Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2019 with funding from

Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/openclosedm indinOOO Oroke

THE OPEN AND CLOSED MIND
IN COLLABORATION W IT H
Richard Bonier
Gloria Cheek
M. Ray Denny, Ph.D.
Richard I. Evans, Ph.D.
Franz Geierhaas
Leo Gladin
C. Gratton Kemp, Ph.D.
John J. Laffey
Jacques M. Levy
Figes Matheson
Warren C. McGovney
Bernard Mikol, Ph.D.
Alfred Oram
Frank Restle, Ph.D.
Theodore Rottman
Patricia W. Smith
Theodore S. Swanson
Hans H. Toch, Ph.D.
Don A. Trumbo, Ph.D.
Robert N. Vidulich, Ph.D.
Martin Zlotowski
Stephanie Zlotowski
 OPEN

CLOSED
MIND
IN V ESTIG ATION S INTO
THE NATU RE OF B E L I E F SYSTEMS
AND
PERSONALITY SYSTEMS

by

M ILTON ROKEACH

B A S IC B O O K S , INC. • Publishers • NEW YORK

 © 1960 by Basic Books, Inc.
Library of Congress C atalog C ard N um ber 60-5888
Printed in the United States o f A m erica
D e s ig n e d by P e t e r M a r k s

F o u r t h P r in t in g

ONULP
 To
Miriam, Ruth, and Martin

46255
 Preface

T J L his book is addressed to all

those who, for one reason or another, have had occasion to reflect
on the nature of their own belief systems and that of others. I
hope that the ideas and findings presented herein will provide
such persons with a useful frame of reference to guide further
reflection or research.
In preparing this work for publication, I have tried to keep in
mind two sorts of audiences: my scientific and professional col-
leagues in psychology and related disciplines, and a larger audi-
ence of persons who for many reasons are likely to have strong
investments in the ideological, social, and personal issues which
are here raised and investigated. Both kinds of audiences, I am
sure, will include persons concerned with the nature of ideology,
philosophy, politics and religion, their relation to personality and
the thought processes, and to the psychology and sociology of
knowledge.
 PREFACE

First and foremost, this work is intended as a monographic re-

port of research on the nature of belief systems, and it should be
evaluated as such. Nevertheless, it is my hope that despite the
inclusion of technical material the basic ideas, findings, and con-
clusions presented herein will be communicated clearly to the
larger audience for whom this work is also intended. To this end
much of the technical material, which is primarily of a statistical
nature, will appear in “Notes” at the end of the chapters. W hen-
ever it is necessary to use a statistical notion in the text it will be
explained in a special footnote addressed to the general reader.
These devices will place a somewhat greater burden on the pro-
fessional reader, but it is hoped that he will be compensated for
this by the fact that the text as a whole is generally more read-
able than it would otherwise be.
It is often the case in psychology, and in other social sciences
as well, that researchers select and formulate research problems
because of their personal or ideological significance. This is un-
desirable to the extent that it leads to blind spots and to hidden
value judgments, which detract from the scientific merit of the
research. I have tried to be aware of the dangers involved and to
avoid them, insofar as it was possible for me to do so. However
t le reader will have to decide for himself to what extent this ef-
fort has been successful.
Formally, the research reported here was initiated in 1951
115 Pen0C! ’ 1 WaS fortunate in receiving support from
several sources and it is a pleasure to acknowledge my gratitude

e r a n t T ' r V 951, t0 1954- the ~ h supported by a

half f I ™ Ce Research Council, which freed me
half-time, from teaching duties. During this time and also after!
Fund annual grantS fr0m the AU University Research
Fund f Michigan State University, which supported various as

tal Health
tal H e d t h 7(M-1885)
m fs s s V 1provided
1 F ° f T funds
c The Nati0nil! Institute ofof the
for the completion
anous lesearch projects reported herein and for the completion
° f * , s book For this support1 am also very grateful. P "
Most of the material in this volume is published here for the
■ P0rt‘°™ ° f lt, have a>ready appeared in modified form
n various psychological journals. Parts of Chapters 1 and 2 an
peared ongmally m ‘The Unity of Thought and Belief," J o u m Z f
 PREFACE

Personality, 1956, 25: 224-250, and is reprinted here, with revi-

sions, by permission of the editor, Edward E. Jones, and the Duke
University Press. Chapter 2, a small part of Chapter 3, Chapters
4, 6, and 9 are reprinted, with modifications, from the following
journal articles with permission of the managing editor, Arthur C.
Hoffman, of the American Psychological Association:
T he Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,” P sychological R e-
view , 1954, 6 1 : 194-204.
A Distinction Between Dogmatic and Rigid Thinking” (with
McGovney, W. C., and Denny, M. R . ), Journal o f Abnorm al and
Social P sychology, 1955, 51 : 87-93.
Political and Religious Dogmatism: An Alternative to the Au-
thoritarian Personality,” P sychological M onographs, 1956, 70: No.
18 (whole No. 425).
The F Scale is reproduced in Appendix B by permission of
Harper & Brothers from T. W. Adorno, et al., T he Authoritarian
Personality. Harper & Brothers have also kindly granted permis-
sion to quote from D. Elton Trueblood’s T he L og ic o f B elief. The
Gough-Sanford Rigidity Scale is reproduced in Appendix C with
the permission of Consulting Psychologists Press.
“A Factorial Study of Dogmatism and Related Concepts” (with
B. Fruchter), Journal o f A bnorm al and Social Psychology, 1956,
53: 356-360.
“A Factorial Study of Dogmatism, Opinionation, and Related
Scales,” P sychological R eports, 1958, 4: 19-22.
The former is reproduced with the permission of the managing
editor of the American Psychological Association; the latter, with
the permission of Robert Ammons, editor of Psychological R e-
ports.
I would also like to thank the following publishers and indi-
viduals for permission to quote from the materials specified:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.: G. W. Allport, T he Na-
ture o f Prejudice, 1954.
American Psychological Association: F. H. George and J. H.
Handlon, “A Language for Perceptual Analysis,” Psychological
R eview , 1957, 64: 14-25.
Harper & Brothers, Inc.: H. A. Witkin, et a l , Personality
through P erception , 1954; ]. Gunther, Inside Africa, 1955.
ix
 PREFACE

B. Herder Book Co.: H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary D ecre es of

the G eneral Councils, 1937.
Houghton Mifflin Co.: G. W. Allport and P. E. Vernon, A Study
o f Values: A Scale for Measuring th e D om inant Interests in P er-
sonality, 1931.
T he Journal o f A esthetics an d Art Criticism: H. D. Aiken, “The
Aesthetic Relevance of Belief,” 1951, 9: 301-315.
Journal o f Social Issues: I. Chein, ‘ Research Needs, 1956, 12:
57-66; R. Williams, “Religion, Value-orientations, and Inter-group
Conflict,” 1956, 12: 12-20.
Longmans, Green & Co., Inc.: J. V. L. Casserly, T he R etreat
from Christianity in th e M odern W orld, 1953.
Vassar Alumnae M agazine: R. Waelder, “Notes on Prejudice,
1949.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: M. B. Smith, J. S. Bruner, and R. W.
White, Opinions and Personality, 1956.
It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge my indebtedness
to many persons who contributed to the success of the present
research effort. As can be seen from the Table of Contents, the
various researches reported herein are the result of a collective
labor of many individuals who, in one way or another, made sig-
nificant contributions to the total effort. (As can also be seen
from the Table of Contents, some chapters carry by-lines,
whereas others do not. In the latter instances, I am the sole au-
thor of the chapter.) This collaborative effort is by far the most
gratifying intellectual experience of my entire career. It devel-
oped spontaneously out of conversations with colleagues and stu-
dents in graduate seminars and in many informal discussions
outside the classroom. In this connection, I will always especially
remember the pleasurable hours spent with my friend and col-
league M. Ray Denny exploring together the strange world of
Joe Doodlebug. I would also like to acknowledge my gratitude
to many friends, colleagues and students who at one time or an-
other during the past few years provided advice, constructive
criticism, and intellectual stimulation. It would be impossible to
name them all, but I would like to single out the following: Drs.
Christian Bay, Donald T. Campbell, Al Eglash, Charles Hanley,
Daniel J. Levinson, Frank Restle, the late Else Frenkel-Brunswik,
R. Nevitt Sanford, Fillmore H. Sanford, Irving Sigel, Henry Clay
 PREFACE

Smith, Bernard Taylor, H. A. Witkin, and Edith Weisskopf-Joel-

son. Drs. Ingram Olkin and Leo Katz of the Statistics Department
at Michigan State University gave invaluable statistical advice on
many aspects of the research.
The staff of the Psychology Department was always coopera-
tive in obtaining subjects, in and out of class time. I am very
grateful to them, as I am also to colleagues at New York Univer-
sity, Brooklyn College, and University College and Birkbeck Col-
lege in London. The English worker sample was made available
through the kind offices of Mr. R. R. Hopkins, Personnel and W el-
fare Manager at Vauxhall Motors in England. I wish to single
out especially Miss Joan Ray of University College, who gave
generously of her time and energy to collect the most important
segments of the English data presented herein. I would also like
to thank Dr. Cecily de Monchaux and Mr. Arthur Summerfield
for their assistance in constructing the British version of the Opin-
ionation Scale.
Dr. Robert N. Vidulich deserves special thanks for his critical
reading of the entire manuscript, for his editorial suggestions and
statistical help, and for assisting me in many other ways in con-
nection with the preparation of the manuscript. I am also in-
debted to Mrs. Gloria Plath and to Mrs. Alice Lawrence for
preparing the manuscript for publication and for relieving me of
many burdensome details.
Finally, the person to whom I am most indebted is my wife,
Muriel. Many of the ideas contained in this volume are hers.
Some of the ideas which I might claim as my own took shape or
were sharpened through conversations with her. This labor of
love would not have been possible without her encouragement
and help.