G. Conclusion
The attempt to construct a scale that would measure prejudice without appearing to have this aim and without mentioning the name of any minority group seems to have been fairly successful. The correlation of .75 between the E and the F scale means that scores on the former may be predicted with fair accuracy from scores on the latter. That we have achieved the second purpose underlying the F scale – to construct an instrument that would yield an estimate of fascist receptivity at the personality level – has still to be demonstrated.
Numerous variables in areas not ordinarily covered by studies of political, economic, and social ideology have been attacked directly; and they have been found to form a syndrome and to correlate significantly with antidemocratic trends in areas covered by the A-S, E, and PEC scales. This means, at the least, that the conception of a potentially fascistic pattern can be considerably extended, and that the hypothesis of central personality dispositions which give rise to this pattern is lent considerable support. It remains to be shown conclusively, however, that the variables with which the F scale has been concerned are, in reality, variables of personality. If it is true that they are, then they will be exposed directly as we consider findings from procedures designed especially for the investigation of personality and in which the individual is allowed to express himself spontaneously. If our major hypothesis is correct, then the clinical investigations soon to be reported should not only substantiate the findings of the present chapter, but give a deeper understanding of the potentially fascistic pattern and of its development within the individual.
Fußnoten
[1 See below, pp. 248ff.]
2 Herbert S. Conrad and R. Nevitt Sanford, »Scales for the Measurement of War-Optimism: I. Military Optimism; II. Optimism on the Consequences of the War,« The Journal of Psychology 16 (1943), pp. 285–311; Idem, »Some Specific War Attitudes of College Students,« The Journal of Psychology 17 (1944), pp. 153–186; R. Nevitt Sanford, »American Conscience and the Coming Peace,« Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38 (1943), pp. 158–165; R. Nevitt Sanford and Herbert S. Conrad, »High and Low Morale as Exemplified in Two Cases,« Character and Personality 13 (1944), pp. 207–227; R. Nevitt Sanford, Herbert S. Conrad and Kate Franck, »Psychological Determinants of Optimism regarding the Consequences of the War,« The Journal of Psychology 22 (1946), pp. 207–235; R. Nevitt Sanford and Herbert S. Conrad, »Some Personality Correlates of Morale,« Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 38 (1943), pp. 3–20.
3 T.W. Adorno, »Anti-Semitism and Fascist Propaganda,« Anti-Semitism: A Social Disease, ed. Ernst Simmel (New York: International Universities Press, 1946 [auch GS 8, s. S. 397ff.]); Idem, »The Psychological Technique of Martin Luther Thomas' Radio Speeches« [GS 9.1, s. pp. 7ff.]; Institute of Social Research, Studien über Autorität und Familie, ed. Max Horkheimer (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1936); Idem, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science 9 (1941); Idem, Studies in Anti-Semitism: A Report to the American Jewish Committee, 4 vols. (unpublished: August, 1944); Idem, Anti-Semitism within American Labor: A Report to the Jewish Labor Committee, 4 vols. (unpublished: May, 1945).
4 Erich Fromm (Escape from Freedom [New York: Farrar & Rinehart, Inc., 1941]), Erick H. Erikson (»Hitler's Imagery and German Youth,« Psychiatry 5 [1942], pp. 475–493), Arthur H. Maslow (»The Authoritarian Character Structure,« The Journal of Social Psychology 18 [1943], pp. 401–411), George B. Chisholm (»The Reestablishment of Peacetime Society,« Psychiatry 9 [1946], pp. 3–21), and Wilhelm Reich (The Mass Psychology of Fascism, trans. Theodore P. Wolfe [New York: Orgone Institute Press, 1946]) are among the writers whose thinking about authoritarianism has influenced our own.
5 Henry A. Murray, et al., Explorations in Personality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1938).
6 Although no items pertaining specifically to stereotypy appear in Form 78 of the F scale, several such items do find a place in the later forms; hence, it seems well to introduce this concept into the discussion at this point.
[7 Daniel J. Levinson, »Ethnocentrism in Relation to Intelligence and Education,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 280–288.]
[8 Daniel J. Levinson, »The Study of Anti-Semitic Ideology,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 57–101.]
9 It may be reported here that in the case of the University of Oregon Student Women Form 60 of the questionnaire was administered in two parts: Part A contained the F scale and one half of the PEC scale and Part B, administered a day later, contained the E scale and the other half of the PEC scale. The purpose of this proceeding was to test whether responses to the items of one scale were affected by the presence within the same questionnaire of items from other scales. Apparently this variation in the manner of administration made little or no difference. When the results for the University of Oregon Student Women (Group 1) are compared with those for the University of Oregon and University of California Student Women (Group 2) – a fairly similar group – the differences in reliability, mean score, and S.D. appear to be insignificant. The same is true in the cases of the E and PEC scales, and reference to Table 14 (IV) and to Table 5 (V) will show. The mean for the group of Oregon Service Club Men (Group V) who received only the A part of Form 60 does seem to be somewhat lower than that of the other group of Oregon Service Club Men. This difference cannot, however, be attributed to the difference in the form of the questionnaire. More important, probably, is the fact that Group V, in contrast to the other group, received the questionnaire after having listened to a talk on »What to do with Germany.« There was at least an implicit connection between the content of the talk and the content of the F scale; as one of the subjects who sensed this connection said afterwards to our staff member, »You should have given the questionnaire before your talk.«
10 This analysis was made possible by a grant-in-aid from the Social Science Research Council.
11 Fisher's Zr was used in computing the average r.
12 The correlation between E and F does not seem to depend upon whether the two scales are administered at different times, or at the same time with items from the one scale interspersed among those of the other. The correlation obtained in the case of the University of Oregon Student Women, who were given Form 60 in two parts, is not only similar to that obtained, with the use of the regular Form 60, in the case of the University of Oregon and University of California Student Women, but it is virtually the same as the mean E. F correlation for all groups of subjects.
13 The reliability of the »A« half of the E scale, which was given as a part of Form 40 to that group, was not calculated.
14 The correlation coefficient which, theoretically, would result if two scales were perfectly reliable, i.e., if the average obtained r were corrected for attenuation, is about .9. This indicates a striking correspondence, though not a complete identity, of what is measured by the two scales.
[15 See below, pp. 265ff.]
[16 See above, pp. 173ff.]
[17 William R. Morrow, »Criminality and Anti-Democratic Trends: A Study of Prison Inmates,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 817–890.]
18 Throughout the book, the interviewer's report of the interview is given in small type. Quotation marks within this material indicate a verbatim record of the subject's statements.
[19 R. Nevitt Sanford, »The Contrasting Ideologies of Two College Men: A Preliminary View,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 31–56.]
[20 Sanford, »The Contrasting Ideologies of Two College Men: A Preliminary View.«]