifest Anxiety, Authoritarian Tend-encies, and Modes of Reaction to Frustration," Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX (November, 1959),404-408.

CHAPTER II

RELATED STUDIES

There are three major areas of study in the current

psychological journals which provide the foundation for

this paper. These three areas are concerned with dogmatism

and anxiety, attitudes toward the Vietnam War, and the

characteristics of right and left ideologies. A few

selected studies from each of these areas will be presented

in this chapter.

Dogmatism and Anxiety

Adams and Vidulich (1) administered Form E of the

Dogmatism Scale to thirty-six volunteers who were taken

from introductory psychology classes. Two groups were used.

The high-scoring individuals were placed into group one, and

low-scoring individuals were called group two. Each subject

memorized two paired-associate lists containing noun stimulus

and adjective response words. The first list was composed

of fifteen belief-congruent word pairs; the second list was

composed of fifteen belief-incongruent word pairs. A learn-

ing criterion of three continuous trials without error was

used. It was hypothesized that belief-congruent associations

8

9

would be more easily learned than belief-incongruent

associations. A second hypothesis was that high-dogmatic

subjects would have more trouble than low-dogmatic subjects

in the learning of incongruent associations. Both hypotheses

were supported. The subjects made more errors while learning

the incongruent associates. The highly dogmatic subjects

experienced more trouble memorizing the list of incongruent

associates. It was postulated that the results of the

study were caused by anxiety.

Fruchter, Rokeach, and Novak (10) administered a

battery of ten scales to 153 subjects in introductory

psychology courses at Michigan State University. Among the

scales used were the Dogmatism Scale and the Anxiety Scale.

The purpose of the study was to ascertain if the outcome of

a previous factor analysis based on a college sample from

New York could be duplicated in a midwestern university

sample. Scores obtained from each of the scales were inter-

correlated by the Pearson product-moment method. The

Anxiety Scale and Dogmatism Scale were found to have the

highest loadings on the first rotated factor. The results

obtained were in agreement with preceding studies which

have shown dogmatism to have a factorial content much the

same as anxiety.

10

Schulze (19) investigated the validity of a shortened

version of the Dogmatism Scale. Two samples were used. The

first sample was composed of 100 subjects who were adminis-

tered Form E of the Dogmatism Scale, the Heineman Anxiety

Scale, and a shortened version of the Dogmatism Scale. It

was hypothesized that the shortened version would show a

coefficient of correlation comparable to the Form E Dogmatism

Scale when related with the Anxiety Scale. A coefficient of

.19 was obtained between the Heineman Anxiety Scale and the

shortened version of the Dogmatism Scale. The correlation

obtained for the Form E Dogmatism Scale and the Anxiety

Scale was .32. The correlations were in the predicted

direction and were significant at the .05 level. A one-

tailed test was utilized. The second group was composed of

172 students enrolled in sociology classes at Michigan State

University. They were administered the shortened Dogmatism

Scale and the Welch Anxiety Scale. The shortened Dogmatism

Scale showed a correlation of .73 with the Form E version.

The correlation of the Welch Anxiety Scale with the shortened

Dogmatism Scale was .29. It was concluded that the shortened

Dogmatism Scale was reliable and that a relationship between

dogmatism and anxiety did exist.

Fillenbaum and Jackman (9) also investigated the rela-

tionship between dogmatism and anxiety as related to

11

performance in a problem-solving situation. The subjects

for their study consisted of seventy-three students enrolled

in introductory psychology classes at the University of North

Carolina. All subjects were administered Form E of the

Dogmatism Scale and an anxiety scale obtained from a factor

analysis of responses on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory. The subjects were also presented with Rokeach's

Denny Doodlebug problem. High dogmatic subjects displayed

poor performance on the Denny Doodlebug problem. Low scores

on the Dogmatism Scale displayed good performance on the

problem. A Pearson product-moment correlation of .49

(p-.01) was obtained between dogmatism scores and anxiety

scores.

Pilisuk (16) studied the relationship between anxiety,

self-acceptance, and open-mindedness. His subjects were

154 college males taken from six different fraternities at

the University of Michigan. The fraternities were paid for

taking part in the study and subjects were tested together

at their fraternity houses. The Taylor Manifest Anxiety

Scale, Self-Ideal Index of Self Acceptance, Tolerance of

Ambiguity Scale, Intellectual Non-Conformity Test, Authori-

tarian Defense Scale, Unpleasant Situations Test, and the

Defensive Denial Test were administered to each subject.

Intercorrelations between the scores on the above variables

12

were calculated. Anxiety was shown to be negatively correlated

to self acceptance and positively correlated to cognitive

construction.

Rokeach (18) investigated the hypothesis that persons

with closed belief systems should display more anxiety than

persons having open belief systems. Subjects for the study

were college students and workers who were tested in England

and the United States. Each subject was administered the

Dogmatism Scale and a thirty-item anxiety scale which was

taken from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Two factor-analysis studies were made. Correlations between

dogmatism and anxiety scores ranged from .36 to .64, and all

were very significant (pe.01). The results of the study

were supportive of the hypothesis. It was concluded that

persons scoring high on the Dogmatism Scale are inclined to

score high on anxiety scales and that persons scoring low

on the Dogmatism Scale also score low on anxiety scales.

Dogmatism and anxiety were also shown to constitute "part

of a single psychological factor" (18, p. 349).

The purpose of a study conducted by Siegman (20) was

to examine the relationship of authoritarian attitudes,

manifest anxiety, and parental religious attitudes in

children. A total of eighty-three subjects with ages ranging

from nine to thirteen were used. The subjects were given

13

the Children's Manifest Anxiety schedule, the Children's

Authoritarianism Scale, and the verbal-subtests contained

in the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. A

religious observance scale was used to rate the parents of

the subjects. A significant decrease in authoritarian

attitudes with increasing age was found. Children with

highly authoritarian attitudes attained significantly

higher anxiety scores and significantly lower intelligence

scores than the children with low scores on the authori-

tarianism scale.

Bendig and Hountras (3) explored the relationship of

authoritarianism, anxiety, and the attitude of students

toward departmental control. The subjects for the study

were 219 graduate and undergraduate students enrolled in an

educational psychology class. Cattell's IPAT Anxiety Scale,

the Instructional Control Attitude Scale, and a shortened

version of the California F Scale were given to each of the

subjects. Product-moment correlations were computed for

each of the variables. An average correlation of .16

(p <.05) was found between overt anxiety and authoritarianism.

The intention of a study conducted by Singer and

Feshbach (21) was to examine data concerning the relation-

ship of anxiety, authoritarianism, and response

14

to frustration. The subjects for the study were 147 male

students who were enrolled in introductory psychology

courses at a large eastern university. The California F

Scale, the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, and the Child and

Waterhouse Scale of Frustration were administered each subject.

A Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated between

scores on the anxiety scale and scores on the authoritari-

anism scale. A correlation of .34 (p<.01) was obtained

between the two measures. The above data were then investi-

gated with the effects of acquiescence set removed and a

significant correlation of .33 was obtained. Other results

of the study indicated that the anxiety and authoritarianism

scales were negatively correlated with the Child and

Waterhouse Scale of Frustration.

A study conducted by Davids and Eriksen (5) also

investigated the relationship between authoritarianism and

anxiousness. Twenty male undergraduates volunteered for the

study. The California F Scale and the Taylor Manifest

Anxiety Scale were administered to each subject. It was

hypothesized that there would be a significant correlation

between anxiety and authoritarianism. The hypothesis was

confirmed. A positive correlation of .69 (p <.01) was

found between the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the

California F Scale.

15

From the studies presented above, it can be seen that

many researchers have found significant positive relation-

ships between dogmatism and anxiety. Correlations have

been found that range from .16 to .73.

Vietnam War Attitudes

Karabenick and Wilson (11) tested Rokeach's hypothesis

of independence of belief system structure and contest

against attitudes toward the Vietnam War. The subjects for

the study were 360 males and 318 females who were enrolled

in introductory psychology classes at Eastern Michigan

University. Each subject was administered the Vietnam War

Scale and a twenty-item version of the Dogmatism Scale.

Subjects were classified in accordance with their score on

the Vietnam War Scale as being either a Dove, a Moderate,

or a Hawk. Three hypotheses presented were the following:

(1) close-mindness should not be related to attitudes toward

the Vietnam War; (2) extreme Doves and Hawks should score

higher on the Dogmatism Scale than persons possessing more

moderate views concerning the Vietnam War; (3) there should

be no difference between the scores of Doves and Hawks on

the Dogmatism Scale. Hypothesis one was not supported

because a significant positive correlation was found between

the Dogmatism Scale and the Vietnam War Scale scores (r = .23,

16

df = 667, pG.0005). Hypotheses two and three were not

supported because the Doves had significantly lower Dogn-Iatism

Scale scores than the moderates (males: t = 3.94, df = 318,

p-<.001; females: t = 2.35, df = 277, p =<.02). Moderates

and Hawks displayed no significant difference on Dogmatism

Scale scores (males: t = 1.00; females: t = 2.06), and

Hawks displayed significantly higher Dogmatism Scale scores

than did the Doves (males: t = 3.05, df = 94, p <.01;

females: t = 2.59, df = 90, p<.02). The results of the

study were interpreted as being inconsistent with Rokeach's

hypothesis concerning the independence of belief structure

and content.

The intention of a study conducted by Oskamp and

Levenson (14) was to investigate the extent of a possible

double standard among supporters of the Vietnam War (Hawks)

and opponents of the Vietnam War (Doves). It was hypothesized

that Hawks would show a significantly larger double standard

than Doves. A sample of introductory psychology students

was taken from a small liberal arts college which had been

the scene of a Vietnam War protest march during the fall

semester of 1967. The subjects completed a questionnaire

which contained fifty courses of action selected by the

United States and fifty identical courses of action selected

by the Soviet Union. Four concepts measured by

17

semantic-differentials and a Vietnam War attitude scale were

also administered. A group of Hawks (18 subjects) and a

group of Doves (18 subjects) were then selected from the

sample on the basis of their scores on the Vietnam War

attitude scale. Results of the study were consistent with

the hypothesis. The Hawk group showed a significantly

higher double standard in the rating of the courses of

action taken by the United States and the Soviet Union than

did the Dove group.

Keniston (12) studied seventeen young radicals who were

members of the staff at the National Headquarters of Vietnam

Summer in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Both men and women were

interviewed. The subjects of the study were found to be

neither rigid, dogmatic, nor authoritarian in their beliefs.

Their actions and beliefs were inclined to be flexible, open,

and very liberal. The primary characteristic found among

these radicals was a very strong belief in a- set of moral

values: non-violence, decency, justice, and equal rights.

Rappoport and Cvetkovich (17) conducted a series of

studies that explored opinions toward the Vietnam War. The

purpose of one study was to test the null hypothesis on

three different samples. The three groups were composed

of 198 soldiers with service in Vietnam, and 165 soldiers

without service in Vietnam, and 197 college students.

18

A fourteen-item questionnaire which dealt with agreement

or disagreement with certain actions in Vietnam was admin-

istered to each subject. The student group displayed a

significant tendency toward disagreement with logical state-

ments that justified the Vietnam War. Both strong and

moderate disagreement were expounded by 22 per cent of the

veterans, 32 per cent of the non-Vietnam veterans, and 23

per cent of the university students. The results of the

study were interpreted as being indicative of an existing

restlessness towards the Vietnam War.

In another study, Rappoport and Cvetkovich interviewed

twenty-eight veterans of Vietnam. Sixteen had experienced

heavy combat, while twelve of the veterans interviewed had

no combat at all. The results of the interviews indicated

that veterans who experienced combat while in Vietnam held

highly complex and negative attitudes towards the Vietnam

War. The veterans who were never in combat displayed posi-

tive attitudes towards the Vietnam War.

The purpose of a study conducted by Peterson and

Koulack (15) was to test the hypothesis that there is a

nonmonotonic relationship between communication discrep-

ancy and attitude change. The subjects for the study were

thirty-eight male and thirty-four female students who were

enrolled in beginning psychology courses at Washington

19

State University. Subjects were screened for the study in

accordance with their answers on a questionnaire that

measured their extent of rejection and acceptance of the

Vietnam War. Each subject was asked to write a 500-word

essay which supported a position that was opposite to his

own position toward the Vietnam War. After two days the

questionnaire was administered again to the subjects. A

significant nonmonotonic tendency was found.

Feather (7) conducted a study which investigated the

relationship of cognitive differentiation, attitude strength,

and dogmatism. Subjects for the study were 167 male under-

graduates who were enrolled in introductory psychology

classes at the University of New England in August, 1965.

The following hypotheses were developed: (1) subjects with

an attitude toward a particular social issue should state

more evidence that is consistent with their attitude than

evidence that is inconsistent with their attitude;

(2) individuals having high scores on the Dogmatism Scale

should have a larger difference between the number of

consistent and inconsistent arguments than individuals who

obtain low scores on the Dogmatism Scale. Extremely dogmatic

individuals should show a smaller number of inconsistent

arguments than individuals having low scores on the

20

Dogmatism Scale. The subjects were asked to write a set of

arguments favoring either American intervention in South

Vietnam, state aid to private schools, or the Christian

religion. A set of arguments opposing their particular social

issue was also written. All subjects were then administered

an attitude scale which measured the intensity of their

attitudes concerning all three of the social issues described

above. Form E of the Dogmatism Scale was also completed.

Hypothesis number one was supported by the presence of a

significant tendency among subjects to present more arguments

consistent with their attitude toward the particular social

issue. Hypothesis number two was not supported. There was

no significant difference between the amount of inconsistent

and consistent arguments for either closed-minded subjects

or open-minded subjects.

In a study similar to the one above, Feather (8)

examined attitudes toward the intervention of American forces

in South Vietnam. One hundred and fifty-eight students at

the University of Michigan were asked to write a set of

arguments in favor of American intervention in Vietnam and

a set of arguments against American intervention. Rokeach's

Dogmatism Scale, a scale measuring attitudes towards

American intervention, and a test measuring intolerance of

ambiguous situations were administered to each subject.

21

The results of this study were consistent with the previous

study. The subjects showed a tendency to report more argu-

ments that were consistent with their attitudes toward the

Vietnam War. A relationship between dogmatism and intolerance

of ambiguity as compared to the number of consistent and

inconsistent arguments presented was not found.

Another study conducted by Feather (6) tested the

hypothesis that people who are unable to tolerate incon-

sistency will more readily choose information that supports

their belief concerning an issue than people who are able

to tolerate inconsistency. One hundred and nine introductory

psychology students at the University of New England were

asked to pick one booklet from a group of eight. Each

booklet contained seven arguments that were either for or

against the intervention of America in South Vietnam. The

subjects were then given a questionnaire which contained

eight statements constructed to measure attitudes concerning

American involvement in South Vietnam. The results of the

study were as hypothesized. The very intolerant subjects

tended to choose the booklets that were consistent with

their attitude toward American involvement in Vietnam. The

above tendency was not displayed by the tolerant subjects.

The studies above provide evidence that a significant

positive relationship is likely to exist between dogmatism

22

and Vietnam War attitudes. The same studies have shown

Doves to have significantly lower Dogmatism Scale scores

and a signifcantly lower double standard than Hawks.

Right-and Left-Wing Characteristics

McClosky (13) investigated the relationship of person-

ality and conservatism. The purpose of the study was to

ascertain if certain personality attributes go with conserva-

tive ideology. In his study McClosky found conservatives to

have more undesirable personality attributes than liberals.

They were found to be hostile, rigid, and preoccupied with

nationalistic symbols. Conservative beliefs were also found

to be generally characteristic of the uneducated and less

intelligent.

McClosky gave the following description as being typical

of the conservative personality:

The conservative, as we have seen, is psychologicallytimid, distrustful of differences, and of whateverhe cannot understand. He fears change, dreads dis-order, and is intolerant of nonconformity. Thetendency of the prototypic conservative to derogatereason and intellectuality, and to eschew theory,seems to some measure to be an outgrowth of these andrelated elements in his personality. He is inclinedto regard pure intellectual activity as dangerous toestablished arrangements, for in his view of theworld such activity often gives way to utopian "schemes"or unrealistic "plans.'' Intellectuals are likely tobe impractical dreamers and potential radicals, unstablepeople whose theories may weaken the foundations ofthe social order. The conservative tends, furthermore,to perceive intellectuals as bohemians, as deviants

23

and non-conformists who flout the requirements ofconvention and who lack respect for property orreligion. Excessive intellectual activity is thoughtto lead to skepticism and rationalism and, consequently,to the destruction of faith. Like Cassius, theintellectual thinks too much and is therefore verydangerous.

It will be obvious that this manner of perceivingintellectuals has little to do with the characteristicsof the class of people being observed and much to dowith the anxieties and torments of the observer (13,p. 40).

A study dealing with the ideology of the New Left was

conducted by Christie, Friedman, and Ross (4). The purpose

of the study was to determine if the New Left has a consistent

ideological basis. A New Left attitude scale was adminis-

tered to 153 freshmen from Columbia College. The results

of the study showed that there was a consistent ideological

structure among New Left members. It was postulated by the

researchers of the study that the relationship found between

idological attitudes and overt action among the New Left is

a direct reaction to the hypocrisy found in society today.

Barker (2) conducted a study with the intention of

defining the relationship between general authoritarianism

and right-wing authoritarianism. The accompanying instru-

ments were given fifty-five undergraduate students at Ohio

State University: The Dogmatism Scale, the California

Politico-Economic Conservatism Scale, the California F

Scale, and a short version of the Censorship Scale.

24

Results of the study indicated that the Right has a greater

tendency toward general authoritarianism than the Left.

In summary, it has been found that persons having right-

wing attitudes are rigid and dogmatic in both their actions

and beliefs. They are intolerant to change and differences

of opinion.


1. Adams, H. E. and R. N. Vidulich, "Dogmatism and BeliefCongruence in Paired Associate Learning,"Psychological Reports, X (February, 1962), 91-94.

2. Barker, E. N., "Authoritarianism of the Political Right,Center, and Left," Journal of Social Issues, XIX(April, 1963), 63-74.

3. Bendig, A. W. and Peter T. Hountras, '"Anxiety, Authori-tarianism and Student Attitude Toward DepartmentalControl of College Instruction," Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, L (February, 1959), 1-~7

4. Christie, Richard, Lucy N. Friedman, and Alice Ross,"The New Left and Its Ideology: An Exploratory Study,"Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, APA, IV (1969),293-294.

5. Davids, Anthony and Charles W. Eriksen, "Some Socialand Cultural Factors Determing Relations BetweenAuthoritarianism and Measures of Neuroticism," JournalofConsultin Psychology, XXI (April, 1957), 155-159.

6. Feather, N. T., "An Expectancy--Value Model of Informa-tion Seeking Behavior," Psychological Review, LXXIV(September, 1967), 342-360.

7. , "Cognitive Differentiation, AttitudeStrength, and Dogmatism," Journal of Personality,XXXVII (March, 1969), 111-126.

8. ___ "Differentiation of Arguments in Rela-tion to Attitude, Dogmatism and Intolerance ofAmbiguity," Australian Journal of Psychology, XXI(April, 1969), 21-29.

9. Fillenbaum, Samuel and Arnold Jackman, "Dogmatism andAnxiety in Relation to Problem Solving: An Extensionof Rokeach's Results," Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, LXIII (July, 1961), 212-214.

25

26

10. Fruchter, B., Milton Rokeach, and E. G. Novak, "AFactorial Study of Dogmatism, Opinionation andRelated Scales," Psychological Reports, IV (March,1958), 19-22.

11. Karabenick, Stuart A. and Ward R. Wilson, "DogmatismAmong War Hawks and Peace Doves," PsychologicalReports, XXV (October, 1969), 419-422.

12. Keniston, K., Y Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth,New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968.

13. McClosky, H., "Conservatism and Personality,' AmericanPolitical Science Review, LII (March, 1958), 27-45.

14. Oskamp, Stuart and Hanna Levenson, "The Double Standardin International Attitudes: Differences BetweenDoves and Hawks," Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention,APA, III (1968), 379-380.

15. Peterson, Paul D. and David Koulack, "Attitude Changeas a Function of Latitudes of Acceptance and Rejec-tion," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,XI (April, 19697 309-311.

16. Pilisuk, Marc, "Anxiety, Self-Acceptance, and Open-Mindedness," Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIX(January, 1963), 387-391.

17. Rappoport, Leon and George Cvetkovich, "Opinion onVietnam: Some Findings From Three Studies,"Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention, APA, III (1968),381-382.

18. Rokeach, Milton, The Open and Closed Mind, New York,Basic Books, Inc., 1960.

19. Schulze, Rolf H. K., "A Shortened Version of theRokeach Dogmatism Scale,'' Journal of PsychologicalStudies, XIII (June, 1962), 93-97.

20. Siegman, Aron Wolfe, "Authoritarian Attitudes in Children,I. The Effect of Age, IQ, Anxiety and ParentalReligious Attitudes," Journal of Clinical Psychology,XIII (October, 1957), 338-340.

27

21. Singer, Robert D. and Seymour Feshbach, "Some Rela-tionships Between Manifest Anxiety, AuthoritarianTendencies, and Modes of Reaction to Frustration,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LIX(November, 1959), 404-408.

CHAPTER III

THE INSTRUMENTS

The measurement of three psychological variables

preceded the testing of the hypotheses for this paper.

These three variables were dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes

toward the Vietnam War. In order to obtain a quantitative

measure of each of these variables, the Vietnam War Scale,

the Dogmatism Scale, and a shortened version of the S-R

Inventory of Anxiousness were used as measuring instruments.

A description of each of the above instruments will be

presented in this chapter. A copy of each scale used is

reproduced within the appendix.

The Vietnam War Scale

The Vietnam War Scale was designed by Stuart A.

Karabenick (7) as a means of measuring attitudes toward the

Vietnam War. It is composed of twenty-one rational state-

ments which make reference to both Hawkish and Dovish points

of view toward the war. The format for the scale is of the

Likert-type. Seven categories of response are provided.

The respondent is asked to express the extent of his agree-

ment with each statement by circling (a) Very Strongly Agree,

28

29

(b) Strongly Agree, (c) Agree, (d) Undecided, (e) Disagree,

(f) Strongly Disagree, or (g) Very Strongly Disagree. The

last of the twenty-one questions is a self-rating item which

asks the respondent to describe himself as being either

(a) Very much a dove, (b) Pretty dovish, (c) Hawkish dove,

(d) Undecided, (e) Dovish hawk, (f) Pretty hawkish, or

(g) Very much a hawk. A total scale score is obtained by

taking into account the direction in which the question is

worded (Hawkish or Dovish) and then placing a numerical

value from one to seven on the circled answer. High scores

on the scale are indicative of Hawkish attitudes toward the

Vietnam War. Low scores on the scale suggest the presence

of Dovish attitudes toward the Vietnam War. The possible

range in total scores is 21 to 147.

The creation and validation of the Vietnam War Scale

was achieved through the use of the Method of Known Groups.

It was given to six student organizations at Eastern Michigan

University who were known to be either for or against the

Vietnam War. The two criterion groups were composed of 50

Hawks and 122 Doves. The Dove group was found to have

significantly lower Vietnam War Scale scores (t = 9.173,

df = 170, p<.005). A correlation of .77 (p <.001) was

found between the self-rating question and the Vietnam War

Scale. Each question on the scale showed a significant

30

positive correlation (p = .05) with the total score on all

of the scales.

The Dogmatism Scale

Milton Rokeach (12) designed the Dogmatism Scale to be

a measure of open-and closed-mindedness among individuals.

It was also designed to measure both general authoritarianism

and general intolerance.

Form E of the Dogmatism Scale is composed of forty

statements. The respondent is asked to indicate the extent

of his agreement or disagreement with each statement by

writing +1 (agree a little), +2 (agree on the whole),

+3 (strongly agree), -1 (disagree), -2 (disagree on the

whole), -3 (strongly disagree). A total score on the

Dogmatism Scale is obtained by adding a constant of four to

each response and then summing all the item values. Agree-

ment with a statement is indicative of closed-mindedness.

Disagreement with a statement suggests open-mindedness.

The lowest possible score that can be obtained is 280.

Rokeach (12) tested the validity of the Dogmatism Scale

by the Method of Known Groups. A group of graduate students

from Michigan State University were asked to rate their

classmates as being either open or closed-minded. The

closed-minded students had significantly higher scores than

the open-minded students.

31

The reliability of the Form E version of the Dogmatism

Scale was tested on an English college student sample, an

English laborer sample, and an American college student

sample. The reliability coefficients obtained from these

three samples varied from .68 to .93.

Numerous other studies (6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14) have also

shown the Dogmatism Scale to be a valid and reliable instru-

ment for measuring the psychological construct of dogmatism.

The S-R Inventory of Anxiousness

Endler, Hunt, and Rosenstein (1) developed the S-R

Inventory of Anxiousness. The primary purpose of the scale

is to provide a measure of the amount of anxiety that a

person reports when exposed to certain stimulus situations.

Its major advantage is the separate sampling of stimulus

situation, mode of response to the situation, and degree or

intensity of response to the situation.

The S-R Inventory of Anxiousness is composed of eleven

stimulus situations. For each of the eleven situations,

there are fourteen modes of response. Each mode of response

has a one-to-five rating which measures the intensity of

response to each item. The respondent is instructed to

circle the intensity or degree of his response to the

situation on each of the fourteen items. A high score on

32

any item is indicative of a large amount of anxiety. The

presence of a low score suggests a small degree of anxiety.

A total scale score is obtained by adding together the

circled values on the fourteen modes of response for each

of the eleven situations.

A shortened version of the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness

was used for the research connected with this paper. (See

Appendix C.) This version utilized five of the eleven

stimulus situations contained in the longer original version

of the scale. A maximum score of 350 is obtainable on this

five-situation version of the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness.

The lowest score possible on this shortened version is

seventy.

The S-R Inventory of Anxiousness has been found to be

a reliable instrument for measuring situational anxiety.

Reliability studies for the scale were conducted with a

sample of sixty-seven students from the University of

Illinois and a sample of 169 freshmen from Pennsylvania

State University. The alpha reliability coefficient of the

total score the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness was .97 for the

Illinois sample. A coefficient of .95 was obtained with

the students at Pennsylvania State University. The alpha

reliability coefficients for values on the fourteen modes-

of response scales ranged from .64 to .93.in the

33

Illinois sample. The coefficients for the Pennsylvania

State University sample ranged from .56 to .89. The reli-

ability coefficients of scores taken from each of the eleven

situations ranged from .55 to .90in the Pennsylvania State

University sample and from .62 to .90with the University of

Illinois sample. Numerous other studies (2, 3, 4, 5, 13)

have also cited evidence for the reliability of the S-R

Inventory of Anxiousness.


1. Endler, Norman A. and J. McV. Hunt, "An S-R Inventoryof Anxiousness," Psychological Monographs, LXXVINo. 536, 1962.

2. , "Generalizabilityof Contributions from Sources of Variance in the S-RInventories of Anxiousness,"? Journal of Personality,XXXVII (March, 1969), 1-24.

3 , "Sources ofBehavioral Variance as Measured by the S-R Inventoryof Anxiousness," Psychological Bulletin, LXV (June,1966), 336-346.

4. _ _ __, "S-R Inventories ofHostility and Comparisons of the Proportions ofVariance from Persons, Responses, and Situations forHostility and Anxiousness," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, IX (August, 1968), 309-315.

5. _, Triple-InteractionVariance in the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness," Percep-tual and Motor Skills, XXVII (December, 1968), 1098.

6. Haiman, Franklin S. and Donald F. Duns, "Validationsin Communicative Behavior of Attitude-Scale Measuresof Dogmatism," The Journal of Social Psychology LXIV(December, 196477287-297.

7. Karabenick, Stuart A. and Ward R. Wilson," DogmatismAmong War Hawks and Peace Doves," PsychologicalReports, XXV (October, 1969), 419-422.

8. Kemp, C. Gratton and Edward W. Kohler, -"Suitability ofThe Rokeach Dogmatism Scale for High-School Use,"The Journal of Experimental Education, XXIII (Summer,1965), 383-385.

34

35

9. Korn, Harold A. and Norman S. Giddan, "Scoring Methodsand Construct Validity of the Dogmatism Scale,??Educational' and Psychological Measurement, XXIV(Winter, 1964T, 867-874.

10. Lefcourt, Herbert M., "Clinical Correlates of Dogmatism,Journal of Clinical Psychology, XVIII (July, 1962),327-328.

11. Plant, Walter T., Charles W. Telford, and Joseph A.Thomas, "Some Personality Differences Between Dogmaticand Nondogmatic Groups," The Journal of SocialPsychology, LXVII (October,1965), 67-75.

12. Rokeach, Milton, The Open and Closed Mind, New York,Basic Books, Inc., 1960.

13. Silverstein, A. B. and Gary Fisher, "Estimated VarianceComponents in the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness,?Perceptual and Motor Skills, XXVII (December, 1968),740-742.

14. Zagona, Salvatore V. and Louis A. Zurcher Jr., "Noteson the Reliability and Validity of the DogmatismScale," Psychological Reports, XVI (June, 1965),1234-1236.

CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

The subjects for the study consisted of 104 male

students who were enrolled in introductory psychology

classes at North Texas State University. The sample was

composed of forty-five freshmen, twenty-three sophomore,

eighteen juniors, and eighteen seniors. The subjects ranged

in age from seventeen to thirty-seven. Nineteen was the

modal age.

The subjects were tested in four separate groups during

the month of March, 1971. The Vietnam War Scale, Form E of

the Dogmatism Scale, and five-situation version of the S-R

Inventory of Anxiousness were administered to each person.

The subjects were informed that their responses on the three

questionnaires would remain completely anonymous. No names

were required.

A Vietnam War attitude score, dogmatism score, and

anxiety score were obtained for each subject by hand

scoring methods. Each subject's raw scores on these three

variables were then recorded side by side on a keypunch

worksheet. The worksheet was then taken to North Texas

State University Computing Center.36

37

In order to test hypotheses one and two, the following

statistical computations were performed: (1) A Pearson

product-moment coefficient of correlation was computed for

the entire sample,using scores on the Dogmatism Scale and

scores on the five-situation version of the S-R Inventory

of Anxiousness; (2) another Pearson product-moment coefficient

of correlation was computed between scores on the Dogmatism

Scale and scores on the Vietnam War Scale for the entire

sample.

A prerequisite to the testing of hypotheses three and

fourwas the classifying of Hawk and Dove scores. Subjects

with scores on the Vietnam War Scale that fell above one

standard deviation above the mean were called Hawks (N = 18).

Subjects with scores that fell beneath one standard deviation

below the mean were called Doves (N = 18). As a means of

testing hypotheses three and four, the following statistical

computations were performed: (1) A Fisher's t was computed

using the Dogmatism Scale scores for both Hawks and Doves;

(2) another Fisher's t was computed using the S-R Inventory

of Anxiousness scores for both Hawks and Doves. Results of

the above tests will be presented in Chapter Five.

CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A Pearson product-mcrment correlation was used to test

the first hypothesis, which stated that there would be a

significant positive relationship between dogmatism (as

measured by the Dogmatism Scale) and anxiety (as measured

by the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness).

The results of this statistical test are presented in

Table I.

TABLE I

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENTCOEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR THE VARIABLES

OF DOGMATISM AND ANXIETY

Variable Mean S.D. r p

Dogmatism 145.1442 27.3937.4655 .01

Anxiety 152.4615 30.7128

As predicted, there was a significant positive rela-

tionship between dogmatism and anxiety. The coefficient of

correlation .4655 was significant beyond the .01 level.

This finding is in full agreement with numerous other

38

39

studies (1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17) that have found

significant positive relationships between dogmatism and

anxiety.

A Pearson product-moment correlation was also used to

test hypothesis number two, which stated that there would be

a significant positive relationship between closed-mindedness

(as measured by the Dogmatism Scale) and attitudes toward the

Vietnam War (as measured by the Vietnam War Scale). The

outcome of this statistical test is summarized below in

Table II.

TABLE II

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND PEARSON PRODUCT-MOMENTCOEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION FOR THE VARIABLES OF

DOGMATISM AND VIETNAM WAR ATTITUDES

Variable Mean S.D. r p

Dogmatism 145.1442 27.3937.3479 .01

VW-Attitudes 82. 5192 25.1377

Hypothesis two was also supported. The obtained corre-

lation coefficient of .3479 was significant at better than

the .01 level. The results of this statistical test are

consistent with other studies (2, 3, 8, 9, 10) which have

found relationships to exist between dogmatism and specific

40

contents or ideologies. Such evidence, however, is not

consistent with Rokeach's hypothesis of independence of

belief structure and content (12, 13, 14).

Fisher's t was used in order to test hypothesis number

threewhich stated that the Hawks would show a significantly

higher level of dogmatism than the Doves. Results of the

Fisher's t are given in Table III.

TABLE III

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND FISHER'S t FOR THEVARIABLE OF DOMATISM AMONG HAWKS AND DOVES

Group Variable Mean S.D. t p

Hawks 159.6667 27.2893Dogmatism 3.1670 .01

Doves 130.9444 27.1260

As expected, the Hawks did show a significantly higher

level of dogmatism than the Doves. A significant mean

difference did exist between the two groups with the t

value of 3.1670 being significant at better than the .01

level. Such findings lend support to hypothesis number

two which stated that there would be a significant positive

relationship between dogmatism and attitudes toward the

Vietnam War. The findings are also in agreement with

other studies (2, 3, 8, 9, 10) that have found a relationship

41

between belief content and structure which was not predicted

by Rokeach's theory.

Fisher's t was also used to test hypothesis number

fourwhich stated that the Hawks would show a significantly

higher level of anxiety than the Doves. Evidence from the

test is presented in Table IV.

TABLE IV

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND FISHER'S t FOR THEVARIABLE OF ANXIETY AMONG HAWKS AND DOVES

Group Variable Mean S.D. t p

Hawks 149.444 28.4692Anxiety .9481 N.S.

Doves 139.3889 34.8444

The Hawks did show a higher level of anxiety than the

Doves. However, the t was not large enough to be significant.

Thus, hypothesis number four was not supported.

A summary of the above findings and information shows

that a significant positive relationship exists between

dogmatism and anxiety. There is also a significant positive

relationship between closed-mindedness and attitudes toward

the Vietnam War. It has also been found that the Hawks

tend to show higher dogmatism and anxiety scores than the

Doves.

42

From the summary of these findings, it can be concluded

that some sort of relationship between dogmatism, anxiety,

and attitudes toward the Vietnam War does exist. It can

also be concluded that Rokeach's hypothesis of independence

of belief structure and content does not apply to the

contextual atmosphere of recent attitudes toward the Vietnam

War.


1. Adams, H. E. and R. N. Vidulich, "Dogmatism and BeliefCongruence in Paired Associate Learning," PsychologicalReports, X (February, 1962), 91-94.

2. Bailes, D. W. and I. B. Guller, "Dogmatism and AttitudesToward the Vietnam War," paper presented at theAmerican Psychological Association Convention,Washington, D. C., 1968.

3. Barker, E. N., "Authoritarianism of the Political Right,Center, and Left," Journal of Social Issues, XIX(April, 1963), 63-74.

4. Bendig, A. W. and Peter T. Hountras, "Anxiety, Authori-tarianism and Student Attitude Toward DepartmentalControl of College Instruction," Journal of EducationalPsychology,L (February, 1959), 1-7.

5. Davids, Anthony and Charles W. Eriksen, "Some Socialand Cultural Factors Determining Relations BetweenAuthoritarianism and Measures of Neuroticism," Journalof Consulting Psychology, XXI (April, 1957), 155-159.

6. Fillenbaum, Samuel and Arnold Jackman, "Dogmatism andAnxiety in Relation to Problem Solving: An Extensionof Rokeach's Results," Journal of Abnormal Psychology,LXIII (July, 1961), 212-214.

7. Fruchter, B., Milton Rokeach, and E. G. Novak, "AFactorial Study of Dogmatism, Opinionation and RelatedScales," Psychological Reports, IV (March, 1958), 19-22.

8. Karabenick, Stuart A. and Ward R. Wilson, "DogmatismAmong War Hawks and Peace Doves," Psychological Reports,XXV (October, 1969), 419-422.

9. Keniston, K. , Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth,New York,_ Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968.

43

44

10. McClosky, H., "Conservatism and Personality,? AmericanPolitical Science Review, LII (March, 1958), 27-45.

11. Pilisuk, Marc, 'Anxiety, Self-Acceptance, and Open-Mindedness,?? Journal of Clinical Psyh0__y, XIX(January, 1963), 387-391. a P o

12. Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,"Psychological Review, LXI (May, 1954), 194-204.

13. , The Open and Closed Mind, New York,Basic Books, Inc., 1960,

14 _, "Political and Religious Dogmatism:An Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality,"Psychological Monographs, LXX, No. 425, 1956.

15. Schulze, Rolf F. K., ??A Shortened Version of the RokeachDogmatism Scale,"~ Journal of Psychological Studies,XIII (June, 1962), 93-97.

16. Siegman, Aron Wolfe, '"Authoritarian Attitudes in Children.I. The Effect of Age, IQ, Anxiety and ParentalReligious Attitudes,?" Journal of Clinical Psychology,XIII (October, 1957), 338-340.

17. Singer, Robert D. and Seymour Feshbach, "Some Relation-ships Between Manifest Anxiety Authoritarian Tendencies,and Modes of Reaction to Frustration," Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, LIX (November, 1959),404-408.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

The main objective of this study was to determine if

there is a relationship between dogmatism, anxiety, and

attitudes toward the Vietnam War, and, in the process of

doing so, to test Rokeach's hypothesis of independence of

belief structure and content in the contextual atmosphere

of recent attitudes toward the Vietnam War.

It was hypothesized

I. That there would be a significant positive rela-

tionship between dogmatism (as measured by the Dogmatism

Scale) and anxiety (as measured by a five-situation version

of the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness).

II. That there would be a significant positive rela-

tionship between close-mindedness (as measured by the

Dogmatism Scale) and attitudes toward the Vietnam War (as

measured by the Vietnam War Scale).





45

46

The Vietnam War Scale, Form E of the Dogmatism Scale,

and a five-situation version of the S-R Inventory of

Anxiousness were administered to 104 male students who were

enrolled in introductory psychology classes at North Texas

State University. The subjects were tested in four separate

groups during the month of March, 1971.

Hypotheses one, two, and three were supported.

Hypothesis number four was in the predicted direction, but

was not statistically significant.

It was concluded that a relationship exists between

dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes toward the Vietnam War.

It was also postulated that Rokeach's hypothesis of

independence of belief structure and content does not apply

to the contextual atmosphere of recent attitudes toward the

Vietnam War.

APPENDIX A

Vietnam War Scale

A Vietnam Questionnaire

This is a questionnaire on attitudes toward the war inVietnam. For the sake of scientific information we wish youto be as objective as possible in answering each question.Please read each question carefully and answer the CLOSESTto your attitude at this time. No names are being recorded,so the answers to these questions will be completely con-fidential, and in no way will be identified to anyone.

The following list of sentences is in the form of whatshould or should not be done, or what is believed or notbelieved. If you very strongly agree with the statement asit stands, circle the a) on this sheet for "very stronglyagree," or circle the answer that corresponds to your presentattitude with regard to the statement.

The choices of labels are as follows:

a) VSA or Very Strongly Agree (or Very Strongly Approve)b) SA or Strongly Agree (or Strongly Approve)c) A or Agree (or Approve)d) U or Undecided (or Uncertain)e) D or Disagree (or Disapprove)f) SD or Strongly Disagree (or Strongly Disapprove)g) VSD or Very Strongly Disagree (or Very Strongly Disapprove)

Now before beginning, are there any questions? If so,please raise your hand for assistance.

1. The U. S. now faces only one choice in Vietnam; victoryor defeat.

a) VSA b) SA c) A d)U e) D f) SD g) VSD

47

48

2. If you were a parent now with an able-bodied, older-teenson (in the light of present circumstances regarding theVietnam War), you should recommend that he should fightagainst being drafted and against the continuation of thewar, even to the extent of violence and going to jailfor it.

a) VSA b) SA c) A d) U e) D f) SD g) VSD

3. Our major goal should be to stop communism from furtheradvances in the world, just as we are doing in Vietnam.


4. If you were an able-bodied man and you were personallyasked by the U. S. Government to serve in the armedforces in Vietnam, you should obey your superiors andfight.


5. Public statements by those critical of the war (e.g.,Senator Fulbright) work against the best interests ofthe U. S.


6. The U. S. has committed agression in Vietnam.


7. If you were an able-bodied man and you were personallyasked by the U. S. Government to serve in the armedforces in Vietnam, you should consider it your moralduty and serve.


8. Regardless of how we became involved in Vietnam, nowthat we are committed we must see it through.


9. An outcome of the war could be a reunited, anti-communistVietnam--North and South. Would you approve or disapproveof this outcome?

d)U e)D f)SD g) VSDaVSA b) SA c) A

49

10. The basic cause of the war in Vietnam is communistagression.


11. If you were an able-bodied man and you were personallyasked by the U. S. Government to serve in the armed forces,in Vietnam, you should try every legal means to stay outof the draft and to demonstrate your opposition to thewar.


12. Our major goal should be to destroy communism throughoutthe world, just as in Vietnam.


13. The best policy for the U. S. is immediate all-outescalation using anything needed to win in Vietnam, exclud-ing nuclear bombs, and short of invasion of North Vietnam.


14. The war could be shortened by increasing the bombing ofNorth Vietnam.


15. The best policy for the U. S. is phased withdrawal fromVietnam while seeking international guarantees for thesafety of all parties.


16. An outcome of the war could be a reunited, communistVietnam--North and South. Would you approve or disapproveof this outcome?

a) VSA b) SA c) A d)1U e) D f) SD g) VSD

17. If you were a parent now with an able-bodied, older-teenson (in the light of present circumstances regardingthe Vietnam War), you should reccomend that it is hismoral duty to support our country and fight, if he weredrafted.

Sd)U e) D f) SD g) VSDaVSA b) SA c) A

50

18. If you were an able-bodied man and you were personallyasked by the U. S. Government to serve in the armedforces in Vietnam, you should move to another countrywhere you would not be eligible for the draft.

a) VSA b) SA c) A d)U e) D f) SD g) VSD

19. The best policy for the U. S. is immediate and completewithdrawal from Vietnam.

a) VSA b) SA c) A d)U e)D f)SD g) VSD

20. If you were a parent now with an able-bodied, older-teenson (in the light of present circumstances regardingthe Vietnam War) you should recommend that he claim tobe a conscientious objector and serve in a non-combatantposition.

a) VSA b) SA c) A d)U e)D f)SD g) VSD

21. How would you describe your present position towardthe Vietnam war in terms of current categories?

Very much a dovePretty dovishHawkish doveUndecided

e) Dovish hawkf) Pretty hawkishg) Very much a hawk

a)b)c)d)

APPENDIX B

Dogmatism Scale

The following is a study of what the general publicthinks and feels about a number of important social andpersonal questions. The best answer to each statement belowis your personal opinion. We have tried to cover manydifferent and opposing points of view; you may find youselfagreeing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeingjust as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain aboutothers; whether you agree or disagree with any statement,you can be sure that many people feel the same as you do.

Mark each statement in the left margin according tohow much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark everyone.

Write +1, +2, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how youfeel in each case.

+1: I AGREE A LITTLE -1: I DISAGREE A LITTLE+2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE+3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: 1 DISAGREE VERY MUCH

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing incommon.

2. The highest form of government is a democracy and thehighest form of democracy is a government run by thosewho are most intellegent.

3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worth-while goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrictfreedom of certain political groups.

4. It is only natural that a person would have a muchbetter acquaintance with ideas he believes in than withideas he opposes.

5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesomeplace.

51

52

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

8. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell mehow to solve my personal problems.

9. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful ofthe future.

10. There is so much to be done and so little time to doit in.

11. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't

stop.

12. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat

myself several times to make sure I am being understood.

13. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbedin what I am going to say that I forget to listen towhat the others are saying.

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

15. While I don't like to admit this even tomyself, mysecret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein,or Beethoven, or Shakespeare.

16. The main thing in life is for a person to want to dosomething important.

17. If given the chance, I would do something of great bene-fit to the world.

18. In the history of mankind there have probably been justa handful of really great thinkers.

19. There are a number of people I have come to hate becauseof the things they stand for.

20. A man who does not believe in some great cause has notreally lived.

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

22. Of all the different philosophies which exist in thisworld there is probably only one which is correct.

53

23. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes islikely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person.

24. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerousbecause it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.

25. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion wemust be careful not to compromise with those who believedifferently from the way we do.

26. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfishif he considers primarily his own happiness.

27. The worst crime a person could commit is to attackpublicly the people who believe in the same thing hedoes.

28. In times like these it is often necessary to be more onguard against ideas put out by people or groups in one'sown camp than by those in the opposing camps.

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

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

31. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses toadmit he ' s wrong.

32. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness isbeneath contempt.

33. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren'tworth the paper they are printed on.

34. In this complicated world of ours the only way we canknow what's going on is to rely on leaders or expertswho can be trusted.

35. It is often desirable-to reserve judgment about what'sgoing on until one has had a chance to hear the opinionsof those one respects.

36. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friendsand associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same asone's own.

54

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

38. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life it issometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all."

39. Unfortunately, a good many people with whom I havediscussed important social and moral problems don'treally understand what's going on.

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

APPENDIX C

Five-Situation S-R Inventory of Anxiousness

Inventory of Attitudes Toward Specific Situations

This inventory represents a means of studying peoples'reactions to and attitudes towards various types of situ-ations. On the following pages are represented five situationswhich most people have experienced personally or vicariouslythrough stories, etc. For each of the situations certaincommon types of personal reactions and feelings are listed.Indicate in the alternatives on each page the degree towhich you would show these reactions and feelings in thesituations indicated.

Here is an example:

You are about to go on a roller coaster.

Heart beats faster 1 2 3 4 5Not at all Much faster

If your heart beats much faster in this situation, youwould circle alternative 5 on the sheet: if your heart beatssomewhat faster, you would circle either alternative 2,3, or4, depending on how much faster: if in this situation yourheart does not beat faster at all, you would circle alterna-tive 1 on the sheet.

If you have no questions, please turn to the items onthe following pages.

55

56

"You are entering a final examination in an important course"

Circle on this sheet one of the five alternative degreesof reaction or attitude for each of the following 14 items.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.0

11.

12.

13.0

14.0

Heart beats fasterNot at all

Get an "uneasy feeling'None

Emotions disrupt action.Not at all

Feel exhilarated and thrilledVery much

Want to avoid situationNot at all

Perspire.Not -at all

Need to urinate frequentlyNot at all

Enjoy the challenge,Enjoy much

Mouth gets dry,Not at all

Become immobilizedNot at all

Get full feeling in stomach,NoneO

Seek experiences like thisVery much

Have loose bowels.None -

Experience nauseaNot at all

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3 WMPWI

1

1TNT

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

Please circle your answers on this sheet.

4 5Much faster

4.5Very strongly

4 5Very disruptive

4 5Not at all

4 5Very much

4 5Perspire much

4 5Very frequently

4 5Not at all

4-5Very dry

4 5Copetely

4 5Very full

4 5Not at all

4 5Very much

4 5Much nausea

No"

own

OMM

no"

low

NNW

mmol

now"

wmwm

Nomm

PMM"

"OWN

worAd

mow

OWN"

WAM

WWAPWAW

now"

wm

WIN"

WANWAN

wm

wh

57

"'You are getting up to give a speech before a large group'"

Circle on this sheet one of the fivereaction or attitude for each of the

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.0

11.

12:

13.

14.0

alternative degrees offollowing 14 items.


Get an "uneasy feeling"None

Emotions disrupt actionNot at all



PerspireNot at all

Need to urinate frequently.Not at all

Enjoy the challengeEnjoy much

Mouth gets dry,Not at allM


Get full feeling in stomach.None


Have loose bowelsNone

Experience nauseaNot at all

12

12

1 N2

12

12

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2

1 2


3 4 5Much faster345w3 4 5Very strongly

3 4 51Very disruptive

3 4 5Not at all

3 4 5Very-much

3 4 5Perspire much

3 4 5Very frequently

3 4 5Not at all

3.4 -5Very dry

3 45

Completely3 4 5

Very full3 4 5

Not at all3-4 5

Very much3 4.5

Much nauseaANN"

MWAWA

NOWMMFAM

mmmmp

pmmmmm

mwwmd

Wmmww

lwmwmw

mwvmwww

mowxwmw

WWNMWAP

wmmmwm"

MOWAWM

mawnwo

58

"You are entering a competitive contest before spectators"


1. Heart beats fasterNot at alln

2. Get an "uneasy feeling"None

3. Emotions disrupt actionNot at allS

4. Feel exhilarated and thrilledVery much

5. Want to avoid situationNot at all

6. PerspireNot -at all

7. Need to urinate frequentlyNot at all

8. Enjoy the challengeEnjoy much

9. Mouth gets dry,Not at all

10. Become immobilizedNot at all

11. Get full feeling in stomachNone

12. Seek experiences like this.Very much

13. Have loose bowelsNone

14. Experience nauseaNot at all

1

1

1

1

1

T

T


2

2T

2T

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

5Much faster5Very strongly5Very disruptive5Not at all5Very much5Very much5Very frequently5Not at all

3 mmwm


OWN

VIM

MOMMVAMWN

wm

WAWASWMM

5Very dry5Completely5Very full5Not at all5Very much5Much nausea

59

"You are alone in the woods at night"


1.

2 .

3,

4,

50

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

137

14.


Get an "uneasy feeling"

NoneEmotions disrupt action

Not at allFeel exhilarated and thrilled

Very muchWant to avoid situation

Not at allPerspire

Not at allNeed to urinate frequently,

Not at allEnjoy the challenge

Enjoy muchMouth gets dry

Not at allBecome immobilized

Not at allGet full feeling in stomach

NoneSeek experiences like this

Very muchHave loose bowels

NoneExperience nausea

Not at all


2

2

2-T

-T

-T

2T

27

27

27

27

27

34

34

34

34

34

3 4

34

34

3 4

3 4

34

3 4

34

3 4

1

T

1

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

T

1F

1

1Much


5Much faster5Very strongly5Very disruptive5Not at all5Very much5Perspire much5Veryf requently5Not at all5Very dry5Completely5Very full5Not at all5Very much5MuchARWAV WMFMMMS

owmam

WAMM

NOWAIN

WMMWAM

wwwom

mmm"m

bommom

MINNw"

k"MNPN

NINONIMA

wmmmo

memo""

mmmw

WAMMOMW

WAW*wn

MNMWJM

wjft

monvom

60

"You are going to meet a new date"


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.o

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.0

11.

12.

13.0

14.0


Get an "uneasy feeling"None

Emotions disrupt actionNot at all



Perspire.Not at all

Need to urinate frequently.Not at all

Enjoy the challenge,Enjoy much

Mouth gets dryNot at all


Get full feeling in stomachNone


Have loose bowels-None

Experience nauseaNot at all-


2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3 omemo

4

4T

4T

4T

4T

4T

4T

5Much faster5Very strongly5Very disruptive5Not at all5Very much5Perspire much5Very frequently5Not at all5Very dry5Completely5Very full5Not at all5Very-mucha5Much nausea


1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Rome"=

WMIPWN

wmmwd

UNWAUMM

lawmao

okwAlo

MMWAW

up

WAMON

now""

loomw

mom"m

OWN"

mommoo

Nkt=W

IWAMMO

**WON

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Keniston, K.., Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth,New York, Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1968.

Kirscht, John P. and Ronald C. Dillehay, Dimensions of Author-itarianism: A Review of Research and Theory, Lexington,Kentucky, University of Kentucky Press, 1967.

Martin, James G., The Tolerant Personality, Detroit, Michigan,Wayne State University Press, 1964.

Rokeach, Milton, The Open and Closed Mind, New York, BasicBooks, Inc., 1960.

Articles

Adams, H. E. and R. N. Vidulich, "Dogmatism and BeliefCongruence in Paired Associate Learning," PsychologicalReports, X (February, 1962), 91-94.

Barker, E. N., "Authoritarianism of the Political Right,Center, and Left," Journal of Social Issues, XIX(April, 1963), 63-74.

Bendig, A. W. and Peter T. Hountras, "Anxiety, Authoritar-ianism and Student Attitude Toward Departmental Controlof College Instruction," Journal of Educational Psychology,L (February, 1959), 1-7.

Byrne, Donn, Barbara Blaylock, and June Goldberg, "Dogmatismand Defense Mechanisms," Psychological Reports, XVIII(February, 1966), 739-742.

Christie, Richard, Lucy N. Friedman, and Alice Ross, "TheNew Left and Its Ideology: An Exploratory Study,'Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, APA, IV (1969),293-294.

61

62

Davids, Anthony and Charles W. Eriksen, "Some Social andCultural Factors Determining Relations Between Authori-tarianism and Measures of Neuroticism," Journal ofConsulting Psychology, XXI (April, 1957), 155-159.

Endler, Norman S. and J. McV. Hunt, "An S-R Inventory ofAnxiousness," Psychological Monographs, LXXVI, No. 536,1962.

"Sources of Behavioral

Variance as Measured by the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness,"Psychological Bulletin, LXV (June, 1966), 336-346.

"Generalizability ofContributions from Sources of Variance in the S-RInventories of Anxiousness," Journal of Personality,XXXVII (March, 1969), 1-24.

"S-R Inventories ofHostility and Comparisons of the Proportions of Variancefrom Persons, Responses, and Situations for Hostilityand Anxiousness," Journal of Persoriality and SocialPsychology, IX (August, 1968), 309-315.

"Triple-Interac tionVariance in the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness," Perceptualand Motor Skills, XXVII (December, 1968), 1098.

Feather, N. T., "An Expectancy--Value Model of InformationSeeking Behavior," Psychological Review, LXXIV(September, 1967), 342-360.

_ "Cognitive Differentation, Attitude Strengthand Dogmatism," Journal of Personality, XXVII (March,1969), 111-126.

,"Differentiation of Arguments in Relation toAttitude, Dogmatism and Intolerance of Ambiguity,"Australian Journal of Psychology, XXI (April, 1969),21-29.

Fillenbaum, Samuel and Arnold Jackman, "Dogmatism and Anxietyin Relation to Problem Solving: An Extension of Rokeach'sResults," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,LXIII (July, 1961), 212-214.

63

Fruchter, B., Milton Rokeach, and E. G. Novak, "A FactorialStudy of Dogmatism, Opinionation and Related Scales,"Psychological Reports, IV (March, 1958), 19-22.

Haiman, Franklin S. and Donald F. Duns, "Validations inCommunicative Behavior of Attitude-Scale.Measures ofDogmatism," The Journal of Social Psychology, LXIV(December, 1964), 287-297.

Karabenick, Stuart A. and Ward R. Wilson, "Dogmatism AmongWar Hawks and' Peace Doves," Psycho Lgcal Reports, XXV(October, 1969), 419-422.

Kemp, C. Gratton and Edward W. Kohler, "Suitability of TheRokeach Dogmatism Scale for High-School Use," TheJournal of Experimental Education, XXXIII (Summer,1965), 383-385.

Kerlinger, F. and Milton Rokeach, "The Factorial Nature of theF and D Scales," Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, IV (October, 1966), 391-399.

Korn, Harold A. and Norman S. Giddan, ."Scoring Methods andConstruct Validity of the Dogmatism Scale," Educationaland Psychological Measurement, XXIV (Winter, 1964), 867-874.

Lefcourt, Herbert M., "Clinical Correlates of Dogmatism,"Journal of Clinical Psychology, XVIII (July, 1962), 327-328.

Martin, J. G. and F. R. Westie, "The Tolerant Personality,??American Sociological Review, XXIV (June, 1959), 521-528.

McClosky, H., "Conservatism and Personality," American Poli-tical Science Review, LII (March, 1958), 27-45.

Oskamp, Stuart and Hanna Levenson, "The Double Standard inInternational Attitudes: Differences Between Doves andHawks," Proceedings, 76th Annual Convention, APA, III(1968), 379-380.

Peterson, Paul D. and David Koulack, "Attitude Change as aFunction of Latitudes of Acceptance and Rejection,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, XI(April, 1969), 309-311.

Pilisuk, Marc, "Anxiety, Self-Acceptance, and Open-Mindedness,"?Journal of Clinical Psychology, XIX (January, 1963),387-391.

64

Plant, Walter T., Charles W. Telford, and Joseph A. Thomas,"Some Personality Differences Between Dogmatic and Non-dogmatic Groups," The Journal of Social Psychology,LXVII (October, 1965), 67-75.

Rappoport, Leon and George Cvetkovich, "Opinion on Vietnam:Some Findings from Three Studies," Proceedings, 76thAnnual Convention, APA, III (1968), 381-382.

Rokeach, Milton, "The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,"Psychological Review, LXI (May, 1954), 194-204.

"Political and Religious Dogmatism: An

Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality," Psychological

Monographs, LXX, No. 425, 1956.

Silverstein, A. B. and Gary Fisher, "Estimated VarianceComponents in the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness,"Perceptual and Motor Skills, XXVII (December, 1968),740-742.

Schulze, Rolf H. K., "A Shortened Version of the RokeachDogmatism Scale,?? Journal of Psychological Studies,XIII (June, 1962), 93-97.

Siegman, Aron Wolfe, "Authoritarian Attitudes in Children.I. The Effect of Age, IQ, Anxiety and ParentalReligious Attitudes," ,Journal of Clinical Psychology,XIII (October, 1957), 338-340.

Singer, Robert D. and Seymour Feshbach, "Some RelationshipsBetween Manifest Anxiety, Authoritarian Tendencies, andModes of Reaction to Frustration," Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, LIX (November, 1959), 404-408.

Zagona, Salvatore V. and Louis A. Zurcher Jr., "Notes on theReliability and Validity of the Dogmatism Scale,"Psychological Reports, XVI (June, 1965), 1234-1236.

Unpublished Materials

Bailes, D. W. and I. B. Guller, "Dogmatism and AttitudesToward the Vietnam War," paper presented at the AmericanPsychological Association Convention, Washington, D. C.,1968.

qq y i dogmatism, anxiety, and attitudes thesis/67531/metadc663835/... · dogmatism scale, and a...

Documents