Search

Tested in this study were hypotheses relevant to Rokeach's position that dogmatism, as measured, taps general authoritarianism, whereas authoritarianism, as measured, taps only rightist authoritarianism. The testing instrument, disguised as a public opinion questionnaire, consisted of categorical and qualified authoritarianism items and reversals from the Stereopathy-Acquiescence Scales interspersed with Dogmatism Scale items, The subjects were 301 university students. While there was no significant difference in dogmatism between Authoritarians (As) and Non-Authoritarians (Ns), authoritarian responses were more highly correlated with dogmatism than were nonauthoritarian, regardless of the quality of response (categorical or qualified). The data support Rokeach's hypothesis that the Dogmatism Scale taps general authoritarianism, but tends to negate the suggestion that As and Ns are equally dogmatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research indicates that, although a high proportion of Jews are light drinkers, relatively few are heavy drinkers. Research also indicates that the alcohol abuse and alcoholism rate among Jews is lower than that of other major Western religious groups, particularly Catholics and Protestants (Engs & Hanson, 1985; O'Brien & Chafetz, 1982). Evidence also suggests, however, that drinking patterns and problems tend to change as individuals interact with those individuals of religious or cultural backgrounds that stress different drinking norms (Greeley, McCready, & Theisen, 1980). The purpose of the present research was to examine differences that may exist between Jewish college students in the United States and Israel regarding their drinking problems. We assumed that students in the United States have a higher level of exposure to groups from different drinking traditions and norms than students in Israel. Consequently, Jewish college students in the United States were expected to experience a higher degree of anomie in terms of drinking norms. Because such anomie is associated with drinking problems (Hanson, 1972), we believed that Jewish college students in the United States would experience higher rates of drinking problems than their Israeli counterparts (Isralowitz, 1987). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

White (1985) suggested that the citing of a common literature is a yardstick by which the maturity of a science can be measured. White (1982) analyzed the bibliographies of eight human memory textbooks and found that of 3,500 references, only 10 were cited in all eight. He later (1983) examined the bibliographies of seven cognitive psychology textbooks, all of which had an information processing orientation. Of the 2,620 publications referenced, only 19 were cited in all seven textbooks. He concluded that, because of the small overlap, those fields were not yet normal science. The present study examined the bibliographies of five recent mainline, nonsociological social psychology textbooks, each of which is in a second or subsequent edition (Deaux & Wrightsman, 1984; Hollander, 1981; Raven & Rubin, 1983; Shaver, 1985; Worchel & Cooper, 1983). Table 1 indicates the frequency with which publications were cited by the five books. Clearly, reference was made to most publications in only one book and only a very small percentage were cited in all five books. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although Rokeach (1960) stressed the need for the Dogmatism Scale to be free of any liberal or conservative bias, scores on the scale have tended to be associated to some degree among Americans with a conservative orientation (Granberg & Corrigan, 1972; Hanson, 1983). This could reflect (a) real differences in open mindedness, (b) ideological bias in the Dogmatism Scale, or (c) a combination of both factors. Only three studies, however, have specifically and directly investigated the possibility of ideological bias in the instrument. Simons and Berkowitz (1969) concluded that the scale is free of such bias, whereas Hanson (1984) and Parrott and Brown (1972) have concluded that it is flawed by a conservative bias. The 15-year time span over which the three studies were conducted is a possible explanation for the differing findings. The purpose of the present study was to obtain additional evidence regarding the possibility of ideological bias in the Dogmatism Scale by comparing responses of rightist and leftist authoritarians as groups to individual items of the scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes data concerning childhood experience gathered in a study of college students and adults. Dogmatism represents a cognitive network of defenses against anxiety and hypothesized that those with relatively closed belief systems would manifest greater anxiety than those with relatively open systems. In an attempt to increase the validity of self-reports concerning childhood experience, items were modified slightly and administered, along with modified form of the Dogmatism Scale for use with children, to a sample of 73 seventh and eighth grade students in an upstate New York village. It was suggested that low dogmatics would have been more ambivalent toward parents, and less likely to glorify them, leading to a higher degree of influence in their childhood by persons beyond the confines of their immediate family. These data do not, support the conclusion of those writers that open and closed minded individuals differ in ambivalence toward parents which in turn leads to a differential between their degree of identification with, and influence from, individuals outside the immediate family as here measured.

The article presents a research investigation the relationship between dogmatism and attitude extremity.The present study test the hypotheses that Dogmatism is not significantly related to liberalism-conservatism per se. Therefore, there is no significant correlation between dogmatism scores and measures of liberalism-conservatism. The study also tests that dogmatism is significantly related to attitude extremity and that Conservatives and Liberals will exhibit significantly higher dogmatism scores than will Moderates on the measures of liberalism-conservatism. Data to test these hypotheses were collected in two separate administrations. In the first, the Dogmatism Scale was administered along with the PEC Scale (Form 78) during class time to 211 freshmen and sophomore students enrolled in introductory sociology at SUNY College, Potsdam. In the second administration, the D Scale was similarly administered along with the PEC Scale and McClosky's Conservatism Scale to 48 juniors and seniors enrolled in educational psychology at the same School. In all the comparisons Conservatives received significantly higher scores than did Liberals. The hypothesis that Liberals and Conservatives would receive higher dogmatism scores than would Moderates received no support.