The authoritarian personality studies: An inquiry into the failure of social science research to produce demonstrable knowledge 9783111382425, 9783111023243

Citation preview

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY STUDIES

STUDIES IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

edited by C. A. O. van Nieuwenhuijze

8

THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY STUDIES A N I N Q U I R Y I N T O T H E F A I L U R E OF S O C I A L S C I E N C E R E S E A R C H TO P R O D U C E DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE

by

D A V I D W. M c K I N N E Y , JR.

1973

MOUTON THE H A G U E • PARIS

© Copyright 1973 in The Netherlands. DAVID WALTER McKINNEY, JR. No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 72-173383

Printed in The Netherlands by Mouton & Co., The Hague.

To Edna, David III, Elana, Hurron, Nicole, Carla, and Barry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Professor A. M. Lee, Mrs. Loretta Clogher-Wilson, Miss Margaret Currie, and Dr. Edward Sagarin, for valuable services in connection with this work; and to Mrs. M. Grant and Miss E. Elvin for their efficient technical assistance.

CONTENTS

I. Introduction A. The Task of Establishing Demonstrable Knowledge in the Social Sciences

13

13

1. The Inadequacy of Approaches to Social Science Data 2. Search for Requisite Criteria in Terms of Which the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Social Science Research Techniques and Procedures Are, and May Be, Established a. Proven Legitimacy and Relevancy of Specific Techniques and Procedures Insufficient to Insure the Yielding of Demonstrable Knowledge . b. Compliance with More Inclusive Criteria Essential in Establishing the Legitimacy and Efficacy of Specific Techniques and Procedures . . . 3. The Source of Failure of Prevailing Approaches to Social Science Data to Yield a Body of Demonstrable Knowledge 4. The Compelling Control Induced by the Initial and Corollary Assumptions in the Determination of the Requisite Theory, Methodology, Specific Research Techniques and Procedures 5. Background and Framework in Terms of Which the Present Study Has Been Conceived and Implemented

22

B. Theoretical, Methodological, and Procedural Requirements, Induced by the Initial and Related Assumptions Entailed in the Study of Individual Behavior . . . .

25

14

14

16

17

19

19

to

CONTENTS

1. The Initial Assumption as the Necessary Point of Departure for Productive Inquiry 2. The Initial and Corollary Assumptions Regarding Individual Behavior as an Object of Study . . . . 3. Methodological Requirements Induced by the Initial and Corollary Assumptions 4. Compliance with the Requisite Methodology in the Selection of Techniques and Procedures to be Employed in the Observation, Collection, and Treatment of the Relevant Data 5. Theoretical Requirements Induced by the Initial and Corollary Assumptions 6. Summary II. Further Delimitation of the Present Inquiry A. Historical Background of the Concept "Authoritarian Personality" B. Specific Problems Guiding the Present Inquiry . . . . C. The Methods Employed in the Present Inquiry. . . . III.

The "Original" Investigation of the Authoritarian Personality A. The Scope and Orientation of the "Original" Investigations 1. The Scope and Orientation of the "Original" Investigation 2. Why the Scope and Orientation of the Investigation Encompasses What It Does a. The Initial Assumption Underlying the "Original" Investigation b. Limitations and Constraints Induced by the Initial Assumption (1) Distinguishing Features Characterizing the Type of Data in Question (2) Derivation of the Conception Labeled Authoritarian Personality (3) Determination of the Central Problem . . (4) Further Restrictions on the Scope and Orientation Induced by the Particular Framing of the Central Problem . . . .

25 25 33

34 36 39 40 43 47 49 52 52 52 53 53 54 55 56 57

58

11

CONTENTS

(5) Summary

61

B. The Requirements for the Investigators' Personality Theory 1. The Task Pertaining to the Source of the Selective Process 2. The Task Pertaining to Degree of Receptivity and Resistance 3. The Tasks That Evolve in Connection with Problems Pertaining to Consistency 4. The Tasks Pertaining to Structure, Levels of Organization, and Functioning of the Total Personality . .

[V.

V.

63 66 70 82 114

C. The Requisite Personality Theory vs. the Investigators' Supposed Personality Theory 1. Statement of Propositions and Deductions Allowable 2. Compliance of the Investigators' Supposed Theory with Their Requisite Theory 3. Consequences of the Neglect to Systematically Formulate the Requisite Theory

164

D. Derivation of Specific Research Requirements .

.

173

E. The "Original" Empirical Investigation 1. What the Researchers Investigated 2. How the "Original" Researchers Investigated What They Studied 3. Derivation of Other Related Facets of the Investigation

188 190

.

.

151 152 162

198 233

Subsequent Studies of the Authoritarian Personality: 1950-57 A. Questions to be Considered . . . . B. Selection and Categorization of Subsequent Studies . . C. The Findings

239 239 241 245

Conclusions

248

A. Summary of Findings Derived from the Foregoing Assessment of the Authoritarian Personality Investigations 1. The Investigators' Supposed Personality Theory . . 2. The Investigators' Methodology, Specific Techniques and Procedures

248 248 251

12

CONTENTS

3. The Lack of Coherence in and between the Chain of Steps Comprising the Investigators' "Theory", Methodology, Specific Techniques and Procedures . .

258

B. Implications Derivable from the Use of the Authoritarian Personality Studies as a Measure of the Adequacy of Approaches to Social Science Data

260

C. Epilogue

261

Appendix I - List of Subsequent Studies Appendix II - Classification of Subsequent Studies Appendix III - Construction and Design of This Work . . . . Bibliography Subject Index Author Index

267 275 285 297 301 303

1 INTRODUCTION

A.

THE TASK OF ESTABLISHING DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The question has been frequently posed, in one form or another, as to why inquiries in some areas of investigation achieve demonstrable knowledge that represent a high degree of approximation to empirical reality, and have a wide range of generalized applicability, while in other areas of investigation inquiries of comparable ingenuity, at least in design, have yielded no similar results. The relevance and significance of the preceding question for the Social Sciences in general, and for Sociology and Social Psychology in particular, are especially acute. The significance of this problem for the Social Sciences is perhaps best revealed in this startling fact: namely, that despite decades of sustained research efforts by many unusually able, gifted, and dedicated Social Science investigators, there has been no accumulation of any "significant" body of demonstrable knowledge.1 Moreover, it is even rare to find agreement between research findings resulting from similar investigations of the same or similarly stated problems. This paradox, characterizing the Social Sciences, is presently emphasized by the sweeping advances being made in many areas of investigation that comprise the physical and natural sciences. 1

A distinction is made between a body of empirical findings, whether systematic or anecdotal, and a body of interrelated inclusive explanatory propositions which allow for deductions that make comprehensible the body of empirical findings. When the validity of each has been established it is referred to, in the context of this work, as a body of demonstrable knowledge. Although there may be disagreement concerning what the term "demonstrable knowledge" is used to specify, designate, or cover, as it is used herein, there can be no disagreement with the recognition that no body of demonstrable Social Science knowledge exists as defined. Moreover, even if it is maintained that "other" types of "demonstrable knowledge" exist in the Social Sciences, the question remains: Why has Social Science research failed to produce the type of demonstrable knowledge in question?

14

INTRODUCTION

Yet, despite this paradox, the Social Sciences are committed to the assumption that only through the building up of a body of demonstrable knowledge is it possible to cope with the problems arising with regard to the life of human beings. So long as this central commitment prevails, and so long as sustained research efforts fail to yield a body of demonstrable knowledge, the paramount question faced by the Social Scientists must continue to be: how is such demonstrable knowledge to be achieved? Unless it is assumed (given the high caliber of research investigators, past and present, working in one area or another in the Social Sciences) that there is something inherent in the nature of Social Science data that makes it immune to yielding a body of demonstrable knowledge,2 then it must be presumed that the approaches to such data are inadequate for the task for which they are being employed. The later assumption requires that the prevailing approaches to Social Science data be subjected to close and continuous scrutiny. Yet, if continuous critical scrutiny of the prevailing approaches to Social Science data is to yield fruitful results, there must be fruitful bases, or criteria (procedural rules, if you like), in terms of which such approaches are judged, inasmuch as fruitful criticism can only be in terms of criteria demonstrated to be appropriate, legitimate, and sufficient.8 How do you judge the adequacy of an approach to Social Science data in terms other than its failure to produce a body of demonstrable knowledge? It would appear that in the solution to the latter problem is contained the means for the solution to the former problem. This is tantamount to saying that the criteria for judging the adequacy of an approach to data must be the same as those criteria in terms of which the legitimacy and relevancy of the various procedures are established. Inasmuch as approaches to broad bodies of data comprise relatively distinguishable components, it would then appear reasonable to expect that the basis or criteria for judging the adequacy of any particular approach would necessarily be related to, and drawn specifically from, these distinguishable components.4 These distinguishable components 2

In this case one is committed to the assumption that there is no explanation of behavior; i.e., that behavior is not determined. How can one possibly defend the assertion that the consistent appearance of any occurrence is not determined? 3 It is apparent, of course, that there may be a lack of consensus regarding the legitimacy, or even the relevancy, of criteria to be employed, or to be employed for a particular purpose. In this instance, however, this is not the issue in question. The point at issue is that one cannot make nor substantiate critical assessments without making explicit the criteria employed. 4 This is also in accordance with the following doctrine: to be functionally effective, criteria must be drawn from the source in which they are to be applied.

DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE IN SOCIAL STUDIES

15

comprising approaches to broad bodies of data may be identified as follows: (1) The indispensable initial and related assumptions concerning the distinctual properties that characterize the broad body of data, of which the specific unit of study is a segment or facet. These are the assumptions indicating the inherent character of lawfulness that prevail for the broad body of data in question. For example, these assumptions imply whether or not the body of data is "behaving" randomly and is operating according to the laws of probability; or, whether the body of data is "behaving" in accordance with laws that apply to homogeneous classes; or, in some other manner. These assumptions are further distinguished by the compelling constraint they exercise in determining what central or major problems it is necessary to pose. In other words, they establish the location of the central problem. Correspondingly, these assumptions indicate the comprehensive dimensions along which the required relationships are to be sought. As such, they indicate the relationships concerning which it is necessary to formulate theoretical proposals. This component might be called the general orientation. (2) The theory and/or hypotheses, embracing explanatory propositions, that express the relationships which exist (or are presumed to exist) between categories defined in the frame of reference. This usage of the label "theory" is in accordance with the traditional usage, employed throughout the various areas of scientific investigation. When used in this sense, theory encompasses several different elements. Foremost among the elements are: (a) A frame of reference consisting of a set of interrelated descriptive categories which indicates what classes or patterns of data are "significantly" relevant. (b) A set of exclusive propositions which express the empirical (descriptive) or explanatory relationships existing (or presumed to be existing) within and between the categories defined in the frame of reference. The term exclusive is used to note that these propositions move in the direction of greater and greater ejtclusiveness; so that with each additional qualification their generalized applicability is proportionally reduced. (c) A set of interrelated /«elusive explanatory propositions which ex-

16

INTRODUCTION

press the relationships that exist (or that are presumed to exist) between the categories defined in the frame of rejerence. The term inclusive is used to note that these propositions move in the direction of greater and greater inclusiveness. Their generalized applicability increases with each successful subsumption of propositions referred to in (b). Theory, thus conceived, embraces two distinct, though somewhat related meanings. In one respect, theory refers to a body of verified interrelated explanatory propositions that make comprehensible a body of verified empirical findings; and to this extent consists of an end product - a body of demonstrable knowledge. In another respect, theory represents a tool, or instrument, which facilitates the acquisition of the former. (3) A third distinguishable component, of which an approach to broad bodies of data is comprised, may be labeled methodology. The label "methodology" is used to refer to a set of interrelated axioms, assumptions, and/or propositions, from which the specific research techniques and procedures, employed in the observation, collection, and treatment of data, are derived. This set of interrelated axioms, assumptions, and/or propositions, constitutes criteria in terms of which the legitimacy of the specific research techniques and procedures is established. Expressed in a different manner, methodology refers to the logic of a specific kind of measurement, reasoning, and mode of proof. Thus expressed, cognizance is given to the recognition that any time one orders data in any fashion, he commits himself to the logic of a specific kind of measurement; a commitment that exists, whether he actually engages in the corresponding computational operations (or numerical methods) or not. Representative instances of methodology would be the logic of probability or the logic that applies to homogeneous classes. (4) Finally, one may distinguish as a separate component the specific techniques and procedures employed in the observation, collection and processing of data. It is apparent, of course, that there are numerous specific criteria that one may, and does employ for assessing the legitimacy, relevancy, and efficacy of the techniques and procedures entailed in each of the above components. Yet, proven legitimacy and relevancy of the specific techniques and procedures, individually, by whatever criteria one may choose, are not sufficient in themselves to insure the yielding of demon-

DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE IN SOCIAL STUDIES

17

strable Social Science knowledge. The reasoning by means of which this deduction was derived proceeds as follows. As alternative points of departure in the search for why Social Science inquiries fail to produce demonstrable knowledge one may consider the following assumptions: (1) Social Science data are immune to yielding demonstrable knowledge; (2) Social Science Investigators are not sufficiently competent for the task; and/or (3) The approaches to Social Science data are inadequate for the purposes for which they are employed. (Rejecting (1) and (2) commits one to No. (3).) Hence: How does one judge the adequacy of an approach to data in terms other than its failure to produce a body of demonstrable knowledge? (To judge the adequacy of (X) one must search for criteria among those antecedent processes of which (X) is a sign and effect, and to which (X) owes its adequacy in some particular regard.) Correspondingly. If it is assumed that reliable, valid, and relevant techniques and procedures assure the achievement of demonstrable knowledge, then it follows that an assessment of the adequacy of an approach to data in terms other than those criteria which insures their reliability, validity, and relevancy is fruitless. As Such-. If Y-criteria, when met, assure the reliability, validity, and relevancy of (X) - then, the assessment of the reliability, validity, and relevancy of (X) has to be made in terms of Y-criteria. Accordingly: The criteria for judging the adequacy of an approach to data must be the same as those criteria in terms of which their reliability, validity, and relevancy are established. Thus: The sum of the one must be equal to the sum of the other. But: Since no demonstrable knowledge in the Social Sciences exists either one of the following must obtain: (a) Compliance with no given sum of specific criteria (in terms of which the reliability, validity, and relevancy of specific techniques and procedures are established) is sufficient to insure the yielding of demonstrable knowledge, or (b) There has been no instance in which a study in the Social Sciences has fulfilled the necessary criteria required to insure the reliability,

18

INTRODUCTION

validity, and relevancy of the specific techniques and procedures it employed.5 (The rejection of the possible initial assumption - stating that Social Science researchers are not sufficiently competent - requires the negation of (b); as such, one becomes committed to (a).) But: If one accepts (a) he negates the equation which states - the criteria for judging the adequacy of an approach to data must be the same as those criteria in terms of which their reliability, validity, and relevancy are established. Since: How is it possible that compliance in one respect is not sufficient in the other? Yet: If techniques and procedures (employed in the construction of data collecting instruments, the observation, collection and processing of data, and inference derivation) may derive from different sources, the assumptions on which their reliability, validity, and relevancy are based may also be different - and hence, inconsistent with each other. Accordingly: One or more assumptions underlying the use of one technique or procedure may negate one or more of the assumptions underlying the use of another technique or procedure. As such: Though each technique and procedure may be reliable, valid, and relevant in and of itself - they may be inconsistent with each other. Thus: It is not sufficient for each of the numerous and varied techniques and procedures, employed in an inquiry, to be reliable, valid, and relevant in and of itself; in addition, each must also cohere as an interrelated chain of steps, i.e., they must be consistent with each other. But: In order for coherence in and between the chain of steps to exist (i.e., for consistency to exist between the varied assumptions on which the reliability, validity, and relevancy of the techniques and procedures are based), the direction taken by the chain of steps must be determined by a common source - hence, the initial and corollary assumptions entailed in the broad body of data for which the unit of study represents a specific instance. Accordingly: When the initial and corollary assumptions determine the direction taken by the chain of steps, these assumptions will determine: (a) the direction and lines along which the requisite theory has to be formulated; (b) the type of methodology required; and (c) the 5

This excludes investigations not directed toward the end of achieving demonstrable knowledge as previously defined.

DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE IN SOCIAL STUDIES

19

specific research techniques and procedures from which choice may legitimately be made. Hence\ It is reasoned that the failure of prevailing approaches to Social Science data to yield a body of demonstrable knowledge lies less in the legitimacy of each (i.e., taken separately) specific technique and/or procedure than in whether or not they, as a chain of steps, cohere; 6 and/or whether or not the initial and corollary assumptions determining their direction are congruent with the body of data in question. As such: It is postulated that the inadequacy of approaches to Social Science data consists in the failure of theory, methodology, specific research techniques and procedures to comply with the requirements induced by the initial and corollary assumptions which underlie the broad bodies of data in question. Although there has been no dearth of critical assessments of the prevailing approaches to Social Science data, there has been a marked absence of critical appraisals made in terms of: (a) whether or not there is coherence in and between the chain of steps presumed to be relevant to the problem solution; and (b) whether the direction taken by the chain of steps has been determined by the initial and corollary assumptions which are, explicitly or implicitly, made concerning the character of the broad body of data in question.7 Yet, it is in the chain of steps - and in the direction that the chain is required to take by the initial assumptions - that the solution of the problem is contained. In fact, it may even be said: this is the solution.8 Failure to recognize, or to take 11

It is essential to note that though an approach to data may be adequate in all other respects without there being adequacy in regard to consistency in and between the chain of steps, an approach to data cannot be adequate in the latter respect and not adequate in the former. As such, whatever else the adequacy of a Social Science approach may entail is of no significance since, if each of the elements (or components) of an approach to data derive from a common source, there will be consistency in and between the chain of steps - and hence, adequacy in all other respects as well. 7 Customarily critical examinations of the prevailing approaches to Social Science data are made in terms of specific criteria which are considered necessary to establish the legitimacy of specific techniques and/or procedures, each in and of themselves, involved in either of the stages of observation, collection, and processing of data. Occasionally, consideration is given to the criteria that are presumed to establish the legitimacy of specific techniques and procedures in terms of the methodology from which they are derived. 8 Cf. in this regard Kaufmann: "If a certain chain of steps is a solution of a problem, then it and each step in it, is by definition relevant to this solution." Felix Kaufmann, Methodology of the Social Sciences (New York, Oxford University Press, 1944), p. 70.

20

INTRODUCTION

into account, the preceding two considerations is very likely to lead to: (a) only segmented and isolated critical assessments of specific techniques a n d / o r procedures, comprising one or another of the c o m p o nents, that in turn comprise approaches t o Social Science data; and (b) a very narrow view of, and approach to, the process of inquiry itself. In both instances, the ultimate extension results in the adherence to "accepted" rather than demonstrated canons of investigation, in which case it is the criticism which becomes sterile and unproductive in the former, and in the latter instance it is the inquiry that b e c o m e s sterile and unproductive." It should b e clear that the initial and corollary assumptions (entailed in the broad body of data for which the particular unit of study represents a specific instance) are those which impel the research inquiry to take a certain direction. In so doing, these assumptions exercise a certain element of control over what techniques a n d / o r procedures are 9

Regarding segmented and isolated critical appraisals, it is essential to note that though the specific criteria employed may establish the legitimacy, and even the relevancy, of the technique and/or of the procedure each in and of itself, it is nevertheless being employed without reference to the more inclusive criteria which establishes its legitimacy and relevancy in the broader context for the particular inquiry; therefore, the legitimacy, relevancy, and efficacy of the techniques and/or procedures in question may be negated, and hence nullified (i.e., negated in that particular context in which a given chain of steps is required to take a particular direction by the initial assumptions, if the problem is to be solved). By way of an oversimplified analogy, this is tantamount to asserting that the criteria for establishing the legitimacy of the procedures for calculating a sigma, may be independent of the criteria determining the legitimacy of its use in a particular instance. Or, the criteria establishing the legitimacy of the procedures involved in the numerical operations, as applied to integers, or whole numbers, are independent of the criteria establishing the legitimacy of the procedures for calculating the sigma. Or, the criteria that establish the legitimacy of a particular statistical formula (or its use) in which the sigma is a component, are independent of the criteria that establish the legitimacy of the procedures for calculating the sigma. Or, the specific though diverse criteria establishing in each instance the legitimacy of: (a) a particular statistical formula: (b) the procedures for calculating the sigma in this formula; (c) the use of this formula in a given context; may be independent of the criteria which establish the legitimacy of the inference that is drawn - or the mode by which the inference was drawn. Correspondingly, the specific criteria that establish the legitimacy of the operations for specific techniques and/or procedures, employed in each of the stages of observation, collection, and processing of data, and the criteria that establish the legitimacy of each of these techniques and/or procedures, in terms of the methodology from which they are derived, are independent of the criteria that establish the legitimacy of the methodology required by the initial assumptions; i.e., those initial assumptions that are made concerning the character of the body of data in question.

DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE IN SOCIAL STUDIES

21

required at the various stages of observation, collection and processing of data, mode of inference derivation and proof. Correspondingly, these required techniques and procedures constitute an aspect of the chain of steps which must cohere with each other if the problem solution is to be achieved. In addition, it should also be noted that each step in the chain, in and of itself, induces additional constraints and limitations on each succeeding step in the chain. As for the role that theory and/or hypothesis play in this chain of related and consistent steps, the following may be observed. From the initial and related assumptions it may be deduced what central or major problems it is necessary to pose. The tasks required of the theory by these central problems entail certain structural demands of the required theory. This is to say that constraints and limitations, inherent in the central problems and in the way these problems are formulated, entail certain tasks which the theory is required to fulfill, if the theory is to successfully provide solutions to these problems that are posed. The successful fulfillment of these tasks necessitates that the theory meet certain minimum structural requirements. In turn, the theory exercises or induces, in itself, certain demands, in the form of constraints and limitations on the required research techniques and procedures, that must be applied in the stages of observation, collection and processing of data: i.e., the theory exercises its own influence in guiding the construction of the research design to be employed in the empirical investigation. In proper sequence, findings of fact - at least the inferences derived therefrom - provide a test of the theory, in whole or in part. In so doing new theoretical proposals and new problems may be suggested. And, in due time, subsequent studies, initiated by the prior studies, effect modifications and/or extensions in the prior structures of the theory. These modified theoretical structures, in time, initiate new directions in empirical investigation. In accordance with this conception the most productive process of inquiry would appear somewhat as diagrammed in Figure 1 (See p. 22). The above features, attributed to the process of research inquiry, have been derived from a consideration of two criteria - criteria which are presumed to be necessary bases for fruitful critical scrutiny of the prevailing approaches to Social Science data. These criteria consist of: (a) the coherence that must exist in and between the chain of steps required for theoretical problem solutions, and (b) the initial assumptions determining the direction that the chain of steps must take, which

22

INTRODUCTION

Body of data in question

I

Initial and related assumptions regarding the body of data in question (general orientation)

Central Problems

Theory and/or hypotheses

TI

Methodology

*Techniques and procedures employed in the observation, collection and processing of data, the modes of inference derivation and proof

Figure 1. Intended to suggest that, although the specific research procedures are derived from a particular methodology, it is possible for findings obtained through the use of the former to induce modification in the latter. Also, instances of the latter may be discovered as a result of findings derived from the former.

assumptions supply the tie that connects the chain of steps to the body of data in question. Failure to recognize, or take into account these criteria is very likely to lead to a narrow conception of, and approach to, the process of inquiry - a conception that is capable of blocking the researcher's perception of the interwoven structure of relations existing between the initial and related assumptions, the theory and/or hypotheses, the methodology, and the research techniques and procedures.10 It is apparent that the preceding preliminary examination is sufficient to suggest the possibility that the failure of prevailing approaches to Social Science data may lie less in the legitimacy of specific techniques and procedures, than in whether or not they, as a chain of steps, cohere; and/or whether or not, the initial and related assumptions determining their direction are congruent with the body of data in question. It has been with this consideration in mind that the type of analysis represented in the present study has been chosen. Hence, the foregoing considerations constitute the broad background or framework in terms of which this study has been conceived and implemented. 10

A detailed discussion of this interwoven structure of relations is deferred. In the context of the present investigation it is sufficient to make use of the compelling influence exercised by the initial and related assumptions in determining the direction the theory, methodology, research techniques and procedures are required to take.

DEMONSTRABLE KNOWLEDGE IN SOCIAL STUDIES

23

In this regard it was presumed that the growing body of supposedly theoretically-oriented research would allow for a full and fruitful exploration of the interwoven structure of relations which is assumed to be a necessary prerequisite for productive inquiry. To facilitate the implementation of the task, The Authoritarian Personality11 and the empirical investigations it has stimulated, have been chosen as representative instances of an approach to a body of social-psychological data. Supposedly, these studies of the authoritarian personality are especially well-suited for the proposed study for the following reasons: (1) The "original"18 investigation consisted of a large-scale research project, representing what is generally felt to be one of the most ambitious efforts of modern American Social Science; (2) The "original" research endeavour is reputed to stem from, and supposedly was guided by, a "well-developed theory". Moreover, the importance of this supposed theory is presumed to be enhanced by its having emanated from two basic traditions: Freud, representing the focus on character structure; and Marx, representing the focus on social structure; (3) The "original" study presumedly employed a well-developed research design which was formulated for the express purpose of testing the prior conceptualized theory; (4) The scope, duration, and design of the "original" inquiry enabled the researchers to pursue the investigation in "stages"; "each stage representing a modification and improvement of an earlier design or procedure"; (5) The "original" project is reputed to represent an attempt to combine, on the one hand, the use of instruments and procedures customarily associated with precision, rigor, and generalizability; and, on the other hand, the utilization of procedures customarily associated with depth, insight, and understanding (i.e., associated with the study of inner personality dynamics - an area not usually studied with precision). Through the joining of these two research approaches the researchers report that they endeavored to enrich the statistically-treated data with insights obtained by the clinical method, and to control the clinical findings through use of the quantitative data. According to the researchers: 11

T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1950). 12 "Original" will be used to distinguish the study published under the title Authoritarian Personality, by T. W. Adorno et al., from similar investigations.

24

INTRODUCTION

the attempt was made . . . to bring methods of traditional Social Psychology into service of theories and concepts from the newer dynamic theory of personality and in so doing to make "depth psychological" phenomena more amenable to mass-statistical treatment, and to make quantitative surveys of attitudes and opinions more meaningful psychologically.18 (6) The selection of the authoritarian personality inquiries as an object of study for the investigation is further enhanced by the following considerations: (a) There has been no volume published since the war in the field of Social Psychology (that) has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today.14 (b) There has been a sufficient lapse of time since the publication of the "original" investigation for the subsequent studies initiated by it to have effected modifications and/or extensions in the structure of the supposed theory as formulated prior to the "original" study; and for the modified theoretical structure to initiate new directions in empirical investigations. Hence, to the extent that the authoritarian personality studies do in fact consist of a representative instance of proficiency characterizing the approaches to Social Science data, an investigation of the extent to which these studies meet the demands indicated by the relational structure of productive inquiry should provide a measure of the adequacy of Social Science approaches for the task of producing a body of demonstrable knowledge. In the event that the authoritarian personality studies do meet the demands required by the relational structure (which is presumed necessary for productive inquiry) and fail to yield a body of demonstrable knowledge (or at least fail to show some potentiality in this regard), then it will be apparent that the criteria employed to assess the legitimacy of the numerous techniques and procedures that they have used are insufficient.15 Given the preceding stipulation, the process of critical scrutiny must be renewed with different emphasis. In addition, it should not be overlooked that, first and foremost, the present investigation represents a critical analysis and assessment of a substantive body of thought of considerable importance at the present time. w

Ibid., p. 12. Nathan Glazer, "New Light on the Authoritarian Personality", Commentary, XVII, No. 3 (March, 1954), p. 289. 15 Depending of course on the proficiency of the present investigation. 14

THEORETICAL STUDIES

25

B.

THEORETICAL, METHODOLOGICAL A N D P R O C E D U R A L REQUIREMENTS, I N D U C E D BY THE INITIAL A N D RELATED ASSUMPTIONS E N T A I L E D IN THE S T U D Y OF INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOR

The process of inquiry, as conceptualized in the previous section, sharpens the focus on the initial and related assumptions which are made concerning the character of the broad body of data in question. This emphasis is inevasible, so long as these assumptions supply the tie that connects the chain of steps to the body of data in question. Hence, these assumptions represent the necessary point of departure for productive inquiry. It is essential, therefore, to dwell briefly on what is generally thought to be an indispensible assumption when the Social Psychologists direct their attention to the study of individual behavior.18 When considering this assumption some of its indispensible corollaries will be explored. Subsequently, attention will be directed to some of the issues these related assumptions pose, insofar as they bear on general problems pertaining to theory, methodology, research techniques, and procedures. The proposed exploration will bring into sharp relief issues with which productive investigations of individual behavior presumedly are required to cope. How resolute the Investigators of the "Authoritarian Personality" have been in coping with these issues will be a measure of how faithful they have been to the demands their tasks have required. How well they succeed in coping with these issues will be a reliable measure of their proficiency. Achievement in both respects will provide a measure of the potential offered by the approach they employ, in the way of yielding a body of demonstrable Social Psychological knowledge. The indispensable assumption regarding individual behavior, as an object of study, consists in the distinction which is made between what the individual does and what activates and/or guides what he does. This is the distinction that is customarily made between motivation and behavior per se.11 The assumption, concerning which there is substantial, 16 It is essential that it be understood, that a sharp distinction is being drawn between the behavior of the individual, and organized or unorganized collective behavior. A detailed discussion of this distinction is deferred at the present time. It may be noted, however, that in the latter instance (organized or unorganized collective behavior) only the behavior constitutes the legitimate object, or unit, of study. Also, the initial and related assumptions entailed in each instance differ. The relationship between what activates and what guides the behavior in each instance also differs, despite the fact that there are points of intersection involved. 17 In this connection we need not concern ourselves with the various types and

26

INTRODUCTION

if not complete, agreement, is that the latter - behavior per se — is an expression of the former. This is presumed to mean that behavior per se is a representation of, and an effect of, an attempt to satisfy some intent,18 of which the individual himself may or may not be aware. Hence, there exists a widespread propensity to account for behavior in terms of the motive which is presumed to have been responsible for its activation. Insofar as behavioral expression is conceived as being only a sign and effect19 of an attempt to fulfill some intent, behavior need not necessarily achieve this intent.20 To assume otherwise would entail a corollary assumption of perfect congruence between the intent of the motive and the behavior expressed with the prospect of achieving this intent. Since the latter assumption consistently violates experience and common observation, the former assumption must be regarded as being more plausible. Hence, it is presumed that the manifested behavioral expression may diverge widely from the necessary behavior required to achieve the motivational intent. The extreme limit of this divergence would consist of instances in which the motive results in behavior that is diametrically opposed to what would appear to be the "basic" intent of the motive. A representative instance would consist of fear expressed in exaggerated pugnaciousness, aggressive boastfulness, and the like; or, hostility expressed in exaggerated friendliness, submissiveness, respect, overpoliteness, etc. The potential range of divergence, or non-congruence, between the motivational intent and the behavior expressed with the prospect of achieving this intent, directs attention to the flexibility in manner with which motives may be dealt. This flexibility, or variety of ways in which the motive may be handled, is further revealed in the following consideration. Unless it is assumed that there is only one behavioral form which will achieve the motivational intent, it must then be presumed that there are alternative behavioral expressions which will suffice in achieving any given motivational intent.21 It is readily apparent that levels of motivation, nor the various labels under which the various types are subsumed. 18 Use of the label "intent" does not necessarily imply specificity of satisfaction. 19 Sign and effect in the sense of an animal's tracks are a sign and effect of his having passed. 20 Neither does this imply that behavioral expression which fails to achieve the motivational intent, of which it is an expression, is not functional or even satisfying in other respects. 21 Recognition of this consideration is reflected in the following type of question: Why does this particular behavior occur rather than some other? Or, why does the

THEORETICAL STUDIES

27

only the latter assumption can be entertained seriously. Hence, it follows from these two preceding considerations that the variety of ways in which a given motive may be dealt with can lead to, and/or result in, a variety of alternative behavioral manifestations for any given motive. Hereafter, this assumption shall be referred to as the "principle of shifting alternative expression of motivational intent". For the remainder of this section, the primary concern and interest shall be devoted to some of the significant ramifications of this single assumption. A convenient point of departure is the non-congruence, or divergence, that may occur between motivational intent, and the expressed behavior which is designed to achieve this intent. It may be noted that this divergence directs attention to an additional mode of relationship which must be presumed to exist between motivation and behavior per se: a mode of relationship which is different in character from that which expresses the "degree" of congruence between motivational intent and its behavioral expression. This recognition stems from the following consideration. If it is to be assumed that behavioral expression is a sign and effect of an attempt to satisfy some motivational intent, then it must also be assumed that when a motive "fails" to achieve its "basic" intent, the behavior appearing in the place of this "failure" must, nevertheless, be related to this intent in some manner. This is to say, there must be some intervening factor which provides the link and continuity between the motivational intent and its incongruous behavioral expression.22 And, moreover, the mode of relationship in question must pertain to this intervening factor or process. In this same regard, it may be further noted that it is reasonable to assume that this intervening factor may also be responsible for the variety of ways in which a given motive may be dealt. Be that as it may, there can be no question that some intervening factor has resulted in: (a) the failure of behavior to occur that would achieve the motivational intent; and (b) the occurrence of the particular behavior appearing in the place of the "failure" to achieve the motive's intent. The possible sources from which the intervening factor may stem that can account for (a) consist in:

behavior assume this particular form rather than some other? Or, why does the individual express the preference he does rather than some other? 22 In fact, it is necessary to establish the continuity, whether a particular behavioral expression constitutes an achievement of the motivational intent or not.

28

INTRODUCTION (1) external a n d / o r physiological barriers, (2) the "climate of social approval-disapproval",

and,

(3) internal psychological m a k e - u p a n d / o r functioning of the individual. 2 3 T h e possible source f r o m w h i c h the intervening factor m a y stem that c a n account for (b) however, c a n only consist in (3): that is the internal m a k e - u p a n d / o r functioning. In fact, the intervening factor resulting in the occurrence of the particular

behavioral choice,

whether of (a) or

(b), m u s t always stem f r o m within the individual. 2 4 Regarding the latter, (i.e., the same intervening factor accounting for both (a) and (b)), it is necessary to refer t o another frequently e m p l o y e d supposition. N a m e l y , at any given m o m e n t there exists conflict between, a n d / o r opposition to, motives; conflict and opposition w h i c h m a y exist at any given level, or b e t w e e n different levels of /«fra-individual functioning. 2 5 F r o m this ,s As the saying goes: "No man keeps all the cards of his personality face up", or, we rarely, if ever, say what we intend to say in what we mean to say. There are some actions and thoughts which he will selectively express in varying types of public situations; others that he will express only in the presence of his close, and very close associates. As such, these observations indicate that behavioral expressions are dependent upon, and/or influenced by, the situation of the moment, or the climate of opinion. This consideration directs attention to the role of social factors as determinants of individual behavior. In the present context, recognition of the role played by social factors in genetic development is irrelevant. It is relevant however, and essential, to take note of the role of social factors, insofar as they activate and/or guide individual behavioral expression. In the latter regard, it is necessary to differentiate between the motives that center around the genesis of a pattern of behavior, of which the occurrence of specific behaviors are an expression, and the momentary activation (or motivation) of specific behaviors in any given present. This is analogous to distinguishing between the motivating factors that center around the acquisition of an object, and the motivating factors that center around the commission of the act itself. It is in terms of the motives that center around the genesis of a pattern of behavior, of which the occurrence of specific behaviors are an expression, that the "choice" of a particular behavior, rather than some other, has to be explained. Whatever the significance of social factors may be in the momentary activation, and/or guiding, of specific behaviors, in any given present, they cannot be a factor in determining why this particular form of behavior occurs rather than some other. For derivation see section B-2 of Chapter III in this work. 24 This consideration derives from the supposition that the occurrence of a particular behavior represents a "choice", selected, as it were, from a range of acceptable (or approved) alternative behavioral expressions which would suffice in achieving the manifested motivational intent. As a choice it expresses a preference, and, as a preference, it must reflect something about the personality make-up of the chooser. 25 In this connection, it may be noted that the idea of conflicting and opposing forces constitutes the essence of the concept "repression". This notion also directs attention to the phenomena labeled "super-ego".

THEORETICAL STUDIES

29

supposition it may be deduced that the manner in which conflicts between, and/or opposition to, motives are resolved, influences the form the behavioral expression takes. (These mira-individual techniques of resolving conflicting and opposing motives frequently have been termed modes of defense, defensive techniques, defensive mechanisms, adaptive or adjustive techniques, etc.) In accordance with this assumption it may be inferred that these in/ra-individual techniques of resolving conflict and opposition are what constitute the relevant intervening process. Moreover, it may also be inferred that the techniques of resolving conflicts and opposition pertain in some manner to the unknown mode of relationship between motivation and behavior which is being sought. (It will be recalled that this unknown relationship is revealed in the fact that the behavior which occurs but which does not fulfill the motivational intent must be related to the motivational intent in some manner by virtue of assuming that behavioral expression is a sign and effect of an attempt to fulfill some motivational intent.) Correspondingly, it may be presumed that it is these techniques of resolving conflict and opposition that are responsible for the modifications in behavior which diverge from the basic intent of the motive. In a similar respect, it may also be presumed that these same techniques modify the form of behavioral expression in the direction of what is acceptable to the subject and his "significant others". Hence, it may be inferred that the behavior appearing in the place of the "failure" to achieve the motivational intent, is functionally and dynamically related to this intent by means of the technique that results in the modification of that behavior. Moreover, when incongruity occurs between motivational intent and its behavioral expression, it may be taken for granted that the technique utilized to modify the behavior provided the link and continuity which must be presumed to exist between motivation and behavior. Over and above all else, it is essential to recognize that the variety of ways in which a given motive may be dealt can lead to, and/or result in, a variety of shifting alternative behavioral expressions. As a consequence, any given motivational intent may be manifested in a diversity of behavioral forms - including behavior diametrically opposed to what would appear to be the "basic" intent of the motive. Additional exploration has also indicated that motivational intent is functionally and dynamically related to its behavioral expression via the mira-individual technique by which conflicting and opposing motives have been resolved. And the obverse of this relationship is that these techniques of

30

INTRODUCTION

resolving conflict and opposition represent the manner in which the motivational intent is coped with or managed. Once it is recognized that different modes of handling a motive lead to different behavioral expressions, the following observation also becomes apparent. Not only may the "same" behavioral forms represent different motivational intents, but the same motivational intent may be expressed in different behavioral forms. The latter is tantamount to saying that the same (or similar) personality structures may be manifested in different behavioral expressions, and the same (or similar) behavioral expressions may be manifestations of different personality structures. Hence, in the study of an individual, or in the comparative study of different individuals, it is misleading to speak of, or refer to, the "same" behavioral forms as homologous when they appear to serve similar, or the same, functions, and have the same, or similar, observable characteristics. Failure to recognize the preceding consideration has consistently led to the fallacious assumption that uniform behavioral expressions are activated and/or guided by the same motivational intent. In order to avoid any misunderstanding regarding what is being alleged, an illustration will be used to facilitate further clarification. A t the same time, it will be possible to disclose the difficulties involved in identifying and verifying the motivational intent of which the particular behavior is an expression. The latter consideration has important bearing on the types of techniques and procedures required in the collection and treatment of such data. In the illustration to be presented, the "urge to rob" will be taken as an instance of a given motivational intent. Then, for different modes of handling this urge, the corresponding manifest behavioral expressions will be cited. It will be followed, in turn, by the most probable corresponding responses of the subject to items on a questionnaire. Firstly, it will be supposed that the urge to rob encounters an opposing urge which results in the complete inhibition of the former - in which case the urge to rob ceases to manifest itself in overt behavioral expression. The subject's response to an item on a questionnaire might be: "I can't recall ever having had the urge to rob." Secondly, it will be supposed that the urge to rob encounters an opposing urge which results in behavior that is diametrically opposed to the intent of the urge. In this instance, the manifest behavior of the subject is characterized by exaggerated honesty. He immediately recognizes items of value left unattended; and his preoccupation with such items manifests itself in his calling the owner's attention to the unattended items. His

THEORETICAL STUDIES

31

response to a questionnaire item might be: "It is morally wrong to rob or steal." "Individuals guilty of robbing and stealing should be subjected to the extreme penalty." Thirdly, let us suppose that the urge to rob encounters an opposing urge resulting in the externalization of the former - in which case the subject's manifest behavior may consist of regarding with suspicion the behavior of certain outgroup members. He may manifest exaggerated distrust of the intentions of others. His questionnaire response might be: "You have to watch them or they will steal the coat off your back." "You had better not leave anything around here if you expect to keep it." "You can't trust anyone these days." Fourthly, let it be supposed that the urge to rob encounters an opposing urge which results in the reversal of the urge to rob. In this instance the manifest behavior of the subject is characterized by difficulties in accepting aid from others, or in refusing to accept any more than an amount equal to that for which he can pay or repay. He may even exaggerate the good intentions of others. His response to a questionnaire item might be: "People are inherently good, but...". "They are only victims of their circumstances." "I am strongly opposed to any and all forms of exploitation, but ...". "The most important virtues are honesty and fair dealing." Fifthly, suppose that the urge to rob is dealt with in the same manner as in number four, but, it is also a means to other motivational ends - in which case he may, like Raskolnikov, give away his last penny, but rob, murder, and yet be incapable of keeping the "loot". Thereafter his every act begs to be caught, until he is caught.26 Use of the preceding illustration is intended only to indicate the absurdity of classifying or grouping behavioral manifestations on the basis of the "same" (or similar) observable characteristics, and/or momentary functions', and then assuming, wittingly or unwittingly, that each behavioral instance, comprising the "class", has been activated and/or guided by the same motivational intent. Such a grouping of behaviors cannot possibly have any relation to what has activated or guided the expression of each behavioral instance comprising the "class". Hence, the use of such differentiating manifest characteristics or momentary functions as 26

It should be noted that more complicated instances could also be derived from combinations of the foregoing schemata. I am indebted to Dr. Eva Ruth Balken for having called my attention to an analogous consideration made by Anna Freud. Cf. Anna Freud, "The Contribution of Psychoanalysis to Genetic Psychology", The Yearbook of Psychoanalysis, VIII (1952), p. 90. See also Anna Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, trans. Cecil Baines (New York, International Universities Press, Inc., 1948), pp. 47-54.

32

INTRODUCTION

a motivational category to explain the existence or occurrence of the behavioral class, must be fallacious. Absurd as such a procedure may be, this is precisely what is entailed when one correlates instances, or classes of instances, of manifest behavior in the study of the individual, or in the comparative study of different individuals.27 The obvious corollary of the above consideration is that (in the study of the individual) the relationship requiring investigation is not between various manifest behaviors, or "classes" thereof: i.e., the relationship is not a "horizontal" one between behavior and behavior. Instead, the relationships, concerning which it is necessary to formulate theoretical proposals, exist between: (a) motivation and behavior, and (b) motivation and motivation. In essence, of course, the latter dimension (motivation and motivation) is only a facet of the "motivation and behavior" dimension. As such, it appears most distinguishable when motives are viewed and analyzed from a genetic angle of focus. From a genetic analysis, however, it is evident that successive derivations of motivations from a common (or "root") motivational source, by means of a series of successive resolutions of motivational conflicts and oppositions, must produce a series of motivational derivations - a series of motivational derivations that must exist between the "root" motivational source and subsequent behavioral expression. From the latter consideration, it may be deduced that any such series of motives, derived from a common source, must be dynamically and functionally related to one another, and each to the common source, by means of the techniques exercised to resolve the successive conflicts and/or oppositions in each instance. In addition, it may be further assumed that such a series of successively derived motivations from a common source, produce a hierarchy of interrelated motivational derivations. Thus conceived, behavioral expression must constitute an end-product of a motivational process and/or 27

Cf. for example, the use of all non-projective personality tests; and, in some instances, the way the projective tests are employed. Note particularly the procedures employed in the study of the criminal or delinquent. In this connection it has been reported that a large percentage of the major corporations are hiring, and even promoting and demoting, on the basis of conventional personality test ratings. By conventional personality tests are meant non-projective tests - used in a nonprojective fashion; or, the use of projective tests to obtain a profile of responses, which are in turn assessed in terms of a "supposed standard" profile for a given "class" of individuals. Given the related assumptions discussed above, unless the behaviors are collected and employed as alternative indices (or signs) of given motives all studies of the individual - including the comparison of different individuals - in which behavior is correlated with behavior, are sterile and scientifically useless. However much they may contribute to impressive curriculum vita they do not, and cannot, contribute to demonstrable knowledge.

THEORETICAL STUDIES

33

structure. And in this sense, the terms "motivation" and "behavioral end-product" refer to qualitatively different facets at different levels of the same underlying process and/or structure. Hence, although the dimension of "motivation and motivation" is in essence a facet of the dimension of "motivation and behavior", it emerges as a distinct dimension when viewed genetically. As a consequence, the relationships, concerning which it is necessary to formulate theoretical proposals, exist along both dimensions: between "motivation and behavior" and "motivation and motivation". Viewed genetically, the former consists of longitudinal relationships, whereas the latter entails both longitudinal and cross-sectioned relationships. Consequently, when the relationships between motivation and behavior are viewed contemporaneously, the following observation becomes apparent. So long as it is recognized that different modes of handling a motive lead to shifting alternative behavioral expressions, neither of the above two sets of relationships can be successfully ascertained or established via the route of correlating behavior with behavior. Each of the above considerations has been derived from the initial and related assumptions, which are generally involved in the study of individual behavior, or in the comparative study of different individuals. It was previously established that the initial and related assumptions, regarding the unit of study, impel the inquiry to take a certain direction. As such, these assumptions exercise a compelling influence on the selection of the type of theory, methodology, research techniques and procedures to be employed. This compelling control derives from the prerequisite that each of the preceding three components of inquiry be consistent with each other. To achieve this required consistency the selected choice of procedures, drawn from each of the three components of inquiry, must cohere as a chain of steps. And this coherence occurs when the direction taken by the chain of steps is determined by the initial and related assumptions. For the remainder of this section attention will be centered on the direction which the theory, methodology, and specific research techniques and procedures are required to take, in order to be congruent with the initial and related assumption entailed in the study of individual behavior. A convenient point of departure is the direction prescribed for the requisite methodology. Insofar as the initial and related assumptions commit one to the supposition that different modes of handling a motive lead to, and result in, shifting alternative behavioral expressions for identical motivational intents, they also commit one to the logic of a

34

INTRODUCTION

specific type of methodology. In the observation, collection and processing of specific behavioral instances the specific type of methodology involved is the logic of probability. This may be deduced from the fact that the alternative behavioral expressions, for any given motivational intent, have different probabilities of occurring at any given moment. Correspondingly, some instances of alternative behavioral expressions, in a particular situation, will have a higher or lower probability than others, as indices (or signs) of the manifested motivational intent.28 Given the above considerations, it is apparent that the choice of techniques and procedures to be employed in the observation, collection and treatment of the relevant data, must be selected from those techniques and procedures which have been derived from the theory of probability. Also, it is in terms of criteria that pertain to the methodology of probability that the legitimacy of the required techniques and procedures is established. Moreover, fulfillment of this requirement provides assurance that the criteria establishing the legitimacy of the selected choice of techniques and procedures will be congruent with the criteria establishing the legitimacy of the methodology itself; namely, the initial and related assumptions concerning individual behavior. From these considerations it follows that, unless means are employed for collecting and treating behaviors as alternative indices (or signs) of given motivational intents, all studies of the individual (including the comparison of different individuals) in which behavior is correlated with behavior, are sterile and scientifically useless; i.e., useless insofar as their potentiality for yielding demonstrable knowledge is concerned. Inherent in the above considerations are additional implications which have further bearing on investigations addressed to the study of individual behavior. Certain of these implications pertain to the character of categories or concepts, and are derived from the succeeding explora28

An analogous consideration has been expressed by Max Weber in his discussion of the concept "Social Relationships". He has noted: " . . . Even in cases of such forms of organization as a state, church, association, or marriage, the social relationship consists exclusively in the fact that there has existed, exists, or will exist, a probability of action in some definite way appropriate to this meaning . . . it is only the existence of the probability that . . . a certain type of action will take place, which constitutes the 'existence' of the social relationship. Thus that a 'friendship' or a 'state' exists or has existed means this and only this: that we, the observers, judge that there is or has been a probability that on the basis of certain kinds of known subjective attitude of certain individuals there will result in the average sense a certain specific type of action." Quoted from Sociological Analysis, ed. Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949), pp. 269-70.

THEORETICAL STUDIES

35

tion. Given the successive derivation of motives from "root" motivational sources, by means of a series of successive resolutions of motivational conflicts and oppositions, there will be produced series of motivational derivations. Each such series of motivational derivations will exist between the "root" motivational sources and their correspondingly diverse manifest behaviors constituting the end products of each motivational series. As such, the relationships existing between these various motives,29 comprising each such series of motivational derivations, will constitute a pattern of organization for which the corresponding diversity of behavioral end-products are an expression. Accordingly, each motivational derivation of a series will be portrayed or depicted as a thema running throughout a diversity of corresponding specific behavioral acts, representing one or another alternative expression of the organized motivational series of which it is a member. Thus, for each thema30 comprising a series, there may exist multifarious and contradictory behavioral acts in which the thema may be expressed. In this manner, any given thema may be manifested in a diversity of behavioral acts appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that object, in each area of social life. Hence, so long as a given motivational series is active, one or more of the themes of which it is composed will be manifested in the diversity of behaviors expressing this pattern. Moreover, since the themata of a given series are successively derived and comprise an organized hierarchy they must vary in their degree of proximity to their common "root" source. An obverse corollary of this deduction is that a rough correspondence will exist between the order in genetic sequence and the degree of "depth" the themes represent within personality structure and functioning. As such, these themes will differ in levels of inclusiveness. Thus, the range of behavioral acts depicting any given thema, comprising an organized motivational series, will correspond to its level of inclusiveness.31 An obverse corollary of the preceding deduction is that successively derived themes will be alternative expressions of prior derivations. Consequently, for any given 28

These motivation series comprise the comprehensive dimension along which the relationships between motivation and motivation are to be sought. 30 In this connection it may be noted that motivational derivations of a series are referred to as themata when viewed from the behavioral side, i.e., as abstractions from a variety of diverse behavioral acts. When considered from the point of view of genetic development or the explanation of behavior they are termed motives. This is in accordance with the recognition that motivational and behavioral endproducts are different facets, at different levels of the same process and/or structure. 31 This deduction is demonstrated by means of an appropriate example on pp. 85-89 of this work.

36

INTRODUCTION

series, those themata at any given level of derivation will represent constancy in relation to those themata that succeed them in derivation, and inconstancy (flexibility and diversity) in relation to those themata that precede them in derivation. Hence, constancy and inconstancy are diametrical expressions of the same process.82 This means that the principle of shifting alternative expression of motivational intent occurs on each level comprising the hierarchy of motivational derivations. In view of the above considerations the following requirements emerge with regard to categories or concepts. There must be fashioned a set of categories which will meet a test of descriptive adequacy in recording the hierarchal organization and functioning of motivational derivations. To achieve this end: (1) Categories are required to differentiate and identify the successive derivation of themata, indicating the varying levels of inclusiveness of each derivation. Requirements for these concepts necessitate their being independent of specific thematic content. (2) Categories are needed to differentiate and identify the types of structural relationships existing between these themata at varying levels of organization or integration. (3) Categories are required to differentiate and identify the modes by which the transformations and derivations of motives occur. As a final consideration it may be noted that unless the above categories are accurately derived from the requisite data it will not be possible to translate or convert proposals, in which these categories are employed, back into experience. Much too frequently in the Social Sciences the translation of experiences into arbitrary language of Constructs obscures the experience it is designed to describe.33 With regard to theory, previous deductions specified the comprehensive dimensions along which the relationships are to be sought. These are (a) the relationships between motivation and behavior, and (b) the relationships between motivation and motivation. In the most comprehensive sense, these two dimensions comprise the scope which the theory is required to encompass.34 Moreover, if what is meant by theory 32

In essence this represents a solution of that age old problem of "permanence and change", consistency and diversity. For a more extended discussion see section B-3 of Chapter III, titled "The Tasks that Evolve in Connection with Problems Pertaining to Consistency". 33 For an informative discussion of some of the difficulties entailed in the derivation of constructs see Abram Kardiner, The Individual and His Society (New York, Columbia University Press, 1939), pp. 356-72. 34 In a sense these two dimensions represent the generic coordinates.

THEORETICAL STUDIES

37

embraces explanatory propositions, expressing the relationships between various categories, then the set of theoretical propositions - including their interrelations - must embody these two dimensions. In order to embody these two dimensions it is necessary for the theory to "mirror" the hierarchy®5 entailed in the series of motivational derivations existing between "root" motivational sources and subsequent behavioral expressions. As such, this means that the structure of the theory must reflect depth as signified by genetic development, as well as breadth, as signified by a contemporary global view. Considering the commitment to the logic of shifting alternative expression of motivational intents, on the same and different levels, this "mirroring" requirement appears, at first glance, to be an improbable task. However, in one respect at least, the ostensible magnitude of the task is diminished somewhat by the following consideration. In Science, the process of generalization moves in two opposite directions; and as such, the generalizations assume two forms with respect to the magnitude of content they encompass. On the one hand, there are those generalized statements which move in the direction of greater and greater delusiveness, so that with each additional qualification their generalized applicability is proportionally reduced. On the other hand, there are other statements that move in the direction of greater and greater /nclusiveness. Since the latter is achieved by subsuming more and more of the former, their generalized applicability increases with each successful subsumption of the former type statements. As a consequence, the "exclusive" type statements are inherent in the "inclusive" type statements. Also, since the /«elusive type statements embrace the greatest magnitude of content, they must depict the sought-for relationships stemming from the root sources and recapitulated in the latest structural derivations: a level of analysis which signifies a contemporary global view for the unit of study in question. Hence, insofar as the "inclusive" type theoretical propositions successfully embrace the requisite "global" relationships, they may be presumed to reflect simultaneously the requisite depth, as signified in the hierarchical genetic development. In view of the above considerations, the theoretical task required to encompass the two sets of relationships existing along the two specified dimensions, motivation-behavior and motivation-motivation, would be somewhat more manageable than it appears on first sight. »* In this connection, hierarchy is used to refer to a number of interrelated levels derived from a common source by means of a series of successive differentiations and integrations. In this specific instance, the hierarchy evolves from the successive transformations and derivations of "root" motives.

38

INTRODUCTION

Within the confines of the above conditions the primary emphasis shifts to the frame of relevant categories reflecting the contemporary global view; i.e., the frame of genotypic categories in terms of which the ¿«elusive type theoretical proposals are stated. Correspondingly, it is clearly evident that this frame of categories cannot consist of concepts that subsume manifest behaviors. Nor can it consist of concepts employed in the collection or treatment of data. Each of the above considerations is precluded by (a) the commitment to the logic of shifting alternative expression, and/or (b) the necessity for the inclusive type theoretical statements to depict the sought for relationships stemming from the root sources and recapitulated in the latest structural derivations - the contemporary global relationships. These considerations direct attention to the global structural concepts which are necessary to differentiate and subsume these phenomena customarily labeled personality structure and functioning. As such, this means that the frame of categories must be composed of concepts that subsume the latest derivation of those structural patterns employed to differentiate the structural components of total personality at the presumed relevant levels of personality functioning. Certainly no single genotype structural classification is capable of encompassing such an immense complexity of interrelationships, existing within and between the various levels, which comprise the numerous facets of an evolving personality structure. Accordingly, any structural classification of personality organization must necessarily represent a selected choice of structural patterns from the total range of relevant observations. Hence, this selection will be made, wittingly or unwittingly, in accordance with the selector's interest, and/or the requirements of the tasks that need to be performed. Consequently, what is being observed, from what angle, and under what conditions, from which you obtain the selected structural representation,88 must be congruent with (a) the two comprehensive dimensions along which the theoretical relationships are sought, and (b) the set of exclusive relationships evolving from the hierarchical genetic development, that exist within and between the various levels. As such, the latter two conditions become independent criteria, in terms of which the legitimacy, relevancy and efficacy of the structural classification of personality is established. 38

For an extended discussion of what is being observed, from what angle and under what conditions, from which one obtains the Freudian Classification of personality (i.e., Id, Ego, and Super-ego) see pp. 145-46.

THEORETICAL STUDIES

39

To succeed in acquiring demonstrable knowledge, concerning their area of study, it is presumed imperative that the approach employed by the investigators of authoritarian personalities conform to the broad prescriptions outlined above. These prescriptions or requirements, to which their approach is required to adhere, are the same for all studies addressed to the explanation of aspects of individual behavior and in which it is assumed that behavior is an expression of motivational intent. Given this initial assumption concerning individual behavior, one is also committed to a number of corollary assumptions. In turn, these related assumptions commit one to (a) the development of the requisite theory along certain lines, and (b) a specific type of methodology. The specific type of methodology required (insofar as it entails instrument construction, data collection and processing) is the logic of probability. Thus committed to the logic of probability, the investigator is impelled to select his specific research techniques and procedures (to be employed in the observation, collection and processing of data) from those techniques and procedures derived from the theory of probability.

II FURTHER DELIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT INQUIRY

Traditionally, the data of the critic have consisted of the body of theory and research produced in a given scientific discipline. The Social Science discipline which is of immediate concern is customarily termed Social Psychology. The specific area of investigation in Social Psychology is that of personality study; and the specific personality type in question is frequently termed "the authoritarian personality". However, instead of including the body of theory and research of all investigations of the authoritarian personality, the present inquiry has been confined to a consideration of only those studies employing an identical approach of a particular type. Given the requirements for productive inquiry as outlined above, the last mentioned limitation entails a distinct advantage over the former and more extensive inclusion. Limitation of the present inquiry to studies employing an identical approach makes it possible to treat the studies involved as a unity or gestalt. In this sense, such studies supposedly represent a unified approach extending through time. This facilitates extending the analysis beyond the critical assessment of the specified substantive body of theory and research, so as to include all of the four components entailed in this approach. As such, it is then possible to treat separately the deductively derived requirement for the approach on the one hand and the substantive body of theory and research on the other.1 In this manner, the former provides a basis for assessing the legitimacy and adequacy of the latter. In accordance with the above considerations, the approach chosen for analysis is that which is most extensively represented in a published volume circulating under the title, The Authoritarian Personality.2 For 1 This is somewhat analogous to the procedure used in statistics whereby the observed frequencies are compared with the theoretically derived or expected frequencies. 2 T. W. Adorao et al., The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit. The rationale for this selection has been presented on pp. 22-24.

FURTHER DELIMITATIONS

41

purposes of identification, this work is referred to as the "Original" investigation. Hence, the data selected for the present inquiry consist of the "original" investigation of the authoritarian personality, and the subsequently published empirical studies stimulated by the "original" study, through 1957 in the United States. The concept of an authoritarian personality, as might be expected, is an umbrella for a multiplicity of diverse and contradictory opinions, actions, thoughts, and values. Hence, to the extent one is successful in specifying what is and what is not covered by this concept, he must identify those uniform thematic features which are depicted in the entire arc of behavioral expressions representing alternative expressions of this personality type. Success in this regard necessitates identifying those themata occurring at the highest level of inclusiveness. At this thematic level, the authoritarian personality may be tentatively portrayed as an individual who views the world as a dangerous and hostile place in which his very existence is threatened. In other words, his conception of the world is that of a jungle. Whereas this conception of the world suggests a reason for a change in the organization of society, the authoritarian personality instead directs his attack towards the destruction of certain individuals rather than institutions.3 Thus, by implication there appears to be no question of building a better society but one of purifying the society which already exists. As such, "good" appears to be assumed and it is only a matter of getting rid of "evil". In response to this challenge he takes it upon himself as a duty to unmask and denounce evil. In this regard, he is forever on the lookout for (in order to condemn, reject, and punish) people who violate the conventional values and/or codes of behavior. Since outgroups are the have-nots, in any and all respects, and hence identified with initiators of change, they are ipso facto the value-violators. For the authoritarian personality this means the outgroups are the repositories of all evil. The authoritarian personality's stubborn resistance to change also applies to himself. It is as though he "wants to exist all at once and right away".4 He does not want acquired opinions, he wants them ready made and innate; he does not want reasoned-qualified solutions, he seeks absolutes. For him, things are not shades of this and that, but are either this or that. He seems committed to an existence "in which one 3

The following characterization is largely drawn from a "Portrait of the Antisemite" by Jean-Paul Sartre, in the Partisan Review, Xlll., no. 2 (Spring, 1946), pp. 163-78. 1 Ibid., p. 167.

42

FURTHER DELIMITATIONS

never seeks but that which one has already found, in which one never becomes other than what one already was".5 To this end, it appears as if he can only hear that which he has already heard, see that which he has already seen, and learn that which he already "knows". It has been noted by Sartre that "only passion can procedure this". Only strong emotional bias can give instant certitude, hold reasoning in check, remain impervious to experience, and last an entire lifetime. Once having localized the evil in one or more outgroups, the authoritarian personality seems to seek out its members to feed upon, and even interpret their characteristics in such a manner as to render them really offensive. In fact, he seems to enjoy keeping before his eyes a living picture of these despised individuals as though he has "negatively fallen in love" with them.6 Since he appears to welcome the rage he dispenses on these despised individuals, attention is drawn to his emotional investment in hate. Ordinarily, hate and anger are provoked. As such, one usually hates the person who has insulted him, or who by his action has intentionally made him suffer. Moreover, both hate and anger are immediate and of short duration. In contradistinction, the hate most frequently manifested by the authoritarian personality precedes the facts which "should" arouse it. Also, he hates in the plural. It is as though it is this emotional state which he loves.7 The more absorbed the authoritarian personality becomes in combatting evil the less he will be tempted to question, seek, examine and choose for himself his own values. Hence, the "pure virtues" which he defends are the virtues of others. This assures him of being like all the others who count. At the same time there will be little likelihood of his standing out from the mob, mass, or crowd. Moreover, this anonymity provides additional support for his attack on the weak and harmless. As such, he can, if necessary, be terrifying, destructive, and even violent - "without fear". Simultaneously, while pursuing his mission of destroying evil with evil he has not compromised himself; he is supported in his action by a clear conscience, buttressed with satisfaction that he is doing his duty. At the level of behavioral expression the preceding profile of the authoritarian personality represents a sort of picturesque portrayal of the type of features the requisite theory is required to explain. « Ibid., p. 167.

6

Observe the relative ease in which hate can be switched from one social object to another, or from members of one outgroup to another. 7 Cf. Jean-Paul Sartre, op. cit., p. 166.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT

A.

43

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT "AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY"

Considering the broad spectrum of alternative behaviors in which the authoritarian personality may be expressed, any serious attempt to trace the historical background of the concept becomes a gargantuan task. It would entail the inclusion for consideration all of the significantly relevant investigations, irrespective of terminology, prior to the "original" volume. Approached in this respect, a history of the concept would require consideration of the voluminous studies of prejudice, ethnocentrism, and the bulk of opinion-attitude studies launched with the view to probing some facet of attitudes toward tolerance and intolerance of difference and change. Besides, one would encounter insurmountable difficulties in his search for meaningful criteria to guide him in his selection. A less ambitious yet adequate means of establishing the links with the past involves singling out those studies in which the focus presupposed that the entire personality was integrated in terms of a suspicious and unfriendly world view. In this respect, there have been four studies published in the United States which stand out as landmarks. The first of these four studies was published by Stagner in 1936.8 A questionnaire scale was developed to test the significance of seven factors hypothesized as indicators of a personality type who would have fascist leanings. The seven factors included: (a) nationalism or opposition to internationalism, (b) imperialism, (c) militarism, (d) racial antagonism, (e) anti-radicalism, (f) middle class consciousness, defined by Stagner as "a superior attitude to the working class", and (g) the benevolent despot or the strong man philosophy of government. It was concluded: The essence of the general "pro-fascist" attitude which seems indicated by this study lies in the attitude of class superiority taken by many individuals toward the element of the population which are below them in an economic and industrial sense. The anti-radical attitude is also markedly involved, and nationalism and racial antagonism are manifested. 9 8

Ross Stagner, "Fascist Attitudes: An Exploratory Study", The Journal of Social Psychology, VII (1936), 309-19. 9 Ibid., p. 315. In this connection Hans Gerth has noted, in a study of the Nazi party, that the middle class constituted 58 percent of the total composition. He further reported that "the common element in the situation of all these different strata was their despair and lack of social and economic security, the wide differential between self-esteem and actual status, between ambition and accomplish-

44

FURTHER DELIMITATIONS

In 1941 Edwards reported findings from a study designed to determine whether attitude scales measure reactions to stereotypes or reactions to principles.10 In referring to studies by Stagner,11 and Katz and Cantril,12 he observed that it does not seem to follow that reactions to labels which operate as stereotypes and reactions to principles which the labels subsume are one and the same thing.18 Hence, Edwards considered it probable that one may react negatively (or positively) to either the label fascism or democracy and yet accept (or reject) the principles subsumed under one or the other. Correspondingly, one may reject certain attitudes which for the subject are closely identified with the rejected label yet accept other related attitudes which for him are not closely associated with rejected label, or vice versa. It was concluded that some students had a far greater percentage of sympathy for certain fascist principles than might be expected from their otherwise antagonistic reaction to the fascist label.14 Also in 1941, Fromm published a volume addressed to the task of analyzing "those dynamic factors in the character structure of modern man, which made him want to give up freedom in Fascist Countries and which so widely prevail in millions of our own people".15 The "first mechanism of escape from freedom" described in this work involves a "tendency to give up the independence of one's own individual self and fuse one's self with somebody or something outside of oneself in order to acquire the strength which the individual self is lacking".19 In this regard it is noted: The more distinctive forms of this mechanism are to be found in the striving for submission and domination, or, as we would rather put it, in the masochistic and sadistic strivings as they exist in varying degrees in normal and neurotic persons respectively. . . . ment, between subjective claims for social status and the objective possibility of attaining these goals through competitive orientation toward 'market chances' or opportunities for social ascent through bureaucratic careers." Hans Gerth, "The Nazi Party: Its Leadership and Composition", The American Journal of Sociology, XLV (1940), p. 528. 10 Allen L. Edwards, "Unlabeled Fascist Attitudes", The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, X X X V I (1941), pp. 575-82. 11 Stagner, op. cit. 12 Daniel Katz and Hadley Cantril, "An Analysis of Attitudes Toward Fascism and Communism", The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, X X X V (1940), pp. 356-66. 13 Edwards, op. cit., p. 575. 14 Ibid., p. 580. 15 Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York, Rinehart & Co. Inc., 1941), p. 6. " Ibid., p. 141.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE CONCEPT

45

. . . Since the term "sado-masochistic" is associated with ideas of perversion and neurosis, I prefer to speak of the sado-masochistic character, especially when not the neurotic but the normal person is meant, as the "authoritarian character." This terminology is justifiable because the sado-masochistic person is always characterized by his attitude toward authority. He admires authority and tends to submit to it, but at the same time he wants to be an authority himself and have others submit to him. There is an additional reason for choosing this term. The Fascist system call themselves (sic) authoritarian because of the dominant role of authority in their (sic) social and political structure. By the term "authoritarian character" we imply that it represents the personality structure which is the human basis of fascism-17

Regarding other features that characterize this personality type, Fromm observes: . . . The most important feature to be mentioned is its attitude towards power. For the authoritarian character, there exist (sic), so to speak, two sexes: the powerful ones and the powerless ones. His love, admiration and readiness for submission are automatically aroused by power, whether of a person or an institution. Power fascinates him not for any values for which a specific power may stand, but just because it is power. Just as his "love" is automatically aroused by power, so powerless people or institutions automatically arouse his contempt. The very sight of a powerless person makes him want to attack, dominate, humiliate him. Whereas a different kind of character is appalled by the idea of attacking one who is helpless, the authoritarian character feels the more aroused the more helpless his object has become. 18

Elsewhere it is noted: The attitude of the authoritarian character toward life, his whole philosophy, is determined by his emotional strivings. The authoritarian character loves those conditions that limit human freedom, he loves being submitted to fate. . . . Not only the forces that determine one's own life directly but also those that seem to determine life in general are felt as unchangeable fate. It is fate that there are wars and one part of mankind has to be ruled by another. It is fate that the amount of suffering can never be less than it always has been. Fate may be rationalized philosophically as "natural law" or as "destiny of man," religiously as the "will of the Lord," ethically as "duty" - for the authoritarian character, it is always a higher power outside of the individual, toward which the individual can do nothing but submit. The authoritarian character worships the past. What has been, will eternally be. To wish or to work for something that has not yet been before is crime or madness. . . . The feature common to all authoritarian thinking is the conviction that life is determined by forces outside of man's own self, his 17 18

Ibid., p. 164. (Emphasis supplied.) Ibid., p. 168.

46

FURTHER DELIMITATIONS

interest, his wishes. T h e only possible happiness lies in the submission t o these forces. T h e powerlessness of m a n is the leitmotif of masochistic philosophy. 1 9

Hie last of the four studies comprising a historical conceptual link with the past is a study by Maslow, published in 1943.20 It has been acknowledged by Maslow that this study was stimulated by a series of lectures on the subject by Fromm. He further notes that whereas there is considerable agreement with Fromm, there is also some "disagreement with him at certain basic theoretical points".21 Whether the disagreement pertains to the differentiating features or to the genesis of these features is not clear. He does state, however, that while many of the characteristic features of the authoritarian personality are known, there has been no recognition of a unifying principle which could succeed in giving these features a hanging-togetherness and make possible a unified understanding of the total personality.22 In this respect he observes: . . . Such people have a logic of their own which integrates all life f o r t h e m in such a way as to m a k e their actions not only understandable, b u t f r o m their own point of view, quite justifiable and correct. 2 3

This logic, according to Maslow, is embodied in a "basic" philosophy which he calls the "world-view". Concerning this notion he remarks: Like other psychologically insecure people, the authoritarian person lives in a world which m a y be conceived t o be pictured by h i m as a sort of jungle in which m a n ' s h a n d is necessarily against every other m a n ' s , in w h i c h t h e whole world is conceived of as dangerous, threatening, o r at least challenging, a n d in which h u m a n beings are conceived of as primarily selfish or evil or stupid. T o carry the analogy f u r t h e r , this jungle is peopled with animals, w h o either eat o r are eaten, w h o are either to b e f e a r e d or despised. One's safety lies in one's own strength a n d this strength consists primarily in t h e power to dominate. If o n e is n o t strong enough, the only alternative is t o find a strong protector. If this protector is strong enough a n d c a n b e relied upon, then peace of a certain sort is possible t o the individual. 2 4

Among the characteristics attributed to the authoritarian person, the following are listed: 18

Ibid., pp. 170-71. A. H. Maslow, "The Authoritarian Character Structure", The Journal of Social Psychology, XVII and XVIII (1943), pp. 401-11. 21 Ibid., in Twentieth Century Psychology, ed. Philip L. Harriman (New York, The Philosophical Library, 1946), p. 231. 22 Ibid., pp. 232-33. 2 3 Ibid., p. 233. 2 * Ibid., p. 233. 20

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS

47

1. The tendency to hierarchy, i.e., "the tendency to regard most or all other human beings as challenging rivals who are either superior (and therefore to be feared, resented, bootlicked, and admired); or inferior (and therefore to be scorned, humiliated, and dominated)"25 2. The generalization of "superiority-inferiority" 3. Drive for power 4. Hostility, hatred, prejudice 5. Judging by externals 6. Single scale of values 7. Identification of kindness with weakness 8. The tendency to use people 9. The sadistic-masochistic tendency 10. Incapable of being ultimately satisfied 11. Strong guilt feelings and conflicts26 In concluding this historical background it may be added that findings derived from the use of factor and cluster analysis appear to support the existence of a general authoritarian personality syndrome. B.

SPECIFIC PROBLEMS GUIDING THE PRESENT INQUIRY

In an effort to specify what is precisely to be done in the succeeding presentation, a statement of the specific problems which have been investigated is essential. These problems, which have guided this inquiry, will be presented in the order in which they have been investigated - first, for the "original" investigation and then for the subsequent studies. It should be noted that both the problems and the order in which they have been investigated, and now presented, have been determined by the general prescriptions previously outlined above. These problems are as follows: The "Original" Investigation of the Authoritarian Personality (1) Why does the scope and orientation of the investigation encompass what it does? Since it is presumed that the initial and related assumptions, concerning the unit of study, commit one to (a) the development of the requisite theory along certain lines, and (b) a specific type of methodology, the preceding question may take either of the following forms: (a) How have the initial and related assumptions determined the scope and orientation of the "original" investigation? or, "

Ibid., p. 234. Ibid., pp. 234-40.

48

FURTHER DELIMITATIONS

(b) How have the limitations and constraints, inherent in the initial and related assumptions, determined the scope and orientation of the "original" investigation?27 (2) Do the initial and related assumptions made by the Investigators conform to those assumptions entailed in the supposition that behavior is an expression of motivational intent? (3) How do the scope and orientation of the "original" investigation determine the direction in which the requisite personality theory is to seek the required solutions? Restated, this question may be formulated in this manner: How do the limitations and constraints entailed in the scope and orientation of the investigation specify the direction in which the requisite personality theory is required to pose its solutions? (4) What is the Investigators' personality theory? (5) Does the Investigators' personality theory conform to the personality theory requirements inherent in their initial and related assumptions (or, in the scope and orientation of the investigation)? (6) What are the inherent structural features of the authors' personality theory which impel research to take one direction rather than another? (What are the limitations and constraints inherent in the structure of the theory that induce research to take a certain direction? Or, what is the direction the research inquiry is required to take in order to have significant relevance for the theory? i.e., what are the demands set by the theory?) (7) What have the "original" researchers actually done? (What did they investigate? How did they investigate it?) (8) What is the relationship of what the "original" researchers did to the prescriptions emanating from the limitations and constraints inherent in the structure of the theory? (i.e., what is the relation of what they did to the demands set by the structure of the theory - or, to the scope and orientation of the investigation?)28 " Also, since it is known that the "original" investigation is specifically directed to the study of personality as the source of selective "consumption" of ideology, the above questions may be stated in the following manner: How have the limitations and constraints, inherent in the initial and related assumptions, impelled the research to be directed to the study of personality as the source of selective "consumption" of ideology? 28 Reference to the structure of the authors' personality theory and/or the scope and orientation of the investigation, signifies recognition that the authors have not actually presented (or, even developed) a systematic theory. In which case, it will be shown that the limitations and constraints inherent in the scope and orientation are the determinants affecting the required choice of specific research techniques and procedures.

METHODS EMPLOYED

49

(9) How did the demands set by the structure of the theory - or, the scope and orientation of the investigation - affect the selection of the specific questions, techniques and procedures, of the "original" Investigators? (10) What were the modifications and/or extensions of the theory or the orientation - resulting from the findings? Subsequent Studies of the Authoritarian

Personality

(11) What have the subsequent researchers done (i.e., what have they investigated? How have they investigated what they have studied?) (12) What is the relation of what they did to (a) the demands set by the theory - or the "original" scope and orientation, and (b) the specific techniques and procedures employed by the "original" Investigators? (13) What modifications and/or extensions of the theory (or scope and orientation) have the subsequent studies produced? (14) What is the structure of the theory when these modifications and/or extensions are included? (15) What have been the directions of research initiated by the modifications and/or extensions of the theory? Most of the preceding general questions comprise a number of related facets. Hence, their (the general questions) solution is dependent upon answers to specific questions involving these different facets. In the beginning of each section devoted to the search for a solution to each general question, the relevant specific questions will be posed and treated in the order of their presentation. C. THE METHODS TO BE EMPLOYED

The character of the present inquiry is such that it requires a separate treatment of the specific requirements for fruitful investigation of the authoritarian personality on the one hand, and the substantive body of theory and research employed, on the other. The former is then utilized as criteria for assessing the legitimacy and adequacy of the procedures entailed in the latter. These two separate treatments necessitate the utilization of different methods of treatment. In order to determine the specific requirements with which it is necessary to comply in the actual implementation of theory and research, the method of deductive elaboration has been used. After identifying the initial assumption, which underlies the "original" investigation, the

50

FURTHER DELIMITATIONS

limitations and constraints inherent in this initial assumption are explored. In the process of this exploration it is ascertained how the initial and related assumptions have determined the scope and orientation of the investigations. From these related assumptions it is ascertained what central problem it is necessary to pose. In a similar manner, it is revealed how the Investigators' particular formulation of the requisite central problem induces additional limitations and constraints on the scope and orientation of the investigations. Afterwards, and also by means of deductive elaboration, it is revealed how the tasks entailed in the central problem formulation necessitate that the requisite personality theory seek its proposed solutions in certain directions and along certain lines. Subsequently, it is disclosed how the preceding requirements, in accordance with the broad methodological prescriptions previously outlined, affect the choice of requisite research techniques and procedures to be employed in the collection and treatment of relevant data; and, in turn, how each subsequent choice limits the legitimate alternatives of each succeeding step in the chain. To obtain the required relevant information concerning the substantive body of theory and research an outline ("questionnaire", as it were) was developed. Through the use of this outline the relevant data from the "original" and subsequent studies were abstracted. An abridged version of this outline follows. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Problem and hypotheses Assumptions Theoretical statements Composition of sample and sampling methods Structure of major concepts a. Referents b. Indicators c. Indices of the indicators and/or referents d. Changes or shifts in referents e. Levels of organization at which the categories or concepts are subsuming data f. Frame of relevant categories 6. Instruments and procedures a. Instruments (1) description of instruments (2) description of construction of instrument (3) what is required of the respondent by the instrument

METHODS EMPLOYED

7.

8.

9. 10.

51

b. Procedures (1) what the researcher does in the collecting of the data (2) what the researcher does in treating the data Kinds of data a. Physical record obtained (questionnaire, scale, interview, projection test, etc.) b. Type of content obtained Conclusion a. Results of procedures employed in treating the data b. Inference drawn from the treated data Methods used to establish proof Relation of conclusion to theoretical statements

For each research report the passage containing the relevant requirements of the outline was quoted when possible.

III THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

A.

THE SCOPE A N D ORIENTATION OF THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

The Authoritarian Personality1 ". . . grew out of specific investigations into anti-Semitism".2 During the initial phase of the inquiry the Investigators were primarily concerned with the personality of individuals to whom a particular type of anti-Semitic ideology, termed "puritanical anti-Semitism", appealed. The problems to which these early investigations were addressed were: "who are the people that adopt and become active carriers of anti-Semitic ideas? Why do they so readily become - to use a term suggested by Ernst Kris - 'scapegoat addicts'? What function, if any, has anti-Semitism in their personality structure?"3 As the inquiry progressed there gradually emerged the conception that anti-Semitism, of the type in question, and prejudice in general, also of a particular type, were not isolated "families" or patterns of attitudes. Moreover, these patterns appeared to be facets of a broader, and relatively unified, ethnocentric ideological pattern, pertaining to groups and group relations. In fact, the findings further suggested that ethnocentrism itself was but one aspect of a still broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning - an organized way of thinking about man and society which has been labeled "authoritarian", "antidemocratic", and/or "prefascist". As this broader conception of an authoritarian ideology emerged, and its scope, structure, and content were tentatively mapped, the focus of the research crystallized on the individual as a "consumer" of this ideological pattern. Thus, throughout the remainder of the investigation the central concern was: "Why is it that certain individuals accept these 1

T. W. Adorno et al., op. cit.

* Ibid., p. 605.

3 Else Frenkel-Brunswik and R. N. Sanford, "Some Personality Correlates of Anti-Semitism", The Journal of Psychology, X X (1945), p. 271.

53

SCOPE AND ORIENTATION

ideas while others do not?"4 Or, why do certain individuals accept these ideas rather than some others? It is essential to note, whereas the emergence of the authoritarian ideological pattern appears as an organic development in the evolutionary course of the investigation, this emergence did not occur by chance. Underlying the inception of these investigations is an initial assumption which induced the inquiry to take a particular course of development. What is this assumption? What are the limitations and constraints inherent in this initial assumption, which signify the distinguishing features for the type of data concerning which the Investigators' questions were posed? What are the elaborated implications of these distinguishing features, characterizing this type of data, which suggest the broader conception labeled authoritarian personality? What are the limitations and constraints, inherent in the elaborated implications of the initial assumption, which determine the central problem to be posed? What are the implications entailed in the way the central problem is formulated which induces further limitations and constraints on the scope and orientation of the inquiry? Answers to the above questions are essential for determining why the scope and orientation of the "original" Investigation encompasses what it does. Hence, each of the preceding questions will be treated separately and in the order of their presentation. The initial assumption, underlying the "original" investigation, is that there exists a particular type of prejudice which ". . . has little to do with the qualities of those against whom it is directed".5 It " . . . is based more largely upon factors in the subject and his total situation. . . .".8 When considered in relation to a simple perceptual model this assumption becomes quite clear in its implications. Components of such a perceptual model would consist of: (a) the perceiver, (b) the object to be perceived, and (c) the object as perceived (For example compare figure 2). perceiver object to be perceived

object as perceived Figure 2

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 3. Ibid., p. 607; see also pp. 612, 57, 2. ' Ibid., p. 2; see also p. 57. It should be noted that the Investigators " . . . do not deny that the object plays a role . . . " . They take account of the fact that the "object" of the prejudice " . . . must have certain characteristics in order to fulfill its role". Ibid., pp. 607-08.

4

5

54

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Although the relationship between the perceiver and the object to be perceived is a very complicated one, for the purpose at hand it is only necessary to call attention to the degree of congruence between the object to be perceived and the object as perceived. Insofar as the individual perceiver's conception (object as perceived) of a particular object consistently deviates in degree, direction, and in the other uniform ways, from the "objective actuality" of this particular object (as judged by culturally defined criteria of correctness and completeness) the conception of this particular reality (object as perceived) has little to do with the qualities or attributes of that "object".7 Further, to understand why this particular conception of reality occurs rather than some other possible conception, it is necessary to focus attention on the needs and wishes of the holder of this conception.8 When viewed in terms of the above elementary perceptual model, the type of prejudiced person under investigation consists of individuals whose conception of the "objects" of their prejudice consistently deviate in uniform ways and direction from the actual attributes or qualities of the "objects" of their prejudice. Hence, from this central idea stems the assumption that the type of prejudice being studied " . . . has little to do with the qualities of those against whom it is directed". Given this assumption, it is readily apparent why the focus of attention is centered on the holder of the prejudice rather than, or to the exclusion of, the "object" concerning which the prejudiced beliefs are held. Furthermore, 7

This does not imply that if there is congruence between the "object to be perceived" and the "object as perceived", all individuals perceiving this uniform object will attribute the same attributes or qualities to this object. Each individual may perceive the same uniform object differently, i.e., from different perspectives. Yet, despite the perspective from which the object may be viewed, if the object is perceived accurately, it will be possible to demonstrate that the attributes attributed to it are in fact qualities of that object. 8 The validity of this statement may appear to depend on holding constant the attributes or qualities of the object, on the one hand, and the particular sensory apparatus involving the perceiver on the other. However, this is not so. Of course, the validity of the statement is easier to recognize and demonstrate under the preceding specified conditions. But, even if the two specified conditions are absent and if the divergence between the "object to be perceived" and the "object as perceived" consistently occurs in the same direction, and in other uniform ways, the above statement continues to obtain. Obviously, the consistency in the manner in which the object is perceived cannot have been due to chance. In and of itself, consistency, ipso facto, presupposes determinacy. It is also equally apparent that the consistency cannot have been determined by either of the above two specified factors, if they are presumed to be variable, i.e., changing. Moreover, if either of, or both of, the two specified factors are changing randomly they may for the purpose be presumed to be constant.

SCOPE AND ORIENTATION

55

since the conceptions of the "objects" of prejudice represent an expression of "preference" on the part of the chooser, the question is posed: Why does the chooser express this preference (or conception) rather than some other? Or, why is he receptive in this direction rather than another? Elaborated implications of this initial assumption, which underlie the inception of the "original" investigation, signify the distinguishing features characterizing the type of data concerning which the Investigators' questions were posed; and for which their findings will have the greatest pertinence. The consistent recurrence of one or more of these identifying features constitutes instances of direction, and/or other uniform ways, of divergence between the "object to be perceived" and "object as perceived". Hence, they signify, and thus enable one to identify, the presence (or absence) of the type of prejudice in question. Correspondingly, since these distinguishing features characterize the relevant type data in question, their identification will establish one of the boundaries demarcating the scope of the inquiry. These identifying features are: (1) A consistent and indiscriminate application of negative opinions," hostile attitudes, and moral condemnations to all members of a heterogeneous group. However well such beliefs may apply to certain individual members of a heterogeneous group, they can not possibly apply to all members of such a group. Such an indiscriminate application must involve some divergence between beliefs ("objects" as perceived) and actuality ("objects" to be perceived). It is this all-comprehensiveness, allowing for little or no deviation, which constitutes the logical property of stereotypes. It is as if everything must be made equal to the stereotypes applied to himself and others. If the conception of reality consistently deviates from objective actuality in such a uniform way it is reasonable to assume that such a deviation is not merely a question of more or less meager and incorrect knowledge, but is rather "opportunistic" or functional in character. (2) Contradictory beliefs held about, and applied indiscriminately to, the members of a heterogeneous group: i.e., "Jews don't assimilate" "trying to pass themselves off as one of us"; "Jews are tight" - "Jews are ostentatious"; "Jews are clannish" - "they try to horn in everywhere." Or, in another respect, the type of contradiction represented in 9 The distinction between positive and negative prejudice has often been made. This consideration is of no consequence in the present inquiry since the concern is with a particular type of prejudice, which in turn is a facet of authoritarianism. In this connection, the negative direction of prejudice is of paramount concern.

56

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

"the disproportion between the relative social weakness of the object (or the class of objects) and its supposed sinister omnipotence . . .".10 To speak of members of a heterogeneous group in all-or-none terms and then indiscriminately ascribe to one and all contradictory attributes provides additional evidence indicating the presence of the type of prejudice in question. (3) The use of different standards for judging the same quality, action, thought or feeling, depending on the objects or persons involved, (a) Qualities, actions, thoughts, and feelings, for which the victims of the prejudice are condemned, are seen as virtues in himself and members of the relevant ingroup. Thus, what is called power-seeking and clannishness in outgroup members are transformed into moral righteousness, self-defense, and loyalty in ingroup members.11 (b) A demand for exchange equivalent (justice, for example) for himself and ingroup members; yet, demands a disproportionate amount of punishment (as retribution for the same or comparable guilt) for victims of the prejudice.12 (4) Manifestations of hate in the plural.13 (5) Manifestations of hate preceding the actions (or facts) which are cited as being responsible for their arousal.14 The recurrence of the above features represents indices or signs by which the type of data in question may be identified. Accordingly, the more an individual's opinions, actions, thoughts, and feelings reflect these general features, the less will his prejudice toward members of a particular group depend upon objective characteristics of these group members, or upon any real experience in which members of this group are involved. Such "irrational" qualities as those reflected in the above distinguishing features are what draw attention to the importance of personality as a source of this particular type of prejudice. It has been noted that, as the investigation progressed, the conception emerged empirically that anti-Semitism of the type in question, as well as other specific group prejudices of the type in question, were facets of a relatively unified ethnocentric ideology. In fact, ethnocentrism itself was "discovered" to be but one aspect of a broader pattern of social 10 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 613. It may be noted that these contradictions are such that the victim of the prejudice is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Compare instances in which members of one heterogeneous group are damned for the alleged lack of certain qualities, while at the same time a different group is damned for the alleged presence of these same qualities. " Cf. ibid., p. 149, also p. 47. 18 Cf. ibid., p. 632. 13 Cf. discussion on p. 42 of this work.

"

Ibid.

SCOPE AND ORIENTATION

57

thinking and group functioning termed authoritarian. What are the elaborated implications of the above distinguishing features, characterizing the type of prejudice in question, which suggest the broader conception labeled authoritarian personality? Proceeding with an elaboration of the above identifying features it will be observed that there emerges a broader conception equivalent to the empirical finding reported by the Investigators. (1) Given a type of prejudice permeated with the distinguishing features which reflect its independence of the "object" about which the prejudice is held; (2) and given the generalization of this prejudice from one group to another; (3) and given the assumption that the opinions, attitudes, and values, comprising the content of the prejudice, are organized in a fashion so as to give this content unity, relative stability, and structure; (4) then, it must be expected that the organization and coherence reflected in the structure of the prejudice content will manifest themselves in other areas of social life: i.e., politics, education, economics, the family, religion, group relations, etc. Moreover, if the preceding conditions prevail, then the wider the scope of the content the more inclusive the ideological pattern. (5) If the structure and content of these opinions, attitudes, and values are authoritarian in character then one must expect to discover authoritarian trends in ideology, in personality, in interpersonal and group relations. On the other hand, if the structure and content of the opinions, attitudes, and values are democratic in character, then one must expect to discover democratic trends in ideology, in personality, in interpersonal and group relations.15 Granting that at least these two opposing ideologies are present in the social environment, the Investigators were impelled, in their search for determinants of ideological choice, to ask some such type question as: ". . . why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more democratic forms?" 16 It should be noted that this problem formulation represents a specific case of a broader type problem: namely, why does an individual consume one ideological pattern rather than some other? Otherwise, 15

The same conditions must also hold for any other broad alternative ideological pattern. >• Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 100. See also pp. 2, 4, 7,10, 223, 229, 230.

58

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

why is he ideologically receptive in one direction rather than another; or, why is he ideologically resistant in one direction rather than another? In turn, the latter formulations represent specific cases of a more succinct formulation: namely, why is one receptive to this rather than that? 17 Given the manner in which the "original" Investigators have framed the central problem (e.g. " . . . why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more democratic forms?" Or, " . . . why is it that certain individuals accept these ideas while others do not?"),18 what are the implications inherent in this formulation which induce further restrictions on the scope and orientation of their inquiry? The most significant, and obvious, implication of the problem orientation involves an assumption of "consumer" choice.19 This is also implied in the use of such concepts as "consumption", "ideological receptivity" and "susceptibility", on the one hand, and in the presumed existence of unity and coherence in the structure of the ideological content, on the other. Put in the form of a question it could be expressed in this manner. Given a choice of various ideologies present in the social environment, what determines the preference of the chooser? Selective consumption inherent in the problem focus is clearly discerned in the following passages: We were concerned . . . with the problem of the consumption of ideology by the individual: granted that various ideologies are present in the social environment, why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more democratic forms? The general assumption made was that, granted the possibility of choice, an individual will be most receptive to that ideology which has most psychological meaning for him and the most significant function in his over-all adjustment.20 Also: These ideologies have for different individuals, different degrees of appeal, a matter that depends upon the individual's needs and the degree to which these needs are being satisfied or frustrated.21 17

It will be noted that the latter type problem formulation presumes some form of determination for any and all occurrences. Thus, every instance of receptivity of this or that is presumed to be determined. The specifying of consistency, or direction, in the former type problem formulations avoids the issue involving the possibility of chance or random receptivity. 18 Op. cit., p. 3. " Ibid., cf. p. 2 and p. 657. 20 Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 100. 21 Ibid., p. 2.

SCOPE AND ORIENTATION

59

And: Whereas different individuals react differently, according to their psychological makeup, to the ubiquitous cultural stimuli of prejudice. . . . It is therefore not sufficient to ask, "Why is this or that individual ethnocentric?" but rather: "Why does he react positively to the omnipresent stimuli, to which this other man reacts negatively?"22 This commitment to selective ideological consumption, stemming from the framing of the problem is consistent with the initial underlying assumption in impelling the focus of the research inquiry toward the make-up and internal functioning of the holder of the prejudice. The consistent expression of a particular preference must reflect something about the chooser.23 This tenet does not negate the possibility of the preference reflecting (perhaps, even necessarily) something about the chooser's circumstances that endow the object of his choice with some special quality or virtue. However, if the chooser's circumstances are pertinent to the Investigators' inquiries, this relevance may exist in either its past, and/or present significance. Assuming that the circumstances of the chooser have played a role in the determination of his preference, this role may involve: (a) its present or immediate properties, (b) the molding of the chooser's make-up and/or internal functioning, or (c) both. Yet, regardless of the significance the chooser's circumstances may have, whether or not it is pertinent to a particular inquiry will depend on the focus of the problem. Hence, it is necessary to inquire into the direction the research is required to take, regarding the relevance of the chooser's circumstances, as a result of the demands imposed by the manner in which the central problem is stated. It is evident that the solution to the preceding question involves the relationship between ideological preference and overt action. It is known that one's ideology may not be congruent with his overt action. In fact, the prevailing climate of opinion may not permit the expression of what an individual thinks or feels. This recognized existence of levels of expression has been well stated by the authors. There may be a discrepancy between what he says on a particular occasion and what he really thinks. . . . It is to be recognized . . . that the individual may have "secret" thoughts which he will under no circumstances reveal to anyone else if he can help it; he may have thoughts which he cannot admit to himself, and he may have thoughts which he does not express because 22

Ibid., p. 752. Also see pp. 4, 40, 7-8, 229-30. Cf. Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1955), pp. 27, 149. 23

60

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

they are so vague and ill-formed that he cannot put them into words. To gain access to these deeper trends is particularly important, for precisely here may lie the individual potential for democratic or anti-democratic thought and action in crucial situations.24 Having taken note of the incongruity that may exist between ideological preference and overt action, the following deduction is admissible. Since the focus of the central problem is directed to selective ideological consumption it excludes from consideration overt action; and hence excludes the potential relevance of the consumer's present or immediate circumstances. It is granted that the consumer's past circumstances are pertinent for understanding the genesis of the consumer's personality organization and functioning. But, since the focus of the central problem does not involve a consideration of genesis, it also excludes the potential relevance of the consumer's past circumstances. Consequently, the chooser's circumstances, past or present, have no relevance for this particular central problem. The implication of the preceding derivation also suggests that focus on the ideological preference of the consumer must involve his "potential", "susceptibility", or "readiness"; hence, something that pertains to the make-up and/or internal functioning of the consumer. Once again it may be observed how the specific framing of the central problem, and its implications, are consistent with the initial assumption in impelling the research focus toward the make-up and internal functioning of the personality type in question.25 The Investigators' recognition and acknowledgment of the above imperatives are expressed in the succeeding passages. . . . the present study deals with dynamic potentials rather than with overt behavior.29 Elsewhere they note: what people say and, to a lesser degree, what they really think depends very largely upon the climate of opinion in which they are living; but when that climate changes, some individuals adapt themselves much more quickly than others. If there should be a marked increase in anti-democratic propaganda we should expect some people to accept and reject it at once, others when it seemed that "everybody believed it," and still others, not at all. In other 24

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., pp. 3-4; see also p. 5. And each is consistent with the initial assumption which underlies studies addressed to the explanation of some aspect of individual behavior; namely, a distinction must be made between what the individual does and what activates and/or guides what he does. Or, expressed in another form: behavior is an expression of motivational intent. 86 Ibid., p. 972. Cf. the quoted passage referred to by footnote N o . 74 cited on p. 83 of this text. 25

SCOPE AND ORIENTATION

61

words, individuals differ in their susceptibility to anti-democratic propaganda, in their readiness to exhibit anti-democratic tendencies. It seems necessary to study ideology at this "readiness level" in order to gauge the potential for fascism in this country.27 In another context they remark: The question asked here is what is the degree of readiness to behave antidemocratically should social conditions change in such a way as to remove or reduce the restraint upon this kind of behavior? This readiness, according to the present theory, is integral with the total mental organization here being considered.28 Also: . . . overt action, like open verbal expression, depends very largely upon the situation of the moment — something that is best described in socio-economic and political terms — but individuals differ very widely with respect to their readiness to be provoked into action. The study of this potential is a part of the study of the individual's over-all ideology; to know what kinds and what intensities of belief, attitude, and value are likely to lead to action, and to know what forces within the individual serve as inhibitions upon action are matters of the greatest practical importance.2» The foregoing passages indicate the authors' acknowledgement of the requirement established by their central problem - concerning the determinant of selective consumption of ideology. The search for the solution posed by this problem must be directed to something which pertains to the make-up and/or internal functioning (or disposition) of the individual consumer. The authors have labeled this something personality structure. It has been the purpose of the foregoing examination to ascertain why the scope and orientation of the "original" investigation of the authoritarian personality encompass what they do. The most extensive boundary of this investigation is set by the limits that differentiate this personality type as the central object of study. In this connection, what is subsumed under the label authoritarian personality is distinguished by prejudiced conceptions, which consistently diverge in uniform ways and direction from the actual attributes or qualities displayed by the objects of prejudice as a class. Correspondingly, the same limits demarcating the most extensive scope of the investigation, are established in terms of the type of data constituting the central object of study. This « Ibid., p. 4. 28 Ibid., p. 40. 2» Ibid., p. 4.

62

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

type of data is characterized by distinguishing features identifying those prejudiced conceptions which consistently diverge in uniform ways and direction from attributes or qualities of the objects of prejudice. The foregoing examination has revealed how these differentiating features, which establish the most extensive scope of the investigation, emanate from the intitial assumption underlying the inception and subsequent development of the "original" investigation. This assumption presumes the existence of a type of prejudice which ". . . has little to do with the qualities of those against whom it is directed". The limitation imposed by this initial assumption establishes the most extensive scope for which the Investigators' findings have their greatest pertinence. It was also disclosed how the investigation's scope was further delimited by the type of central problem which was directed to the object of study in question. In this regard, it was revealed how the problem's focus on selective ideological consumption excluded from consideration the consumer's overt action and social circumstances past and present. Similarly, the inherent requirements of the problem statement impel the research to be directed to the study of something which pertains to the make-up and/or internal functioning of the individual. This problem statement is consistent with, and derives from, the initial assumption underlying the investigation. Given a type of prejudiced conception, with distinguishing features reflecting its independence of the objects about which the prejudice is held, the source of this divergent conception must lie within the consumer expressing this preference. Thus, it has been established how the limitations and constraints, inherent in the initial and related assumptions, impelled the research to be directed to the study of personality as the source of selective consumption of ideology. In view of the above considerations, it is evident that any additional major facets, which the "original" investigation may contain, must derive from some source other than that signified by the authors' stated central problem. Before concluding this section a final consideration must be introduced. Do the initial and related assumptions made by the "original" Investigators conform to those assumptions entailed in the supposition that behavior is an expression of motivational intent? Thus far, it is apparent that the answer is yes. This affirmative answer is revealed in the focus of the central problem.

INVESTIGATORS'

B.

REQUIREMENTS

63

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INVESTIGATORS' PERSONALITY THEORY

It has been established that the focus of the central problem impels the research to be directed to the study of personality as the source of selective consumption of ideology. In accordance with this focus, a theory of personality is required to guide the formulation of specific research proposals. Elsewhere in this inquiry, it has been revealed how the initial and related assumptions concerning a body of data commit one to a development of the requisite theory in a certain direction and along certain lines. Proceeding on the basis of this disclosure it is essential to ask: How does the scope and orientation of the "original" investigation determine the direction in which the requisite personality theory is to seek the required solutions? Before attention can be addressed to this question it is essential to identify the tasks which the requisite personality theory is required to accomplish. These tasks are implied in the Investigators' central problem formulation. A recapitulation of their formulation follows: " . . . Why is it that certain individuals accept these ideas (authoritarian) while others do not?"80 Or, in a more specific form: " . . . Why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more democratic forms?"31 Otherwise stated: Why does an individual consume one ideological pattern rather than some other? An examination of the implications entailed in the preceding problem formulation discloses the following four tasks. The requisite personality theory necessitates that each of these four tasks be accomplished. (1) The Task Pertaining to The Source of the Selective Process: Since selective consuming of ideology presupposes the existence of a choice of ideologies available to the consumer, it is essential to identify the source of this selective process. (2) The Task Pertaining to Degree of Receptivity and Resistance: The Investigators note that ideologies have different degrees of appeal for different individuals. It is also noted that some individuals adapt themselves much more quickly than others to changes in climate of opinion. Thus, some individuals accept the change at once, others when it seemed that "everybody believed it", and still others not at all.32 Hence, for each individual, there is presupposed to exist degrees of receptivity and resistance. In turn, this presumes a quality of intensity belonging to »• Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 100. See also pp. 2, 4, 7,10, 223, 229, 230. »2 Ibid., pp. 2, 4.

64

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

the personality source - or properties which determine and/or guide the process of selection. By means of the same reasoning it must be supposed that there exist personality properties capable of exercising varying degrees of internal restraint on the expression 'in-words, in-thought, and in-action', of the ideologies consumed. (3) The Task Pertaining to Consistency: Among the distinguishing features cited as being characteristic of the type of data in question were the following: (a) A prejudiced conception reflected in, and represented by, a broad ideological pattern which consistently deviates in uniform ways and direction from objective actuality; (b) the presence of contradictions and inconsistencies in the broad ideological pattern: contradictory beliefs held about, and applied indiscriminately to, the members of a heterogeneous group; (c) The use of double standards to judge the same action by different individuals; (d) And yet, it is implied that the wider the scope of ideological content the more inclusive the pattern. Hence, the unity and coherence ieflected in the structure of the ideological pattern are presumed to be manifested in the different areas of life, i.e., politics, economics, religion, family, group relations, education, etc. These contradictions and inconsistencies, which appear in the above distinguishing features, require an even more exacting task of the requisite personality theory. Namely, how is consistency reflected in the supposed broad ideological pattern which is presumedly applied in widely varying situations, involving a variety of social 'objects', requiring varying degrees of internal restraint on its expression in-words, inthought, and in-action?83 (4) The Task Pertaining to Structure, Levels of Organization, and Functioning of The Total Personality: Since it is assumed that ideological content exhibits unity and coherence, relative stability, and modifiability, this poses an additional task required of the personality theory. What is the structure and functioning of personality of which this ideological pattern is an expression? How is the organization in each instance achieved? What determines the manner in which the ideological pattern will be organized? It will be recognized that task number four involves a level of analysis which signifies the previously discussed contemporary global view of the unit of study in question. The theoretical proposals encompassing and 39

In this regard, the authors note: "... the structure (of the ideological pattern) may not be integrated, it may contain contradictions as well as consistencies, but it is organized in the sense that the constituent parts are related in psychologically meaningful ways". Ibid., p. 5.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

65

depicting the sought for relationships at this level are statements previously referred to as the inclusive type. The generalized applicability of this type theoretical statement increases with each successful subsumption of the exclusive type statements. As such, the exclusive type statements are inherent in the inclusive type. In this connection, the tasks discussed above from 1 through 3 involve the exclusive type statements. Hence, in accordance with this recognition, insofar as the inclusive type theoretical statement successfully embrace the relationships involved in task number 4, they may be presumed to reflect simultaneously the relationships involved in tasks 1 through 3.34 The solutions to questions pertaining to the preceding four tasks are essential, if it is to be definitively established, empirically, that personality determines the selective consumption of ideology. Accordingly, the personality theory guiding the construction of a fruitful research design must have fulfilled the requirements associated with each of these four tasks.35 Hence, knowledge of the approximate limits within which the sought for solutions are to be found, constitutes logically defensible criteria in terms of which the legitimacy and adequacy of the Investigators' (actual) personality theory may be assessed. These are the criteria establishing the direction and the lines along which the authors' personality theory is required to direct the research in seeking solutions for these four tasks. Therefore, as a condition, prior to assessing the legitimacy and adequacy of the authors' supposed personality theory, the approximate limits within which the sought for solutions are to be found must be ascertained in the present work. This condition is not to be taken to mean that the present job necessitates providing specific answers to each of the questions pertaining to the preceding four tasks. Answers or solutions, even when correct, vary in their degree of approximation. For example: in seeking the answer to the question, "where does John Lewis live?" each of the following may be quite correct: He lives in Queens; he lives in South Queens; he lives in South Queens in the community of Arverne; he lives in South Queens in the community of Arverne on Beach 67th Street; and so on. Although each answer cited may be accurate, each varies in degree of approximation. In a similar manner, solutions to scientific problems also vary in their degree of approximation to reality.36 In accord34

A more extended consideration of the relations between exclusive and inclusive type theoretical statements will be found on pages 37-38 of the present work. 35 This use of theory represents its use as a tool or instrument to facilitate the acquisition of demonstrable knowledge. 36 In one respect, the history of science may be described in terms of achieving greater and greater approximations to empirical reality.

66

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

ance with this recognition, correct answers or solutions, having even the most general approximation, establish certain limits which imply the direction and lines along which more specific solutions are to be sought.87 A s a means of narrowing the logically defensible limits, within which the requisite personality theory is to seek specific solutions, the method of deductive elaboration will be employed. The search in each instance will begin by exploring the implications derivable from the initial and related assumptions involved in the Investigators' specific unit of study, as well as those assumptions that underlie the study of individual behavior generally. In conjunction with this procedure the movement will always begin with results or hypotheses which are more certain and then move slowly inward toward the less knowledgeable relevant areas.38 1.

The Task Pertaining to the Source of the Selective Process

In the search for determinants of selective consumption of ideology the focus must be directed to properties and/or functioning of personality. From the acknowledgment that incongruity frequently exists between the consumed ideology and what is expressed in thought, words and action, it follows that these personality properties can not be synonymous with behavior per se. Moreover, since it is recognized that consumed ideology may be prohibited from behavioral expression by internal and/or external restraints, it also follows that the solution to what initiates and/or guides (or steers) the selective consuming of ideology cannot be sought in the properties of behavioral acts. From the preceding considerations emerges the justification for the analytical distinction between what are labeled personality and behavior per se. In essence, this distinction must be equivalent to the distinction between what the individual does and what activates and/or guides what he does. Hence, if the concept personality requires the exclusion of behavior per se and yet requires the inclusion of what activates and/or guides what the individual does, it follows that the structure of personality must include the phenomenon of motivation. Likewise, the solution to what activates and guides the selective consuming of ideology must be sought in the motivational properties of personality. Although the constraints inherent in the initial underlying assumption, Compare the notion and rationale of fiducial or confidence limits as used in statistics. 38 This may be likened to tightening the ring or limits with each successive inward movement. 37

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

67

employed by the "original" Investigators, necessitated the distinction drawn between personality and behavior, this distinction is warranted on other grounds alone. The search for consistency in inconsistent behaviors, manifested by the same individual, simultaneously or successively, requires that an analogous conception of personality be employed. When one observes that a child may cheat on school exams, and not steal pennies from his mother's purse, yet lie to his mother and tell the truth to his father, how is one to account for such apparent inconsistency? The difficulties associated with seeking personality in behavior per se are all too clear. Previous attempts to meet this problem by means of a conception of traits as recurrent patterns of behavior proved to be grossly inadequate. The failure of this conception is understandable: since, for any given point in time there exist only the present behavioral acts, past acts are already non-existent, and the anticipated or future acts do not yet exist. Consequently, if personality is sought in behavioral acts the concept must refer not to a property of the person at any given point in time, but to a group of individual acts carried out at different times.39 Hence, instead of referring to a pattern running through all of the individual's behaviors (the consistent as well as the inconsistent) the personality concept would refer to behaviors classified on the basis of criteria involving similar observable characteristics and/or functions. The "pseudo consistency" achieved by means of the latter mode of classification is fallacious for the purpose of discerning what activates and guides the selection of the empirical instances comprising the behavioral class. Firstly, the "class" character or pattern of these behaviors exists only in terms of the arbitrary criteria employed, and thus cannot have any relation to what activated each instance comprising the class. Secondly, the observer, by this mode of classification, has presupposed that his "homogeneous behavioral class" has been activated and/or guided by homogeneous motivational properties. Yet, observation discloses that the existence of a one-to-one correspondence between motivation and behavior is indefensible. Failure to recognize the preceding fallacy has frequently led to an additional fallacy; namely, the use of the concept motivation as an additional descriptive category for the behavioral "class".40 In other words, it amounts to no more than abstracting an observable 38 Cf. Isidor Chein, "Personality and Typology", in Twentieth Century Psychology, ed. Philip L. Harriman (New York, The Philosophical Library, 1946), pp. 95101. 40 Cf. Else Frenkel-Brunswik, "Motivation and Behavior", Genetic Psychology, Monographs, X X V I (1942), pp. 125-26.

68

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

uniform characteristic (and/or momentary function) of the behavioral "class", and then employing this same characteristic (or function) as a motivational category to explain the occurrence of the behavioral "class". In this regard, it may be noted that the fallacy is not avoided by means of isolating some observable uniform characteristics of the subjects manifesting the same or similar behavior; or, of the subjects' socioeconomic circumstances. Isolation of observable characteristics drawn from the latter two sources represents no more than additional characteristics that extend the differentiating features of the behavioral "class". In either case, each differentiating behavioral class characteristic, and/or their combined occurrence, must be explained. Why do these subjects manifest these uniform behaviors rather than some others? It should be emphasized that the latter criticism is intended to apply only when the existing behavioral norms or ideologies are treated as a datum; that is, as existing potential choices from which the individual expresses a preference, and the problem posed is one of why the individual expresses the preference that he does rather than some other. Given this kind of problem, an analytical distinction between personality and behavior is required, and the investigator is precluded from seeking personality in behavior. Behavioral acts, thus conceived, represent the end products of a motivational process.41 Moreover, it is misleading to speak of a behavioral "class" as homologous when the comprising instances of it appear to serve similar (or the "same") momentary functions and have similar characteristics. Similarly, it is indefensible to assume that the motivational properties (or their relationship to one another) are identical because of the apparent similarities in the behaviors the motives underlie. Not only may the same behaviors represent end-products of different motivational processes, but the same motivational process may be expressed in different behavioral end-products.42 The initial prerequisites for the required personality theory are now apparent. To ascertain the source and functioning of the selective process the authors, in the formulation of their theory, must be guided by the following considerations: a. Personality and behavior must be analytically distinguished. 41

For a more extended discussion and derivation see pp. 25-34, particularly p. 32. In the same context it has also been revealed how motivation and behavioral endproducts must refer to qualitatively different levels of the same process and/or structure. 42 For further discussion see pp. 25-31 of this work; also, additional consideration will be found in the succeeding two sections.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

69

b. The concept personality must include, as a component of its structure, motivation; and exclude, as a component of its structure, behavior. c. The theory must direct the search for what activates and guides the selective consuming of ideology to the motivational properties of personality. d. Behavioral acts must be conceived as end-products of a motivational process. Before proceeding to the next task required of the personality theory it may now be asked: how does the authors' personality theory orientation conform with the requirements thus far? It will be apparent from the succeeding relevant quotes that their orientation, thus far, is completely congruent with the preceding requirements. The quotes are presented in the order of their relevance for each pre-requisite. But behavior, however consistent, is not the same thing as personality; personality lies behind behavior and within the individual.48 In another context they note: . . . it may be emphasized again that personality is mainly a potential; it is readiness for behavior rather than behavior itself; although it consists in dispositions to behave in certain ways, the behavior that actually occurs will always depend upon the objective situation.44 Regarding motivation being a component of personality, they note: The forces of personality are primarily needs (drives, wishes, emotional impulses) . . . Since it will be granted that opinions, attitudes, and values depend upon human needs and since personality is essentially an organization of needs, then personality may be regarded as a determinant of ideological preferences.45 In another context they remark: . . . this general disposition in his personality provided some of the motivational basis for anti-Semitism, and at the time expressed itself in other ways.. .46 With regard to behavioral acts representing end-products of motivational processes they assert: 43 44 45

4

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 5. Ibid., p. 7. Ibid., p. 5.

« Ibid., p. 227.

70

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Such a theory (theory of ethnocentric ideology) should . . . permit various patterns of surface opinions and attitudes to be viewed as alternative expressions of the same underlying point of view . . .47 And: This principle of shifting expression of identical motivational tendencies is apt to give an advantage to motivational categories regardless of how complete the specific information on any particular aspect of life may be.48 In a different context they state: The same ideological trends may in different individuals have different sources, and the same personal needs may express themselves in different ideological trends.49

2.

The Task Pertaining to Degree of Receptivity and Resistance

Granted that what activates and guides selective consuming of ideology must be sought in the motivational properties of personality; and if then the existence of degrees of receptivity and resistance is presumed, it follows by implication that the relevant motivational properties comprise a quality of intensity. By means of the same reasoning, it is logically defensible to expect the explanation of differential receptivity and resistance to lie in some form of relationship between motivational intensity and the intensity of the consumed ideology. Be that as it may, it is evident that, whatever the solution, the answer must be in accord with observations of relative stability and directional continuity of broad ideological patterns. Were it not for the existence of the latter, consistency in ideas and modes of thought could not recur consistently in one ideological area after another. There could not be the reported unity and coherence comprising the « «

Ibid., p. 145. Ibid., p. 471. 49 Ibid., p. 2. The following quote is a more succinct passage relating to the last two requirements. It is taken from an article written by one of the authors of The Authoritarian Personality. "A conceptual distinction comparable to the one suggested here is that used by biologists when they differentiate between phenotype, or face value description on the one hand, and genotype, or underlying causal structure, on the other. This distinction is necessitated by the facts that one and the same phenomena may have different kinds of 'causes,' and one and the same 'cause' may lead to a diversity of phenomena, depending on other conditions. A statement about a phenotype (e.g., a behavioral technique) does not permit unequivocal conclusions about the genotype (e.g., Motivation), and vice versa." Else Frenkel-Brunswik, "Motivation and Behavior", op. cit., pp. 127-28.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

71

structure of broad ideological patterns. The preceding considerations appear to preclude a simple linear relationship between the intensity of motivational properties and the intensity of their related ideologies. In essence, the latter would mean, the greater the motivational intensity, the greater the receptivity or resistance to corresponding ideologies. And, if a linear relationship for the dimension of intensity was to be assumed, the following implications would also obtain. Any and all fluctuations60 (the increase and decrease in intensity of motivational properties) would be accompanied by corresponding fluctuations in ideological receptivity and resistance. This, in turn, would imply that at least certain intensity fluctuations would preclude the presumed (relative) ideological stability and directional continuity. T o bring this implication into sharp relief a more precise restatement is necessary. Thusly: those motivational intensity fluctuations provoking corresponding intensity fluctuations in ideological receptivity and resistance, with only transitory effects, would either: (a) fail to produce ideological stability and directional continuity; (b) in some instances upset or modify the existing ideological stability and directional continuity;51 or (c) in some instances, fail to facilitate or buttress existing ideological stability and directional continuity. Of course, the preceding paradox does not necessarily negate entirely a search for the solution along lines prescribed by an assumed linear intensity relationship. It is possible that intense fluctuations of certain other motivational properties, by virtue of their perpetuated effects, are capable of producing some degree of ideological stability and directional continuity. Thus modified, this would mean the greater the intensity of motivational properties having perpetuated effects, the greater the receptivity or resistance to their ideologies.52 Certainly the latter modification 50 Fluctuations that may be induced by (a) abstinence and frustration of gratification, substitute partial gratification, and satiation; (b) combination of single motivational properties into motivational complexes or systems; and perhaps (c) the modification of effective intensity resulting from motivational conflicts; i.e., cancellation of the effectiveness of the intensity of one motive or motivational system as a result of its clash with another of comparable intensity. 51 It may be possible that these transitory effects provoked by fluctuations in motivational intensity are associated with the occasionally observed rapid personality changes. It would certainly appear worthwhile to investigate the role of such rapid and marked fluctuations in personality permanence and change. 52 This hypothesis is in line with some of the more recent findings reported in studies concerned with the influence of needs, values, and motives on perception. In particular, Bruner and Goodman have reported the results specified in the following two hypotheses: (a) "The greater the social value of an object, the more will it be susceptible to organization by behavioral determinants"; (b) "The greater the

72

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

represents a logically defensible direction, along the lines of which the theory might guide the research in search of a solution. Whatever the empirical adequacy may prove to be, of seeking a solution along lines prescribed by the modified formulation, it is evident that the distinction between motivational properties, having only transitory effects and those having perpetuated effects, is required. Related to such a distinction Chein has noted that: The recurrent nature of certain motives and the fact of frequent frustration makes it inevitable that organisms react to motives as motives and develop anticipations and expectations with regard to them. Under these conditions, motives become perpetual beyond their critical phases. A dramatic, if somewhat fictional, illustration of how a motive-in-perpetuation may become stronger than a motive-in-crisis might be cited of a gentleman, perfectly sane, dying of thirst because he refused to drink good water and refusing to drink because of the thirst motive and because he wanted to live. This gentleman was lost in a desert, had nursed along his water supply until he had only a small quantity left. He was very thirsty, but knew that his need for water would grow increasingly acute and so he determined to conserve the little he had left at all costs. He finally became so weak that he was unable to avail himself of the water and died with the water still in his possession. We begin to appreciate why psychoanalysis has sought character structure only in the "ego," for it is not in the acute phase of motives that personality will be found, nor in motives that arise only rarely and adventitiously, but in the perpetuated motives.58 Whereas the citation by Chein serves the function of calling attention to the distinction customarily employed by social psychologists between "perpetuated motives" and "motive-in-crisis", it also calls attention to the ambiguities and grave shortcomings this distinction entails. These ambiguities and shortcomings emerge when a close examination is made of what it is, to which perpetuated motive refers. In contradistinction to individual need for a socially valued object, the more marked will be the operation of behavioral determinants." J. S. Bruner and C. C. Goodman, "Value and Need as Organizing Factors in Perception", Journal Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLII (1947), pp. 33-44; see also: R. Levine, I. Chein, and G. Murphy, "The Relation of Intensity of a Need to the Amount of Perceptual Distortion", Journal of Psychology, XIII (1942), pp. 283-93. 53 Isidor Chein, "Personality and Typology", op. cit., p. 99. Less fictional illustrations, as Chein points out, would consist of cases reported of explorers and prospectors found dead of starvation, with small quantities of food on their persons. "Another case in point would be the boy who does not yield to his impulses to masturbate because he has been led to believe that this practice will diminish his sexual potency. There are, of course, many motivational factors which contribute to such a result, but the sheer pleasurable character of this activity helps to create a motive to conserve the ability to carry on such activity." Ibid., p. 99, footnote 6.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

73

perpetuated and transitory motives (i.e., Chein's "Motive-in-Crisis") referred to by Chein and others, the preceding deductive elaboration indicated a necessity to draw a distinction between motivational properties having only transitory ideological effects, and those having perpetuated ideological effects. In the former it is the motive which is perpetuated; whereas, in the latter, reference is made to perpetuated ideological effects. Although the task required of the authors' personality theory consists of explaining degrees of ideological receptivity and resistance, if, in turn, fulfilling this task necessitates a distinction between perpetuated and transitory ideological effects, what produces the one and not the other becomes a crucial concern. Naturally, if perpetuated ideological effects are the products of perpetuated motives, the task of the personality theory is rendered much simpler. Of course, the proceeding examination of what it is to which perpetuated motive refers, will reveal that an anticipation of such simplicity is grossly unwarranted. Unless perpetuation 54 is utilized in some specialized sense, not defined by its users, it can be assumed that perpetuated motives refer either to: (a) the frequency of recurrence55 - including perhaps the frequency pattern of recurrence, or (b) a constant state of activation.56 Each of the two uses of perpetuation will be examined to determine what implications, associated with each use, are likely to be productive in seeking the source of perpetuated ideological effects. If the concept of perpetuated motive is used to refer to the frequency of recurrence (including frequency pattern of recurrence) certain ambi54

The meanings given in the Winston Collegiate Dictionary are: "to make continuous", "to make everlasting; keep from oblivion; preserve". William D . Lewis, Henry S. Canby, and Thomas K. Brown (eds.), The Winston Dictionary, College Edition (Philadelphia, 1944), p. 722. 55 In the citation by Chein it will be noticed that perpetuated motive appears to refer to frequency of recurrence. 58 The concept, "Constant state of activation", poses a problem concerning the existence of motives during the absence of activation. During the absence of a previously observed motive (or motive complex) is it merely in a state of quiescence, or is it to be presumed non-existent? The assumption made regarding this issue has significant implication regarding the source of motives. It is of course apparent that the "State of Activation" is independent of awareness or non-awareness. Regarding the latter cf. Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, Character and Social Structure (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1953), pp. 125-29; also, the entire range of psychoanalytic literature. See particularly, Sigmund Freud, Psychopathology of Everyday Life, translated by A. A. Brill (New York, The Macmillan Company, 1948); M. H. Erickson, "Experimental Demonstration of the Psychopathology of Everyday Life", Psychoan. Quart., VII (1939), pp. 338-53; James G. Miller, "Discrimination Without Awareness", American Journal of Psychology, L l l (1939), pp. 562-78; James G. Miller, "The Role of Motivation in Learning Without Awareness", ibid., LIU (1940), pp. 229-39.

74

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

guities and shortcomings become apparent. In the first place, when frequency of recurrence is employed as the referent, or criterion, it may be asked and with considerable justification, do not most motives, if not all, qualify as perpetuated motives? To be sure, the frequency of recurrence is greater for some motives (and motivational complexes) than for others. Yet, the admission that some motives recur more frequently than others poses the most significant ambiguity. Since the so-called appetitive (and/or physiological) motives have the greatest frequency of recurrence (including, in fact, the most regular or consistent frequency patterns), it follows that these motives should produce the most significant perpetuated effects. Yet, reported findings indicate that these are the motives (when independent of motivational complexes involving an element of compulsiveness)57 that produce the effects regarded as being most transitory.58 In fact, in the literature on motivation, it is even suggested, when not explicitly stated, that it is because of the transitory effects produced by the appetitive (and/or physiological) motives that their distinction from "perpetuated motives is necessitated".59 The ambiguity cited above is not avoided merely by shifting the referent for what is perpetuated to the anticipations and/or expectations presumed to be associated with the type motive in question. Obviously, the greatest frequency of expectation recurrence will be those expectations associated with motives having the greatest frequency of recurrence.60 Moreover, these motives and their associated expectations are what constitute the foci around which (if not related to) much of one's frustration is centered.91 57 This is to say that only when the type of motive in question is a part of a motivational complex, pattern, or system which, in turn, exhibits a compulsive quality are the corresponding effects perpetuated. 58 The same observation appears to obtain for the so-called derived motives that arise out of, and in connection with, the conditions that confront the organism, when the appetitive and/or physiological drives are being fulfilled. When the frequency of recurrence of these types of derived motives is "high", due to the "high" frequency of recurrence of the conditions that occasion (or give rise to) them, there appears to be no evidence to suggest that their effects are anything but transitory in quality. Of course, the derived motives of the type in question which become part of a motivational complex exhibiting a compulsive quality are excluded. 59 In the case of Chein this implication is present in the use of the concept "Motivein-Crisis". Note the implication involved in the passage cited. 60 Subsequent considerations will reveal that the improbability of appetitive (and/ or physiological) motives producing perpetuated ideological effects having directional continuity, stem not from their supposed "non-perpetuating" quality, but rather from their typically isolated or localized character. 61 This, of course, is especially so during the very early and late phases of the life cycle.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

75

Finally, it may be noted that the crux of the difficulty does not appear to lie with the adequacy or inadequacy of a proposed distinction between "perpetuated motives" and "transitory motives" (or "motive-incrisis"). Insofar as "perpetuated motive" refers to the frequency of its recurrence, it is doubtful that even a clear-cut distinction would be useful in accounting for perpetuated ideological effects - characterized by directional continuity. This questionable utility stems in part from the fact that the use of perpetuation in connection with ideological effects obviously must refer to a constant state of activation for these effects. Otherwise, how else could ideological stability and directional continuity occur? 62 When the concept "perpetuated motive" is used to refer to a "constant state of activation" a different set of problems emerge. The most apparent concerns whether or not such motives exist. Of course, psychoanalysts, in their reference to deep-lying unconscious motives, would be quick to take exception to such an assertion. Yet, an assumed constant state of activation for motives poses very serious and difficult theoretical problems. Particularly, if one also assumes (as the psychoanalysts must)63 that behavioral acts represent end-products of a particular64 motivational process and/or structure. Given this orientation the following knotty issue emerges. It pertains to the occurrence of specific behavioral acts without being activated by the motive (or motive complex) of which it is presumed to be an end-product, and to which it owes its origin.65 This issue may easily be obscured once having (a) drawn It is logically defensible, of course, to entertain the possibility that perpetuated ideological effects are achieved by means of the frequency of recurrence of several motives, having the same or similar effects, and are activated not only simultaneously but in perpetual succession. 63 Psychoanalysis justified the etymology of its name by using the relation of signification in one direction only, namely, that which leads from the "effect" to the "cause" - which is strictly deductive. Every occurrence is conceived as a sign and effect of that from which it stems, e.g., the tracks of a bear are the signs and effects of his having passed. It may be added that not even the non-Freudian psychoanalysts can escape the implications involved in this premise. 84 It is essential to note that the use of the phrase "particular motivational process and/structure" does not preclude an event or pattern having been over-determined. 65 A s will be seen this problem is dependent of the question concerning the existence of a "principle of functional autonomy" as applied to motives. In fact, the solution to the former problem may throw considerable light on the latter, including the necessity for such a formulation. In particular, it appears to preclude the existence of derived motives becoming autonomous in the sense of standing alone. On the other hand, it is suggested that derived motives may become independent of their "root" source. Of course, if and when this does occur, it must be expected that such motives will become incorporated in "new" motivational systems or organizations. 62

76

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

a distinction between what the individual does and what activates and guides what he does; and (b) assumed that behavioral acts consist of end-products of a motivational process. In essence, it draws attention to the necessity for making a distinction between the motivational genesis of a pattern of behaviors and the subsequent activation (either simultaneously or in succession) of specific behaviors, comprising and expressing the pattern in any given present. Thus, the activation of behavior at any given point in time, as distinguished from what guides the direction the activated behavior takes, suggests that all behaviors may not be momentarily motivated (e.g., such styles of behavior as a springy walk, animated communication, erectness of carriage, the neurotics' tic - particularly when the tic has become stereotyped or "petrified"). Yet, the fact that this behavior occurs rather than some others, and that its occurrence represents the expression of a "preference", indicates that its genesis is always motivated. Once the latter possibility is recognized, attention is focused on the genetic history and structure of motives in the search for why this particular behavior occurs rather than some other. This implication complies with the prior deduction specifying that diverse specific behaviors are alternative expressions of one or more of the motivational derivations comprising an organized motivational series (i.e., a hierarchy of motivational derivations having a common root source). As such, understanding behavioral or ideological choice presupposes an understanding of the motivational series of which the specific derivation depicted in this choice is a member. With regard to motives which may be responsible for momentary activation of behavior a different type of problem is posed. Once the possibility is conceded that specific behavioral acts, occurring at any given moment, may not be motivated, a problem of degree of motivation emerges. Thus, momentarily, some behaviors may be "highly" or "weakly" motivated, or unmotivated. Of course, this does not necessarily imply that the "unmotivated" is not determined. It simply recognized that there are other determinants of behavior aside from momentary motives; i.e., the biology, the situation, the social structure, the culture, the civilization, the era.66 After having drawn the distinction between the motivational genesis 66 It may be noted that A. H. Maslow stresses that "motivations are only one class of determinants of behavior". H e further notes that "while behavior is almost always motivated, it is also almost always biologically, culturally, and situationally determined as well". A. H. Maslow, "A Dynamic Theory of Human Motivation", Psychological Review, L (1943), pp. 370-96.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

77

of a pattern of behaviors and the momentary activation of specific behavioral acts, as of any given moment,67 it may then be asked: to which of the two motivational sources does the "constant state of activation" apply? If the notion of a "constant state of activation" is employed with reference to motives, it is then apparent that the motives centering around the momentary activation of behavioral acts cannot possibly meet the criterion. Apart from the fact that instances of the moment-to-moment occurrence of behavioral acts may be unmotivated, the momentarily motivated instances may be activated by widely varying instantaneous and non-recurring motives. When the notion of a constant state of activation is employed with reference to motives comprising an organized motivational series, the difficulties entailed are far less pronounced. Moreover, if behavior expresses currently "inactive" motives, it can only do so by being one alternative expression of one or more of the derivative motives belonging to the successively derived hierarchically organized series. It follows from the preceding condition that, so long as a given motivational series is active, one or more of the derivative motives, of which the series is comprised, will be depicted as a theme in the diversity of moment-to-moment occurrence of specific behavioral acts. Correspondingly, when a behavioral pattern of an individual is juxtaposed with the specific behaviors constituting alternative expressions of this pattern (although specific instances of the latter may be expressed either simultaneously or successively, in a wide variety of situations and ideo97

Compare an analogous distinction made by Tiebout and Kirkpatrick in their discussion of "Psychiatric Factors in Stealing". These authors speak of motivating factors which center around the acquisition of the object in contrast to those which center around the commission of the act itself. This distinction recognizes the necessity to account for the psychological meaning and function of the act for the individual in question; as well as the meaning and function involved in the commission of the act. The motives that center around the acquisition of the object might be said to produce a pattern of behaviors of which the commission of that particular act is simply one form of its expression. In other words, why are these acts chosen by the delinquent as an expression of anti-social activities rather than other possible anti-social acts that could serve the purpose just as well? H. M. Tiebout and M. E. Kirkpatrick, "Psychiatric Factors in Stealing", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, II (April, 1932), pp. 114-23; this same distinction is referred to and successfully employed by Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: - The Culture of the Gang (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1955), pp. 26, 149, 184; for an exposition and demonstration of over-determinism, the many meanings and functions of behavioral acts involved on the same and different levels, occurring simultaneously and in succession, see Sigmund Freud, "Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria", Collected Papers, Vol. Ill, fifth impression, translated by Alix and James Strachey (London, The Hogarth Press, 1948), pp. 13-146; note especially pp. 49-56; 65-68.

78

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

logical areas) both will nevertheless represent different facets of the same motivational process and/or structure. Hence, if one or another of the derivative motives comprising an organized motivational series is constantly manifested in the moment-to-moment occurrence of behavioral acts these motives may be considered to be in a constant state of activation. Lest the preceding formulation be thought to be an instance of sleight of hand, an additional clarification is offered. Having recognized the distinction between the "motives that center around the genesis of a pattern of behaviors", and the "motives that center around the momentto-moment activation of specific behavioral acts", it is then theoretically feasible to speak of "perpetuated motives" in the sense of being in a constant state of activation. But it can then be employed only in reference to the motives that center around the genesis of the behavioral pattern, and only so long as this pattern of behavior is evident in the moment-to-moment occurrence of specific behaviors through which the pattern is expressed. Given these conditions it is feasible to speak of a particular motive being in a constant state of activation. The theoretical rationale would have to be along some such lines as the following presentation. The individual's consistently manifested pattern of behavior represents a derivative end-product of a particular motivational process from which this pattern has evolved. This motivational process consists of the transformations and derivations undergone by a "root" or "parent" motive; i.e., from each "root" motive are derived other motives, and the latter, in turn, undergo successive transformations giving rise, in each instance, to a succession of motivational derivations. By means of this series of successive differentiations and integrations, derived from a common source, there emerges a hierarchy of motivational derivations. Correspondingly, the relationships existing between these derivative motives, comprising each such hierarchical series, compose the pattern of organization for which the corresponding diversity of behavioral end-products is an expression. In this manner, each derivative motive, of which the series is comprised, is depicted as a thema running throughout a diversity of specific acts (in accordance with its level of inclusiveness) expressing some facet of this pattern of organization. As such, one or another thema, comprising the series, can be constantly observed so long as the pattern is evident in the moment-tomoment occurrence of specific behaviors, through which the pattern is expressed. To the extent that one or more of these themata, representing one or more alternative expressions of the root motive, is constantly

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

79

present, the root motive and/or its derivatives may be said to be in a constant state of activation.68 Having explored the implications derivable from the two possible usages of "perpetuated motive", it may be useful to restate the problem which led to the exposition in the first place. This restatement will include the dilemma posed by the exploration, as well as the solution derived therefrom. This exploration evolved from, and pertained to, the task confronting the authors' personality theory. This task involves accounting for differential ideological receptivity and resistance. It was noted that the solution was most likely to consist in some form of relationship between motivational intensity and the intensity of related "consumed" ideologies. It was further recognized as logically defensible to seek the solution along lines prescribed by a modification of an assumed linear relationship. A restatement of that proposed relationship follows: the greater the intensity of motivational properties having perpetuated effects, the greater the receptivity or resistance to corresponding ideologies. As a prerequisite to any serious consideration of this line of attack it was necessary to identify what characterizes those motivational properties producing perpetuated ideological effects. Moreover, if the latter effort is to be theoretically adequate (and subsequently, empirically adequate) it must meet: (a) the condition specified in the assumed modified linear relationship, (b) the observed requirement of ideological stability and directional continuity exhibited in a wide variety of ideological areas, and (c) the condition involving alternative behavioral expressions for the same motive, and/or the same behavioral acts as expressions of different motives. The fulfillment of these conditions requires the identification of those motivational properties producing perpetuated ideological effects, whose intensity varies with the intensity of ideological receptivity or resistance, without the stability and directional continuity of existing consumed ideologies being significantly altered by the fluctuations in intensity of those motivational properties having only transitory effects. The implications of the foregoing exploration revealed that the motivational properties that conform to the above conditions are characterized as follows. When "root" motives are the source of many successively derived motives and each derivation retains its dependence on its preceding source, the above conditions are satisfied. It was further noted that each of the motives successively derived from the same or 68

For additional discussion of some facet of the same process see pp. 26-32, 35-36, and the succeeding section of this work. In the succeeding section an appropriate example is employed to illustrate these considerations.

80

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

similar "root" source is depicted as a thema - that which represents in the present different facets and alternative expressions of the "root" motive. These various themata (and facets thereof) are manifested in the moment-to-moment occurrence of the wide variety of specific behaviors, which in turn are alternative expressions of the behavioral pattern evolved from this motivational process, and which constitute its endproduct. In this manner the past (the genetically derived themes) is recapitulated in the present. Although this section has been devoted to an examination of the task pertaining to degrees of ideological receptivity and resistance, it has no doubt been observed that nothing, as such, has been said of resistance. There are reasons for this apparent omission. These reasons pertain to the inherent character of the phenomenon subsumed under this label - in particular, the quality and source of resistance. In one respect, resistance is the obverse of receptivity. In this sense, to be strongly receptive to one idea is to be resistant to the opposite of this same idea. (Concerning this notion the analyst would be likely to remark: "What once repelled now attracts; and what once attracted now repels.") Hence, in this connection, the occurrence of resistance may be a reflection of the existence of receptivity. Correspondingly, explanation of the degree of resistance arising from this source must conform to, and be guided by, the same theoretical proposal expressing the relationship between the intensity of motivation and the intensity of corresponding ideologies. Hence, insofar as this particular source of resistance is concerned the explanation that holds for receptivity must also hold for resistance. Accordingly, there was no reason to speak specifically of resistance in the present context. It should be noted, however, that, since resistance is also a manifestation of mira-individual control it follows that other sources, and perhaps qualities, exist. In this connection, it is reasonable to presuppose that other sources of resistance arise from the numerous levels of motivational organization. Once the latter is conceded, and if it is further presumed that lower levels of organization are controlled, at least to some degree, by higher levels, attention is directed to the global structural components of personality. As such, the focus becomes centered on that structural component of personality which has as its functions co-ordination, control, and regulation of motivational release or discharge. Proceeding on the basis of this reasoning further consideration of resistance will be postponed and considered in relation to the broader context of controls. (See pp. 125-47.)

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

81

An epitome of the foregoing section is unnecessary, since there have been frequent recapitulations during the course of the exploration. Instead, the presentation will proceed immediately to the authors' relevant passages bearing on the assumption that some form of relationship exists between motivational intensity and the intensity of corresponding ideologies. In this regard, the authors have made the following remarks: . . . the study of this potential (for anti-democratic action) is a part of the study of the individual's over-all ideology; to know what kinds and what intensities of belief, attitude, and value are likely to lead to action, and to know what forces within the individual serve as inhibitions upon action are matters of the greatest practical importance. . . . The forces of personality are primarily needs . . . which vary from one individual to another in their quality, their intensity, their mode of gratification, and the object of their attachment... . . . In view of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity with which supposed value-violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional dispositions... In considering the relationship of central dynamic tendencies to ethnic prejudice, the problem of "aggression" obviously calls for special attention. Indeed, prejudice seems to be but one of a number of manifestations of aggression. Thus a more detailed analysis of the degree and type of aggression found in the high scorer seems appropriate. . . . the two subjects differ in the quality and intensity of their aggression and in the way of dealing with i t . . . . . . Impulses and inclinations repressed too severely, too suddenly, or too early in life do not lose their dynamic strength . . . . . . it seemed that the greater a subject's preoccupation with "evil forces" in the world, as shown by his readiness to think about and to believe in the existence of such phenomena as wild erotic excesses, plots and conspiracies, and danger from natural catastrophes, the stronger would be his own unconscious urges of both sexuality and destructiveness.68 It is clearly evident from the preceding passages that the authors presume that motivation and consumed ideology comprise a quality of intensity. It is not clear what they presume to be the relationship between the intensities of one and the other; and even less clear as to whether the source of the latter derives from the former. It may only be said with certainty that the passages contain nothing which is in opposition to the form of relationship derived by means of deductive elaboration. •• The Authoritarian Personality, respectively. (Emphasis mine.)

op. cit., pp. 4, 5, 96, 450, 814 for each passage

82

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

3.

The Tasks That Evolve in Connection with Problems Pertaining to Consistency

It has been observed that the search for consistency in inconsistent behaviors must involve the motivational properties of personality. Along what lines and in what direction must the authors' personality theory guide the research in seeking solutions to the following questions pertaining to consistency? What is the source of the organizing principle which produces consistency? What is it that expresses this consistency? What is the organizing principle by means of which consistency is achieved? In order to narrow the logically defensible limits within which the required personality theory is to seek solutions to these questions, it is necessary to specify the character and locus of the inconsistencies. In this regard, observations have drawn attention to two major loci of apparent inconsistencies. One exists in the behavioral acts in and of themselves.70 An illustrative instance, previously cited, referred to a child who cheats on exams, but does not steal money; lies to his mother, but does not lie to his father. In this instance, it may be noted that the inconsistency varies with both the situation and the "object-type" toward whom the behavior is directed. One may also observe inconsistencies in the different forms of behavioral acts simultaneously expressed.71 The second major locus of apparent inconsistency exists within and between the different stages of the same genetic process. As such, these inconsistencies occur between motivation and motivation, motivation and behavior, ideology consumed and ideology expressed. Given the range and multiplicity of contradictions and inconsistencies that may emerge along the preceding two dimensions, it would appear that all efforts to discover consistency would be destined to fail. Yet, if the ideology consumed by an individual consists of a single broad pattern, with a structure exhibiting unity and coherence, some type of organizing principle must be presumed to underlie the inconsistencies. Moreover, such an organizing principle would have to be of a type suggesting that the contradictions and inconsistencies constitute facets of a ™ The criterion for this locus is the inconsistency existing between the endproducts of motivational processes. These inconsistencies, occurring simultaneously and in succession between the behavioral acts, may be expressed in their contents, functions, or meanings. 71 Illustrative instances of different forms of behavioral acts simultaneously expressed would be: inflection of the voice, pitch and timbre of voice, rhythm of speech, intonation, variations of glance, general posture, facial countenance, silence, blushing, etc.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

83

single inclusive structure. 72 It is evident, from previous explorations, that any such inclusive structure must refer to the structure of personality. F o r it is under the concept 'personality' that the motivational categories are subsumed. On this basis it must be assumed that the source of the organizing principle producing consistency lies within personality. The following passages indicate that the "original" Investigators' orientation conforms to this initial step in seeking to locate the source of consistency. Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at particular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of personality would be forced upon us by observations of the consistency, with which the same ideas and the same modes of thought recur as the discussion turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various areas. The concept of dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the trend in diverse surface manifestations. For example, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any area of social relations.73 Elsewhere the authors assert: Although personality is a product of the social environment of the past, it is not, once it has developed, a mere object of the contemporary environment. What has developed is a structure within the individual, something which is capable of self-initiated action upon the social environment and of selection with respect to varied impinging stimuli, something which though always modifiable is frequently very resistant to fundamental change. This conception is necessary to explain consistency of behavior in widely varying situations, to explain the persistence of ideological trends in the face of contradicting facts and radically altered social conditions, to explain why people in the same sociological situation have different or even conflicting views on social issues, and why it is that people whose behavior has been changed through psychological manipulation lapse into their old ways as soon as the urgencies of manipulation are removed.74 A further step, in narrowing the logically defensible limits within which consistency must be sought, stems from the necessity to focus on the motivational properties of personality. It has been observed that perpetuated ideological effects must refer to a constant state of activation for these ideological effects. In turn, this presupposes a constant state of activation for the motivational properties from which these perpetn

The Authoritarian Personality, " . . . all these phenomena may be conceived of as constituting a single structure", op. cit., p. 5. ™ Ibid., p. 56. 74 Ibid., p. 6.

84

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

uated ideological effects are derived - and for which these effects represent end-products. It was then noted that only those motives successively derived from a common "root" motivational source could possibly meet the requirement of being in a constant state of activation. In this regard it was observed that the successive derivation of motives, by means of a series of successive resolutions of motivational conflicts and oppositions, produces a hierarchical series of motivational derivations. As such, each motive contained in a series is related to each other (and each to the common source) in terms of the techniques utilized to resolve the successive conflicts and/or oppositions. In each instance in which this process of differentiation and integration occurs, a series of motivational derivations will exist between the "root" motivational source and the diversity of manifest behaviors constituting the end-product of that motivational series. Hence, the relationships existing between the various motives, comprising a series of motivational derivations, will constitute a pattern of organization for which the corresponding diversity of behavioral endproducts are an expression. Accordingly, each motivational derivation of a series will be portrayed or depicted as a recurring thema running throughout a diversity of specific behavioral acts, representing one or another alternative expression of the organized motivational series of which these themes are composed. Thus for each theme contained in a series, there may exist a wide variety of specific acts through which it may be expressed. Consequently, so long as one or another of the themes comprising a series is constantly evident in the moment-to-moment occurrence of specific acts, that theme represents one of a number of alternative expressions of that "root" motivational source. To this extent, "root" motives and/or their derivations may be conceived as being in a constant state of activation. From the preceding analysis it is evident that the common trend manifested in the wide diversity of behavioral end-products consists in the themes running throughout these diverse behaviors. In short, it is the theme which provides the consistency, the relative ideological stability, the persistence of ideological trends.76 The obverse corollary of consist75

This is not meant to imply that change in themata is precluded. However, when the latter occurs - particularly changes in those themes lowest in the hierarchy of motivational derivation - one may be expected to witness marked personality changes. With regard to the problem concerning personality permanence and change it appears worthwhile to investigate the role of rapid and marked fluctuations in motivational intensity. See previous reference to fluctuations in motivational intensity, p. 71. Also cf. The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 7; Lecky, P., SelfConsistency: A Theory of Personality, edited and interpreted by Frederick C. Thorne (New York, Island Press Co-operative, Inc., 1945).

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

85

ency and relative stability is flexibility, diversity, and change. Flexibility and diversity are exhibited in the variety of behavioral end-products, on the one hand; and the multitude of themes, on the other. Thus, for each theme there may exists a wide variety of behavioral acts (and even forms and modes) in which the theme may be expressed. In this manner, any given theme may be manifested in diverse and contradictory behavioral acts appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that social object, in each area of social life.76 In a similar manner this same flexibility also prevails for the successive themes, since they are no more than reflections of the transformations and derivations undergone by a "root" motive. Hence, the simultaneous and successive occurrence of one or more themes, derived from the same root-source, represents alternative expressions of that root-source. If the transformations and derivations, undergone by a root-motive, are observed from the standpoint of a hierarchy of motivational organization, the constancy and inconstancy displayed in the themata become even more apparent. Thus considered, those themes at any given level of motivational derivation represent constancy in relation to those themes which succeed them in derivation; simultaneously, they represent inconstancy (flexibility, diversity) in relation to those themes which precede them in derivation - the former representing a static and the latter a dynamic view. The foregoing deductions are necessary corollaries of the supposition that personality consists of a single inclusive structure. Moreover, without a conception such as a hierarchy of motivational derivation the assumption of a single inclusive structure is logically indefensible. On the other hand, without the conception of a hierarchy of motivational derivation how is consistency, flexibility and diversity to be explained? The centrality of motivational derivation, for the authors' conception of personality structure, is of such crucial significance that it is deemed profitable to bring it into sharper focus. To achieve this end the following example is employed. The example represents an imaginary case with prevalent empirical prototypes. The imaginary case is that of a young "middle-class" American male adult, who will be given the name of Chess. For the purpose of the example it will be assumed that Chess' motivational structure includes the fear of n

From this conception emerge significant research implications. It will be necessary to examine in detail each of these implications in a subsequently relevant context. At present, only the most obvious will be mentioned; namely, consistent personality trends will be revealed only if the subject is subjected to a wide variety of stimuli - drawn of course from a variety of situations in each area of social life. Cf. The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 56.

86

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

feminineness. This fear will be accepted as a given - a datum, without considering its source. In fact, for the present task the fear of femininity will be accepted as a root-source of motivational derivations. And only those features that have special bearing on the present task will be considered. In particular, it is pertinent to note: (a) the derivations and transformations undergone by the root-source - the fear of femininity; (b) the hierarchy displayed in the derivations; and (c) the consistency, flexibility and diversity manifested in the themata on the one hand; and the flexibility, diversity, and change manifested in the behavioral acts on the other. The plan of presentation entails moving from those motives earliest in the hierarchy of derivation to those latest in the hierarchy of derivation. In this manner, special attention is drawn to the hierarchy of concepts involved in the transition from the more genotypic to the less genotypic, to the phenotypic concepts. First, the fear of femininity is expressed in (a) a compulsive masculine facade, and (b) submission to authority figures. Secondly, each of the latter derivations (masculine facade and submission to authority) undergoes subsequent derivations. Thus, from the masculine facade are derived such motives (or themes) as: (a) the facade of toughness, (b) flight into heterosexual promiscuity, (c) compulsive assertions of independence, (d) exaggerated strivings to be "on top", i.e., striving for power and status. In short, he avoids activities, sentiments, and emotions culturally defined as feminine. Thirdly, each of the alternative expressions of masculine facade, has in turn a wide variety of expressions; in this or that situation, toward this or that social object, in each area of social life. The descriptive presentation will begin with the masculine facade.77 (1) Chess has a compulsive masculine facade from which is derived: (a) a facade of toughness; (b) a flight into heterosexual promiscuity; (c) 77

In the construction of this imaginary case the writer has drawn from a variety of sources, including personal observations, cinema character types, and the characters of contemporary playwrights and novelists. In some instances I've not hesitated to paraphrase the dialogue of these writers. Current literature is replete with charactertypes displaying the motivational structure in question. Robert Anderson, Arthur Miller, Tennessee Williams, Alberto Moravia are some of the more recent literary authors to exploit this motivational theme. The plot of Anderson's Tea and Sympathy has as its sole theme fear of feminineness. The character in the play representing the 'ideal' prototype of this motivational theme is Bill Reynolds, master at the New England Boys' School. Robert Anderson, Tea and Sympathy (New York, Random House, Inc., 1953). Cf. the character Happy Loman in Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman (New York, Bantam Books, 1955); also Rick in Tennessee Williams' Cat On A Hot Tin Roof (New York, N e w Directions, 1955); and the protagonist, Marcello Clerici, in Alberto Moravia's The Conformist (New York, Signet Books, 1958).

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

87

compulsive assertions of independence; and (d) exaggerated strivings for power and status. (a) The theme of exaggerated toughness is manifested in a wide variety of non-threatening situations, and in interactions with a wide variety of individuals not conceived as authority figures by Chess. In general attitude Chess has cultivated an outward appearance of excessive self-assurance and determination. He conveys an appearance of being reserved, calm, self-controlled, and methodical to a fault. He sees himself as a man of the world, a fearless man, with stubborn convictions. Chess likes to emphasize his ruggedness; how hard-boiled he is; how the army taught him how to take it. To prove his ruggedness, he frequently challenges his male friends to strenuous physical competition. He likes to boast: "I can outclimb, outswim, outrun, and outlift anybody my size."78 In taste Chess' preference consists of conservative business suits, sport ensembles, crew hair cuts, sport cars, smoking a pipe, jazz. His favorite pastime consists of outdoor sports such as swimming, hiking, handball, climbing and sport car racing. He frequently asserts: "To be out in the open makes a man feel he's alive; vigorous exercise helps keep the body in shape". On the job, Chess glorifies the disciplinary value of hard work. In his opinion, "A man who can't handle tools is disgusting." (b) Chess' conception of himself as a man of the world is accompanied with calculated aggressive flirtatiousness (with mock or vulgar asides to friends) toward women of "disrespect" (i.e., women whom he defines as "loose") and superficial gestures of respect toward women defined as "pure". His numerous affairs with promiscuous women are permeated with cynical exploitiveness, hostile disrespect, and impersonal sexual contact.79 His references to his many affairs and conquests are reflected in the following type statements: "Now you take this babe I was out with last night. She's a gorgeous creature. You wouldn't believe it, but she's engaged to be married to a top executive in a couple of weeks. I went and ruined her. Now, I can get that anytime I want. In fact I can't get rid of 78 Cf. the character Happy Loman in Death of a Salesman. "Happy, enthralled: That's what I dream about, Biff. Sometimes I want to just rip my clothes off in the middle of the store and outbox that god-damn Merchandise Manager. I mean I can outbox, outrun, and outlift anybody in that store, and I have to take orders from those common, petty sons-of-bitches till I can't stand it anymore." Arthur Miller,

Death of a Salesman, 79

op. cit., p. 20.

As in the case of toughness this Theme may also be expressed in a diversity of behavioral acts and forms, in a variety of situations involving a diversity of social objects.

88

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

her, and you know what! He's the fourth executive I've done that to. And to top it all, I go to their weddings! I hate myself for it, because I don't want the girl; and still, I take it and - I love it! The only trouble is, it gets to be like bowling or something. I must keep knockin' them over and it doesn't mean anything. You know what I'd like? I'd like to find the right kind of woman; a woman with character and resistance a girl that comes from a respectable family; somebody that has an interest in the home and won't be running around. You know! The right kind of woman is the most perfect thing in the world."80 (c) Chess emphasizes as his goal the desire to make lots of money so that he will not have to depend on anybody or anything. (d) Chess stresses the importance of being successful. And he pursues this end with energy, determination, persistence, and decisiveness. He speaks intensely of his determination to be somebody in life - "a man everybody can look up to". "If you're any kind of man at all, you don't like to be on the bottom. You want to be on top." To be successful, he contends, means outsmarting others in the competitive struggle. "You must get the other fellow before he gets you." "Of course, you must develop the right kind of social contacts with the right kind of people too." "Now, you take my boss; when he walks into the office the waves part in front of him. That's sixty thousand dollars a year coming through the revolving door. And you know what! I've forgotten more than he'll ever know. I've got to show some of those pompous so-and-sos that I can make the grade. I want to walk into the office the same way he walks in."81 Concerning sentiments and emotions culturally defined as feminine Chess would therefore express impatient repugnance, indignation, and disdain toward males who show signs of "weakness", and/or effeminate characteristics. It would be embarrassing, discomforting and a chore to permit himself to be the object of feminine demonstrative expressions of love. Compliments and expressions of gentleness directed toward him would arouse visible signs of discomfort. He would frequently complain that women are too emotional.82 s»

Ibid., pp. 21-22. Ibid., p. 21. 82 Cf. the scene between Bill Reynolds, master at a New England Boys' school, and his wife Laura, in Tea and Sympathy. Bill has just given her the book of poems he has purchased for her. He is angry after learning that she has already received a copy from Tom Lee, the young student Laura has befriended. Laura: (Going behind him, and kneeling by his side) "Bill, I'm very touched that you should have remembered. Thank you. (He turns away from her, and goes on with his shoes) 81

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

89

(2) Chess demonstrates submission and exaggerated deference toward authority (or power) figures. In his conversations with dominant male figures everything he says is tentative and expressed with caution in a low voice. In approaching authority figures he displays timidity, apprehension and a deferential manner. He is distressed by the "hostility" of such persons. His own hostility and aggression, evoked by the thwartings and abuse by authority figures, are attributed to others' ineptness and ill-will. The assertions of authority figures are accepted as generally right. He expresses admiration and glorification of powerful figures. It may be observed in the preceding example that the root-motive or drive, referred to as the fear of feminineness, is expressed in a wide arc of opinions, values, and actions. The contradictions and inconsistencies existing among these behaviors,83 when judged in terms of their surface or observable characteristics, affirm the absence of any logical relation connecting these behaviors one with another. Yet, each behavioral instance, comprising the wide range, consists of one possible alternative expression of the same root-motive - a fear of femininity. Thus, whereas these behaviors are not logically related they are functionally and dynamically related. And it is this dynamic relatedness which provides unity and coherence, despite the fact that, in each behavioral instance, the momentary motive may be different. Our imaginary case reveals that the fear of femininity has undergone several successive motivational transformations. Initially, from this rootmotive was derived the compulsive masculine facade and submission to Bill, don't turn away. I want to thank you. (as she gets no response from him, she rises) Is it such a chore to let yourself be thanked? (She puts her hands on his shoulders, trying to embrace him) Oh, Bill, we so rarely touch any more. I keep feeling I'm losing contact with you. Don't you feel that?" Bill: (Looking at his watch) "Laura, I . . . " Laura: (She backs away from him) "I know you've got to go. But it's just that I don't know, we don't touch any more. It's a silly way of putting it, but you seem to hold yourself aloof from me. A tension seems to grow between us . . . and then when we do . . . touch . . . it's a violent thing . . . almost a . . . compulsive thing. (Bill is uncomfortable at this accurate description of their relationship. He sits troubled. She puts her arms around his neck and embraces him, bending over him.) You don't feel it? You don't feel yourself holding away from me until it becomes overpowering? There's no growing together any more . . . no quiet times, just holding hands, the feeling of closeness, like it was in Italy. N o w it's long separations and then this almost brutal coming together, and . . . oh Bill, you do see, you do see." (Bill suddenly straightens up, toughens, and looks at her. Laura, repulsed, slowly draws her arms from around his shoulders.) Bill: "For God's sake, Laura, what are you talking about? (He rises and goes to his desk) It can't always be a honeymoon." Robert Anderson, Tea and Sympathy, op. cit., pp. 110-12. (Emphasis mine). 83

Cf. for example his timidity with his self-assurance and ruggedness.

90

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

authority. From the masculine facade and submission to authority figures are derived subsequent derivations. And each of the latter in turn has undergone further derivations and subsequent transformations. Thus, the successive transformations and derivations, undergone by the fear of femininity, have produced an extensive binding series manifesting a hierarchical effect. Hence, it can be observed that the wide variety of different expressions of the same root-motive may occur at the same as well as different levels. Moreover, it is apparent that the diverse expressions of the root-motive, at the same and different levels, do not by any means exhaust the feasible potential modes of behavioral expression for this same root-motive. This is evident from the fact the alternative behavioral expressions considered simply represent the selective consumption by our imaginary subject. It is to be presumed that this selective consumption is derived from a relatively "unlimited" choice within his own social class and status identification. In this case, the range of alternative behavioral expressions of a single-root-drive, at the same and different levels, is as broad within a social class as between social classes.84 Finally, it may be noted that the fear of femininity provides the consistency and stability which the authors' personality theory is required to identify and explain. Also the successive derivations and transformations, undergone by the fear of femininity, in turn provide consistency and relative stability on the one hand; and the obverse corollary of flexibility and diversity on the other. Thus, the themes of masculine facade and submission to authority may be manifested in a wide variety of different situations, toward a wide variety of individuals in each area of social life (i.e., the family, group relations, in economic, recreational, as well as other social pursuits). Likewise, each alternative expression of the masculine facade or submission may be manifested in a wide range of behaviors, appropriate for variant situations in each area of social life. From the foregoing considerations it is possible to derive additional implications that bear on the organizing principle and directional continuity underlying ideology and behavior. The first of these implications concerns the organizing principle. The structure of the hierarchical series produced by successive derivations and transformations of the root-drive suggests the familiar process of differentiation and integration. If this is the case, it is also likely that this differentiating and integrating process 84 In a similar manner, the same may be said for any type and dimension of social stratification. Given the diversity of behavioral expression of the same root-drive at the same and different levels, within the same and between different social and/or status classes, the futility of seeking consistency in behavior per se becomes all too apparent. Cf. previous discussion on pp. 66-68 of this work.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

91

unfolds in either continuous and/or discontinuous stages. In either case it is evident that one principal aspect of differentiation is increasing complexity. In turn, increasing complexity produces a series of differentiated components, arranged in a hierarchical order, and having some orderly relation to each other. 85 T h e outgrowth and end-product of this process, at any stage of development, are of course organization, structure, pattern.™ A n exploration of the problems pertaining to organization and structure, for which the authors' personality theory must also provide solutions, will be dealt with in the succeeding section. With regard to the implications that bear o n directional continuity of broad patterns of ideology and behavior, the following forecast is warranted. Insofar as ideology and behavioral patterns are conceived to be end-products of the derivations and transformations of root-drives, the directional continuity must necessarily be determined and guided by the root-drive's constant press (or "push") for discharge (or expression) o n the one hand; and o n the other hand, the mode of internal restraint exercised to either (a) inhibit its expression, or (b) modify the form of its expression in the direction of what is acceptable to the subject a n d / o r significant others. 87 Thus the modes of internal restraint exercised call 85

Cf. the analysis of the development of personality as a system made by Talcott Parsons. It is his thesis that " . . . the main outline of the process of personality development, so far as it is legitimate to regard it as a process of socialization, can be regarded as a process of structural differentiation". Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales et al., Family Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1955), pp. 26-187. 80 If the plausibility of these assumptions is established, it is also likely that the following implication will obtain. The greater the number of successive derivations and transformations undergone by a root-drive, the more extensive the organization of ideologies and behaviors. 87 It may be reiterated that the exercise of internal restraint or control may be independent of conscious awareness. In this connection it should be noted that the phrase, "what is acceptable to the subject and/or significant others", is not meant necessarily to imply conscious acceptability. It is now well known that some type of "perceptual" recognition and discrimination, acceptance and rejection of feelings, ideas, and values may, and do occur, below the level of conscious awareness. It is also evident that the occurrence of perceptual distortions, as modes of psychological defense, presupposes some type of "pre-awareness". If this were not so, how could it be known that it is necessary to defend oneself against becoming aware of that which he is unaware, and which must be denied awareness. In this regard, one of the most amazing psychological paradoxes can be observed. An individual will frequently exhibit gross insensitivity, and total lack of insight, concerning that which must be denied awareness, and will simultaneously display admirable ingenuity with exasperating efficiency - when pushed to become aware as a means of avoiding awareness. In addition to personal observations, excellent illustrations of this paradox may be found in Fritz Redi and David Wineman, Controls From Within (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1952).

92

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

attention to the diversity of alternative expressions (or the diverse modes of gratification, if looked at from the side of the activated drive) on the one hand; and to the harmonious and conflicting patterns of drive interactions, on the other. In accordance with this reasoning, it is defensible to presume that the mode by which the conflicting patterns of drive interactions are resolved, determines and/or guides the directional continuity of the ideology that will be consumed - including the type of recurrent themata that will be manifested. These considerations, in turn, direct attention to the familiar modes by which conflicting patterns of interaction are resolved. The basic general scheme consists of (a) resolution by some means ending in the formation of a compromise, and/or (b) resolution by means ending in the complete inhibition of one or the other.88 It is essential to note in this context the additional clarification that emerges regarding the derivations and transformations. It is now clear that the particular derivation (or transformation) evolving from a root-drive must be a function of the mode by which its conflict with an opposing drive (or internal restraint) is resolved.89 To this extent it is legitimate and reasonable to anticipate that the derivations undergone by a root-motive will, to some extent, reflect and/or reveal: (a) the specific mode by which the conflict was resolved, and (b) the content of the restraining or opposing force. In this respect, reference to the foregoing imaginary case reveals that both expectations are exemplified. For purposes of illustration the more obvious example of Chess' compulsive masculine facade will be employed. In the first instance it is readily apparent that the compulsive masculine facade is a reversal of the fear of femininity into its opposite.90 Now consider the fact that in our society feminineness is associated with weakness, softness, tenderness, passivity, submissiveness, and emotional expressiveness. In essence Chess is virtually shouting: "I am not weak, I am strong; I am not soft, I am tough; 88

It is, of course, apparent that more complicated cases are permutations and combinations of this basic scheme, inclusive of the harmonious patterns. 89 A comparable formulation has been expressed by David Rapaport. H e notes that " . . . whenever a basic drive motivation meets reality obstacles or intrapsychic structural obstacles, a controlling organization is established which will regulate the drive discharge and modify the drive itself, giving rise to a derivative motivation. Such derivative motivations again are subject to the same fate. Thus arises a hierarchy of motivations in the process of building which the motivations also diversify. The higher the level of the motivation, the more effectively it is controlled." David Rapaport, "Projective Techniques and The Theory of Thinking", in Psychoanalytic Psychiatry and Psychology, ed. by Robert P. Knight (New York, International Universities Press, Inc., 1954), I, p. 200. 90 This mode of defense (or resolution of drive conflict) is frequently referred to as reaction-formation.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

93

i am not passive and feminine, I am active and masculine; I am not homosexual, I am heterosexual; I do not love him, I love her; I am not on the bottom, I am one of those on top; I do not weakly submit, I dominate and control";91 "I do not experience tender emotional feelings, I am aggressive and hard."92 The implications derivable from the foregoing considerations appear to provide additional support for the inference drawn regarding directional continuity. Namely, directional continuity of ideology that will be consumed will be determined and/or guided by the modes utilized to resolve conflicting patterns of drive interactions. Before leaving this problem, it is necessary to consider briefly just what it is to which directional continuity must apply. It is not necessary to establish the fact that this concept, including its equivalents, is devoid of any a priori content. To this extent it represents the ideal in conceptual usage.98 In essence the concept of directional continuity refers to a continuously unchanging line of movement - that is, continuity in one and the same direction. It is applicable to any event having this quality, but not until the empirical instance in question is specified and is demonstrated to have this quality (or meets the criterion). In the present context, and insofar as the "original" Inversigators are concerned, the gen91

Cf. The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 856. Accordingly, when Chess "sees" these tendencies in "others" (in the particular or the general), where they do not exist (or where they exist, and he sees them first and foremost), and rejects these "others" for same, it is apparent that the mode of conflict resolution (or mode of defense) has been by means of externalizing (or projecting) that which is denied in himself. As such, the conflict is thus fought outside instead of inside. Cf. ibid., p. 474. In this connection, it may be recalled that the central character of the data on which the "original" investigators focused their attention, and concerning which their problems were posed (and for which their findings have greatest pertinence), was typified by this initial assumption: namely, the particular type of prejudice being studied "has little to do with the qualities of those against whom it is directed". 93 This ideal quality adheres in two salient features that characterize this type of concept. First, by being devoid of any a priori content such concepts avoid limitations of time and space; hence, they are not culture or society bound. Secondly, they are amenable to precise specification. Consequently, such concepts are not beset or infected with the vagueness and ambiguity that customarily characterize the concepts employed in Sociology in particular, and the Social Sciences in general. In this connection, it may be noted that Blumer has published very lucid and timely statements concerning the vagueness and ambiguity of the concepts employed in the Social Sciences, and the significance of this deficiency for social theory and research. See Herbert Blumer, "Science Without Concepts", American Journal of Sociology, XXXVI (1931), pp. 515-33; "The Problem of the Concept in Social Psychology", ibid., XLV (1940), pp. 707-19; and "What is Wrong With Social Theory?", American Sociological Review, XIX (1954), pp. 3-10.

92

94

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

eral content in question is, of course, ideology. This brings to light another serious paradox. In the first instance it will be recalled that the paradox appeared in the following form: the general orientation of the "original" investigation entailed the assumption that ideologies, consumed by an individual, comprise one broad pattern that exhibits relative stability and directional continuity. Without the existence of the latter, of course, consistency in ideas and modes of thought could not recur in one ideological area after another. There could not be the reported unity and coherence that is supposed to comprise the structure of the broad ideological patterns. In contrast to this portrayal of order, consistency, and relative stability, it was revealed that this broad ideological pattern also contained a multiplicity of contradictions and inconsistencies. Contradictions and inconsistency were observed to exist (a) between the behavioral end-products, and (b) within and between the different stages of the same genetic process - thus, between motivation and motivation, motivation and behavior (including the successive stages of derivation and transformation undergone by a root-drive), and between the ideology consumed and what was expressed in behavior. In addition, flexibility and diversity were observed in alternative behavioral expressions, as well as in the themata running throughout the variety of specific acts. On close examination this paradox proved to be more apparent than real. During the course of the examination, it was revealed that the successive derivations and transformations, undergone by a root-drive, provide consistency and relative stability, on the one hand; and the obverse corollary of flexibility and diversity, on the other. Now it will be observed that essentially the same paradox appears in a different form. The way in which this new form of the paradox is resolved will have significant bearing on how the empirical research is to be implemented - particularly, with regard to how the data, once collected, must be handled or treated. The present form of the paradox emerges in connection with the problem previously posed; namely, what is the specific ideological content to which directional continuity applies? Insofar as directional continuity refers to continuity in one and the same direction, this precludes its application to any content or process (or pattern of either) which is manifested as one of a number of alternative expressions. To this extent, consistency in one and the same direction may apply only to that content occurring at a level in the hierarchy of derivation preceded by no other derived content. As such, this includes only that content which is subsumed under genotypic concepts ranking

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

95

highest in level of inclusiveness. Or, when stated in reverse, directional continuity includes that ideological content which occurs earliest in the hierarchy of derivation. It is essential to recognize that it is inherent in this hierarchy of motivational derivations that the highest in level of inclusiveness is equivalent to the earliest in derivation. With the above conditions in mind, it is possible to establish, with considerable exactitude, the limitations that exist in connection with specifying the ideological content to which directional continuity must apply. In this connection it is essential to refer to the "original" Investigators' specification of ideology. They note that "the term ideology is used . . . to stand for an organization of opinions, attitudes, and values a way of thinking about man and society".94 It is now evident that directional continuity may apply only to that ideological content which expresses, at the highest level of abstraction, this organized way of thinking about man and society. In this respect, it will also be evident that the directional continuity of the authoritarian personality's ideology must lie in his view of the world as a jungle. Essentially, this conception consists in viewing the world as a dangerous and hostile place, populated by people who threaten his very existence. Concerning this notion the "original" authors have remarked: ". . . (the authoritarian) subjects tend to manifest distrust and suspicion of others. Theirs is a conception of people as threatening in the sense of an oversimplified 'survival of the fittest idea.' "®5 Hence, it must be concluded: at the highest level of inclusiveness, it is the world-as-a-jungle theme which will be expressed in the entire arc of innumerable features comprising the broad ideological pattern consumed by the authoritarian personality. Attention may now be turned to the second form of the paradox which was previously mentioned. It has been noted that the directional continuity of the ideology, which has been and will be consumed, will be determined and/or guided by the modes utilized to resolve conflicting patterns of drive interactions. Thus it would appear that the modes by which conflicting patterns of drive interactions are resolved, at each successive stage in the hierarchy of derivations, would preclude the occurrence of ideological continuity in one and the same direction. This probability would appear to stem from two considerations, previously mentioned. The first consists in the diversity of alternative expressions (on the same and different levels) derived from the sucessive derivations and M

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 2; see also pp. 58, 71, 75, 76 and footnote no. 1 on page 151. « Ibid., p. 411; see also pp. 101, 421, 850.

96

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

transformations undergone by root-drives. Secondly, it was noted that the mode by which conflicting drives are resolved determines what particular transformation and/or derivation will emerge. It is generally thought to be indefensible to assume that the development of new structures and activity patterns from the resolution of the interaction of existing structures and patterns will consistently occur in the same direction. The solution to this second paradox seems to be in how the structural derivations are presumed to be related to one another. To the extent that the character of this relatedness occurs as inferred (i.e., dynamically) there is no problem; the paradox is only seemingly real. This section has been devoted to an exploration of prescriptions that bear on the search for solutions to problems involving consistency. In order to bring these limitations and constraints into sharper relief, it is now necessary to summarize the essential features that have emerged from this exploration. In the course of the summary presentation, relevant quotes from the "original" authors will be cited for each summary conclusion. As before, this procedure will facilitate an assessment of the extent to which the authors have conformed to the prescriptions entailed in the general orientation to which they are committed. From the foregoing exploration certain prescriptions have been drawn from the authors' general orientation which have significant bearing on the search for solutions to problems involving consistency. (1) The contrasting manifestations of unity and coherence, consistency and relative permanence, on the one hand; and the multiplicity of contradictions and inconsistencies, flexibility and diversity, on the other; are facets of a single inclusive structure. This structure has been labeled personality. In this regard the authors have made the following relevant comments. There seems little reason to doubt that ideology-in-readiness (ideological receptivity) and ideology-in-words — and in action are essentially the same stuff. The description of an individual's total ideology must portray not only the organization on each level, but organization among levels... — all these phenomena may be conceived of as constituting a single structure. The structure may not be integrated, it may contain contradictions as well as consistencies, but it is organized in the sense that the constituent parts are related in psychologically meaningful ways. In order to understand such a structure, a theory of the total personality is necessary.»« Elsewhere the authors have remarked: 96 Ibid., p. 5; see also pp. 6-7, 56, 207, 228-29, 648, 937, 942. Relevant passages that have already been cited will be found on pages 83-84 in the present work.

97

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

The results and theoretical constructions derived from the application of this technique (projective questions) are similar to those obtained from the other techniques used in the present research. In some cases there is almost exact duplication of variables; in others there is a more complementary or congruent relation, the variables from several techniques expressing diverse facets of a single, inclusive structure.97 And: The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations.»8 (2) The consistencies, contradictions, and inconsistencies are not logically related but are functionally and dynamically related. Concerning this notion the authors have stated: The structure may not be integrated, it may contain contradictions as well as consistencies, but it is organized in the sense that the constituent parts are related in psychologically meaningful ways.9® They have also remarked: And since the major concern was with patterns of dynamically related factors — something that requires study of the total individual — it seemed that the proper approach was through intensive clinical studies.100 And elsewhere they note: Once a hypothesis had been formulated concerning the way in which some deep-lying trend in the personality might express itself in some opinion or attitude

that was dynamically,

though not logically,

related

to

prejudice

against outgroups, a preliminary sketch for an item was usually not far to seek: . . .101 In still another context they note: . . . on theoretical grounds one cannot expect very clear cut relationships between categories based entirely on symptomatology rather than on personality dynamics, and variables like ethnocentrism which seem to be directly related to certain dynamic factors.102 It may be noted that each of these passages, and particularly the last, implicitly indicates the necessity to observe certain significant requirements in the construction of instruments to be employed for the purpose »7 Ibid., p. 595. •8 Ibid., p. 56. •• Ibid., p. 5. 100 Ibid., p. 12. 101 Ibid., p. 225. (Emphasis mine.) 102 Ibid., pp. 900, 13, 14, 228, 633, and 751-52.

98

THE " O R I G I N A L "

INVESTIGATION

of eliciting the required relevant data.103 Detailed attention will be devoted to these requirements in a subsequent context. (3) It is in the recurring themes or trends, expressed in the diverse behavioral manifestations, that consistency lies. In this regard the authors have remarked: While the specific surface opinions cover a great variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure.104 (4) The general orientation, to which the "original" authors are committed, prescribes that the organizing principle, by means of which consistency is achieved, must be somewhat as follows: In the process of attaining discharge, root-drives undergo successive transformations (or modifications), produced by the successive resolutions of drive-conflicts which emerge when obstacles to their discharge are encountered. From each successive transformation (undergone by a root-motive) evolves derivative motivations, producing (in the process) a hierarchy of motivational derivations. This hierarchy of derived motives is characterized by an increasing complexity of diverse alternative expressions, traversing from motives earliest in the hierarchy of derivation to motives latest in the hierarchy of derivation (i.e., from more genotypic to less genotypic to phenotypic derivations). The progressively increasing differentiation of root-drive derivatives (derived from the successive resolutions of drive conflicts) is presumed to be dynamically and functionally related to each other. In the same manner, it is presumed that the resolution of the interaction among root-drives

and their successive derivations produces

a progressive hierarchical series of congruent and conflicting patterns of drive interactions. In accordance with this formulation, the diverse behavioral manifestations, at any given stage of development, are considered to be the end-products of this motivational process. Hence, in sum, the organizing principle involves a successive development of new structures and behavioral patterns from the resolution of conflicting

patterns

of prior structures and behavioral patterns. The preceding formulation, prescribed by the authors' general orientation, provides an adequate basis for an assessment of what the authors have to say concerning the organizing principle via which consistency is achieved. In due time it will be revealed that they have very little to say in this regard. More103 The same may also be said for the procedures to be employed in the handling (or treating) of the relevant data. 104

Ibid., pp. 95, 40, 56, 92-93, 100-01, 145, 223, 225, 227, 228-29, 450, 890,

and 942.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

99

over, what they do say in this regard is far overshadowed by what they do not say. In fairness to the authors, it should be noted, of course, that their failure to make an adequate statement in this regard, does not preclude the actual research from having been guided by the limitations and constraints inherent in the above prescriptions. Whether in fact their research has been guided by the above prescriptions will be revealed in due course. With respect to the organizing principle, the "original" Investigators have made the following comments: The concern here is with these needs in Mack's personality which were aroused with particular intensity early in his life and which were later inhibited so that their present activity becomes manifest only in indirect ways.105 In another context it is remarked: . . . it was not primarily the relative strength of such tendencies106 (between ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric extremes) that seemed to matter, but rather the way in which these tendencies were handled in the motivational dynamics of the subject in question. In the framework of these dynamics, defense mechanisms are the instruments of rejections of these tendencies which the subject is not ready to face and to incorporate.107 Elsewhere they remark: Given these underlying trends - dependence, hostility against the father, submission, passivity and homosexuality, and fear of weakness — it is possible to offer reasonable explanations for most of Mack's characteristic traits and attitudes. These surface trends can be understood in large part as derivations or transformations of the deep-lying needs we have discussed. Surface and depth are connected by means of well known psychological mechanisms. . . . a rough correspondence between order in the genetic sequence and degree of depth within the contemporary personality structure is assumed, the earliest reaction tendencies being regarded as those which now lie deepest within the personality.108 It may be noted at once that fear of weakness occupies the most central position on the chart. 109 Deriving, as we have seen, chiefly from the deep-lying tendencies toward dependence on the one hand and toward submission, passivity and homosexuality on the other, this fear necessitates several protective devices which lead to a variety of behavior patterns and general attitudes at the surface level. The fear has to be denied, allayed, and if possible overcome.110 105

799.

Ibid., p. 794. (Emphasis mine.) Cf. also pp. 2, 5, 12, 15, 53, 55, 162, 489 and

106 "Such tendencies in the present context refer to . . . such depth factors as homosexuality and aggression, or passivity, or anality ...". Ibid., p. 442. 107 Ibid., p. 442. (Emphasis mine.) 108 This passage refers to a chart (Figure l(xx), p. 801) depicting an abstract formulation of Mack's personality, in its genetic aspects. 109 This reference is to the chart mentioned in the above footnote. 110 Ibid., p. 800. (Emphasis mine.)

100

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(5) The successive transformations and derivations undergone by rootdrives provide consistency and relative permanence, on the one hand; and the obverse corollary (flexibility and diversity), on the other. This diametrical expression of the same process exists as a function of the motivational hierarchy evolving from the successive derivations. Since these are the successive derivations that the recurring themata portray, both consistency and diversity may be displayed by one and the same thema. Thus, themata at any given level of motivational derivation represent consistency in relation to those themata succeeding them in derivation. And those themata at any given level of derivation represent flexibility and diversity in relation to those themata which precede them in derivation. It is clear that the "original" Investigators are not completely aware that consistency and "permanency", flexibility and diversity, are diametrical expressions of the same process. A glimmer of awareness appears to be reflected in the following passages. It seems clear then that an adequate approach to the problems before us must take into account both fixity and flexibility; it must regard the two not as mutually exclusive categories but as the extremes of a single continuum along which human characteristics may be placed, and it must provide a basis for understanding the conditions which favor the one extreme or the other. 111 Although personality is a product of the social environment of the past, it is not, once it has developed, a mere object of the contemporary environment. What has developed is a structure within the individual, something which is capable of self-initiated action upon the social environment and of selection with respect to varied impinging stimuli, something which though always modifiable is frequently very resistant to fundamental change.112 This glimmer of awareness is then obscured with such passages as: Personality is a concept to account for relative permanence. But it may be emphasized again that personality is mainly a potential; it is a readiness for behavior rather than behavior itself; although it consists in dispositions to 111

Ibid., p. 7; see also p. 6. (Emphasis mine.) Ibid., p. 6. (Emphasis mine.) The full context in which this passage occurs is quoted on page 83 of this work. Cf. also this passage: "The conception of personality structure is the best safeguard against the inclination to attribute persistent trends in the individual to something 'innate' or 'basic' or 'racial' within him . . . Without the conception of personality structure, writers whose approach rests upon the assumption of infinite human flexibility and responsiveness to the social situation of the moment have not helped matters by referring persistent trends which they could not approve to 'confusion' or 'psychosis' or evil under one name or another." Ibid., pp. 6-7. 112

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

101

behave in certain ways, the behavior that actually occurs will always depend upon the objective situation. 113 The "original" authors' failure to apprehend clearly that "fixity and flexibility" are diametrical expressions of the same process stems from their failure to specify in detail the organizing principle via which consistency is achieved. Their feeble effort is limited to the following type remarks: . . . for each individual there are certain "nuclear ideas" . . . which have primary emotional significance. However, these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they tend to "pull in" numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions. 114 Also they note: . . . It is more probable . . . that for each high scorer there are a few central opinions . . . and attitudes of primary importance; but these "pet" ideas seem to provide a basis or general readiness for the acceptance of almost any antiSemitic idea. 115 Elsewhere they remark: While the specific surface opinions cover a great variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure. 118 In another context they state: It is necessary to inquire, first, what are the trends or themes which run through an individual's discussion of each ideological area and through his discussion of ideology in g e n e r a l . . . 117 In still another they assert: . . . (a) If these trends are present, then they should also be found in various other ideological areas, (b) These trends should be expressed in non-ideological forms as well, that is, in ways of thinking about people and life generally . . Ibid., p. 7. (Emphasis mine.) Their lack of apprehension is perhaps best reflected in the quoted passages referred to respectively by footnotes numbered 105 and 111 of this chapter. 114 Ibid., pp. 92-93. 115 Ibid., p. 75. 118 Ibid., p. 95; see also p. 96. 117 Ibid., p. 40. »s Ibid., p. 101.

113

102

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Elsewhere they note: . . . There appeared to be dispositions in each individual that were reflected in his discussion of each ideological area as well as in his discussion of matters not ordinarily regarded as ideological.119 In regard to the "original" authors' failure to specify in detail the organizing principle this final citation is particularly revealing. . . . Each was regarded as a more or less central trend in the person which, in accordance with some dynamic process, expressed itself on the surface in ethnocentrism as well as in diverse psychologically related opinions and attitudes.120 Had the Investigators attempted to specify in detail the process by which successive transformations and derivations produce a hierarchy of motivational derivations, it is more than likely that they would have comprehended, with greater clarity, that "fixity and flexibility" are diametrical expressions of the same process. Failing to do so they were unable to see that the recurring themata portray both consistency and "permanency", flexibility and diversity. Consequently, though the Investigators speak of "this principle of shifting expression of identical motivational tendencies",121 they only apprehend with some degree of clarity, "the common trend in diverse surface manifestations".122 In this regard, it should be noted that the phrase "with some degree of clarity" is used deliberately and literally. The applicability of this phrase is justified, since the total range of diverse behavioral (or surface) manifestations expresses no more than the specific alternative expressions for each thema; and these themata, in turn, are no more than alternative expressions, on the same and different levels, of the root-drives from which they are derived. In this same connection, it is essential to note a further consequence of the "original" Investigators' failure to specify in detail the process by which successive transformations and derivations produce a hierarchy of motivational derivations. Their disregard for this requirement prohibits their recognizing that the successive derivations and/or transformations are portrayed by recurring themata. In turn, this failure is responsible for confusions and ambiguities concerning the level of inclusiveness of particular themes. Without a knowledge of the latter there 119 120 121 122

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. 223; see also p. 890. p. 228. (Emphasis mine.) p. 471. p. 56. (Emphasis mine.)

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

103

must prevail uncertainty and indecision regarding the functional significance of specific themata in relation to one another. Thus, for this reason, in the last group of citations the level of inclusiveness is unclear for each of the terms: "nuclear ideas", "certain unifying ideas or themes", "trends or themes", "dispositions", "central trend in the person". This uncertainty is further revealed in the authors' following remark. As to what kinds of central personality trends we might expect to be the most significant, the major guide, as has been said, was the research which has gone before; they were the trends which, as hypothetical constructs, seemed best to explain the consistency of response on the foregoing scales, and which emerged from the analysis of clinical material as the likely sources of the coherence found in the individual cases . . .12S It should be evident that the failure to recognize that themata varying in degrees of proximity to their root-source preclude ascertaining the precise functional significance of specific themata in relation to one another. 124 One further significant implication deserves mentioning in the present context. Without the consideration that the successive transformations and/or derivations are portrayed by recurring themata, and that these themata vary in degrees of proximity to their root-source, how is it possible to clarify, with any degree of preciseness, the levels of organization? Failure to recognize the latter conditions would appear to thwart (if not preclude outright) any attempt to ascertain the relationships existing among the variety of recurring themata occurring on the same and different levels. Yet, these are precisely the relationships that yield the pattern of organization, which the diverse and conflicting 123 124

Ibid., p. 225.

It may be worthwhile noting that this is the means-end problem within the framework of personality structure. And, as it is with the means-end problem in any other context, the immediate ends are also means. Hence, without the knowledge of the functional significance of the specific themata in relation to one another, one may be prone to overlook the fact that certain themata, each expressed in a diversity of specific behavioral manifestations, may be simply a means (perhaps even a disguise) of expressing a more functionally significant thema that lies behind. Considering the crucial significance of the above considerations for the Investigators' entire study, it is rather odd to find a passage, in a previous publication of one of the "original" Investigators, that suggests a greater awareness of these considerations than that found in the volume in question. In this passage it is remarked: " . . . It is even possible that the drive for aggression may come out in a disguise of manifestations which normally would be displayed by a "succorant" individual. Wherever "succorance" is only a "technique," the drive behind it is not succorance but another form of motivation, which will ultimately reveal itself in a set of behavioral consequences adequate, more or less, to its basic intent." Else Frenkel-Brunswik, "Motivation and Behavior", op. cit., p. 143.

104

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

behavioral manifestations are presumed to express. It is not essential to dwell on this issue in the present context, since it will be necessary to examine, in considerable detail, the problems pertaining to personality organization in the succeeding section. (6) The specific content to which directional continuity must apply may only be that ideological content or pattern of content, which expresses at the highest genotypic level of inclusiveness an organized way of thinking about man and society. Although the "original" investigators reiterate, over and over again, that: "the political, economic, and social convictions of an individual often form a broad and coherent pattern"; 125 there is a "close correspondence in the type of approach and outlook a subject is likely to have in a great variety of areas"; 128 there are "individuals who are extreme in the opposite direction .. .";127 "Potential antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend";128 "numerous opinions, attitudes, and values . . . constitute a consistent patterns or organized totality";129 ad infinitum: they are never clear regarding the specific ideological content (or pattern of ideological content) to which the directional continuity applies. Expressed otherwise: one is constantly left in doubt regarding the level of inclusiveness at which directional continuity applies for whatever content or pattern of content that is in question. Hence, it will be observed later that this was a source of confusion and ambiguity when implementing the required methodology. In one respect, their remarks suggest (or imply) that directional continuity applies to ideological content (and/or patterns of content) existing at the highest level of abstraction. Remarks of this type consists of the following: . . . Our types are justified only if we succeed in organizing, under the name of each type, a number of traits and dispositions, in bringing them into a context which shows some unity of meaning in those traits. We regard those types as being scientifically most productive which integrate traits, otherwise dispersed, into meaningful continuities and bring to the fore the interconnection of elements which belong together according to their inherent "logic," in terms of psychological understanding of underlying dynamics. No mere additive or mechanical subsumption of traits under the same type should be permitted. A major criterion for this postulate would be that, confronted with "genuine" types, even so-called deviations would no longer appear as accidental but would be recognizable as meaningful, in a struc125

The Authoritarian Personality, op cit., p. 1. Ibid., p. 971.

127

Ibid., p. 1. (Emphasis mine.) Ibid., p. 56. (Emphasis mine.)

128

"» Ibid., p. 3.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

105

tural sense. Speaking genetically, the consistency of meaning of each type w o u l d suggest t h a t as many traits as possible can be deduced basic forms of underlying psychological conflicts, and their

from certain resolutions.139

Elsewhere, it is remarked: . . . It is one of the outstanding findings of this study that "highness" (authoritarianism) is essentially one syndrome, distinguishable from a variety of "low" syndromes. There exists something like "the" potentially fascist character, which is by itself a structural unit.131 They (the two opposite types or syndromes) consist in accumulations of symptoms frequently found together but they leave plenty of room for variations of specific features. Furthermore, various distinct subtypes are found within each of the two major patterns.132 . . . The "subsyndromes" which we outline here are not intended to isolate any of these traits. They are all to be understood within the general frame of reference of the high scorer (the authoritarian). What differentiates them is the emphasis on one or another of the features or dynamics selected for characterization, not their exclusiveness . . . their interconnection by the over-all potentially fascist structure is of such a nature that they are "dynamic" in the sense that transitions from one to the other could easily be worked out by analyzing the increase or decrease of some of the specific factors.183 When considering levels of inclusiveness signified by specific group prejudice, prejudice in general, and ethnocentrism, their remarks also imply that directional continuity applies to ideological content (and/or patterns of content) existing on the highest level of abstraction. For example they write: Imagery of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threatening, attitudes of restriction, exclusion and the like, the view that Jews are too assimilative ideological a n d y e t t o o c l a n n i s h — these seem to be various facets of a broad pattern. An individual's stand with regard to one of these issues tends to be

very similar in direction and degree to his stand with regard to the others.134 150

Ibid., p. 749. (Emphasis mine.) It is pertinent to call attention to their remark on statistical and ideal types, which is contained in the opening sentence to the above passage. They remark: "We do not want to classify human beings by types which divide them neatly statistically, nor by ideal types in the usual sense which have to be supplemented by 'mixtures'." »» Ibid., p. 751. 138 Ibid., p. 972. Ibid., p. 751. 184 Ibid., p. 75. (Emphasis mine.) See also p. 92. At the level of inclusiveness signified by a single individual, the investigators have remarked " . . . A s stated before, most of the high-scoring and low-scoring (with regard to prejudice) individuals exhibit "High" as well as "Low" personality traits in varying proportions. In fact, single individuals may display any kind of configuration of traits ...". Ibid., p. 384 (Emphasis mine.)

106

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

We have seen that anti-Semitism or anti-Negroism, for example, are not isolated attitudes but parts of a relatively unified ethnocentric ideology. The present chapter suggests that ethnocentrism itself is but one aspect of a broader pattern of social thinking and group functioning. . . . In short, ideology regarding each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and expression of more central ("subideological") psychological dispositions.135 In regard to the above citations it is necessary to bear in mind the following consideration. When considering the assertion that the type of prejudice ideology in question (regardless of the group toward which it is directed) is a facet of the more inclusive ethnocentric ideology (although it is made without reference to the still broader ideological pattern of which ethnocentrism is presumed to be but a facet) it is apparent that the application of directional continuity to content is still precluded. This is evident from the Investigators' following comment: . . . The ingroup characteristics fall in exactly the same dimensions as do those ascribed to the outgroup, sometimes being identical and sometimes the exact opposite. Whether there is identity or reversal seems to follow a simple rule: those outgroup characteristics which have an aspect of power are kept intact in the ingroup, only now they are regarded as good, whereas for each outgroup characteristic signifying weakness or immorality there is an ingroup characteristic signifying the opposite.136 They further note: . . . It would be erroneous, then, to regard high scorers (the authoritarians) as "all alike"; they have in common a general way of thinking about groups, but there are wide individual differences in the imagery and attitudes regarding various groups . . ,137 To return to the level of ideological inclusiveness (of which ethnocentrism is but a facet) the investigators further note: 135 Ibid., p. 207. (Emphasis mine.) See also pp. 175-76. 186 ibid., p. 46. (Emphasis partially supplied - the first unbroken line.) The author's comment is made in reference to the ethnocentric personality. 137 Ibid., p. 146. The inapplicability of directional continuity to ideological content at the level of ethnocentric inclusiveness is further emphasized in the following passage: "Another general characteristic of ethnocentric ideology is the shifting of the outgroup among various levels of social organization. Once the social context for discussion has been set, ethnocentrists are likely to find an outgroup-ingroup distinction.... The social world as most ethnocentrists see it is arranged like a series of concentric circles around a bull's-eye. Each circle represents an ingroup-outgroup distinction; each line serves as a barrier to exclude all outside groups from the center, and each group is in turn excluded by a slightly narrower one. A sample "map" illustrating the ever-narrowing ingroup would be the following: Whites, Americans, Native-born Americans, Christians, Protestants, Californians, my family, and finally-I." Ibid., pp. 147-8.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

107

. . . To attempt to measure this ideology as a totality, however, is not to deny hat it has components with respect to which individuals may vary. Indeed, the assumption that each trend is complex underlies the foundation of the subscales and the attempt to make each subscale as complex and inclusive as possible,138 It is of course evident that the foregoing citations are sufficient to indicate the "original" Authors' implication that directional continuity applies to ideological content (and/or a pattern of content), ranking highest in the level of abstraction. Nevertheless, the issue concerning directional continuity is deemed to be of such crucial significance for the investigators' entire methodology, that it is considered essential to belabor the above point further. In this instance, however, it will be shown that the same implications are also present in the Authors' remarks concerning priority of ideological derivation. During the initial excursion it was noted that the ideological content to which directional continuity may apply could be stated in the reverse. Namely, consistency, in one and the same direction, is applicable to that ideological content (and/or patterns of content) occurring earliest in the hierarchy of derivation. In this regard, the implications of the Investigators' succeeding comments are consistent with the implications inherent in their preceding remarks. Thus, they note: . . . It will remain for later chapters to show that as we go deeper into the person the differentiation between high and low scorers (authoritarians and antiauthoritarians) becomes more clear-cut and dependable. 139 Indications are that there may be more similarity, within the major types, at the core than at the surface. This holds especially for the highly prejudiced subjects, with his great variety of rationalizations and behavioral manifestations of prejudice. 140 As far as the differentiation between high and low scorers goes, it is obvious that an overall pattern would necessitate more differentiated characterizations than those previously employed. . . . Sometimes high and low scorers are similar in what they say in politico-economic terms, but different in 138 Ibid., p. 145. (Emphasis partially supplied - first and last unbroken lines.) Cf. also the following remarks: "Each scale was a collection of statements. . . . Each statement concerned some relatively specific opinion, attitude, or value, and the basis for grouping them within a particular scale was the conception that taken together they expressed a single trend.... To define these trends empirically it was necessary to obtain responses to many specific issues . . . and show that each of them bore some relation to the whole." Ibid., pp. 13-14; and in another context it is noted: "though each ideological pattern may be regarded as a whole, it is a complex whole, one that embraces numerous features with respect to which individuals may differ significantly". Ibid., p. 40. 139 Ibid., p. 278. "o Ibid., p. 972.

108

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

some more subtle way; just as sometimes they are superficially similar with respect to underlying trends,141

different

but

The above reference to high and low scorers produces difficulties for the Authors because of their over-zealous attempt to find directional continuity in all the subjects' responses. In so doing the Authors do not exclusively employ directional continuity to apply only at that level where it is applicable, i.e., at the highest level of inclusiveness. Hence, at times they suggest that such directional continuity is evidenced in the manifestations of lower levels of inclusiveness - where it is not applicable. At one point, directional continuity refers to specific ideological content; at another point, it refers to a pattern of ideological content, and occasionally it refers to both. If it is the Investigators' intent for directional continuity to apply to both, then it is also unclear whether the level of inclusiveness for directional continuity is the same or different for ideological content and the patterns of ideological content. This confusion is most apparent when ethnocentrism is considered. Thus, on the one hand, the Investigators assert that " . . . there are wide individual differences in the imagery and attitudes regarding various groups". There certainly can be no question concerning the accuracy of this statement. Neither can there be any question that this statement rules out the applicability of directional continuity to ideological content at the level of inclusiveness, signified by ethnocentrism. On the other hand, the Investigators state that ethnocentrists " . . . have in common a general way of thinking about groups . . . " . It is evident that the latter statement implies directional continuity. In addition, of course, ethnocentrism is a facet of a still broader pattern. This confusion is further enhanced when speaking of a specific group prejudice. The Investigators remark: "An individual's stand with regard to one of these issues tends to be very similar in direction and degree to his stand with regard to the others." 142 Having dwelled for such length on the level of inclusiveness, at which directional continuity is applicable, it is necessary to justify this implied significance. The following considerations will indicate that it has important bearing on the methodology that is required. It has been observed that the authors' general orientation commits them to the 141

Ibid., p. 657. (Emphasis mine.) See also p. 264. It should be noted that in another context the authors state: "The fact that an individual's stand on one set of items is similar to his stand on all others does not necessarily imply that all anti-Semitic ideas are of equal psychological importance to each individual ". Ibid., p. 92; see also pp. 15, 597, 751. 142

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

109

principle of shifting alternative expressions of motivational tendencies for each level comprising the hierarchy of motivational derivations. This signifies that the relationship to be expected is not between the diverse manifest behaviors, but between something manifest and something latent. More specifically, the principle of shifting alternative expressions impels the researchers to seek to establish relationships between diverse manifest behaviors and the central themes (trends or dispositions) for which the diverse behaviors are presumed to be an expression. This, then, is a question of which alternative behavioral expressions are coordinated with which particular theme or disposition. Affiliated with this task is the obligation to ascertain which themes are related (and how they are related) to one another. Given this orientation one is committed to the logic of a particular kind of measurement,143 whether he actually engages in the corresponding measurement computational operations (or numerical methods) or not. In this regard, the specific kind of measurement required is that of probability. Inasmuch as the diverse behaviors may be alternatively expressed, it is obvious the specific behavioral alternatives have different probabilities of occurring at any moment. Correspondingly, certain behaviors will have a higher probability than certain other corollary behaviors, as indices of the presumed coordinated motivational themes and/or personality structure. These considerations bring to light certain significant conditions which the Investigators are required to meet when imple143 It should be noted here that measurement is used in its loose and strict sense. The stated conditions apply to both. It is presumed unnecessary to establish that measurement, in its strict sense, is not presently possible, by direct or indirect means, when investigating most if not all social behavior (and certainly no latent manifestation of social behavior). This fact is not obviated by converting social behavioral data into numerical indices and employing measurement (used in its strict sense) operations on these numerical indices. In the absence of equivalent and interchangeable units of measurement, numerical indices are not true quantitative values (or expressions) of the qualitative date (or series) for which they are numerical indices. Apart from any other significance the above condition may have, it is apparent that any elaborate ordering of data in a certain fashion, commits the researcher to the assumptions and logic of a specific kind of measurement - whether he actually engages in measurement, no measurement, or 'measurement' in the sense in which it is most frequently employed in the social sciences. Parenthetically, it may be added: in the course of this work it will be demonstrated that the choice of the specific kind of measurement allowable is limited, if not specifically prescribed, by the manner in which the problem and/or hypothesis is formulated. In turn, further limitations are imposed by the choice of instrument employed to elicit the pertinent data. And further related limitations, usually of a computational nature, are imposed by the selection (if the researcher still has a choice at this stage of the inquiry) of the procedures to be employed in handling or treating the data.

110

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

meriting the research task.144 The following instances are cited for illustrative purposes. The Investigators elected to employ, as one of their research procedures, the correlation of diverse manifest expressions. They assert that this effort was designed to serve several functions. To implement these aims they constructed and used opinion-attitude scales.145 Each scale contained a collection of statements to "each of which the subject was asked to express the degree of his agreement or disagreement".146 In turn, these opinion-attitude scales were correlated with one another; the subscales of each scale were also correlated with one another; and a statistical analysis was made of the individual items. Now, it may be noted, that regardless of what the several purposes may have been in correlating these diverse manifest expressions, a primary concern of the Investigators has been to find that themes are related and express a single general theme or trend.147 And any degree of success the Investigators may have had in this regard is very largely due to the use of this particular type procedure. Moreover, the limited success, in this regard, is due also to the use of this particular type of procedure. The success limitation is in part due to their failure to specify in detail the process by which successive transformations and derivations produce a hierarchy of motivational derivations. Their failure to recognize, or acknowledge, that themes vary in degrees of proximity to their rootsource, precludes their ascertaining the precise relationship of one specific theme to another. At present, the concern is with the conditions that this procedure (of correlating diverse manifest expressions) must meet in order to achieve, through its use, any degree of success in demonstrating that certain themes are related and express a single general trend. A significant positive or negative correlation will depend on the following three conditions: 144

As this analysis proceeds it will be revealed that the ramifications of these considerations, for the required methodology and related research procedures, are many and far-reaching. In a subsequent context many of these ramifications will be explored in detail. 145 It is important to bear in mind that these scales are not to be confused with the F-Scale.

»« Ibid., p. 13.

147

This observation is apparent from the following passage: " . . . How can one say that opinions, attitudes, and values found in groups of people go together to form patterns, some of which are more common than others? There is no adequate way to proceed other than by actually measuring, in populations, a wide variety of thought contents and determining by means of standard statistical methods which ones go together." Ibid., p. 3.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

111

a. A selection for scale items - statements indicative of certain underlying themes chosen by the Investigators as significant, and which, in fact, are significant. 148 Here it is assumed that the individual's propensity to give a positive (negative or neutral, depending o n h o w the scale is structured) response to particular statements is somehow related to elements of his personality structure; thus his response is presumed to be an index or sign of his personality structure. b. T h e selected statements must represent indices of high probability for the underlying themes of which the statements are presumed to be alternative expressions. 149 Since the expressive value of a positive response to a single statement will always be in doubt, it is necessary to use a given proportion of positive responses to all the scale statements pertaining to the same theme. c. T h e selected high probability statements must be drawn from a sufficiently high level of inclusiveness so that each statement will simultaneously represent a high probability index for several related, but less inclusive, themes. 150 It is here that the knowledge of the level of in148

The "original" Investigators have expressed an awareness of this requirement in the following manner. " . . . With increasing knowledge of the underlying trends of which prejudice was an expression, there was increasing familiarity with various other signs or manifestations by which these trends could be recognized. The task then was to translate these manifestations into questionnaire items for use in the next group study. Progress lay in finding more reliable indications of the central personality forces and in showing with increasing clarity the relations of these forces to antidemocratic ideological expression." Ibid., p. 13. It should be noted in this connection, however, that the Investigators are, in this instance, speaking of the F-Scale primarily, if not exclusively. And it is significant to point out that they seem to be unaware of the necessity to meet this same requirement in the construction of their opinion-attitude scales. For example, consider the following statement: "Whereas the scales for measuring surface ideological trends conform, in general, with common practice in sociopsychological research, the scale for measuring potentially antidemocratic trends (the F-Scale) in the personality represents a new departure. The procedure was to bring together in a scale items which, by hypothesis and clinical experience, could be regarded as "giveaways" of trends which lay relatively deep within the personality, and which constituted a disposition to express spontaneously (on a suitable occasion), or to be influenced by, fascist ideas." Ibid., p. 15. 149 In this regard see passage contained in the preceding footnote. "Progress lay in finding more and more reliable indications of the central personality....". 150 This requirement introduces further restrictions that must be considered in the construction of such a scale. For example, the Investigators' scales consist of statements "with each of which the subject was asked to express the degree of his agreement or disagreement". This means that the subject has no opportunity to qualify his responses. If there is no opportunity for the subject to qualify his agreement or disagreement, how does one know that his agreement (or disagreement) indicates agreement with all of the themes for which the statement is presumed to be indicative? This is particularly pertinent if the probability statements are drawn from a

112

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

clusiveness for directional continuity has significant bearing. Without this knowledge one is unable, other than by means of trial and error, to formulate scale statements which will simultaneously represent high probability indices for several specifically known themes. In some respect the Investigators are at least aware of the requirement. This awareness is explicitly revealed in several contexts. The following citations are illustrative: .. .The task was to formulate items which would cover as much as possible of the many-sided phenomenon in question. Since each of the trends to be measured was conceived

as having numerous components

or aspects there

could be no duplication of items; instead it was required that each item express a different

total system. . . ,151

feature — and where possible, several features — of the

Whereas this citation indicates an awareness of the need for scale items which are indicative of several themes, it seems to suggest the wrong reason for this requirement. Note the phrase ending with "there could be no duplication of items". All doubt regarding what this phrase means is removed by the opening sentence to the above citation. It states: "Since each scale had to cover a broad area, without growing so long as to try the patience of the subjects, it was necessary to achieve a high degree of efficiency." Elsewhere they remark: . . . In order efficiently to cover a wide area it was necessary to formulate items that were maximally rich, that is, pertinent to as much as possible of the underlying theory — hence a single item was sometimes used to represent two, and sometimes more, different ideas. .. ,152 It is thus clearly evident that the Investigators attempted to meet the requirement of constructing scale items which are simultaneously indicative of several themes. Also, it is equally evident that they are unaware of why this requirement is necessary.153 Without the knowledge of why, they must resort to trial and error as a means of achieving scales that produce correlation ratios which meet a desired minimum significance. sufficiently high level of inclusiveness; the higher the level of inclusiveness, the more facets the theme will include. 151 Ibid., p. 14. (Emphasis mine.) 152 Ibid., p. 229; cf. also pp. 225, 231, 247. 158 Further evidence of this lack of awareness is contained in passages cited in footnote 148 of this chapter. It may also be observed that Hyman and Sheatsley, noted and celebrated critics of The Authoritarian Personality, display a complete lack of understanding of what is entailed in this respect, as well as other requirements involved in the investigation.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

113

This trial and error procedure consisted of successive scale modifications, during which low probability scale items were dropped and items having higher probabilities as indices were successively added. d. To the extent that the above three conditions are successfully met, the respective thematic range indicated by scale items will overlap with the range of related themes indicated by correspondingly coordinated items. Given each of the above conditions one may expect to obtain the highest possible significant positive and/or negative correlation between the diverse manifest expressions. And this, in turn, will constitute an indirect confirmation that certain themes are related and express a single general trend. (7) The final conclusion for this section, bearing on problems pertaining to consistency, may now be introduced. Directional continuity of the ideology that has been, and will be, consumed will be determined and/or guided by the modes utilized to resolve conflicting patterns of drive interactions. Concerning this notion the authors have made the following relevant comments. . . . These ideologies have for different individuals, different degrees of appeal, a matter that depends upon the individual's needs, and the degree which these needs are being satisfied or frustrated.1M

to

. . . Personality forces which are inhibited are on a deeper level than those which immediately and consistently express themselves in overt behavior.165 . . . In order to keep unacceptable tendencies and impulses out of consciousness, rigid defenses have to be maintained. Any loosening of the absoluteness

of these defenses involves the danger of a breaking through of the repressed tendencies. Impulses and inclinations repressed too severely, too suddenly, or too early in life do not lose their dynamic strength, however. On the contrary, abrupt or unsuccessful repression prevents rather than helps in their control and mastery.156 . . . In the framework of these dynamics, defense mechanisms are the instruments of rejection of those tendencies which the subject is not ready to face and to incorporate.157 . . . Speaking genetically, the consistency of meaning of each type would suggest that as many traits as possible can be deduced from certain basic forms of underlying psychological conflicts, and their resolutions.158 154 155 158 157 158

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

p. 2. (Emphasis mine.) p. 5; cf. also p. 794. p. 480. (Emphasis mine.) See also p. 795. p. 442. (Emphasis mine.) Cf. pp. 55, 53, 11-12, 162. p. 749. (Emphasis mine.)

114

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

In essence these citations appear to suggest congruence with the conclusion presented above. At the same time, of course, these same citations emphasize over again the consequences of the Investigators' disregard of one of the central requirements prescribed by their general orientation. In this instance the reference is to the process by which successive transformations and derivations produce a hierarchy of motivational derivations. It has been revealed that their disregard of this requirement prohibited their recognizing: (a) that the successive derivations are portrayed by recurring themes: (b) that these themata vary in their degree of proximity to their root-source; hence, they differ in levels of inclusiveness; (c) that the recurring themes portray both consistency and diversity, "fixity and flexibility"; thus, "fixity and flexibility", consistency and diversity, are diametrical expressions of the same process; (d) that the principle of shifting expressions of identical motivational tendencies occurs on each level comprising the hierarchy of motivational derivations; (e) that the relationships existing among recurring themes, on the same and different levels, are a function of the successive resolutions of conflicting patterns of drive interactions. These are precisely the relationships that are involved when it is asserted that certain themes are related and express a single general trend. Correspondingly, these are the relationships that are presumed to be dynamically, and functionally, though not logically, related. Also, these are the relationships that produce and yield the pattern of organization which the diverse and conflicting behavioral manifestations are presumed to express; (f) that directional continuity applies to ideological content (and/or patterns of content) subsumed under genotypic concepts involving a level of inclusiveness which precludes the content (or pattern of content) as being a manifestation of one of a number of alternative expressions.

4. The Tasks Pertaining to Structure, Levels of Organization, and Functioning of the Total Personality This section is devoted to an exploration of the limitations and constraints (prescribed by the Authors' general orientation) which bear on the search for solutions to problems pertaining to the structure and functioning of the total personality. It will be recalled that these considerations entail a contemporary global view of data and processes

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

115

previously considered. Also, it is at this global level that the mclusivetype theoretical proposals are to be formulated. In previous contexts, allusions have been made to the immense complexity of interrelationships which exist within and between the various levels comprising the numerous facets of an evolving personality structure. Certainly no single genotypic structural classification is capable of encompassing such an immense complexity of interrelationships of such magnitude and diversity. Consequently, any structural differentiation of personality organization must necessarily represent a determined selection of observations from the total range of relevant observations. This selection will be made (knowingly or unknowingly) in accordance with the selector's interest and/or the requirements of the task to be performed. It follows from these considerations that every genotypic structural classification contains a built-in "bias" which impels the analysis to take certain directions - or at least limits the alternative directions in which the analysis may proceed. This inherent restraintis the price paid for the special advantages intrinsic in the classificatory scheme's selectivity. In accordance with these considerations it is not possible to deductively derive logically-defensible limits from which a classificatory scheme is required to be drawn. It is essential, of course, for the classification to comply with the derived requirements pertaining to tasks one through three. Likewise, the classification must be congruent with the comprehensive dimensions along which the requisite relationships are to be sought. Yet, not even these circumscribed conditions preclude the possibility of many alternatives. Consequently, it is necessary to alter somewhat the method which has been followed in the prior sections. To implement the analysis to follow, it will be profitable to employ as a point of departure the Authors' chosen classificatory scheme. Before proceeding with the presentation it will be useful to recall that, thus far, the emphasis has been focused on the genesis of the hierarchy of motivational derivations. This portrayal represented a genetic history of successive transformations and derivations undergone by root-drives. Although the representation of this genetic process was only schematic, it was considered sufficient to suggest the immense complexity of the interrelationships involved. These interrelationships were observed to exist within and between the various levels comprising a given hierarchical series. In the present context it is significant to note that the foregoing explorations suggested the existence of several such hierarchical series of ever-increasing inclusiveness and complexity. Initially, it will be recalled, attention was directed to the successive transformations and

116

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

derivations undergone b y a root-drive. Subsequently, it w a s n o t e d that the resolution of the interaction between

root-drives (and their succes-

sive derivations) produces a progressive hierarchical series of congruent and conflicting patterns

of drive interactions.

N o w it m a y be added that

empirical demonstrations of a great variety of facets of an emerging personality pattern w o u l d appear t o suggest a relatively " i n f i n i t e " n u m ber of e v o l v i n g hierarchical series at varying levels of inclusiveness. 1 5 9 A s examples, the f o l l o w i n g m a y b e cited as being illustrative of such facets. Freud describes stages of infantile sexual development; 1 6 0 and Ferenczi speaks of stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the sense of reality. 1 ® 1 Piaget reports stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of language and thought, judgm e n t and reasoning, c o n c e p t i o n of causality, and moral judgment. 1 6 2 Buhler has given a n account of the stages in mental development. 1 8 3 M e a d has described the stages in the d e v e l o p m e n t of the self. 1 6 4 Parsons has given a detailed account of personality structure differentiation in terms of roles. 1 6 5 Similar hierarchical series h a v e b e e n suggested in the discussion of c o n c e p t formation, 1 6 6 values, 1 6 7 perception, 1 6 8 a n d m e 15t

Cf. David W. McKinney, Jr., "Family Behavior", Our Contemporary World (Brooklyn, Brooklyn College Press, 1957), pp. 18-19; see also David W. McKinney, Jr., "Problems of the Self in the Light of the Psychopathology of Schizophrenia", Psychiatry, XIV (1951), particularly p. 338, and footnote 38, p. 339. 160 Sigmund Freud, Three Contributions to the Sexual Theory, translated by A. A. Brill (New York, The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1910). 161 S. Ferenczi, "Stages in the Development of the Sense of Reality", in An Outline of Psychoanalysis, ed. by J. S. VanTeslaar (New York, Modern Library, 1925), pp. 108-27. This chapter is reprinted from Sex and Psychoanalysis (Contributions to Psychoanalysis) by S. Ferenczi, translated by Ernest Jones (Boston, Richard G . Badger, publisher). 162 Jean Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child, translated by Marjorie Gabain (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1948); Judgment and Reasoning in the Child, translated by Marjorie Gabain (New York, Harcourt, Brace, 1928); The Child's Conception of Psychical Causality, translated by Marjorie Gabain (London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, and Co., 1930); The Moral Judgment of the Child, translated by Marjorie Gabain (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1948). 183 C. Buhler, Mental Development of the Child (London Kegan Paul, 1933). 164 George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1934). 165 Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family, Socialization and Interaction Process (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1955), Chap. 2 and 3. 166 L. S. Vigotsky, Language and Thought, translated by Helen Kogan, Eugenia Haufmann and Jacob Kasanin (Moscow, Gosisdat, 1934), Chap. 7. i " Clyde Kluckhohn and others, "Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action", in Toward a General Theory of Action, ed. by Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1951), Chap. 2, part 4, pp. 388-433. 188 Gardner Murphy, Personality, op cit., pp. 333-61.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

117

y 169 i n fact, Murphy has a chapter titled "The Hierarchy of Conditionings",170 and Gesell notes:

m o r

This outlook upon nature leads to the concept of a hierarchical continuity, which has been advanced in various forms by Woodger, Needham, Weiss, and others. . . . These forces can be visualized in a kind of hierarchy in which each level finds a role and yet influences and is influenced by every other level.171 Comparable reports by research workers, investigating various facets of biological, psychological, and social phenomena, appear to suggest a universal principle of hierarchical development applicable to the entire organic world. If it is to be assumed that there exist numerous evolving hierarchical series of ever-increasing inclusiveness and complexity, a global or genotypic analysis requires two major considerations. The first consideration pertains to the transition from the hierarchy of specific motivational derivations to the global structural analysis which the initial task requires. The second consideration concerns the integration and coordination of the evolving hierarchical series for each of the diverse facets. Certainly, it must be presumed that many of these facets are evolving simultaneously, while others evolve in succession. In this connection a further complication is posed. It must also be presumed that the evolving facets of an emerging personality structure interweave, not only with each other, but with evolving facets which are excluded from being subsumed under one or another structural component of personality. The latter consideration, in turn, directs primary attention to that structural component of personality, having as one of its functions the co-ordination of these evolving facets. Since the structural component performing the function of co-ordination must also perform the function of controlling and regulating drive-discharge, it must be assumed that "adaptation" (to oneself, and to one's physical and social environment) is also a function of this same structure. To this extent, this structural component of personality must have some degree of "control" over the other structural components of personality, as well as those non-personality structures essential to achieving adaptation. With the above reflections in mind, the discussion will now return 169

David Rapaport, Emotions and Memory (New York, International Universities Press, Inc., 1950). 170 Gardner Murphy, Personality: A Biosocial Approach to Origins and Structure (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1947), Chap. 10. 171 Arnold Gesell, The Embryology of Behavior: The Beginnings of the Human Mind (New York, Harper and Brothers, 1945), Chap. 15, pp. 183-84.

118

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

to the first two considerations: namely, the transition from the hierarchy of specific motivational derivations to the structural global analysis which the initial task requires and the co-ordination of the evolving facets of an emerging personality structure. In regard to the former, to facilitate this transition it is first necessary to identify: (a) the phenomena conceptualized as personality, and (b) the global structural concepts employed to differentiate and subsume these phenomena. The Investigators define Personality thusly: . . . According to the theory that has guided the present research, personality is a more or less enduring organization of forces within the individual. These persisting forces of personality help to determine response in various situations, and it is thus largely to them that consistency of behavior — whether verbal or physical — is attributable. . . . The forces of personality are not responses but readiness for responses. . . .

. . . The forces of personality are primarily needs (drives, wishes, emotional impulses) which vary from one individual to another in their quality, their intensity, their mode of gratification, and the objects of their attachment, and which interact with other needs in harmonious or conflicting patterns. . . -172 These two passages indicate that the referent for the concept personality is an organization (of forces). Although the passage does not specify the organization in question, previous citations have revealed that the Investigators assume the existence of "a single inclusive structure"; and it is apparent that organization of forces in question is the overall or total organization.173 In their "theoretical" statements,174 the Authors are never explicit in identifying the genotypic structural concepts that differentiate and subsume the diversity of forces comprising the organization labeled personality. In one or two instances use of the implied concepts involved is never specified. However, one is not left in doubt regarding the identity of these concepts. They are implied, and, in some instances, explicitly employed as categories when handling the collected data. These concepts are implied in the following passages: . . . our hypotheses were formulated according to psychoanalytic theory.175 172

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 5. Ibid., p. 5. 174 "Theoretical" is used advisedly since the Authors never explicitly set forth the theory which they assert has guided the research. There are, of course, explicitly stated hypotheses interspersed throughout the volume. However, it will be revealed in a subsequent context that there is no discernible interconnection between these hypotheses. 175 Ibid., p. 751; see also p. 326. 173

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

119

. . . For theory as to the structure of personality we have leaned most heavily upon Freud .. ,176 In this connection, the well-known Freudian concepts involved are the id, ego, and super-ego. In accordance with psychoanalytic usage these three structural concepts are employed to differentiate and subsume the diversity of motivations (or forces) comprising the organized totality conceptualized as personality. It has been previously noted by psychoanalysts of high repute that "concern with clarification of terms is unpopular amongst psychoanalysts and rare in psychoanalytic writing . . . " . m Our failure, in attempts to find clearly-specified criteria in accordance with which motivations are classified under one or the other of these three concepts, would appear to bear out the above assertion. To be sure, there are numerous formal short-hand definitions given for each of the three concepts. However, the inadequacy of such short-hand definitions is readily apparent from a single observation. Namely, each of these three concepts is "organizing" a diversity of complex data at such a high level of abstraction it would hardly be possible to specify any of them adequately with a brief statement - usually employing, implicitly, only one criterion for differentiation. Confronted with the above deficiency, it is not anticipated, nor implied, that the present attempt at specification will overshadow previous serious attempts in this regard. Yet, despite the inadequacies with which the present effort is infected, the requirement necessary to achieve definitiveness is quite clear. It entails seeking an effective combination of successive qualifying criteria in terms of which the desired precision may be achieved, in the discrimination of what motives are to be subsumed under which of the three concepts. This combination of criteria must be drawn from the differentiating characteristics of motives; i.e., their source, mode of origin, characteristic qualities and manifestations, functions, aims, modes of gratification, objects of their attachment, and amount of "energy" invested in them. Although the present effort fails to meet this requirement, it is contended that the following specifications, for each of the three concepts, are in accordance with the most precise usages. Specification of the concept id: Subsumed under this concept are those motives lowest in the hierarchy of derivation.178 The root-drives "«

Ibid., p. 5. Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, and Rudolph Lowenstein, "Comments on the Formation of Psychic Structure", Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, II (1946), p. 11. 178 Just how low in the hierarchy of derivation the line is to be drawn is, of course, 177

120

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

referred t o in the previous sections represent instances of this class of motives. T h e y are characterized b y their persistent press for direct discharge, without regard f o r c o n s e q u e n c e s . T h e y are inflexible

(non-

pliant) insofar as delay of discharge is concerned. O n the other hand, they are characterized by extreme flexibility, in regard t o the ideas or m e m o r i e s with w h i c h they m a y b e c o m e identified, and b y w h i c h they m a y b e represented. I n this regard, these drives are k n o w n t o shift freely f r o m o n e idea, or m e m o r y , or object,

t o another as its represen-

tative and object of attachment. In fact, it is this free mobility, w h i c h enables this t y p e of m o t i v e t o shift freely f r o m o n e idea t o another (or o n e object of attachment to another), that constitutes its m o s t salient feature. 1 7 9 This free mobility is manifested in, a n d inferred from, the observations of condensations, reaction-formations, displacement, a n d the use of special s y m b o l - f o r m a t i o n - m e a n s via w h i c h these drives are d i s p l a c e d f r o m o n e ideational representation t o another (or o n e object t o another). A l s o , it is via these s a m e m e a n s (defensive techniques or m e c h a n i s m s , so-called) that these drives are transformed, controlled, regulated - in a w o r d "tamed"

or socialized.

A l s o , these are the successive transfor-

mations, undergone by these drives b y m e a n s of such defensive m e c h anisms, w h i c h p r o d u c e the hierarchy of motivational derivations previnot clear. It is most likely that such an arbitrary line cannot be drawn. On the other hand, once the problems pertaining to drive source are clarified, it may be theoretically fruitful to explore the possibility of establishing a line of demarcation in terms of a specific number of successive derivations f r o m the point of initial source. 178 Freud refers to this feature of drives as "mobile drive cathexes" and "operation of the primary process". See S. Freud, Interpretation of Dreams, translated by A. A. Brill (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1945), pp. 527-29. Rapaport has given an excellent brief account of this process, viewed developmentally. He notes: " . . . Since the infant's perception is global, diffuse, and undifferentiated, so is his percept and memory of the need-satisfying object. This memory arises when the need mounts; therefore the two may be considered associated. The memories which arise in this way are termed ideation, and this relation between need and memory is the driveorganization of memory (in contrast to an organization of memory consisting of the relationship of memories to memories based on identical objective meanings or logically relevant relatedness. This process and organization is synonymous with the secondary process). In the course of development, differentiation takes place, and discreet partial aspects of the need-satisfying object (and it may be added, aspects of the situation associated with the need-satisfying object) crystallize. These are at first within the framework of the drive-organization of memory: they all become ideational representations of the drive. Any one of these or any combination of them may appear in consciousness when the need arises. In other words: any of them may be cathected by the emerging need, even those which were originally only incidental to the undifferentiated experience of the need-satisfying object. This is the meaning of free cathexes from the point of view of thoughtorganization . . . " . David Rapaport, Organization and Pathology of Thought (New York, Columbia University Press, 1951), p. 326, footnote 31.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

121

ously described. T h e controlling organization produced by this hierarchy of derivations results in a progressive increased pliancy for each subsequent derivation which permits greater delay and detour en route to its goal. These later successive derivations are those which are most frequently conceptualized as interests, values, attitudes, preferences, opinions. 1 8 0 Specification of the concept super-ego: Freud subsumed under this concept three broad classes of data. H e notes: " . . . W e have allocated to it (super-ego) the activities of self-observation, conscience, and the holding up of ideals. . .". 181 The inclusion under this concept of the function of self-observation indicates that it covers phenomena other than motives. However, in the present context, the primary concern is with the motives involved - the ego-ideals and the inhibitions, i.e. conscience. If it may be assumed that the ideals are essentially the positive expressions of internalized external prohibitions it will be necessary to focus only on the inhibitions per se.182 Certainly, limiting the present consideration to »so perhaps this explains the greater emphasis on rational control by social psychologists. Cf. David W. McKinney, Jr., "Problems of the Self in the Light of the Psychopathology of Schizophrenia", op. cit., p. 333. In this connection Rapaport has made a most interesting observation. With respect to the derivative motivations he notes that " . . . Objects other than the need-satisfying or valent object - encountered or sought out in the period of delay - attain secondary valence if action on them will lead to the valent object's becoming available in reality. In other words, means to reach the end object attain part valences of the end object." Thus, whereas root-drives are "displaced only from one drive representation to another", the derivative motivations "can be displaced to anything that serves as a means toward the attainment of the object in reality . . . " . David Rapaport, "The Conceptual Model of Psychoanalysis", Psychoanalytic Psychiatry and Psychology, op. cit., p. 236. (Emphasis partially supplied - the first unbroken line.) 181 Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, translated by W. J. H. Sprott (New York, W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1933), p. 94. 18s This assumption has not been thoroughly examined. Thus, it is not unlikely that it may do some injustice to the exact formulation of Freud. It is readily apparent that, at least analytically, the processes of development, resulting in the phenomena conceptualized as "ego-ideal", and those conceptualized as "conscience", are somewhat different. Also, it is evident that some difference exists in function - and thus, perhaps, in manifestation of function. However, it is doubtful that the content of the "primary" end-products of these two processes represents anything more than positive and negative expressions of particular internalized moral codes. As for the ego-ideal, the process of development has been reported as follows: In the course of development, and especially the early phases of this development, an individual falls in love with this and that person. He takes them as his erotic objectchoices. These object-choices are conceptualized as objects-cathexed. As each cathected object is given up as an erotic object-choice, it is replaced by an identification with the object in some respects. It is as if identification with the object cathected is a condition for giving it up. And, in a sense, the features of the object-choice which are adopted by the individual make good the loss of the object. Correspond-

122

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

those motives subsumed under the concept "conscience" adheres to the most frequent usage employed by the authors of the Authoritarian Personality. In accordance with this delimitation it may first be noted that super-ego motives essentially consist of cultural prohibitions that have been internalized. Thus, viewed apart from the individual, these are the moral codes defining what is felt to be (in a given society) right, improper, desirable, legitimate, illegitimate; codes pertaining to expected modes of conduct, of social intercourse and relationships; codes that establish the limits of what is deemed to be culturally permitted. Accordingly, such codes guide, regulate, and hence organize human social activities. So long as there exists a reasonable degree of conformity to such codes they provide relative stability and order in the relations between individuals and between groups. Diminished conformity is generally considered to enhance, in the long run, the probability of increased social antagonism, conflict, anomie, and other accompanying individual and social manifestations. In this connection, it is generally felt that conformity to the prevailing moral codes is best assured when these codes are internalized. When internalized the individual is presumed to feel a sense of obligation to conform - an obligation that may, in some instances, approach an inner compulsion. Also, under these ingly, these adopted features become aspects of himself which are loved and admired. The latter phase of the process is conceptualized as "the transformation of object-libido into narcissistic libido" - "an abandonment of sexual aims"; "a process of desexualization"; "a kind of sublimation". Freud notes: " . . . The character of the ego (self - Freud uses ego to refer to a specific component of personality, on the one hand; and to the total personality, on the other. In this instance it refers to the total personality or self) is a precipitate of abandoned object-cathexes and that it contains a record of past object-choices.... In women who have had many love-affairs there seems to be no difficulty in finding vestiges of their objectcathexes in the traits of their character . . . " . Thus, in essence, one's ego-ideal is presumed to consist of features derived from a series of abandoned erotic objectchoices. Elsewhere Freud adds: "The super-ego (ego-ideal component) is, however, not merely a deposit left by the earliest object-choices of the id; it also represents an energetic reaction-formation against those choices . . . " . Both passages are cited from: Sigmund Freud, The Ego and the Id, translated by loan Riviere, second impression (London, Leonard & Virginia Woolf at the Hogarth Press, 1935), pp. 36-37 and 44 respectively. For a detailed presentation see pp. 34-53; also see other references by Freud: "On Narcissism: An Introduction", Collected Papers, IV, op. cil., 30-59; "Mourning and Melancholia", ibid., pp. 152-70; New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., pp. 90-91, 107-08; and, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, translated by James Strachey (London, The International Psycho-Analytical Press, 1922). For a detailed discussion of the conscience component of the super-ego see: Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, translated by Joan Riviere (New York, Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith, 1930), pp. 104-44.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

123

conditions (and viewed from this social or societal standpoint) there is an awareness that transgression is likely to evoke spontaneous moral indignation and the exercise of some form of sanction against the transgressor by members of his primary group.183 When internalization is not enough to insure sufficient conformity to society's moral codes - or when unanimity (regarding what is considered to be the moral codes) is lacking - the ultimate means by which conformity is sought is through legal enactment and sanction. Thus, renunciation of transgression is sought by means of threat of legal punishment. When the sense of obligation is lacking in the latter instance, the individual may readily permit himself the "gratifications" of transgression, so long as he feels safe from discovery - and thus will not have to " pay the piper".184 These foregoing brief comments pertain to moral codes when viewed from a social or societal standpoint. In order to bring into sharper relief the distinguishing features of super-ego motives it is necessary to return to internalized moral codes viewed as a component of personality. The most essential features of super-ego motives are differentiated in terms of their characteristic qualities and manifestations, and their mode of origin. The characteristic qualities and manifestations of super-ego motives become most apparent when there is transgression and/or intent (thought, wish or desire) to transgress some internalized moral code.185 As a consequence of either 183 This form of control is reported to be characteristic of societal types labelled: Gemeinschaft, Sacred, Folk, Rural, Communal, Organic. Groups characterized by this type of control are referred to as primary groups. See Howard Becker and R. C. Myers, "Sacred and Secular Aspects of Human Sociation", Sociometry, V (1942), pp. 207-29, 355-70; Robert Redfield, "Folk Society", American Journal of Sociology, LII (1947), pp. 293-308. 184 This form of control is reported to be characteristically associated with societal types labelled: Gesellschaft, Secular, Urban, Associational, Multi-group, Mechanical. Groups characterized by this type of control are referred to as secondary groups. 185 In this regard Anna Freud notes: " . . . our picture of the super-ego always tends to become hazy when harmonious relations exist between it and the ego. We then say that the two coincide, i.e., at such moments the super-ego is not perceptible as a separate institution either to the subject himself or to an outside observer. Its outlines become clear only when it confronts the ego with hostility or at least with criticism. The super-ego, like the id, becomes perceptible in the state which it produces within the ego: for instance, when its criticism evokes a sense of guilt." Anna Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, translated by Cecil Baines (New York, International Universities Press, Inc., 1946), pp. 5-6; see also Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., p. 84. It may be noted that the seemingly anthropomorphic use of concepts, depicted in the above passage and in psychoanalytic writings generally, has been very much criticized.

124

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

instance there emerge anxiety, shame, guilt, and a need for, and a seeking of, punishment - administered by self and/or others. In contrast to an earlier stage of development - i.e., prior to the emergence of conscience or super-ego - there exists no distinction between the actual commission of the forbidden act and the intent to commit said act: "The intention is counted as equivalent to the deed."186 Thus, whereas prior to the internalization of prevailing moral codes, renunciation of forbidden acts is sufficient to avert the experience of guilt and need for punishment;187 at the stage of a developed super-ego the individual is said to feel guilty and seek punishment whether he has transgressed or not - so long as the intent or wish to do so obtains. Hence, at the stage of a developed super-ego, one is not only compelled to renounce transgression but to seek punishment as well.188 Moreover, since temptations are said to increase under constant privation, and/or deprivation, and to temporarily subside when occasionally gratified, individuals displaying the greatest virtue will often experience the greatest temptations. And the more frequent and intensive the temptations, the more frequent and intense is the guilt and need for punishment.189 This latter notion suggests a further implication; namely, insofar as constant privation increases temptation there must also be a corresponding intensification of the strength of conscience - particularly, if one is to avoid yielding to said temptation; and, of course, if one yields, it is reasonable to assume that the guilt and need for punish-

And of course, as Freud and others have noted, its inherent danger is readily apparent. Yet, in some instances, there are distinct advantages derived from the metaphorical use of language. If in scientific pursuits it is granted that language is only a tool employed to facilitate observation, analysis, and communication, certainly any usage of language facilitating these ends is justified. Accordingly, so long as the use of metaphor does not infringe upon intended meanings - and, in fact, facilitates meanings intended and saves time - reprobation for the use of metaphor per se is without logical or empirical justification. 186 Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, op. cit., p. 106. 187 When anxiety is experienced in connection with transgression, and without having been discovered, it is said to relate only to the possibility of detection. 188 This recalls the familiar dictum: the piper must be paid whether one dances or not. 189 Conversely Freud notes: " . . . A relatively strict and vigilant conscience is the very sign of a virtuous man, and though saints may proclaim themself sinners, they are not so wrong, in view of the temptations of instinctual gratifications to which they are peculiarly liable - since, as we know, temptations do but increase under constant privation, whereas they subside, at any rate temporarily, if they are sometimes gratified . . . " . Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, op. cit., p. 109. (Emphasis mine.)

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

125

ment will be so much greater, that an intensification of conscience will occur in order to avoid a subsequent relapse.190 Related to the preceding considerations are additional distinguishing features which have special significance when considering guilt and the need for punishment, as manifestations of super-ego motives. These distinguishing features are revealed when the relationship between guilt and consciousness (awareness) is considered. As a point of departure it will be recalled that some motives - drive-motivations in particular may exist independently of the subject's awareness. Then: given constant privation of drive-gratification and thus increased temptation neither of which the subject recognises - it should be expected that guilt is capable of being manifest independent of the subject's awareness. Furthermore, if a drive-motive is characterized by free mobility (mobile drive cathexis) - enabling it to shift freely from one idea, memory, or object of attachment to another as its representative - it should also be expected that guilt pertaining to these drives is independent of any single transgression and/or corresponding intent (or wish) to transgress. When the latter instance of guilt is juxtaposed with the more commonly recognized existence of a consciousness of guilt relating to the transgression (and/or intent to transgress) of a specific moral code, the suggestion emerges that there exist two distinct types of guilt. This is precisely what is contended by Freud in particular, and the psychoanalysts in general. The latter instance of guilt - guilt relating to singular specific acts - has been conceptualized as "consciousness of guilt" and is presumed to be always conscious. The former instance of guilt - guilt in general - has been conceptualized as "unconscious sense of guilt" and the subject is presumed to be, in most instances, unaware of its existence.1"1 This distinction between specific and general guilt in turn calls attention to further notable observations. In particular, it has been noted that "consciousness of guilt" emerges before the development of superego, therefore before conscience.192 Also, it is presumed that this guilt 180

In this regard Freud observes: " . . . In the latest analytical literature (In particular, in contributions by Ernest Jones, Susan Isaacs, Melanie Klein; also, I understand, in those of Reik and Alexander) a predilection has been shown for the view that any kind of privation, any thwarted instinctual gratification, results in a heightening of the sense of guilt, or may do so. I believe one obtains a great simplification of theory if one regards this as valid only for the aggressive instincts, and that little will be found to contradict this assumption." Ibid., pp. 130-31. 191 See Civilization and its Discontents, op. cit., pp. 124-25. 192 In this regard Freud notes: "We ought not to speak of conscience before a super-ego is demonstrable; as to consciousness of guilt, we must admit that it comes into being before the super-ego, therefore before conscience. At that time it is the

126

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(relating to specific acts and occurring prior to and continuing to occur after super-ego development) is a direct expression of the dread of external authority - a fear of loss of love. It is considered to be a " . . . direct derivative of the conflict between the need for parental love and the urgency towards instinctual (drive) gratification, and it is the thwarting of this urgency that provokes the tendency to aggression.. ,".193 Hence, the thwarting of this urgency toward drive gratification (by the parent during the early phase of development and later by other authority figures) provokes aggressiveness against this inhibiting authority. In turn, this tendency to aggression (toward this inhibiting authority) itself has to be suppressed. The subject's failure to suppress his own aggression would threaten him with a loss of love and protection. And in the case of both - his parent and later authority figures - a loss of love and/or protection endangers him to the " . . . risk that this stronger person will manifest his superiority in the form of punishing him . . ,".194 In accordance with this view it is apparent that the subject is faced not only with his own aggression but with the aggression (or anticipated aggression) of the inhibiting authority. The consequence of the inhibiting authority's interference (and/or aggression) with the subject's urgency toward drive gratification is two-fold: a repression of the drive, on the one hand, and a suppression of the tendency to aggression toward this inhibiting authority, on the other. It is further hypothesized that it is this uncommitted aggression that constitutes the initial source of "consciousness of guilt": 195 a tension that expresses this dread of aggression direct expression of the dread of external authority, the recognition of the tension between the ego and this latter (external authority) . . . " . Ibid., p. 127. 193 Civilization and its Discontents, op. cit., pp. 127-28; see also p. 115. 194 Ibid., p. 127; see also pp. 115, 131. 195 In this connection Freud asserts: " . . . the original severity of the super-ego does not - or not so much - represent the severity which has been experienced or anticipated from the object, but expresses the child's own aggressiveness toward the latter. If this is correct, one could truly assert that conscience is formed in the beginning from the suppression of an aggressive impulse and strengthened as time goes on by each fresh suppression of the kind." Ibid., p. 116; see also New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., pp. 89-90; cf. also: " . . . the sense of guilt, we said at one point, was the consequence of uncommitted aggressions; but another time and in particular in the case of its historical beginning, the murder of the father, it was the consequence of an aggression that was carried out. We also found a way out of this difficulty. The development of the inner authority, the super-ego, was precisely what radically altered the whole situation. Before this, the sense of guilt coincided with remorse; we observe, in saying this, that the term remorse is to be reserved for the reaction after an actual performance of an aggressive deed. After this, the omniscience of the super-ego robbed the distinction between intended aggressions and aggressions committed of its significance . . . . "

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

127

from external authority; a tension that initially expresses the conflict between the urgency towards drive gratification and need for parental love; a tension that later expresses the conflict between ego motives and the dread of aggression from external authority.196 Prior to the internalization of moral codes, upheld and imposed by the inhibiting authority, "consciousness of guilt" is experienced only after and because of transgression (or violation) of the forbidden code. It relates only to the one act and expresses the dread of being discovered - thus, a dread of aggression from external authority. Accordingly, so long as there is renunciation of transgression there is no experience of "consciousness of guilt". As Freud notes: " . . . Having made this renunciation, one is quits with authority, so to speak; no feeling of guilt should remain. . ,".197 This form of guilt is labeled "social anxiety" during the initial stage of development (the infantile stage of "conscience"); its counterpart (after transgression) is referred to as remorse.198 Once the super-ego evolves it is presumed that the dread of discovery ceases to operate.199 After all, it is contended, one cannot hide from oneself either the transgression or the intent (or wish) to transgress. It has been observed that at this stage of development no distinction is made between intent, wish, thought, and deed. Yet, despite this transformation from dread of aggression from external authority to dread of "internal authority" (conscience or super-ego), "consciousness of guilt" continues to be manifested as a vestige of the earlier stage of development. It has been noted that this represents an instance in which the Civilization and its Discontents, op. cit., pp. 128-29; see also pp. 130-31 (this passage is quoted in footnote no. 190 of this chapter). 196 Ibid., p. 127 (this passage is quoted in footnote no. 192 of this chapter); see also pp. 112, 116, and 108. 197 Ibid., p. 112. 198 Freud notes: "We call this state of mind a 'bad conscience' but actually it does not deserve this name, for at this stage the sense of guilt is obviously only the dread of losing love, 'social anxiety.' In a little child it can never be anything else, but in many adults too it has only changed in so far as the larger human community takes the place of the father or both parents. Consequently such people habitually permit themselves to do any bad deed that procures them something they want, if only they are sure that no authority will discover it or make them suffer for it; their anxiety relates only to the possibility of detection". Ibid., p. 108. Elsewhere he states: " . . . Before this (development of super-ego), the sense of guilt coincided with remorse; we observe, in saying this, that the term remorse is to be reserved for the reaction after an actual performance of an aggressive deed. After this, the omniscience of the super-ego robbed the distinction between intended aggressions and aggressions committed of its significance; ...". Ibid., 129; see also pp. 128, 119. 199

Ibid., 108.

128

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

old remains interwoven into the newly emerged structure of conscience.200 The second type of guilt - "unconscious sense of guilt" - is presumed to express itself in an unconscious seeking for punishment.201 It is assumed to be manifested in, and thus inferred from, such actions as: the exposure to dangers for which either no conscious purpose exists, or for which the expressed purpose lacks sufficient rational justification for the risk taken; the committing of prohibited acts in such a fashion so as to insure being apprehended; the admitting of culpability (including misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance) of which one is innocent. In the latter connection, the most noteworthy if not the most pronounced manifestation is exhibited by the innocent, self-proclaimed confessors who invade the police department after each report of some brutal crime. It has been further observed that when unconscious seeking of punishment leads to the violation of some specific moral code, this provides a specific act for which the individual may also experience the "consciousness of guilt". Finally, it may be noted that, in some instances, "unconscious sense of guilt" may also express itself in a sort of "tormenting uneasiness", discontent, or "a kind of anxiety", for which other motivations are sought.202 200

Freud regards this as an expression of the "principle of inertia" or "Conservation". Cf. Ibid., pp. 13, 15, 79, 108, 110, 128. He comments: " . . . the influence of the genetic derivation of these things, which causes what has been outlived and surmounted to be relived, manifests itself so that on the whole things remain as they were at the beginning . . . " . Ibid., p. 108; elsewhere it is noted: " . . . But this is easily explained from the original infantile stage of conscience which, as we thus see, is not abandoned after the introjection into the super-ego, but persists alongside and behind the latter . . . " . Ibid., p. 110; in still another context he remarks: " . . . it is because these two different versions of the sense of guilt one arising f r o m dread of the external and the other from dread of the inner authority - are superimposed one on the other that our insight into the relations of conscience has been hampered in so many ways . . . " . Ibid., p. 128. Ibid., pp. 124-25. 202 Freud notes that whereas "unconscious sense of guilt" is most frequently unknown to the subject, in the obsessional neurosis " . . . it makes itself loudly heard in consciousness; it dominates the clinical picture as well as the patient's life and lets hardly anything else appear alongside of it. But in most of the other types and forms of neurosis it remains completely unconscious, without its effect being any less great, however . . . . But its connection with the form of the neurosis is not to be over-estimated; even in the obsessional neurosis there are people who are not aware of their sense of guilt or who perceive it only as a tormenting uneasiness or kind of anxiety and then not until they are prevented from carrying out certain actions . . . " . Ibid., pp. 124-25. For an excellent description of manifestations of "unconscious sense of guilt" see: Bruno Bettelheim, "Harry - A Study in Rehabilitation", Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLIV, No. 2 (1949), 231-65.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

129

In contrast to "consciousness of guilt" which represents tension expressing a conflict between ego motives and dread of aggression from external authority, "unconscious sense of guilt" represents tension which expresses a conflict between ego motives and internal moral codes, i.e., inner authority - conscience - or super-ego.203 Specification of the concept ego: It has been noted that each structural differentiation of personality must include a structural component which has as one of its functions the co-ordination of a multiplicity of diverse personality and non-personality facets. It has also been adduced that each such facet, subsumed under the label personality or not, is so organized as to comprise a hierarchical series of ever increasing inclusiveness and complexity in organization. This latter consideration implies an immense complexity of interrelationships existing within and between the various levels comprising any given hierarchical series. Moreover, given the principle of shifting alternative expression, occurring on each level, serially or concurrently, each of the personality and non-personality facets must be to some degree compatible with the others; and, at least in some instances, when activated, must not interfere with another facet being activated for the same purpose.204 Finally, it should be noted that the requisite co-ordinating structural component of personality must represent and depict an organized aspect of the structural whole. As such, conceptual requirements preclude attributing to this structural component properties which can appertain only to the label personality as a whole.205 203

Civilization and its Discontents, op. cit., pp. 127-28, 112-13. The required co-ordination suggested by the above considerations must be very loose indeed. 2 °5 Occasionally Freud, in his writings, has failed to adhere to this requirement; and thus, in such instances, his use of the label ego is ambiguous and confusing. Attention has been called to such an instance by Hartmann, Kris, and Loewenstein. The citation in question reads: "The Ego presents itself to the Superego as love object." Commenting on the preceding metaphor Hartmann, et al., notes: " . . . The metaphor expresses the relations of two psychic organizations by comparing it to a love relation between individuals, in which the one is the lover and the other the beloved Self-love in this formulation indicates that approval of the self by the superego concerns the self in lieu of another person." Nevertheless, regardless of the significance of the clinical observation disclosed, the sentence in question constitutes one such instance in which the concept ego is employed as a label for the whole person. Yet, it is also used as a label for a structural component of the organized whole. For another example, see footnote 182 of this chapter. The above citation is drawn from Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, and Rudolph M. Loewenstein, "Comments on the Formation of Psychic Structure", The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, XI (1946), p. 16. Cf. comments on the anthropomorphic use of concepts discussed in this work in footnote 185 of this chapter. 204

130

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Also, if the function of co-ordination is attributed to a structural component it is obvious that that which is being co-ordinated cannot legitimately be a property subsumed under the same label; neither can that over which this structural component exercises some degree of control be subsumed under the same label. Yet, in speaking of an organization, or structure, reference must be to something which is structured. Although it may be logically defensible to speak of the structure of functions, in so doing, a prior structure(s) must be presumed to exist through which the structured functions are mediated. The structural component in the Freudian classificatory scheme, to which the above requirements must apply, has been labeled the ego. Notwithstanding the requirements noted above, the concept ego, as used in psychoanalysis, pertains to a resultant, i.e., a product.208 Yet, to this product is attributed the property of acting - including observing and knowing.207 It is conceived as something acted upon; as something through which certain effects are mediated;208 as something of which some aspects are subjectively experienced as subject and object;209 and as something evidencing continuity and stability, despite continuously changing contents. The problems posed by such a construct as the ego, having to meet the above requirements and to which all of the above properties are at206 c f . . . From what was originally a cortical layer, provided with the organs for receiving stimuli and with the apparatus for protection against excessive stimulation, a special organizaiton has arisen which thenceforward acts as an intermediary between the id and the external world. This region of our mental life has been given the name of ego." S. Freud, "An Outline of Psychoanalysis", The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, XXI (1940), p. 29. (Emphasis supplied.) 207 Cf. " . . . the ego has to observe the external world and preserve a true picture of it in the memory traces left by its perceptions, and, by means of the reality-test, it has to eliminate any element in this picture of the external world which is a contribution from internal sources of excitation . . . " . New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., p. 106. 208 Cf. " . . . Reflection at once shows us that no external vicissitudes can be experienced or undergone by the id, except by way of the ego, which is the representative of the outer world to the id " Or for example: " . . . Sublimation may take place regularly through the mediation of the ego " S. Freud, The Ego and the Id, op. cit., pp. 51 and 64 respectively. 209 c f . _. The ego is the subject par excellence, how can it become the object? There is no doubt, however, that it can. The ego can take itself as object, it can treat itself like any other object, observe itself, criticise itself, and do Heaven knows what besides with itself " S. Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., p. 84. It should be noted, of course, that the function of "self-observation", which makes possible the "experience as object", is subsumed under the label of superego. This poses many problems and confusions; yet, their consideration must be deferred.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

131

tributed, are indeed formidable. In fact, the question of how a resultant structural component of personality, as conceived, can function as an acting entity or agent is sufficiently perplexing, in and of itself, to tax the ingenuity of the most skilled theoreticians. Although the present task, as defined in this section, does not require, as such, an assessment of the adequacy with which the Freudian ego construct has been formulated, the task does require ascertaining whether the Freudian structural classification is congruent with the theoretical requirements and general orientation to which the investigators of the authoritarian personality are committed.210 Hence, to accomplish the latter it will not be possible to avoid the appearance of considering to some degree the former. To implement the required task it is necessary, initially, to determine what it is to which the label ego refers. In this connection the Freudians most frequently resort to specification in terms of functions.211 And although it is acknowledged212 that a complete listing of the subsumed functions is never cited, those functions most consistently emphasized pertain to perception, memory, thinking, drives, feelings and sensations,213 and motility. At a notably inclusive level of organization these 810

To recapitulate in this connection: Firstly, to be congruent with the Researchers' general orientation and theoretical requirements the Freudian structural differentiation of personality must consist of categories which selectively organize relevant patterns of data prescribed as essential by the Researchers' orientation. Secondly, the classificatory categories' organization of the prescribed patterns of data must be along the two comprehensive dimensions which comprise the sought for requisite relationships - "Motivation and Motivation" and "Motivation and Behavior". Thirdly, the angle and conditions of observations from which the structural differentiation of personality is obtained must be congruent with solutions to questions pertaining to each of the four tasks posed by the Researchers' central problem formulation. In due course it will be revealed that the crux of this required congruence consists in the formulation of the concept ego. 211 Concerning this observation it is remarked: "In adopting the functions exercised in mental processes as the decisive criterion for defining the psychic systems Freud used physiology as his model in concept formation . . . . " Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, and Rudolph Loewenstein, "Comments on the Formation of Psychic Structure", op. cit., p. 15. Presumedly, this passage is intended to indicate that function, as used in this sense, which expresses the relation existing between processes (i.e., their vital movements) and corresponding needs of the organism. 218 Cf. Hartmann: "Which functions do we attribute to the ego? The catalog would be a long one No analyst has ever endeavoured to give a complete listing of ego-functions . . . " . Heinz Hartmann, "Technical Implications of Ego Psychology", Psychoanalytic Quarterly, XX (1951), p. 2. Subsequent developments will reveal that the implications of Hartmann's remark suggest he has failed to understand clearly the sucessive levels of integration and organization which must be embodied by a concept such as the ego. 213 Sensation is used "in contrast to conscious perceptions". Sigmund Freud, "An Outline of Psychoanalysis", The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, XXI (1940), p. 42.

132

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

functions are considered to include: (a) the synthesis of internal and external perceptual experiences according to some temporal and spacial order, 214 (b) testing the correspondence of these perceptual experiences with reality, (c) the regulation and control of drive expression and their effects in an effort to contain them within the bounds which such a reality dictates, 215 and (d) control of voluntary movement. 2 1 6 The abstraction and classification of the preceding functions under the same label (ego) presumedly indicate that these functions have something in c o m m o n which distinguish them as prerequisites for achieving a uniform end - customarily defined as "internal and external adaptation" or "self-preservation". Hence, at a relatively comparable level of organization and inclusiveness, these functions presumedly comprise a functionally interdependent unity, enabling them to be analytically differentiated from other functions (not included in the lower levels of or214 Cf. Freud: " . . . what . . . especially marks the ego out in contradistinction to the id, is a tendency to synthesize its contents, to bring together and unify its mental processes which is entirely absent from the id . . . " . S. Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., p. 107. In this same connection Schilder notes: "According to psychoanalytic theory the ego has the function of uniting the different data of experience . . . " . Paul Schilder, Mind: Perception and Thought in their Constructive Aspects (New York, Columbia University Press, 1949), p. 360. See also S. Freud, The Ego and the Id, op. cit., pp. 64, 81; S. Freud, The Problem of Anxiety, translated by H. A. Bunker (New York, The Psychoanalytic Quarterly Press and W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1936), p. 26. 215 In this regard Freud notes: " . . . By virtue of its (ego) relation to the perceptual system it arranges the processes of the mind in a temporal order and tests their correspondence with reality. By interposing the process of thinking it secures a postponement of motor discharges and controls the avenues to motility . . . . " S. Freud, The Ego and the Id, op. cit., p. 81. See also S. Freud, "An Outline of Psychoanalysis", op. cit., pp. 42, 75-76; and S. Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., p. 106. 216 A summary statement regarding these functions is contained in the following passage: "The principle characteristics of the ego are these. In consequence of the relation which was already established between sensory perception and muscular action, the ego is in control of voluntary movement. It has the task of selfpreservation. As regards external events, it performs that task by becoming aware of the stimuli from without, by storing up experiences of them (in the memory), by avoiding excessive stimuli (through flight), by dealing with moderate stimuli (through adaptation) and, finally, by learning to bring about appropriate modifications in the external world to its own advantage (through activity). As regards internal events, in relation to the id, it performs it by gaining control over the demands of the instincts, by deciding whether they shall be allowed to obtain satisfaction, by postponing that satisfaction to times and circumstances favourable in the external world or by suppressing their excitations completely. It is governed in its activity by the consideration of the tensions produced by stimuli present within it or introduced into i t . . . " . S. Freud, "An Outline of Psychoanalysis", op. cit., p. 29; see also p. 42.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

133

ganization of which the "unity" is comprised) serving the same end.217 Moreover, it must also be assumed that the above functions represent products, at some inclusive level of organization, of relations presumed to exist among: (a) internal (feelings and sensations) and external (sensory) perceptions;218 (b) perceptions (sensory, feelings and sensations) 817

The failure to recognize the above considerations has led to ambiguity and confusion in much of the psychoanalytic writing pertaining to ego functions. The ambiguity and confusion is expressed in the lack of uniformity of functions cited, the differing levels of inclusiveness of the functions cited by the same author, the implications suggesting that the relevant functions involved encompass (or is required to encompass the entire range of adaptation - including that subsumed under homeostatic balance) the entire range of adaptation - internal and/or external: all of which points to the arbitrariness entailed in the inclusion or exclusion of relevant functions to be cited. As an example compare reference given in footnote 212 of this chapter. In regard to problems pertaining to the inclusion of the entire range of adaptation compare criticism by Kardiner, The Individual and His Society, op. cit., pp. 452-54. 218 In this connection the following citations from The Ego and the Id, op. cit., are relevant: "All perceptions which are received from without (sense-perceptions) and from within - what we call sensations and feelings - are Cs (conscious) from the start." p. 20. " . . . The body itself, and above all its surface, is a place from which both external and internal perceptions may spring. It is seen in the same way as any other object, but to the touch it yields two kinds of sensations, one of which is equivalent to an internal perception ...". p. 31 (Emphasis supplied.) "Internal perceptions yield sensations of processes arising in the most diverse and certainly also in the deepest strata of the mental apparatus These sensations are multilocular, like external perceptions; they may come from different places simultaneously and may thus have different or even opposite qualities. Sensations of a pleasurable nature are not characterized by any inherently impelling quality, whereas 'painful' ones possess this quality in a high degree. The latter impel towards change, towards discharge, and that is why we interpret 'pain' as implying a heightening and pleasure a lowering of energic cathexis." pp. 24-25. " . . . only something which has once been a Cs (conscious) perception can become conscious, and that anything arising from within (apart from feelings) that seeks to become conscious must try to transform itself into external perceptions: this can be done by way of memory-traces." p. 21. " . . . if the way forward is barred, they [sensations and feelings] do not come into being as sensations, although the undetermined element [i.e., 'what becomes conscious in the shape of pleasure and 'pain' as an undermined quantitative and qualitative element in the mind'] corresponding to them is the same as if they did. We then come to speak, in a condensed and not entirely correct manner, of "unconscious feelings," keeping up an analogy with unconscious ideas which is not altogether justifiable. Actually the difference is that, whereas the Ucs (unconscious) ideas connecting-links [memory-traces - visual or optical images or residues] must be forged before they can be brought into Cs [conscious], with feelings, which are themselves transmitted directly, there is no necessity for this. In other words: the distinction between Cs and Pes [preconscious] has no meaning where feelings are concerned; the Pes here falls out of account, and feelings are either conscious or unconscious. Even when they are connected with verbal images, their becoming conscious is not due to that circumstance, but they become so directly." pp. 25-26.

134

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

and consciousness;219 (c) perceptions and drives; (d) perceptions (internal and external) and memory - and thinking; and (e) perceptions, consciousness, and voluntary movement.220 Thus, as products of the above In this regard the following citations are relevant: " . . . As regards a characterisation of the ego . . . we shall get on better if we turn our attention to the relation between it and the most superficial portion of the mental apparatus; which we call the Pspt-cs (perceptual-conscious) system. This system is directed on to the external world, it mediates perceptions of it, and it is in generated, while it is functioning, the phenomenon of consciousness. It is the sense-organ of the whole apparatus, receptive, moreover, not only of excitations from without but also of such as proceed from the interior of the mind . . . . " New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., pp. 105-06. "The act of becoming conscious is above all linked with the perceptions which our sensory organs receive from the external world Besides this, however, we receive conscious information from the inside of the body - the feelings - which actually exercise a more pre-emptory influence upon our mental life than the external perceptions; moreover, in certain circumstances the sensory organs themselves transmit feelings, sensations of pain, in addition to the perceptions which are specific to them. Since, however, these sensations (as we call them, in contrast to conscious perceptions) also emanate from the terminal organs, and since we regard all of these as prolongations of offshoots of the cortex, it is still possible to maintain the assertion made above. It need only be said by way of distinction that, as regards the terminal organs of sensation and feeling, the body itself takes the place of the external world." "An Outline of Psychoanalysis", op. cit., p. 42. See also: Problems of Anxiety, op. cit., p. 18; The Interpretation of Dreams, op. cit., p. 528. 220 c f . "We had elaborated the fiction of a primitive psychic apparatus, the work of which is regulated by the effort to avoid accumulation of excitation, and as far as possible to maintain itself free from excitation. For this reason it was constructed after the plan of a reflex apparatus; motility, in the first place as the path of changes within the body, was the channel of discharge at its disposal. We then discussed the psychic results of experiences of gratification, and were able at this point to introduce a second assumption, namely, that the accumulation of excitation - by processes that need not concern us here - is felt as pain, and sets the apparatus in operation in order to bring about again a state of gratification, in which the diminution of excitation is perceived as pleasure (cf. S. Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, translated by C. J. M. Hubback (London, The Hogarth Press, 1948), pp. 1-7). Such a current in the apparatus, issuing from pain and striving for pleasure, we call a wish. (Emphasis supplied.) We have said that nothing but a wish is capable of setting the apparatus in motion and that the course of any excitation in the apparatus is regulated automatically by the perception of pleasure and pain. (The " . . . wish impulse . . . essentially represents an unconscious instinctual demand . . . " . Collected Papers, Vol. IV, op. cit., p. 142.) The first occurrences of wishing may well have taken the form of a hallucinatory cathexis of the memory of gratification. But this hallucination, unless it could be maintained to the point of exhaustion, proved incapable of bringing about a cessation of the need, and consequently of securing the pleasure connected with gratification. (Also: " . . . Since memory-traces can become conscious just as much as perceptions, especially through their association with verbal residues, the possibility thus arises of a confusion which would lead to a mistaking of reality...". "Outline of Psychoanalysis", op. cit., p. 76.)

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

135

relations the preceding functions are derived from the organization of lower levels of integration and organization involving the structures and processes serving perception, thought, feelings, and motility. Accordingly, at some lower level of organization, the "centers" for each of the latter structures and their accompanying processes, presumedly have as their ultimate base either some specific somatic locus, such as physical organs (e.g., brain, sensory organs), or some segment of a somatically organized base, such as the physical systems (e.g., nervous, skeletal, muscular, etc.). 221 Thus there was required a second activity - in our terminology the activity of a second system - which would not allow the memory-cathexis to force its way to perception and thence to bind the psychic forces, but would lead the excitation emanating from the need-stimulus by a detour ( " . . . All thinking is merely a detour from the memory of gratification (taken as a purposive idea) to the identical cathexis of the same memory, which is to be reached once more by the path of motor experience."), which by means of voluntary motility would ultimately so change the outer world as to permit the real perception of the gratifying object The psychic process which is alone tolerated by the first system I shall now call the primary process; and that which results under the inhibiting action of the second system, I shall call the secondary process . . . the primary process strives for discharge of the excitation in order to establish with the quantity of excitation thus collected an identity of perception; the secondary process has abandoned this intention, and has adopted instead the aim and identity of thought Thought must concern itself with connecting-paths between ideas without allowing itself to be misled by their intensities " The Interpretation of Dreams, op. cit., pp. 55054. Cf. S. Freud, "The Unconscious", Collected Papers, Vol. IV, op. cit., pp. 133-34; The Ego and the Id, op. cit., pp. 21, 25-26, 81. 111 In this connection Freud has remarked: "Psychoanalysis lays down a fundamental postulate, the discussion of which belongs to the sphere of philosophical thought, but the justification of which lies in its results. We know two things concerning what we call our psyche or mental life: firstly, its bodily organ and scene of action, the brain (or nervous system), and secondly, our acts of consciousness, which are immediate data and cannot be more fully explained by any kind of description. Everything between these is unknown to us and there is no direct relation between the two end-points of our knowledge. If it existed, it would at the most afford an exact localization of the processes of consciousness and would give no help toward understanding them." From the same source he observes: " . . . It is generally agreed, however, that these conscious processes ('perceptions, feelings, thought processes and volitions') do not form unbroken self-contained series; so that there is no alternative to assuming that there are physical or somatic processes which accompany the mental ones and which must admittedly be more complete than the mental series, since some of them have conscious processes parallel to them but others have not " S. Freud, "Outline of Psychoanalysis", op. cit., pp. 28 and 38 respectively. (Emphasis mine.) See also, opening paragraph on p. 38, and p. 39. Relevant to the above considerations the recent studies of the mechanism of memory by Dr. Wilder Penfield, director of the Montreal Neurological Institute, are particularly intriguing. In a report at the 1957 annual autumn meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, and in a subsequent report in Science, Dr. Penfield has given an account of how his stimulation of an area in the cerebral cortex

136

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Ordinarily, the isolation and abstraction of a coherent set of functions to which a specific label is applied need not necessarily subsume anything more. That is, in some instances it m a y be conceptually useful and advantageous to use a separate label to refer only to the functions in question and nothing else. However, such a possibility cannot possibly apply to the concept ego as customarily employed. In the case of the concept ego this possibility is precluded by virtue of its reference to a structural component, representing an organized aspect of a structural whole, to which is attributed the function of co-ordination. Hence, the phenomenon of the ego is such that it implies not only an acting entity (which m a y be acted upon) but also something having continuity and stability despite continuously changing contents. Consequently, the requirements of the concept e g o necessitate specifying the types and patterns of substantive contents of which its structure is comprised - bearing in mind the successive levels of integration this structure embodies. Unfortunately, it is in this respect that the concept e g o is revealed to be the least developed, and hence the most poorly delineated, of the Freudian Tripartite classification. 2 2 2 In view of the lack of formal conceptual statements along such lines, the most that can be achieved is to indicate what would appear to be the line of development implied (superior surfaces of the temporal lobe), with tiny electrical currents, evokes a recall of past experiences in great detail - although they may have been "lost" to conscious memory. He reports that the recall, evoked by the electrical stimulation, is experienced as if it is taking place in the present, even though the subject is simultaneously aware that the evoked episodic experience took place in the past. Moreover, electrical stimulation of the same area always brought back the same episode - in fact, if stimulated at precisely the same spot of the cortex the memory begins at the same point in time; removal of the electrode stops a recollection "as effectively and promptly as if a switch had been turned off"; and two experiences or strips of time are never activated concurrently. Wilder Penfield, "The Interpretive Cortex", Science, CXXIX, No. 3365 (June, 1959), p. 1719. In the light of these studies of Dr. Penfield the significance of Freud's remarks in a short piece titled "A Note upon the 'Mystic Writing-Pad'" (1925) is considerably enhanced. See S. Freud, The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, XXI (1940), pp. 469-74. For further elaboration see Marie Bonaparte, "Time and the Unconscious", Ibid., pp. 427-68; S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, translated by A. A. Brill (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1945), pp. 494-500. Considering the types of transfer which is presumed to occur as an after-effect of various types of lobotomy it would no doubt be illuminating to contrast these findings with those reported by Dr. Penfield. 222 As it is so frequently the case with theorists, confronted with the dynamic dimension of a self-regulating system, the tendency is to specify a differentiated structural element in terms of what it does, ignoring what it is; so it has been with Freud. He too, as well as his theoretically-inclined followers, have neglected to provide a disclosure of the substantive contents constituting the various facets of the phenomena labeled ego.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

137

by relevant statements in this regard, on the one hand, and the relations which have been posited to exist between the id, ego, and superego, on the other.223 Accordingly, what will follow is not only incomplete, but is intended to be only tentative. As a point of departure it is essential to recognize that the genetic root source of all substantive content (of which the structure, named ego, is comprised) derives from conscious perceptual experiences, mediated through the sense organs. For this reason the ego is conceived as "Having originated in the experiences of the perceptual system, (and) . . . is designed to represent the demands of the external world . . .".224 Regardless of their internal or external source and qualities, these multiform perceptual experiences are represented as a unity (or unified product) in the form of consciousness; i.e., a representation in the form of consciousness of prior levels of integration involving alternative expressions of processes and products, of structures serving perception, memory, drives, feeling and sensations, and subsequently, thought. As such, this unity (expressed in the form of consciousness - without reference to the experiential content) comprises one facet of the nucleus of ego structure, representing a rudimentary level of its integration, which expresses its (ego) synthetic quality and function.225 Moreover, it is this unity of the structural nucleus of the ego which constitutes one facet of 22S

A serious effort in this regard is beset with uniquely challenging obstacles, since the uneven character of the various structural facets is such that it entails considerably more than what would otherwise be comparable to extending the "line of regression" as in statistics. Some aspects of the "unevenness" in question will be revealed below. In the present context it is sufficient to note that this "unevenness" reflects the continuity and stability despite continuously changing contents, inherent in the many structural facets of the phenomenon in question. The latter is most readily observed in connection with memory. In this connection Freud has noted: " . . . obvious difficulties arise when one and the same system is faithfully to preserve changes in its elements and skill to remain fresh and receptive in respect of new occasions of change . . . " . The Interpretation of Dreams, op. cit., p. 496. Cf. also "A Note upon the 'Mystic Writing-Pad'", The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, XXI (1940), pp. 469-74. See also, in the present work, reference to Penfield in footnote 221 of this chapter; and S. Freud, Psychopathology of Everyday Life, translated by A. A. Brill (New York, The Macmillan Co., 1948), p. 233. 224 New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., p. 109. Cf. also Paul Federa, Ego Psychology: and The Psychoses, edited by E. D. Weiss (New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1952), p. 291. 225 For a provocative exploration of issues involved in this connection, see George H. Mead, "The Definition of the Psychical", Decennial Publications, University of Chicago, III (1903), pp. 77-112, especially pp. 38-39. Also cf. The Ego and the Id, op. cit., pp. 15-16.

138

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

its stability and continuity despite its changing contents, as expressed in the "constant stream of consciousness" during waking life. When the structure of the ego is examined in terms of the substantive perceptual content of which it is comprised, a marked unevenness (or irregularity of contour) becomes apparent. It is clearly evident that, although the phenomenon of the ego may originate from perceptual experiences, this facet of its structure cannot possibly be comprised of all the contents perceptually experienced. Certainly, the contents of "new" perceptual experiences during their initial (first) appearance in the "stream of consciousness" are precluded from inclusion as constituents of the ego structure in existence at the time of their experience.226 Correspondingly, it will be recalled that some of the past perceptual experiences (whether presently appearing in the "stream of consciousness" or not) are subject to voluntary recall (labeled preconscious); whereas, others of these past perceptual experiences are not subject to voluntary recall (labeled unconscious in the dynamic sense). Since it is explicitly asserted that the repressed (an aspect of the dynamic unconscious) is not an aspect of the ego, whereas the repressing force is so regarded, it must be presumed the perceptual content which is not subject to voluntary recall remains outside of the organization and structure of the ego —227 potentially subject, of course, under specifiable conditions, to being incorporated (or reincorporated) into the ego organization. Finally, of those past perceptual experiences 826

Yet, it is presumed that " . . . all fresh experiences act upon the transformation of the memory c o n t e n t . . . . " S. Freud, Psychopathology of Everyday Life, op. cit., p. 233, footnote. This represents one of the serious difficulties one encounters in attempting to conceptualize this particular facet of ego structure; and in part accounts for its apparent unevenness. Certainly, there can now be no doubt (cf. Penfield studies, footnote 221 of this chapter) regarding the plausibility of assuming that all impressions are retained in the same form as they were received and also in the forms they have assumed in their further development. In taking account of this difficulty Freud notes: " . . . obvious difficulties arise when one and the same system is faithfully to preserve changes in its elements and still to remain fresh and receptive in respect of new occasions of change . . . " . S. Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams, op. cit., p. 496. 227

Cf. " . . . by the act of repression it (ego) renounces a portion of its organization, and is obliged to allow the repressed impulse to remain permanently withdrawn from its influence". New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op. cit., pp. 128-29. Elsewhere it is remarked: " . . . The repressed is only cut off sharply from the ego by the resistances of repression . . . . " The Ego and the Id, op. cit., p. 28. Finally: "The ego controls the entrance into consciousness as well as the passage into activity directed to the environment; in repression it exerts its power at both places. The Instinct representative experiences the one, the instinctual impulse itself the other side of the ego's manifestation of authority " (Emphasis mine.) The Problems of Anxiety, op. cit., p. 22; see also pp. 24-25.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

139

appearing in the stream of consciousness, some express and/or represent unalloyed superego and id manifestations. Hence, it appears evident that the perceptual content (of which this facet of ego structure in question is comprised) embraces only certain past perceptual experiences and their successive modifications subject to voluntary recall. This, however, does not add much to the understanding of this facet of ego structure. Unless attention is directed to the principles according to which these past perceptual experiences (capable of emerging effortless from memory) are subject to organization, and then identifying these principles of organization as a significant facet of ego structure, nothing more can be gained from pursuing this line of analysis. After all, the facet of ego structure comprised of substantive perceptual contents can refer only to relations existing between repeated recurrence of various types of specific contents. The wealth of past perceptual experiences including their successive modifications and associations, is so sufficiently abundant that it need not ever recur in the same form and associations. Moreover, this facet of ego structure must be composed of relations existing between thematic recurrences made up of (and alternatively expressed in, or through) a constantly changing perceptual content appearing in the steady stream of consciousness. A more fruitful line of attack appears to derive from the recognition that the repressing force is subsumed under the label ego. Prior consideration of the genetic development of motivational derivations enables us to identify the repressing force as the "modes" of internal restraint exercised to control and regulate drive expression. These modes of internal restraint were previously described as means by which conflicting and opposing drives (including patterns of drive interactions) are resolved: hence, modes by which the drive forces are handled. Accordingly, the modes of resolving conflict and opposition constitute major ingredients of ego structure. Thus, the form assumed by the relations existing between the modes of resolving conflict and opposition (at the various levels of organization) constitutes the most significant facet of ego structure. A s such, the specific perceptual content expressing the themata which depict these modes of resolving conflict and opposition would, in essence, comprise the substance of this facet of ego structure. Pursuing the preceding development further, in conjunction with previously derived elaborations, additional clarification and discrimination of ego structure appear possible. It has been observed that the successive derivation of motives from common root sources, by means

140

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

of a series of successive resolutions of conflicts and oppositions, produces a hierarchical series of derivations. As such, each derivation comprising a series, at any given level of organization, is related to each other, and each to the common source, in terms of the techniques utilized to resolve the successive conflicts and/or oppositions. Hence, in each instance where this process of differentiation and integration occurs, a series of derivations will exist between the root source and the diversity of manifest behaviors (including ideology) constituting the end products of that series. Correspondingly, each derivation which comprises a series, including the techniques utilized to resolve the successive conflicts and oppositions, is depicted as a thema running throughout a diversity of specific actions and ideology (in accordance with its level of inclusiveness) expressing some facet of this pattern of organization. Thus, there may exist a wide variety of forms and modes of specific actions and ideology in which each thema may be expressed. In this manner a thema may be manifested in a diversity of forms and modes of specific actions and ideology appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that "object", in each area of social life - according to the class and status identifications in question.228 Further elaboration has revealed the behavioral (including ideological) expressions to be end-products of the successively derived derivations from common rootdrive sources, and/or patterns of drive interactions. Since these successive derivations are what the recurring themata (expressed in the diverse behavioral manifestations) portray, the structure of their (themata) dynamic relations represents the contemporary global view of what has been labeled personality.229 228

Cf. footnote 86 of this chapter. It may have also been observed that each thema, as well as the structure of relations existing between the various themata, constitutes a representation and effect of prior levels of integration, embodying numerous facets of the existent personality structure as they have evolved through time. Moreover, and perhaps even more intriguing, the dynamic relatedness of these themata, in terms of the techniques exercised to resolve the successive conflicts and oppositions, produces a ^representation of the same element (drive, affect, or mode of defense) in different forms at different levels of integration and organization. As a consequence this contemporary global view of personality - as expressed in the structure of thematic relations - is tantamount to observing several dimensions portrayed uni-dimensionally on a flat surface. Yet, as it is with any event or product, when one is sufficiently sensitive to the type in question, it is possible to identify the processes of transformation undergone by the "product" and of which it is a sign and effect. This must hold for personality structure as well as for clothes, explosions of Hbombs, preparation for war, the tracks of an animal, an archaeological find, or an act of crime. In regard to the latter instance one is reminded of that delightful fictional character, Sherlock Holmes. 229

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

141

Against the background of the preceding elaborations it will be possible to bring into sharper focus that facet of ego structure comprising the modes of internal restraint exercised either to (a) inhibit the expression of drives and their affects, or (b) modify the form of their expression in the direction of being within the bounds reality dictates; and at the same time be acceptable to the subject and/or his significant others. These modes of internal restraint have been variously termed modes or "weapons" of defense and/or adaptation; or, in the present work, modes of resolving conflict and opposition. Since these techniques of defense and/or adaptation are successively derived, and comprise an aspect of the hierarchically organized motivational structure, they too must be presumed to vary in their degree of proximity to their common root source.™ As such, they will vary in their level of inclusiveness. Likewise, the rough correspondence which is presumed to exist between the order in genetic sequence and the degree of "depth" each successive derivation represents within personality structure and functioning must also apply. Correspondingly, these techniques of defense and/or adaptation will also be depicted as recurring thema, expressed in a wide diversity of specific actions and ideology applicable in a wide variety of situations, toward a diversity of "object" types, in each area of social life. Of course, it is only when considered in the light of their genetic derivation that the above themata, as they are depicted in contemporaneously expressed actions and ideology, are easily recognized as specific types of defense and/or adaptation.231 Certainly, such actions and ideology are not wittingly expressed, nor manifestly revealed, as alternative expressions of specific themata depicting specific types of defense having a particular order of genetic derivation. As was previously noted in the above example (for which the imaginary case of Chess was employed) there is nothing in the manifestly observable form and content of the behaviors depicting the compulsive masculine facade theme which reveals the behavior to be a reversal of the "fear" of femininity into its opposite. Hence, if the theme of compulsive masculine facade was to be viewed cross-sectionally and taken at its face value 230

This could not be otherwise in view of the fact that these modes of defense are facets of the same unity comprising the thematic contents which depict motivational derivations. 231 In this connection it may be noted that the content of the thema, as well as its defensive function, represents a genetic derivation; whereas, the content - including the momentary motivation - of the diverse specific actions and ideology are determined by the immediate situation involving particular "object" types. Cf. pp. 7578, and footnotes 124 and 236 of the present chapter.

142

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(i.e., as standing for nothing but itself) the functional and dynamic role of the theme, as a mode of defense against the fear of femininity (which is not manifestly observable), would be obscured and indistinguishable. Yet, the thematic expression is no more than a contemporary manifestation of what has been genetically derived as a mode of defense. Pursuing further the exploration of those themata, which depict the successively derived modes of defense, in terms of the direction in which the defense is applied in the "contemporary PRESENT",232 additional clarification of this facet of ego structure emerges. In this connection it may be observed that these themata may be grouped in accordance with whether they are activated as: (a) defense against and of id-impulses233 and their affects234 - including freedom of impulse license; (b) defense against and of reality (physical and social) demands (i.e., defense of impulse expression within the permissible bounds of physical and social reality); (c) defense against and of that aspect of the superego labeled "conscience", and defense and enhancement of that aspect of the superego labeled "ego-ideal"; and (d) defense and enhancement of "self" - depending on what the latter concept is employed to cover.235 Perhaps the most noteworthy in the latter connection is the recognition that defense against in one or more directions simultaneously represents defense of in one or more directions. Hence, a defense against an impulse simultaneously represents a defense o/conscience and/or reality (physical or social) demands; a defense against conscience (and perhaps in some respects reality) may simultaneously constitute a defense of freedom of impulse expression; a defense against an affect may also be a defense 232

Use of the term "contemporary present" is intended to refer to any given present subsequent to the emergence of personality structure. 233 Impulse, when viewed in terms of a subjective experience occurring in a contemporary present; connoting, in the words of Kardiner, "desire plus an executive act in preparation". 234 Affect, as used here in reference to a contemporary present, pertains to the subjective feelings accompanying or following impulse expression; i.e., shame, loneliness, resentment, hate, guilt, etc. Redl refers to this aspect of ego defense as the "mop-up of secondary feelings". See op. cit., pp. 30-34. In this connection it may be noted that affect, when expressed in the form of shame, guilt, and the seeking of punishment, is a sign and effect of that aspect of the superego labeled "conscience": hence, efforts to regulate or control its expression would constitute an ego defense against super-ego. In essence, when examined in terms of its order of genetic sequence, it represents: a tension that initially expresses the conflict between the urgency toward drive gratification and need for parental love; a tension that later expresses the conflict between authority; and subsequently, and finally, a tension that expresses the conflict between ego motives and internalized authority i.e., "conscience". Cf. pp. 126-27, and 123-29, of the present work. 235

Cf. A. Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms

of Defence,

op. cit., Chapter V.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

143

against a drive of which it is in sign and expression, and simultaneously represents a defense of super-ego (conscience and/or ego-ideal), and/or reality demands (i.e., the suppression of fear in order to meet the threat of physical danger, or the suppression of resentment or hate in order to insure the holding of one's job, the achievement of status aspirations, etc.). Further permutations of the type cited are readily apparent. Exploring further the preceding facet of ego structure it may be noted that each theme, depicting a defense against in one or more directions and a simultaneous defense of in one or more directions, represents a resolution of conflict and opposition between forces emerging in the contemporary present from each of the directions mentioned. This level of organization, without reference to the defensive function of the themata (or its thematic content), expresses the previously noted synthetic quality and function of the ego, as it appears at its most inclusive level of organization.288 236 In this same connection, it appears reasonable to presume that the particular form of the behavioral act, depicting the thema in question, also represents a product of this level of organization - expressing the resolution of conflict and opposition emerging from each of the directions mentioned. Stated otherwise: from the wide variety of forms and modes of specific actions and ideology, in which the given thema may be depicted (appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that "object" type, in each area of social life), the "preference" expressed represents a product of this level of organization. Of course, this assumption will have to be examined and explored more carefully than it has been at present. Be that as it may, it is worth noting an additional consideration where the footing appears to be more sure. It also pertains to the level of synthesis entailed in the resolution of conflict and opposition emerging in the "contemporary present" from each of the directions mentioned above. The observation in question appears to be, on the one hand, an expression of circumscribed ego-synthesis; and on the other, a ^representation (and/or expression) in the "contemporary present" of genetically derived defenses against repressed id-strivings and their corresponding affects including remote symbolic associations which may appertain to these strivings. This reflection is revealed in the following observations. If for each of the directions (representing the sources of conflict and opposition, i.e., repressed id-strivings, reality demands, superego demands - and perhaps "self" occurring in the contemporary present) an identifiable content is given, it is then readily apparent that: (a) the individual may be conscious of each (or one or more) of the contents independently of the other; (b) in addition, he may or may not be conscious of the associative relations existing between two or more of the contents in question; and finally, (c) he may or may not, in addition, be conscious of the causal relations existing between the various contents in question. A s an illustrative instance of the potential permutations and/or combinations depicting circumscribed ego-synthesis at this level consider the following act: a threatening gesture directed toward the beloved, friend, or stranger - who in turn may be a surrogate for an activation of the positive or negative pole of repressed strivings. A s a product of the resolution of conflict and opposition emerging in the contemporary present from the directions mentioned the individual may be conscious of: (a) the gesture as a threat, its associated emotional state (affect), and their associative relation; or, he may be

144

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

One final consideration of ego-structure in the light of the preceding elaborations reveal still another facet comprised of the successively derived motivational derivations. These derivations as they are depicted in themata and expressed in a wide arc of diverse actions and ideology are frequently termed ego-motives and interests. They differ in at least one respect from those themata portraying the genetically derived modes of defense - which may also exhibit, when contemporaneously expressed, the appearance and character of motives. In this regard the ego-motives comprise those themata depicting motivational derivations which have achieved some measure of independence (or "autonomy") from their root-drive source, and the motivational series deriving from that source. As such, these themes no longer function in the present as regulators of drive-motivations. In this context it is essential to recall a previous deduction noting that the controlling organization produced by the hierarchy of motivational derivations results in a progressive increased pliancy for each subsequent derivation permitting greater delay and detour en route to their goal.287 The implication derivable from this deduction is that ego-motives consist of those themata depicting derivations highest (or latest) in the hierarchy of derivations. Hence, these ego-motives would consist of themata depicting derivations which are most frequently conceptualized as attitudes, interests, wishes, opinions, and in some instances, values.238 conscious of the gesture but not as a threat, unconscious of the affect with which it is associated, unconscious of the id-striving which the gesture represents, hence unconscious of the associative and causal relations; (b) he may be conscious of the gesture as a threat, its associated affect, and their associated relation; but unconscious of the affect having been evoked by someone other than the person toward whom the threatening gesture is at present directed - hence, unconscious of the causal relation, the id-striving of which the affect is an expression, the superego content and/or reality demands inhibiting the implementation of the consequences implied by the threatening gesture. These type combinations, of course, could be multiplied many times. The important consideration pertains to the presumption suggesting that the combination occurring will constitute a re-representation (recapitulation) of genetically derived defenses against repressed id-strivings and their corresponding affects - including remote symbolic associations which may appertain to these strivings. In this connection cf. Roland Dalbiez, Psychoanalytic Method and the Doctrine of Freud, translated by T. F. Lindsay (New York, Longmans, Green and Co., 1948), pp. 7-8. 237

In this connection see pp. 91-92, including footnote 89 of this chapter; and pp. 119-21 including particularly footnote 180 of this chapter. 238 It is apparent that there is considerably more to ego-structure than the facets revealed in the above account. Besides the phenomenon of interpretation of products derived either from memory and/or perceptual experience the more significant of this "more" pertains to "something" which negates the phrase nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensibus. The latter represents a deeply-rooted prejudice of

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

145

Having explored in some detail what aspects of personality structure are subsumed under each of the three concepts id, ego, and super-ego, attention can now be turned to what is being observed, from what angle and under what conditions, from which Freud obtained such a structural differentiation. The answer to this question consists in the fact that Freud was observing the transformations undergone by "instincts" 239 in Western philosophy and science which appears to have originated, at least in part, from the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. Be that as it may, there can be no question concerning the existence of certain forms of experience which are not based on sense perceptions, even though they may occur in company with sense perceptions. Whereas an attempt to come to grips with this "extra something" will be deferred, instances of its less spectacular manifestation may be noted. In this connection reference may be made to a class of experiences identifiable as the feeling of one's own sense of feeling - noting a distinction between feeling as a subjective physiological state and "feeling as an international act". Accordingly, the feeling of "pain" (subjective physiological state), evoked by a prick on the surface of the body, may in addition be feelingly experienced (the feeling of one's own sense of feeling) in innumerable ways. When feeling as an intentional act is considered in conjunction with Freud's recognition that the touch of the body "yields two kinds of sensations, one of which is equivalent to an internal perception" (Ego and the Id, op. cit., p. 31) one can well understand Freud's reference to the ego as being " . . . in a sense . . . an extension of the surface-differentiation . . . " . {Ibid., p. 29). In the latter respect he notes: "The ego is first and foremost a body-ego; it is not merely a surface entity, but it is itself the projection of a surface." An authorized translator's note adds: "The ego is ultimately derived from bodily sensations, chiefly from those springing from the surface of the body. It may thus be regarded as a mental projection of the surface of the body, besides, as we have seen above, representing the superficies of the mental apparatus". Ibid., p. 31. With regard to feeling as an intentional act compare Max Scheler, The Nature of Sympathy, translated by Peter Heath (London, Routledge and K. Paul, 1954). (On second thought, perhaps this also accounts, in part, for Freud's use of the construct, "perceptual conscious system" (Pcpt-Cs).) 239 In an article titled "The Instincts and their Vicissitudes" Freud specifies the referent for the label instinct. He notes: " . . . an 'instinct' appears to us as a borderland concept between the mental and the physical, being both the mental representative of the stimuli emanating from within the organism and penetrating to the mind, and at the same time a measure of the demand made upon the energy of the latter in consequence of its connection with the body." Collected Papers, Vol. IV, translated by Joan Riviere (London, The Hogarth Press, fifth impression, 1949), p. 64. In distinguishing between stimuli of instinctual origin and other physiological stimuli Freud emphasizes the constant force of the former in contrast to the momentary impact of the latter. He notes: " . . . An Instinct . . . never acts as a momentary impact but as a constant force. As it makes its attack not from without but from within the organism, it follows that no flight can avail against it. A better term for a stimulus of instinctual origin is a 'need', that which does away with this need is 'satisfaction'. This can be attained only by a suitable (adequate) alteration of the inner source of stimulation." Ibid., p. 62. Elsewhere Freud remarks: " . . . We regard Instinct as being a term situated on the frontier-line between the somatic and the mental, and consider it as denoting the mental representative of organic forces...." Collected Papers, Vol. HI, op. cit., p. 461. Cf. also footnotes 220 and 218 of this chapter.

146

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

their press for discharge or release. The angle from which he was viewing this process of transformation was one of ontogenetic development. The condition under which he was viewing the process of transformation was repression, in particular, and the activation of modes of defense, in general. In short, he wanted to give an account of what happened to the repressed impulse. Hence, his Tripartite classificatory scheme is a representation of personality structure and functioning obtained when the phenomenon of personality is "acting" under the influence of repression and/or other modes of defense. For this reason the structural differentiation into id, ego and super-ego, is perceptible only when the personality structure is "acting" under the influence of repression or some other mode of defense.240 It may be reiterated once more: it is to the preceding structural differentiation of personality that the "original" Researchers of the authoritarian personality are committed. In being so committed, this structural scheme, in and of itself, imposes certain limitations and constraints regarding what is to be singled out as theoretically and empirically relevant in considering the mode of organization and functioning of personality structure. It is therefore essential to ascertain whether this structural scheme conforms to the requirements prescribed by the Researchers' general orientation bearing on mode and levels of organization and functioning of personality structure. Moreover: are the observations prescribed as being essential by the Freudian classification substantially the same as those prescribed by the Researchers' general orientation? Certainly there can be no doubt regarding the required 240

In this connection Freud notes: . . The apparent contradiction of which we have been speaking arises from the fact that we take abstractions too rigidly, and from out of a complicated state of affairs we pick now one aspect and now another exclusively. The separation of the ego from the id seems justified, indeed is forced upon us, by certain f indings. Yet on the other hand the ego is identical with the id, is only a specially differentiated portion of it. If in our thinking we contrast this portion with the whole, or if an actual disjunction of the two has come about, then the weakness of this ego becomes evident. If, however, the ego remains one with the id and indistinguishable from it, then it is its strength that is apparent. The same with the relation of the ego to the super-ego: as regards many situations they are one and the same; as a rule we can distinguish them only when a state of tension, a conflict between them, has arisen " The Problems of Anxiety, op cit., p. 24. Also cf. The Ego and the Id, op. cit., pp. 51-52; "An Outline of Psychoanalysis", op. cit., p. 45; New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, op cit., pp. 84-88, 128, and 134. Concerning this observation Anna Freud has remarked: " . . . The super-ego, like the id, becomes perceptible in the state which it produces within the ego: for instance, when its criticism evokes a sense of guilt." The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, op. cit., p. 6. Cf. also Abram Kardiner, The Individual and His Society, op. cit., pp. 450-54.

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

147

congruence insofar as modes of organization and functioning are concerned. This congruence is clearly reflected in what was being observed, from what angle, and under what conditions, from which the structural differentiation was obtained. The congruence is also reflected in the "manner" of transition from drives and their derivatives to the global structural concepts implied by the structural scheme, as well as the controlling organization imputed to the ego construct. Also, the congruence is revealed in the structural scheme's implied emphasis on the ego and super-ego components as the source of the infinite variety of personalities.241 Finally, it may be noted that congruence exists with the two comprehensive dimensions along which the requisite relationships are to be sought; namely, "motivation and motivation" and "motivation and behavior". In view of the preceding considerations it is rather odd to be informed of the action supposedly taken by the "original" Researchers, as expressed in the latter part of the second sentence quoted below. What are the forces of personality and what are the processes by which they are organized? For theory as to the structure of personality we have leaned most heavily upon Freud, while for a more or less systematic formulation of the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality been guided primarily by academic psychology. .. .242

we have

Considering the limitations and constraints entailed in the Freudian structural classification (or any classificatory scheme for that matter),243 the suggestion (implied in the latter part of the quoted passage) that the Researchers had some other choice beside those emanating from the Freudian classification is indeed perplexing, to say the least. Either "the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality", singled out for empirical investigation, ensue from the Freudian classification to which they are committed — and hence their professed action in the 241

An explicit statement in this respect has been expressed by Anna Freud. She observes: " . . . this is entirely consonant with the fact that investigations of individuals by analysis demonstrates that the differences between their id strivings are negligible. It is the difference in ego and superego structure which accounts for the infinite variety of human personalities and clinical pictures. There are comparatively few fixed relationships between specific infantile strivings and the ego methods which are brought to bear on them...." A. Freud, "The Contribution of Psychoanalysis to Genetic Psychology", The Yearbook of Psychoanalysis, VIII (1952), op. cit., pp. 88-89. Essentially identical derivations, entailed in the general orientation to which the Researchers are committed, will be found on pp. 25-32 of this work. 242 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 5. (Emphasis mine.) 243 In this regard it may be observed that every classificatory scheme, every form or style, pays its price for the special advantages it embodies.

148

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

quoted passage is meaningless; or their professed action signifies that what was actually done in the course of the empirical phase of their work has little or no significant bearing on certain specific research requirements prescribed by their general orientation and personality theory prerequisites. In the course of the subsequent examination of the empirical phase of their work, if the latter turns out to be the case, there will be sufficient reason for doubt regarding the meaningfulness and relevance of their empirical findings and corresponding inferences. With the above reflections in mind attention will now be directed to the logical derivation of these so-called "more or less . . . directly observable and measurable aspects of personality": which are prescribed by the Researchers' general orientation, reflected in the structural classification of personality to which they are committed, and inherent in and deducible from the Researchers' requisite personality theory. Accordingly, whatever these "directly observable . . . aspects of personality" are, they most certainly must be prescribed by the Researchers' requisite personality theory as it pertains to modes and levels or organization and functioning. To set the stage for this task it will be necessary to recapitulate the relevant aspects of the Researchers' general orientation from which the logical derivations will be deduced. It will be recalled that for each successively derived motivational derivation, emerging from common root-drive sources and/or patterns of drive interactions, there will exist a thema - depicted in a wide diversity of specific actions and ideologies, applicable in a variety of situations, toward a diversity of "object" types, in each area of social life. Since the derivations depicted in the themata are successively derived from their respective common sources, a series of themata, varying in levels of inclusiveness, will exist between the root-motivational source and the subsequent behavioral expressions. As such, the behavioral expressions constitute an end-product of the series for which it is an expression. Correspondingly, the motivational derivations, the themata that depict them, and the behavioral end-products expressing the themata, represent qualitatively different forms and expressions at different levels of the same genetic motivational processes and structure from which they have emerged. By means of the same elaboration the following implications are also apparent. Given successive derivations from a common root-drive source, all the derivations will be dynamically and functionally related to one another, and each to the common source, by means of the techniques utilized to resolve their successive conflicts and oppositions. Thus, the dynamic relationships between the

INVESTIGATORS' REQUIREMENTS

149

successive derivations, emerging from this process of differentiation and integration, will constitute a hierarchically organized pattern or structure.244 Since the successive derivations are what the recurring themata portray, the structure of the dynamic relations existing between these themata (for which the corresponding diversity of actions and ideologies are an expression) must also reflect the genetically derived hierarchically organized motivational structure. Consequently, the motivational structure, the corresponding structure of the dynamic relations existing among the themata, and the pattern of behavioral end-products of the prior structure, will represent different forms and expressions at different levels of the same process and structure. Accordingly, the diversity of behavioral manifestations constituting an outgrowth and endproduct of the preceding process, at any stage of development, comprises a single behavioral pattern, regardless of the inconsistencies and contradictions it may contain.245 Such behavioral end-products, though not logically related, are functionally and dynamically related by means of the techniques exercised to resolve the successively derived motivational conflicts and oppositions which they express. Correspondingly, these techniques of resolving conflict and opposition represent the manner by which the drive motivations are coped with or handled. Hence, the range and diversity of constantly changing and/or shifting actions and ideology, expressing the themata which depict the genetically determined motivational structure, represent alternative expressions of that structure.248 244

For a detailed exposition of these deductions see pp. 26-29 of this work; also pp. 32-33. 245 Recognition of the above considerations is clearly reflected in the following passage attributed to Bibring, reproduced in an article by Ernst Kris. The passage reads: "Bibring speaks of "singling out" a patient's present patterns of behavior and arriving, by way of a large number of intermediate patterns, at the original infantile pattern. The present pattern embodies the instinctual impulses and anxieties now operative, as well as the ego's present methods of elaboration (some of which are stereotyped responses to impulses and anxieties which have ceased to exist). Only by means of the most careful phenomenology and by taking into consideration all the ego mechanisms now operative can the present pattern of behavior be properly isolated out. If this is done imperfectly . . . or if all the earlier patterns are not equally clearly isolated, there is the danger that we shall never arrive at a correct knowledge of the infantile pattern and the result may well be an inexact interpretation of infantile material." Ernst Kris, "Ego Psychology and Interpretation in Psychoanalytic Therapy". The Yearbook of Psychoanalysis, VIII (1952), p. 165 footnote no. 7. Cf. footnote 236 of this chapter. 246 As previously noted, this analysis further reveals that it is misleading to speak of, or refer to, the "same" behavioral forms as homologous when they appear to serve similar, or the same, contemporary functions, and have the same, or similar, observable characteristics. Not only may the same, or similar personality structure

150

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Once having recognized that the dynamic structures of (a) genetically derived motivations, (b) the corresponding thematic relations, and (c) the concurrent pattern of behavioral end-products are non-reversed mirror images (i.e., reflectors) of each other, it follows that a reliable analysis of the dynamic structure of one will of course reflect the dynamic structure of either of the other two.247 Of course, since the motivational structure is only accessible through the direct observation of behavioral end-products, depicting the thematic relations which in turn portray the motivational structure, the thematic relations constitute the focal point of the empirical analysis of personality organization and functioning. Correspondingly, when analyzed in terms of the global structural concepts id, ego, and super-ego, these thematic relations comprise the contemporary global representation of personality structure. As such, it is at this level that the inclusive type theoretical proposals are to be framed - proposals expressing relationships between the id, ego, and super-ego, as manifested in the thematic relations.2*8 Hence, the interrelationships existing among the thematic contents signifying these structural concepts and their relations represent the inclusive relations which the requisite personality theory is required to embrace. Empirically, this calls for the use of research techniques and procedures which will elicit a diversity of observable items of behavior having relevance for each significantly relevant relationship between id, ego and super-ego hypothesized in the theory; then utilizing these observed items of behavior to identify the themata signifying that aspect of each structural concept entailed in each hypothesized relationship. This latter step will become clearer as the analysis proceeds.249 Suffice it to say, for the moment, that the hypothesized relationships between id, ego, and super-ego, deemed relevant to the authoritarian personality, determine the "more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality". be manifested in different behavioral expressions, but the same, or similar, behavioral expressions may be manifestations of different personality structures. Cf. discussions on pp. 29-32 and 66-68 of this work. 247 This observation must obtain despite the fact that the specific form and content comprising each of the three facets may differ; and also despite the fact that it may be presumed that an emergent organization at different levels may also have laws of its own. 248 For this reason it is reasonable to presume that insofar as the "inclusive" type theoretical propositions successfully embrace the requisite contemporary global relationships, they may be presumed to reflect simultaneously the requisite depth as signified in the relationships comprising the hierarchical genetic development. 249 See particularly pp. 176 and 178-83 of this work.

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

151

Before turning to these relationships comprising the requisite personality theory it is essential to introduce one final clarification. It is presumed that the differences in id-strivings are relatively nil. Hence, the infinite variety of personality structures is attributed to the manner in which the id strivings are handled — thus, to ego and super-ego organizations.250 As such, it is only in regard to personality types that the nomethetic demands of science can possibly be fulfilled; and in this instance, only if it is assumed that each distinguishable personality type has evolved, and employs, essentially the same permanent modes of handling id-strivings. Thus, it is for this reason that only those relationships between id, ego, and super-ego having relevance for an authoritarian personality theory will be considered. As previously noted these relationships pertain to how the authoritarian personality handles idstrivings. Recognition of this consideration by the "original" Researchers is expressed in the following passage: . . . the main difference between them (high and low scorers) consists in the way less acceptable parts of the personality are handled by the ego. . . .251 C. T H E REQUISITE PERSONALITY THEORY VS. T H E INVESTIGATORS' SUPPOSED PERSONALITY THEORY

Insofar as the requisite theory is to constitute a conceptual "representation" of the structure and functioning of the authoritarian personality, it must provide an explanation for the type of behavioral data subsumed under this label. It will be recalled that this type of data is distinguished by prejudiced conceptions consistently diverging in uniform ways and direction from the actual attributes or qualities displayed by the "objects" of the prejudice as a class.252 As such, the authoritarian personality's conception " . . . has little to do with the qualities of those against whom it is directed". Correspondingly, the source of this type of conception of reality must lie in the make-up and internal functioning of the personality type in question. Furthermore, this type of conception of reality must be a function of the manner in which id-strivings are handled; i.e., a function of ego and super-ego organizations. Since this personality type "sees" in "others" what does not exist (or where it 250 In this connection compare statement by Anna Freud quoted in footnote 241 of this chapter. 251 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 942. Cf. pp. 595, 442 (cited in footnote 261, Section C of this chapter), 236, 480, 52, 966, 805, 814, 943. 252 For the derivation and elaboration of this conceptualization, see pp. 53-62 including footnotes 7 and 8 in section A of this chapter. Cf. also pp. 41-47, and 91-93, including footnote 92 of this chapter.

152

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

does in fact exist, he sees it first and foremost) and rejects these "others" for same, it must be presumed that the general mode of conflict resolution (or mode of defense) involves some manner of repression and externalization. As such, this implies that the ego and super-ego organizations - including their interrelationships - are so structured as to achieve certain effects produced by some form of repression and externalization. Hence, it may be presumed that the significantly relevant relationships between id, ego and super-ego are those which achieve the effects in question. In accordance with the preceding considerations - including the requirements associated with each of the four tasks - the following three inclusive propositions are deducible. (1) The greater the strength of diverse id-impulses the more pronounced the undifferentiation of corresponding id-strivings and their affects, and the more circumscribed the ego integration.253 Hence: The more circumscribed the ego integration the more pervasive and rigid the ego defenses that must be maintained to prohibit unacceptable impulses from entering consciousness - and hence the more constricted the ego organization. Correspondingly: (a) The more circumscribed and constricted the ego organization the more pronounced is the conception of the world as dangerous and threatening.254 (b) The structures and functions serving perception, memory, feelings, thought, motility, and posture will also exhibit evidence of varying degrees of generalized and local constriction and/or rigidity, and, in specific instances, even inhibition.255 253

This proposition takes for granted that repression inhibits further differentiation of the repressed. A s a consequence the id-strivings involved are prohibited from undergoing the "taming" process which occurs with each successive derivation of motives. A s such, the repressed is precluded from ego-synthesis, and ego-integration is thereby limited. Correspondingly, so much energy is invested in maintaining pervasive and rigid defenses, in order to prohibit unacceptable impulses from entering consciousness, that ego development is rendered difficult. Cf. in this connection footnote 89 and pp. 119-21, including particularly footnote 180 of this chapter; S. Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, op. cit., pp. 5-6. 234 Cf. Abram Kardiner, The Individual and His Society, op. cit., pp. 419-22, 43662. In this connection Kardiner observes that, with each contracted alteration of personality structure a new type of adaption, based on the altered capacities, becomes imperative. Lacking the command of previous resources and flexibility there is a diminution of effectiveness and mastery of the outer world. This is presumed to be accompanied, on the one hand, by a self-picture of helplessness and insignificance; and on the other, by a picture of the outer world, which has lost its meaning, as hostile and ready to annihilate. Ibid., pp. 456-57. 255 Although inhibition represents an expression of a "functional limitation of the ego" it is nevertheless quite distinct from ego-construction or restriction. Use of the

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

153

Accordingly: It is reasonable t o anticipate that ego-constriction will be alternatively expressed in such thematic

manifestations as: (a) atten-

uation of fantasy and imagination; (b) concreteness of thinking; (c) disposition to think in terms of rigid categories; (d) preference f o r readym a d e hereditarian explanations; (e) disinclination to question matters, a preference for absolutes and dogmatic answers, for c o m p l e t e (definitive) and simple answers - h e n c e , antiscientific attitudes a n d / o r orientation; 2 5 6 (f) "opposition t o prying"; (g) d e v o t i o n t o practical pursuits; (h) emphasis o n f o r m and surface manifestations; (i) shallow and diffuse emotional expression; (j) in general a restricted f r e e d o m of self-expression. 2 5 7 former refers to the renunciation of a function whose development was complete, but whose execution is blocked or disturbed in some manner. A. Freud notes that the occurrence of inhibition also signified a defense " . . . against the translation into action of some prohibited instinctual impulse, i.e., against the liberation of 'pain' through some internal danger. Even when, as in phobias, the anxiety and the defence seem to relate to the outside world, he is really afraid of his own inner processes...." Whereas, she continues. " . . . In ego-restriction . . . disagreeable external impressions in the present are warded off, because they might result in the revival of similar impressions from the p a s t . . . " Thus, in the case of inhibition there is a focus on the impulse and a disturbance of its execution; whereas in ego-restriction there is no focus on either the impulse or the interrupted activity. In the latter there is simply a drop of activity to avoid a repetition of a prior disagreeable impression. Since inhibition is regarded as a neurotic manifestation while ego-restriction is considered to be "a normal stage in the development of the ego", this distinction contributes to a clarification of the misunderstanding which has led to a tendency to equate the authoritarian personality with psychological ill-health. See A. Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., pp. 109-11, 129-30. In the latter regard, see also footnote 270 in section C of this chapter. In connection with the preceding consideration it is essential to note that either of the structures and functions (or some facet thereof) serving perception, memory, feelings, thought, motility, and posture, may remain within a "conflict-free sphere", or permanently or intermittently be drawn into the conflict without the function in question necessarily being impaired. Also, the generalized and local constrictions and/or rigidities referred to above are distinct from certain automatized ego-functionings having intrinsic advantages in economy and adaptation. Cf. Heinz Hartmann, "Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation", in Organization and Pathology of Thought, trans, and ed. David Rapaport (New York, Columbia University Press, 1951), pp. 362-96. See also Wilhelm Reich, Character-analysis: Principles and Technique for Psychoanalysts in Practice and in Training, trans. Theodore P. Wolfe (2d ed.; New York, Orgone Institute Press, 1945). Note particularly his reference to residues of intense defensive processes activated in the past, which have become disassociated from the conflicts that brought them into existence and have developed into what he terms the "armour-plating of character". The above reference is cited in A. Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., p. 35. 258 Cf. the portrayal of the authoritarian personality on pp. 41-42 of the present work. 257

In summarizing an aspect of A. Freud's representation of ego-restriction David Rapaport observes: " . . . when a drive and its ideational representatives are barred

154

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Regarding this first proposition comprising the requisite personality theory the "original" Investigators have made the following relevant remarks: . . . The high scorers have rigid, constricted personalities, as shown by their stereotyped, conventionalized thinking and acting and their violent and categorical rejection of everything reminding them of their own repressed impulses. Their egos appear to be not only very constricted but also quite undifferentiated: their range of experience, emotionally and intellectually, is narrow. It is as if they can experience only the one conventionally correct attitude or emotion in any given situation . . . 258

In another context they remark: . . . The repressed, unsublimated, and unmodified tendencies are ready to break through and to flood the tenuously maintained social superstructure. 259

And: . . . In order to keep unacceptable tendencies and impulses out of consciousness, rigid defenses have to be maintained. Any loosening of the absoluteness of these defenses involves the danger of a breaking through of the repressed tendencies. Impulses and inclinations repressed too severly, too suddenly, or too early in life do not lose their dynamic strength, however. On the contrary, abrupt or unsuccessful repression prevents rather than helps in their control and mastery. An ego thus weakened is more in danger of becoming completely overwhelmed by the repressed forces . . . In order to keep balance under these conditions, a simple, firm, often stereotypical, cognitive structure is required. There is no place for ambivalence or ambiguities.. .26°

Thus: . . . It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist. 261 from consciousness, much that is related to them is also barred; interests corresponding to the drive are barred; the range of experiencing is narrowed and the accumulation of experience hindered; since past experiences are not available to consciousness, new relationships among experiences do not develop; the scarcity of such relationships limits apperception, and a vicious circle is set up. This process is so far reaching that it becomes apparent even on intelligence tests in the gross limitations of information and vocabulary." Organization and Pathology of Thought, op. cit., p. 316, footnote 4. Cf. A. Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., pp. 100-13, particularly p. 111. 258 The Authoritarian Personality, op cit., pp. 965-66. 259 Ibid., p. 455. (Emphasis mine.) 260 Ibid., p. 480. 261 Ibid., p. 55. See also pp. 239, 241, 385, 395, 423, 456, 458, 474, 595, 808, 814, 921, and 943. Attention should also be called to what appears to be a negation of an aspect of the first proposition. This passage reads: "... Again and again it became evident that the differences between the ethnocentric extremes hinge more on the rejection vs. the acceptance of such depth factors as homosexuality, or aggres-

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

155

(2) The more pronounced and extensive the undifferentiation of id strivings the more extensive the use of reaction-formation (reversal of behavior into the opposite of the id-strivings) as a permanent means of securing the ego organization against the return of the repressed impulse.262 sion, or passivity, or anality, than it does on the mere presence or absence of one or another of these tendencies. In other words, it was not primarily the relative strength of such tendencies that seemed to matter, but rather the way in which these tendencies were handled in the motivational dynamics of the subject in q u e s t i o n . . . . " Ibid., p. 442. (Emphasis mine.) There is reason to presume that the above diminution of the significance of drive strength represents a careless use of language. This presumption is suggested, in the first place, by the recognition that the sentence in question is not a different re-statement of the prior sentence, as indicated in the opening phrase - "In other w o r d s . . . ". Moreover, the relevant sentence contradicts the Researchers' entire theoretical orientation, as well as numerous statements expressing this orientation. Illustrative of such statements is the following remark quoted in full on p. 157 in this section, " . . . the greater a subject's preoccupation with 'evil forces' in the world . . . the stronger would be his own unconscious urges of both sexuality and destructiveness". Ibid., p. 240. Cf. also previous footnote. 262

This proposition takes account of certain parallels between defensive measures against external and internal sources of anxiety, reported by A. Freud. In the course of her explorations of possible relations existing among certain forms of defense and particular clinical pictures, anxiety situations and modes of defense, and typical experience in individual development and particular modes of defense, she notes: " . . . Theoretically, repression may be subsumed under the general concept of defence and placed side by side with the other specific methods. Nevertheless, from the point of view of efficacy it occupies a unique position in comparison with the rest. In terms of quantity it accomplishes more than they, this is to say, it is capable of mastering powerful instinctual impulses, in the face of which the other defensive measures are quite ineffective. It acts once only, through the anti-cathexis, effected to secure the repression, is a permanent institution demanding a constant expenditure of energy. The other mechanisms, on the contrary, have to be brought into operation again whenever there is an accession of instinctual e n e r g y . . . . " The implication derivable from Miss Freud's exploration suggests that reaction-formation is the most effective means of securing the ego against the return of the repressed - barring, of course, the formation of symptoms. See A. Freud, The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., p. 53. (Emphasis mine.) Also cf. pp. 9, 46, 51-53, 96, 129, and 190-93. It is important to bear in mind that it is the inclusive relations, existing at the contemporary global level, that the requisite personality theory is required to embrace. Although the structure of the theory must reflect depth, as signified by the genetic development, the propositions comprising the theory are precluded from expressing genetic relations. Of course, as previously noted, insofar as the inclusive proposition sucessfully embrace the requisite global relationships, they may be presumed to reflect simultaneously the requisite depth, as signified by the hierarchical genetic development. Cf. pp. 36-38 and 64-65 of this work. It may also be noted that the above requirements are consistent with the Investigators' initial underlying assumption, which impels the focus of the research inquiry toward the make-up and internal functioning of the personality type in question. Given the manner in which the "original" Researchers have framed their central problem (e.g., " . . . Why is it that certain individuals accept these ideas while others do not?"), their requisite

156

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Hence: (a) The more extensive the use of reaction-formation the more pervasive the existence of polarized tendencies of which one pole is accepted and the other rejected - thus, the greater the disposition to employ dichotomies rather than continue in thinking, feeling, and evaluations; (b) the greater the strength of id-strivings permanently handled by means of reaction-formation the stronger the attraction to representations of the accepted pole of the polarized tendency.263 Concerning this second proposition the Investigators' relevant remarks are somewhat unclear. Yet there is explicit acknowledgment that this mode of defense is "characteristically" employed by the authoritarian personality. Their remarks relevant to this proposition consist of the following type statements: . . . In the highs . . . the ego defenses are characteristically more countercathectic; there is less sublimation and more use of defenses such as projection, denial and reaction-formation, defenses which aid the individual in maintaining a moral facade at the expense of self-expression and emotional release.264 And: . . . In these, as in all of the other cases of high scorers, it seemed as if the person's ego had usually been able to keep the unacceptable impulses completely out of consciousness, by means of countercathexes, and that this prevented modifications of the impulse, such as channelization into milder and more adult forms, sublimations and the like . . .265 Also: . . . Primitive defenses, chiefly repression and countercathexis, were necessary: . . ,266 And: . . . In view of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity theory and research are directed to the study of personality as the source of selective consumption of ideology. This presupposes the existence of personality, and excludes the relevance of personality genesis. As such, also previously noted, any additional major facets which the "original" investigation may contain, including genetic factors, must derive from some other source than that signified by the Researchers' stated central problem. Cf. pp. 57-62 of the present work. In view of the above considerations the question regarding what determines the authoritarian personality's "choice" of repression and reaction-formation is irrelevant - unless of course, the genetic relations involved are inconsistent with the proposition formulated above. 263 Cf. pp. 70-81, particularly pp. 78-80 of this work. 264 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 595. (Emphasis mine.) 265 Ibid., p. 966. Cf. footnote 253 of this section. ibid., p. 808.

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

157

with which supposed value-violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional dispositions.. ,267 Finally, it may be noted: . . . it seemed that the greater a subject's preoccupation with 'evil forces' in the world, as shown by his readiness to think about and to believe in the existence of such phenomena as wild erotic excesses, plots and conspiracies, and danger from natural catastrophes, the stronger would be his own unconscious urges of both sexuality and destructiveness.2(s8 (3) The more extensive the use of reaction-formation in conjunction with a persistent recurrence of tension expressing the conflict between ego-motives and dread of external authorities (i.e., so-called social or objective anxiety - signifying the infantile stage of "conscience"), the more pronounced the extemalization of unacceptable impulses and internal conflicts. 268 (Stated otherwise: the more extensive the use of reaction-formation in conjunction with an extensive infantile super-ego organization, the more pronounced the extemalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal conflicts.) 287

Ibid., p. 96. Ibid., p. 240. (Emphasis mine.) See also pp. 241, 237, 343, 474, 483. a«» In regard to this proposition it is essential to bear in mind the previous discussion appearing on pp. 123-29 particularly pp. 125-27, or footnote 234 of this chapter. To briefly recapitulate, the tension that expresses the conflict between ego-motives (or more specifically, the urgency toward impulse gratification) and external authorities signifies an infantile stage in the genesis of the "conscience" component of the super-ego. This tension relates to the "consciousness of guilt" which in turn pertains to the transgression of a specific moral code. In this connection A. Freud remarks: "... this stage in the development of the super-ego is a kind of preliminary phase of morality. True morality begins when the internalized criticism, now embodied in the standard exacted by the super-ego, coincides with the ego's perception of its own fault. From that moment, the severity of the super-ego is turned inwards instead of outwards and the subject becomes less intolerant of other people.... It is possible that a number of people remain arrested at the intermediate stage in the development of the super-ego and never quite complete the internalization of the critical process. Although perceiving their own guilt, they continue to be peculiarly aggressive in their attitude to other people. In such cases the behavior of the super-ego towards others is as ruthless as that of the super-ego towards the patient's own ego in melancholia. Perhaps when the evolution of the super-ego is thus inhibited it indicates an abortive beginning of the development of melancholic states." The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., pp. 128-29. This last sentence of the above quoted passage is uniquely provocative, in view of our previous explorations (pp. 141-42); also see pp. 96-99 pertaining to the structure of the modes of defense. If, in the study of personality, the nomethetic demands of science can be met only through the formulation of inclusive propositions that involve the manner in which drives are handled by personality types, the kind of study represented by A. Freud's work is imperative. 868

158

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Hence: (a) T h e conflict between the urgency toward gratification of unacceptable impulses and the dread of external authority provokes, o n the one hand, submission to, identification with,270 and idealization of, those authorities that seem strongest and most commonly accepted (i.e., in general, the "ins" or his "ingroup", so-called); and on the other, aggression toward, intolerance of, and projection onto, the unacceptable "others" (i.e., the "outs" or his "outgroup", so-called . 271 (b) Given increased temptation as a consequence of continuous privation a n d / o r deprivation of id-strivings: the tendency to aggression provoked either by the thwarting of the urgency toward impulse gratification, a n d / o r aggression or anticipated aggression from "others", evokes in the subject (i) Sadism - w h e n conflict occurs in conjunction with tension existing between ego-motives and dread of external authority;2™ and (ii) Masochism - when conflict occurs in conjunction with tension existing between ego-motives and dread of internal authority (i.e., conscience -

270

It is intended that "identification with" refers also to what is generally termed "identification with the aggressor", which, in turn, comprises a "particular combination of introjection and projection". In essence the concept refers to the act of "impersonating the aggressor, assuming his attributes or imitating his aggression" and thereby transforming "himself from the person threatened into the person who makes the threat". Concerning this phenomenon, A. Freud writes: " 'Identification with the aggressor' represents on the one hand a preliminary phase of super-ego development and, on the other, an intermediate stage in the development of paranoia. It resembles the former in the mechanism of identification and the latter: of projection. At the same time, identification and projection are normal activities (i.e., so long as they are employed in conflicts with authority or "anxiety-objects") of the ego and their results vary greatly according to the material upon which they are employed." The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., p. 129; see also pp. 117-31, particularly pp. 121-23. Cf. S. Freud, "Certain Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia and Homosexuality", Collected Papers, op. cit., II, 232-43. 271

Cf. the portrayal of the authoritarian personality on pp. 41-42 of this work. In this connection it may also be noted that self-deception, as a counterpart of egoconstriction and externalization, presumedly accompanies a misunderstanding of the external world. In this regard Sullivan has remarked: " . . . It is not that as ye judge so shall ye be judged, but as you judge yourself so shall you judge others; strange but true so far as I know, and with no exceptions." Harry Stack Sullivan, Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry (2d printing, Reprinted from Psychiatry, III, No. 1 (February, 1940); and VIII, No. 2 (May, 1945), p. 7. See also pp. 7-11. 272 In this connection A. Freud has observed that vehement indignation expressed toward value violators is the precursor of and substitute for guilty feelings on its own account. She adds: " . . . Its indignation increases automatically when the perception of its own guilt (i.e., tension) is imminent " The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defence, op. cit., p. 128. In the same connection it may be added: even for those for whom the climate of opinion may be such as to discourage open expression of aggression it (sadistic aggression) is potentially subject to sudden eruptions in a blindly impulsive way.

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

159

super-ego).278 (c) Lacking an extensive and firmly established super-ego (i.e., conscience) and possessing a conception of the world as dangerous and threatening, the authoritarian personality will look "outside of himself for guidance as to what to do and what not to do, and turns naturally to the authorities that seem strongest and most commonly accepted";274 hence, the strong and rigid adherence to, and defense of, the conventional values of those with whom he is for the time being identified.275 Relevant remarks by the Investigators are also in "accord" with this 273

Cf. the citations from Fromm pertaining to the "sado-masochistic" manifestations of the authoritarian personality on pp. 44-46 of this work. See also the portrayal of the authoritarian personality on p. 42. It should also be borne in mind that, even when the predominantly recurring conflict is one existing between egomotives and dread of "conscience" (super-ego), the conflict between ego-motives and dread of external authority continues to be manifested as a vestige of the earlier stage of development. Cf. p. 127 of this work. In addition it should be noted, the deduction makes no mention of the object-type toward whom the sadism will be behaviorally expressed. Presumedly, it will be behaviorally expressed in accordance with deduction (a) of proposition number (3). 274 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 805. 275 Perhaps a comment should be made concerning the use of such terms as "extensive", "pervasive", and "pronounced", as they are employed in the above propositions and corresponding deductions. It is no doubt apparent that such terms signify and denote qualitative dimensions which are quite distinct from those customarily referred to in connection with personality. Also, such coordinates as signified by these terms have no counterparts in the Physical Sciences; although, in a sense, "extensive" and "pervasive" are in one respect analogous to the concept "space" - in that each pertains to, or involves, "area". In fact, "extensive", as used above, denotes exclusively what might otherwise be referred to as "area". "Pervasiveness", as used above, denotes in addition to "area", permeability or interpenetration. Whereas, use of the term "pronounced" is intended to convey marked distinctiveness, in either a positive or "negative" (i.e., absence) sense, which exists as a consequence of the extent to which development has evolved. In addition, the qualitative dimensions signified by each of the terms also have a "quantitative" dimension. The use of such terms is made necessary by the discrete and unitary character of motives, affects, thoughts, actions, and their corresponding processes, on the one hand; their substitutability, and re-representation in different forms on different levels of integration and organization, on the other. Although the above considerations may appear sufficiently obvious as not to require emphasis, it may nevertheless be useful to illustrate in at least one respect. Regarding the term "extensive", the necessity for such a term is most readily discernible in connection with the "conscience" component of the super-ego. By virtue of its reference to internalized values (prohibitions) the concept super-ego precludes an all-or-none application. Certainly, the internalization of one value does not ipso facto entail the internalization of all values which the subject has embraced. Neither may the concept legitimately imply that the internalization of one value necessarily means there has been internalization of all facets of that value. In a subsequent analysis a break-down of the structural properties of the above theory will be considered. See pp. 166-67, 184-87.

160

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

third and final proposition comprising the requisite personality theory. But again, as in the case of the first two propositions, their remarks are unclear regarding the specific relationship set forth. Their relevant remarks consist of the following type statements. . . . According to psychoanalytic theory, the development of ethical principles normally proceeds from outside values, as first represented by standards upheld by adults, to an internalization of these values. High scorers, due apparently to lack of genuine identification with the parents, do not succeed in making the important developmental step from mere "social anxiety" to real conscience. Fear of punishment by external authorities rather than selfchosen and ego-assimilated principles continue to be the primary determinant of their behavior. At the same time there is resentment against these authorities which are mainly experienced as restricting and punishing. Readiness to exchange these authorities mainly in the direction of a better bargain is one of the consequences of these attitudes.278 Elsewhere they remark: . . . Forced into a surface submission to parental authority, the child develops hostility and aggression which are poorly channelized. The displacement of a repressed antagonism toward authority may be one of the sources, and perhaps the principal source, of his antagonism toward outgroups. That is to say, the prejudiced subject's ambivalence toward his parents, with a repression and externalization of the negative side of this ambivalence, may be a factor in determining his strongly polarized attitudes, such as his uncritical acceptance of the ingroup and violent rejection of the outgroup. 277 Finally it may be noted: . . . Repression and externalization of the instinctual tendencies mentioned ("fear, weakness, passivity, sex impulses, and aggressive feeling against authoritative figures") reduces their manageability and the possibility of their control by the individual, since it is now the external world to which the feared qualities of the unconscious are ascribed.278 The three preceding interdependent propositions are set forth as a theory, theory, as the term is used in a classical sense and as previously specified in the Introduction to this work. 278 As such, this theory is presumed to constitute a conceptual "representation" of make-up and internal functioning of the personality structure of authoritarian personality types. It proposes to explain (and presumedly it will, if verified) 276

Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 455. (Emphasis mine.) Ibid., p. 482. (Emphasis mine.) «8 Ibid., pp. 474-75. See also pp. 240, 228, 230, 232, 236, 239, 385, 454-58, 474, 483,595, 805-06, 921. 279 See pp. 15-16. 277

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

161

the multiplicity of diverse and contradictory types of data subsumed under the label authoritarian personality.280 It does not propose to explain the genesis of the personality structure of authoritarian personalities. What the theory does propose to explain, however, is consistent with the "original" Investigators' initial underlying assumption, which impels the focus of their research inquiry toward the make-up and 280

This assertion raises the question which is frequently posed, in one form or another, when the structural properties of a theory are considered. Namely, how is it possible that the structural properties of a theory (which is conceptualized in accordance with the laws of logic and consists of the minimum number of logically independent conceptual elements found necessary to support the structure) can constitute a conceptual "representation" of a reality which in itself is diverse and contradictory? This problem is made no less intriguing by the realization that the structural properties of a theory do not in fact comprise a representation of reality in the sense of constituting a copy of that reality. As Vaihinger, Einstein, and others have noted, the structural properties of a theory are in essence fictional in character. Hence, Vaihinger chose to pose the problem in this manner: "How does it happen that although in thinking we make use of a falsified reality, the practical result still proves to be rightT' In a similar manner, in discussing theoretical physics, Einstein was led to remark: "If, then, it is true that this axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? Nay more, has this right way any existence outside our illusions? Can we hope to be guided in the right way by experience when there exist theories (such as classified mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without getting to the root of the matter?" Much earlier, and in a different context, Leibnitz had posed the problem thusly: How can there be a correspondence between "verite de fait" and "verite de raison"? Although a detailed exploration of this problem must be deferred, previous deliberations appear to suggest the direction in which the solution probably lies. If, as it is hypothesized in this work, the adequacy of an approach to a broad body of data must include (a) coherence in and between the chain of steps presumed to be relevant to problem solutions, and (b) the direction taken by the chain of steps must be determined by the initial and corollary assumptions which are explicitly or implicitly made concerning the character of the broad body of data in question: then, these initial and corollary assumptions must determine the direction and lines along which the structural properties of the theory must be developed. Hence, given the above conditions, the initial and corollary assumptions supply the tie that connects the chain of steps to the body of data in question. Correspondingly, insofar as the initial and corollary assumptions are congruent with the body of data in question it must also be presumed that the coherence in and between the chain of steps, of which the structural properties of the theory constitute a segment, comprises the sought for problem solutions - the end product of which, of course, is the structural properties of the theory. As such, presumedly, the theory will "correspond" or conceptually "represent" reality. For citations see: H. Vaihinger, The Philosophy of "As if": A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind, trans. C. K. Ogden (2nd ed.; London, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., reprinted 1949), chap. XXXV, p. 195; Albert Einstein, "On the Method of Theoretical Physics", Essays in Science (New York, Philosophical Library, n.d.), p. 17.

162

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

internal functioning of the personality type in question. Given the manner in which the "original" Researchers framed their central problem (e.g., ". . . Why is it that certain individuals accept these ideas while others do not?"), their requisite theory and research are directed to the study of personality structure and functioning as the source of selective consumption of ideology. This presupposes the existence of personality structure, and excludes the relevance of the genetic development of this personality structure. As such, any additional major facets which the "original" investigation may contain, including genetic factors, must derive from some other source than that signified by the Researchers' general orientation and stated central problem.281 It is necessary to stress again the fact that the above three interdependent propositions are elaborated deductions derived from the Investigators' general orientation: consisting of elaborated implications derived, on the one hand, from the initial and corollary assumptions concerning the Investigators' specific unit of study; and, on the other, from those corollary assumptions that underlie the study of "individual behavior" generally. These three propositions depict inclusive relations presumed to exist at the contemporary global level as required by the Researchers' requisite personality theory. Of course, as previously noted, insofar as they successfully embrace the requisite global relationships, they may also be presumed to reflect simultaneously the requisite depth, as signified by the innumerable relationships comprising the hierarchical genetic development. As such, the intrinsic relations are analogous to those underlying algebraic expansion and contraction. Having set forth the type of theory required by the Researchers' general orientation, including the Researchers' relevant statements bearing on each proposition comprising the theory, it may now be asked: how well does the Investigators' supposed (i.e., actual) personality theory comply with the type of theory required? Judging from the type of passages represented above, certainly one thing is unmistakably clear; and that is, the Researchers do not present a theory in the sense in which this term has been specified in this work. Contrary to the Researchers' frequent references to "our theory",282 recognition of the preceding finding is implicitly acknowledged by one of the authors of the "origi281

In a subsequent context these "other" sources will be considered. See pp. 233-38. 282 c f . "The theories that have guided the present research will be presented in suitable contexts later " The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 3. See also pp. 5, 18, 40, 49, 145, 225, 233, 239, 273, 549, 728, 751.

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

163

nal" volume. His acknowledgment is indicated by the phrase: " . . . In terms of our 'orientation' theory we should expect.. .".28s This " 'orientation' theory" of the Authors is conveyed through: (1) explicit statements acknowledging their adherence to the formulations of psychoanalysts in general, and Freud in particular: such as ". . . our hypotheses were formulated according to psychoanalytic theory. . ,";284 or, ". . . for theory as to the structure of personality we have leaned most heavily upon Freud.. .";285 (2) a number of explicitly stated, though conceptually ««related, delimited hypotheses scattered throughout the volume286 - but appearing in greatest concentration in a chapter entitled: "Measurement of Antidemocratic Trends"; (3) interpretative statements of reported findings, of which most of the citations pertaining to each of the above three propositions are illustrative; (4) the types of specific questions asked and concepts employed, as initially put forward in the Introduction, and in connection with the two illustrative protocols comprising the second chapter titled: "Contrasting Ideologies of Two College Men: A Preliminary View". Now that it has been established that the "original" Authors do not present a systematically formulated theory the question emerges: Does their " 'orientation' theory" correspond with what is "hypothesized" by the structural properties of the proposed theory? More specifically: Is this " 'orientation' theory" consistent with the deductions and/or predictions allowable by the requisite theory? Superficially the answer to this question appears to be yes - at least, provisionally so. Of course, the 283

284 285 286

Ibid., p. 623. (Italics supplied.) The author in question is T. W. Adorno.

Ibid., p. 751. Ibid., p. 5.

Many, if not most, of these generalized statements constitute "empirical" generalizations of varying levels of applicability: i.e., applicable to all highs, all lows, high females, low females, high males, low males, etc. (e.g., "Dependency in lows is expressed mainly in the form of concern with love"; or, Dependency in highs is expressed mainly in the form of "concern with power". Ibid., p. 599). In fact, it appears as if the Researchers never posed the following question to themselves: At what level do our theoretical requirements necessitate the propositions to be formulated? Is this requisite level reflected in our categories defined in our frame of reference? Had they posed to themselves such questions they may have arrived at a recognition somewhat as follows. If the descriptive categories are the same as those employed in the collection and treatment of data, and these same categories comprise the frame of reference depicting the level at which the propositions are to be formulated - then, the following difficulty emerges: how is it possible to conceptualize non-equivocal propositions expressing the relationships between these categories, when these categories are assumed to be and treated as though they are expressions or indices of the relationships from which they are derived? Cf. pp. 15-16, 34-38, 62-65, of this work.

164

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

question cannot be answered definitively on the basis of the information provided above. It is evident that all of the deductions allowable by the theory were not exploited; neither were all of the Authors' relevant statements set forth. Yet if the quoted passages are representative of the types of statements made by the Authors, it is apparent that these type statements do not explicitly assert the relationships expressed in each of the three propositions; neither do these type statements assert, or imply, the interrelationships existing among these three propositions; nor, for the most part, do the quoted passages assert the relationships expressed in the deductions drawn from each of the propositions. In fact, for the most part, the quoted passage simply assert that the personality type in question manifests certain attributes, or characteristics: attributes or characteristics which are the SAME as those predicted by the deductions drawn from the structural properties of the requisite theory.287 Hence, it is in the latter respect that the quoted passages are superficially consistent with the deductions and/or predictions drawn from the requisite theory. In view of the "original" Researchers' failure to systematically formulate the requisite theory it is now understandable why they informed their readers of their supposed action, as expressed in the latter part of the sentence quoted below. . . . For theory as to the structure of personality we have leaned most heavily upon Freud, while for a more or less systematic formulation of the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality we have been guided primarily by academic psychology. . . .288 Without having systematically formulated their requisite theory the deductions allowable by such a theory were not available to them.289 287

Cf. quoted passages footnoted by numbers 258, 259, 260, 264, 265, 266, 275, 276, and 277. The only real exception to the above allegation is the passage footnoted as number 268 of this chapter. Note the marked difference: " . . . the greater a subject's preoccupation with 'evil forces' . . . the stronger would be his own unconscious urges of both sexuality and destructiveness". Cf. this assertion with deduction number (b) drawn from proposition number 2, appearing on p. 156. Excluding the above quoted passage, the remaining quoted passages are merely descriptions of supposed manifestations in terms of broad encompassing categories or "dispositional" concepts - of course, occasionally masquerading as asserted relationships. 288 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 5. (Emphasis mine.) 289 In this connection Einstein has noted: "The theorist's method involves his using as his foundation general postulates or 'principles' from which he can deduce conclusions. His work thus falls into two parts. He must first discover his principles and then draw the conclusions which follow from them. For the second of these tasks he receives an admirable equipment at school . . . The first of these tasks, namely, that of establishing the principles which are to serve as the starting point

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

165

Hence, they presumed that "the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality" stemmed from some source other than that from which they actually ensued.290 It is now evident that those "more directly observable" characteristics which the Researchers singled out for empirical investigation are deducible from the theory set forth above.291 This, of course, should not occur as a surprise to anyone, since the function of theory in its role as a tool or instrument employed to facilitate the acquisition of demonstrable knowledge is to determine what data and what relationships expressed in what forms are most significantly relevant for the theory. In view of the fact that the "more directly observable" characteristics, singled out for empirical investigation, are presumedly the same as those predicted by the deductions drawn from the structural properties of the requisite theory, it may then be asked: What does it matter if the of his deduction, is of an entirely different nature. Here there is no method capable of being learned and systematically applied so that it leads to the goal. The scientist has to worm these general principles out of nature by perceiving certain general features which permit a precise formulation, amidst large complexes of empirical facts. "Once this formulation is successfully accomplished, inference follows on inference, often revealing relations which extend far beyond the province of the reality from which the principles were drawn. But as long as the principles capable of serving as starting points for the deduction remain undiscovered, the individual fact is of no use to the theorist; indeed he cannot even do anything with isolated empirical generalizations of more or less wide application . . . . " Albert Einstein, Essays in Science, op. cit., pp. 6-7. Cf. pp. 15-16 and 36-38 of the present work. In what appears to be contradistinction to Einstein's reflections on the discovery of the principles (or propositions as we have termed them), we have attempted to demonstrate that the initial and corollary assumptions made about the broad body of data, on the one hand, and the elaborated implications derivable from the initial and related assumptions involved in the specific unit of study, on the other, commit one to the development of the requisite theory in a given direction and along certain lines. 290 Further evidence of the above contention is provided by the following passage: " . . . Although these categories were to a considerable extent inspired by psychoanalysis, they should not be considered as psychoanalytic in the narrower sense of the word, since classification of our material is done primarily on the basis of present personality structure rather than on the basis of psycho-genetic data ...." Ibid., p. 326. (Emphasis mine.) Cf. pp. 141-42 of the present work. 291 See the deductions following a statement of each of the three propositions and compare with the variables that "make up the basic content of the F Scale". These variables are listed as follows: "Conventionalism, Authoritarian submission, Authoritarian aggression, Anti-intraception, Superstition and Stereotype, Power and Toughness, Destructiveness and Cynicism, Projectivity, Sex". The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 228. In this same regard compare the quoted passages cited as relevant to each of the three propositions. Also see pp. 206-09 including footnotes, of this work.

166

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Researchers neglected to formulate systematically their requisite theory? By directing attention to the consequences of their neglect, this question penetrates to the crux of this first phase of the critical assessment. To answer the preceding question it is then necessary to turn to the consequences of their neglect. These consequences adhere in the limitations and constraints induced by their neglect: limitations and constraints occurring in the form of avenues or alternatives open and closed to them, in their efforts to test the validity (or, even plausibility) of their " 'orientation' theory". In due course it will be revealed that, in sum, the consequences of their neglect consist as follows: Without having systematically formulated their requisite theory the Researchers had no means open to them to establish that the so-called "more directly observable" characteristics (singled out for empirical investigation) are in fact manifestations of what they are presumed to be manifestations of - other than the broad personality label (authoritarian) under which they were subsumed. This recognition will first be disclosed through an examination of the limitations imposed by their neglect, as they are reflected in the avenues closed to them; and second, it will be disclosed through an examination of the constraints entailed in the only avenue open to them. Firstly: to reveal the limitations as reflected in the avenues closed to the Investigators requires a disclosure of the research implications inherent in the structural properties of the requisite theory. Disregarding, for the sake of simplicity, the "quantitative" dimension of the relationships stated in each of the three propositions comprising the theory, the structural properties of the theory break down into the following minimal independent proposals - using letters of the alphabet to identify each independent factor (or, as they say, "pattern variable"). 1. A diversity of strong id-impulses (D) manifested in a "contemporary present" is an index of the following genetically-derived manifestations: - (G) Pronounced undifferentiation of corresponding idstrivings and their affects - (S) Circumscribed ego integration - pervasive and rigid ego defenses - constricted ego organization - (W) Extensive use of repression and reaction-formation - pervasive existence of polarized tendencies. Accordingly, the occurrence of (D) in the "contemporary present" signifies the existence of (G, S, W) as derivatives of a genetic development along certain lines. Hence, D, G, S and W, will consistently occur together. 2. The occurrence of (D, G, S, W) in conjunction with - (L) an extensive infantile super-ego organization will produce - (P) a consistent

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

167

and pervasive externalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal

conflicts - expressed in polarized tendencies as specifically

hypothe-

sized,292 Accordingly, the occurrence of (D, G, S, W) in conjunction with (L) will produce (P) in a manner hypothesized. In accordance with the preceding proposals the succeeding research implications, inherent in the structural properties of the theory, emerge. (1) How does one know that D, G, S and W will consistently occur together? For example: given the existence of S (pervasive and rigid ego defenses) does it consistently follow that the permanent defenses which have been genetically derived are the primary ones hypothesized (namely, W - repression by means of reaction-formation)? (2) Should it be demonstrably established that (D, G, S and W) consistently occur together, how does one know that their occurrence in conjunction with (L) will consistently produce (P)? And if so, does it follow that the extensive occurrence of (P) will be expressed in the polarized manner specifically hypothesized? (3) (Let the letter " F " stand for an extensively established superego). How does one know that (D, G, S, and W) do not also occur in conjunction with an extensive (F)? And if it does, how does one know that it will not also produce (P)? And if it should, is there any reason to presume that (P) will not be expressed in the same polarized manner specifically hypothesized for the occurrence of (D, G, S, and W) in conjunction with (L)? These questions and others are matters to be determined by empirical investigation. They constitute research implications, emanating from the structural properties of the theory providing direction and pointed focus for the empirical investigation. Moreover, the outcome of the determination of such questions provides a test of the structural properties of the theory - indicating what modifications and/or extensions in the theory are necessary, if any; including the directions such modifications and/or extensions must take.293 Once having empirically verified the structural properties of the theory (or some portion thereof - including modifications and/or extensions) it then constitutes demonstrable knowledge in the sense previously specified. Without having formulated systematically their requisite theory the Namely: (a) intolerance of, aggression toward, and projection onto, "outgroups"; and (b) identification with, idealization of, and submission to, "ingroups". 293 In contradistinction to sustaining a test for empirical verification the theory must also prove to be theoretically adequate. F o r a consideration of the latter see pp. 183-87 of this chapter. 292

168

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Researchers have no way of knowing which of the "more directly observable" characteristics ensue from what structural properties of the requisite theory. Correspondingly, should their empirical findings disclose the absence of certain hypothesized characteristics, there is no way of their knowing the theoretical significance of this absence; likewise, they have no means of knowing the theoretical significance of the presence of some characteristic in a form not hypothesized, nor its presence in a form contrary to the manner hypothesized. Secondly: to reveal the constraints induced by the neglect to systematically formulate their requisite theory, attention will be directed to the only avenue open to the Researchers (as a consequence of this neglect), in their efforts to test the validity (or plausibility) of their "'orientation' theory". As a consequence of this neglect, "support" for their " 'orientation' theory" can be achieved only by means of the following reasoning. Given, by means of an independent measure, the potentially identifiable personality types: if only the hypothesized type (authoritarian personality) manifests the hypothesized characteristics, then it is reasonable to presume the "'orientation' theory" to be plausible — and then, only if it is granted that the hypothesized characteristics are in fact derivable from the " 'orientation' theory" and not just any other. In accordance with this reasoning the test of plausibility does not consist in ascertaining the existence of some form of relationship between the hypothesized characteristics; but rather in establishing the presence of the hypothesized characteristics in the personality type in question, and demonstrating their absence in other identifiable personality types. Accordingly, the empirical investigation is thus confined merely to establishing the presence or absence of the characteristics, singled out for investigation for each of the personality types studied. As such, either (a) the Researchers' " 'orientation' theory" signifies that only the personality type in question will exhibit the hypothesized characteristics, or (b) the reasoning (despite its being the only alternative open to the Researchers) is incompatible with what is required by the " 'orientation' theory". In either case the consequences for the empirical investigation are the same; for, if the "'orientation' theory" does not preclude any given personality type from manifesting certain hypothesized characteristics294 but instead forecasts the existence of some form of relation294

Cf. the following passage: "Highs and lows differ markedly in their manner of handling deep-level trends such as aggression, sex, dependency, anxiety, and the like. We are not yet in a position to say whether one group or the other shows a greater total amount of any given trend; what is clear is that both groups exhibit

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

169

ship between these characteristics, the latter is not known to the Researchers. In view of the preceding considerations the use of an adjunct such as a form of statistical reasoning, as signified by the calculation of "significance of difference", is to no avail. In fact, employment of the latter for this purpose is tantamount to an admission that the so-called " 'orientation' theory" does not preclude any given personality type from manifesting certain hypothesized characteristics. From the foregoing analysis it should be clear that the use of a procedure such as "significance of difference" for the purpose of facilitating a "test" of the Researchers' "'orientation' theory" presupposes that at least certain hypothesized characteristics may be exhibited by any given personality type. Henceforth, the use of such a procedure signifies that the "test" of their " 'orientation' theory" hinges not on merely establishing the presence or absence of the hypothesized characteristics in the hypothesized personality type, but instead hinges on ascertaining whether certain hypothesized characteristics appear in some form of relationship manifested and expressed only by the personality type in question. In which case, use of such a procedure as "significance of difference" is still inapplicable. Once again it becomes apparent that the form in which the relationship between certain hypothesized characteristics are presumed to occur emanates from the structural properties of the requisite theory. Regrettable as this may be, without having systematically formulated the requisite theory these relationships must remain unavailable to them. As such, the Researchers had no means open to them for establishing what the hypothesized characteristics (singled out for empirical investigation) are in fact manifestations of - other than the broad personality label (authoritarian) under which they are so subsumed. One further implication, deriving from the preceding exploration, deserves mentioning. It is well recognized that the structural requirements of a systematically formulated theory do not allow for equivocality. Yet, without knowledge of what hypothesized characteristics are drawn from what deductions, emanating from what structural properties of the requisite theory, the Researchers have no means of avoiding equivocality. In connection with the preceding implication a most astonishing, and all of these trends to a significant degree. The Primary difference seems to lie in the ego functioning, and particularly in the relation of the ego to the deeper levels of personality . . . . " The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 595. (Emphasis mine). Cf. also pp. 942, 442, 236, 480, 52, 966, 805, 814, 943. In this work see p. 151 and footnote 261 of this chapter.

170

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

perhaps to many - even disturbing, recognition emerges. Namely: the no-equivocality requirement, inherent in the structural properties of the requisite theory, is "irresolvably" incompatible with a statistical m o d e of reasoning, "measurement", and mode of proof. 295 Whereas, it is recognized that such "an outrageous bit of heresy" cannot go unchallenged, the necessary step-by-step proof required of such an assertion will have to be temporarily postponed. In the meantime the succeeding defense of the assertion will have to suffice. While granting the subtleties of the deep-seated controversy involving the legitimacy of the logical foundation, derivation, and conceptualization of probability, 296 the manner in which probability is applied in social science research is sufficiently uniform as to render these controversial issues irrelevant. That is to say, in general, the formulations of social science statisticians 2 9 7 (including those w h o adopt incautiously other authors' formulations, but excluding economists employing the systems constructed by Keynes 2 9 8 and Jeffreys 2 9 9 ) are such as to indicate support of a frequency theory of probability.300 A s a measure of what may be expected to hap295

This assertion obtains regardless of whether the theory constitutes a conceptual "representation" of data which is behaving in accordance with laws that apply to homogeneous classes, or laws that apply to probability - if by probability one means the frequency theory of probability. In physics this is no doubt what Einstein had in mind when objecting to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle based on quantum theory (see W. Heisenberg, Nuclear Physics (New York, Philosophical Library, 1953), pp. 30, 93). This objection was aptly expressed in Einstein's remark: "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." Although Einstein's remarks in this connection appear to suggest that he was rejecting the possibility that the body of data in question could in fact behave in accordance with the laws of probability, it is more likely that he recognized that such laws were incompatible with the noequivocality requirement of the structural properties of a theory. Cf. Albert Einstein, "On the Method of Theoretical Physics", op. cit., pp. 15-21. Additional clarification of the above assertion will be found in subsequent treatments appearing on pp. 170-72, 178-83 and footnote 316 of this chapter. 298 For an exposition of some of the pertinent controversial issues see Rudolf Carnap, "The Two Concepts of Probability", in Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Herbert Feigl and May Brodbeck (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953), pp. 438-55. 297 Cf. R. A. Fisher, Statistical Methods for Research Workers (10th ed.; New York, Hafner Publishing Company Inc., 1948); R. von Mises, Statistics, Probability and Truth (New York, Macmillan, 1939); and Hans Reichenbach, Theory of Probability (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1949). 298 J. M. Keynes, Treatise on Probability (London, Macmillan, 1939). 299 H. Jeffreys, Theory of Probability (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1939). 390 There are, of course, widespread instances of ambiguity in many statistical treatments in the Social Sciences deriving from the confusion of the classical conceptions of probability as originated by Bernoulli and La Place (ratio of number of favorable cases to the number of all possible cases) with the conceptions developed by von Mises and Reichenbach. However, such inadequacies need not engage

REQUISITE VS. SUPPOSED THEORY

171

pen "in the long run" or "on the average" the frequency theory of probability entails the presumption that KINDS of events are not equally possible - hence they have different probabilities. Thus, regardless of what may be presumed to be the source of the unequal possibilities, kinds of events behave in accordance with the principle of alternative expression. As such, unequal possibility or its counterpart at a phenotypic level - the principle of alternative expression - negates the no-equivocality requirement inherent in the structural properties of the Researchers' requisite theory. Having exposed the incompatibility existing between the no-equivocality requirement of the Researchers' requisite theory and a statistical mode of reasoning, "measurement", and proof, it would appear that this recognition brings toppling down the elaborate structure derived from the previous examination of the Researchers' general orientation. This is not the case however. This incompatibility represents one more instance of the many paradoxes inherent in scientific investigation. Of course it is true the previous exposition revealed that as a consequence of the initial and corollary assumption concerning "Individual Behavior", one is committed to the supposition that different modes of handling motives lead to, and result in, shifting alternative behavioral expressions for identical motivational intents. And, inasmuch as the diverse range of behaviors may be alternatively expressed it is apparent the specific behavioral alternatives have different probabilities of occurring at any given moment. Consequently, the behavioral end-products of a motivational structure and process are in fact behaving in accordance with the laws of probability - even though such behavioral endproducts represent a different type of lawfulness, namely the principle of alternative shifting expression. Hence, a statistical mode of reasoning, "measurement", and proof most certainly applies. But it only applies for the purpose of demonstrating that the behaviors in question are in fact alternative expressions of the respective themata for which they are our attention here. These confusions principally pertain to what it is to which equally-possible and unequal-possibility apply. In the succeeding consideration this issue is by-passed by limiting the foregoing comments to kinds of events. For an example of the ambiguity referred to above cf. Paul F. Lazarsfeld, "A Conceptual Introduction to Latent Structure Analysis", in Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, ed. Paul F. Lazarsfeld (Glencoe, 111., The Free Press, 1954), pp. 349-87. The shift is most apparent in a remark appearing on p. 368 and footnoted as number 15 ("When we talk here of "frequencies," we mean "relative frequencies," the proportion observed in the total sample."). Of course, it must also be recognized that successively derived kinds of events are likely to have unequal probabilities not only at the same but at different levels of inclusiveness.

172

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

presumed to be expressions; or, for the purpose of demonstrating that certain thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of more inclusive themata from which the former are presumedly derived. The method of statistical reasoning, "measurement", and mode of proof, does not apply for the purpose of ascertaining whether certain hypothesized themata (or "characteristics" as referred to above) appear in some form of relationships, manifested and expressed in a manner predicted by the structural properties of the theory. The demand for theoretical certitude does not allow for the equivocality which the method of probability statistics is designed to handle. This brings to a conclusion the foregoing assessment of the extent to which the "original" Investigators' supposed personality theory complies with the requisite personality theory. As previously disclosed there are: (a) the relationships expressed in each of the three propositions comprising the requisite theory; (b) the interrelationships existing among these three propositions; (c) the deductions deducible from the structural properties of the requisite theory; (d) the "characteristics" (or themata) drawn from the deductions derived from the theory — which are essentially the same as those "characteristics" singled out for empirical investigation by the Researchers; and (e) there are the specific actions and ideology depicting the respective themata or "characteristics". The Investigators' so-called "'orientation' theory", as explicitly stated, is comprised, for the most part, of no more than statements asserting that the personality type in question manifests.certain "characteristics" — referred to as (d) above. Only in the sense that these "characteristics" are the same as those drawn from the deductions derived from the requisite theory is the Researchers' "'orientation' theory" consistent with the requisite theory. Having neglected to formulate systematically their requisite theory the "original" Researchers: (1) presumed that "the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality" stemmed from some source other than that from which they actually ensued; (2) had no means open to them for establishing that the so-called "more directly observable" characteristics (singled out for empirical investigation) are in fact manifestations of what they are presumed to be manifestations of - other than the broad personality label (authoritarian) under which they were subsumed; (3) must either resort to a mode of reasoning (for the purpose of "testing" plausibility of their " 'orientation' theory") which is incom-

SPECIFIC RESEARCH

REQUIREMENTS

173

patible with the requirements of their "'orientation' theory"; or, limit their efforts merely to establishing whether certain behavioral endproducts are alternative expressions of particular thema, and whether certain themata are alternative expressions of more inclusive themata from which they are presumedly derived; (4) failed to recognize that the demand for theoretical certitude does not allow for the equivocality which the method of probability statistics is designed to handle; (5) had no means of establishing and certifying demonstrable knowledge - since the latter consists of empirical verification of systematically formulated theory.

D.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

Thus far, it has been established how the initial and corollary assumptions (underlying the study of "Individual Behavior" generally, and the "original" study of the authoritarian personality, in particular) impelled the requisite personality theory to be formulated along certain lines and in a certain direction. Once systematically formulated, it was observed how the structural properties of the requisite theory allowed for a multiplicity of deductions, concerning the type of data subsumed under the label "authoritarian personality".301 In turn, it was revealed how these deductions specified the form in which the relationships between certain hypothesized themata are presumed to be manifested within, and expressed by, the authoritarian personality type. As such, these deductions, allowable by the requisite personality theory, signified what themata (or "characteristics", i.e., what data) are relevant for the theory. In connection with the latter disclosure it was noted that the demand for theoretical certitude does not allow for equivocality. Hence, the method of statistical reasoning, "measurement", and mode of proof, 301

In this connection it may be noted: if the deductions (allowable by the requisite theory) are extended far enough, they will presumedly encompass the innumerable extensive relations comprising the hierarchical genetic development. This is in accordance with a previous recognition that the exclusive type generalized statements are inherent in the inclusive type generalized statement. Hence, the supposition - also previously noted: insofar as the three propositions (comprising the requisite theory) successfully embrace the requisite global relationships, they may also be presumed to simultaneously reflect the requisite depth, as signified by the innumerable relationships comprising the hierarchical genetic development. For derivation and elaboration see pp. 36-39, 32-33, 64-65. For a specification of inclusive and exclusive type generalized statements see pp. 15-16.

174

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

does not apply for the purpose of ascertaining whether certain hypothesized themata appear in some form of relationship, manifested and expressed in a manner forecast by the deductions drawn from the structural properties of the theory. Accordingly, if the requisite personality theory is to sustain the test of empirical validity these relationships (specified in each of the three propositions and their allowable deductions) must be exhibited by the authoritarian personality as hypothesized, and without equivocality. On the other hand, it was also revealed that application of the method of statistical reasoning, "measurement",302 and mode of proof, was obligatory insofar as the collection and initial processing of the hypothesized themata, and the specific actions and expressed ideology depicting these themata. Consequently, attention is directed to the specific research requirements which pertain to these relevant specific actions and expressed ideology, and the hypothesized themata they presumedly depict. Before turning to the logical derivation of these specific research requirements further considerations are necessary. It will be recalled that a previous examination of the Researchers' general orientation disclosed how the themata are depicted in a wide diversity of forms and modes of specific actions and expressed ideology: appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that "object", in each area of social life - according to the class and/or status identifications in question. Accordingly, the shifting alternative behavioral expressions of each thema allow for differentially selective actions, thoughts, and opinions. Thus, they facilitate accommodation in varying degrees and in types of public and private situations, involving changes in the prevailing climate of opinion, and requiring, as "conceived" by the subject (consciously and/or unconsciously), varying degrees of frankness or even subterfuge.303 Moreover, since the themata of a given series are successively derived and comprise an organized hierarchy, they must vary in their 302 In regard to the use of "measurement" in the social sciences see footnote 143 of this chapter. 303 Cf. footnote number 23 in chapter I: see also pp. 58-61. With regard to the resolution of conflict and opposition appearing in connection with these circumstances see pp. 142-43, including footnote number 236 of this chapter. It is also important to bear in mind that these themes are no more than genetically derived motives, affects, modes of defense (i.e., modes of resolving conflict and opposition which may include themata pertaining to perceiving, thinking, feeling, thought, motility, and posture), modes and products of cognitive and evaluative integrations, re-represented in different forms on different levels of integration and organization. In this connection cf. pp. 71-80, 81-91, 131-44, including particularly footnotes 229 and 236 of this chapter, and pp. 152-59.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

175

degree of proximity to their common "root" source. As such, these themata will differ in their levels of inclusiveness. Correspondingly, sub-

sequently derived themata, from a common source, will constitute alternative expressions of prior derivations.304 As a consequence, the principle of shifting alternative expression ALSO applies to successively derived themata, as well as to the specific actions and expressed ideology depicting these respective themata.305 In accordance with the preceding considerations, the specific research requirements in question are essential in order to verify: (a) whether the relevant items of action and/or expressed ideology,306 manifested by the authoritarian personality, are, in fact, alternative expressions of the re-

spective hypothesized thema for which they are presumed to be expressions; and (b) whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are, in fact, alternative expressions of the more inclusive thema from which the former is presumed to be derived. More specifically, the latter task (b) involves verifying whether a relevant series of presumedly related themata, (although varying in levels of inclusiveness) constitute alternative expressions of each corresponding independent "factor" included in each proposition, and/or relevant deduction (i.e., factors such as D, G, S, W, L, and P, or their relevant components, mentioned on page 167.) These "factors", it will be recalled, signify the relevant aspects of the structural concepts (id, ego, super-ego) which are included in the conceptualized relationships deemed relevant to the authoritarian personality.307 Also, these are the "factors" between which the relationships are proposed - as specified in the propositions and deductions. 304

For the logical derivation of these conceptions see pp. 25-33, 34-35. Also see demonstration by means of an appropriate example on pp. 85-89. 305 It may be reiterated once more that this recognition renders it absurd to correlate instances (or classes of instances) of manifest behavior in the study of the individual, or in the comparative study of different individuals. In accordance with this principle of shifting alternative expression the relationships to be sought are not between diverse manifest behaviors, but between something manifest and something latent-, more specifically, between "motivation and motivation" and "motivation and behavior". 306 Although the specific research requirements to be derived equally apply to items of action, as well as items of expressed ideology, the focus of the Researchers' central problem on selective consumption of ideology excludes their consideration of overt action. For derivation and elaboration see pp. 58-60. However, in order to keep this consideration forward, actions will continue to be mentioned in association with expressed ideology - but hereafter in parentheses. In reference to specific actions and items of ideology (opinions, attitudes, and values) the term expressed (ideology) is consistently employed to denote that the concern is with behavior, in contrast to ideology as a facet of personality. 307 Cf. pp. 150-51 of this work.

176

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Prior to proceeding with the task of logically deriving the specific research requirements, referred to above, it is also important to note: whereas the most immediate source from which these requirements stem consists in the probability character of the conceptions ((a) and (b) referred to immediately above) to be verified, their ultimate logical derivation stems from the same conditions which indicated the applicability of the methodology of probability - i.e., the initial and corollary assumptions concerning the broad body of data for which the specific unit of study represents a specific instance.308 As a consequence of being committed to the methodology of probability, the Researchers are impelled to employ, in their observation, collection, and INITIAL processing of these data (i.e., the hypothesized themata and the actions and/or expressed ideology depicting these themata), specific research techniques and procedures derived from, and legitimized in terms of, the theory of probability. That is to say, the Researchers' choice of specific research techniques and procedures must be drawn from the requisite methodology in terms of which their legitimacy is established. However, since the crux of the specific research requirements essential to achieving verification of (a) and (b) above is substantially the same, regardless of what specific probability techniques and/or procedures may be chosen for observing and/or collecting the relevant data, it will not be necessary to consider the latter, as such, in the present context.309 Of course, in view of the fact that additional related requirements ensue from THE 308

In this regard a brief recapitulation may be useful. It is postulated that adequacy of an approach to social science data must entail coherence in and between the chain of steps presumed to be relevant to problem solutions. Correspondingly, if there is to be coherence in and between the chain of steps, the direction taken by the latter must be determined by the initial and corollary assumptions which are made concerning the character of the broad body of data in question. Hence, if the direction taken by the chain of steps is determined by these initial and corollary assumptions, then, these assumptions will determine: (a) the direction and lines along which the requisite theory is required to be formulated; (b) the type of methodology required (cf. pp. 16-17) and (c) the choice from which the specific research techniques and procedures (to be employed in observation, collection and treatment of the relevant data) are to be drawn - in order to be congruent with the requisite methodology in terms of which their legitimacy is established. To reiterate: the relations in and between each of the above components (a-c) of an adequate approach to data comprise the chain of steps relevant to any theoretical problem solution. For the derivation and elaboration of the preceding postulate, see pp. 1-23. Cf. also pp. 25-38, 81-91, 98-99, 103-04, 104-13. 300 These requirements, to be considered, are also essentially the same, and obligatory, regardless of whether the researcher is studying one or a million of any given personality type. Likewise, they are essentially the same regardless of the variety of techniques and procedures simultaneously employed. Cf. footnote number 143 in this chapter.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH

REQUIREMENTS

177

specific technique employed to collect the required data, to be used for this purpose, economy of effort dictates that the research requirements in question be logically derived in relation to this technique employed by the Researchers - namely, opinion-attitude scales. Having thus set forth the relevant considerations, it is now feasible to proceed with the logical derivation of the specific research requirements. Compliance with these requirements is essential in order to verify: (a) whether the relevant items of expressed ideology (and/or actions), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata for which they are presumed to be expressions; and (b) whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the more inclusive themata from which the former are presumed to be derived. If one employs opinion-attitude scales to collect data FOR THIS PURPOSE (as in the case of the Researchers) the requirements are as follows: (1) Verification of whether relevant items of expressed ideology (and/ or action), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata for which they are presumed to be expressions: (a) Firstly: as representatives of specific items of expressed ideology (and/or actions) there must be a selection for scale items, a variety of statements of opinion-attitude presumed to be indicative of each thema in question. In this instance it is assumed that the subject's propensity to give a positive (negative or neutral, depending on how the scale is to be structured and scored) response to particular statements constitutes an index or sign of the respective themata - hence, an index or sign of this facet of his personality, (b) Since each hypothesized thema is depicted in a wide range of diverse items of ideology (and/or actions) the scale items must also be chosen from a variety of situations relevant to each ideological area selected for consideration (i.e., economic, political, religious, group-relations, etc.). In addition: unless these scale items, depicting the respective hypothesized themata, are devoid of class and/or status contents it will be necessary to draw from specific items of expressed ideology (and/or actions) which signify a given class and/or status identity. In which case the scale's most effective use is limited to the class and/or status identity in question.810 (c) The selected statements for scale items must T o achieve maximum effectiveness each of the subscale items, chosen to be indicative of a particular thema, could be paired with an opposite item. In each instance the paired items would be drawn from the same type situation relevant to

310

178

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

also represent indices of high probability for each hypothesized thema for which they are presumed to be alternative expressions. Correspondingly, since the expressive value of a "positive" response to a single scale item will always be in doubt, it is necessary to use a given proportion (statistically determined) of "positive" responses to the total number of scale items indicative of each hypothesized thema.311 Accordingly, if a statistically significant proportion of the responses to the total number of scale items (presumed to be indicative of each hypothesized thema) is disclosed to be "positive", verification of the preceding conception (No. (1) above) is successfully established.312 (2) Verification of whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the more inclusive thema from which the former is presumed to be derived: (a) Assuming that the same opinion-attitude scales are also employed to check the verification of the preceding conception (i.e., No. (2) above), economy of effort prescribes the use of subscales to embody each set of scale items indicative of each hypothesized thema of primary significance, (b) If, then, alternative themata for each successive level of inclusiveness are embodied in separate subscales the necessary pre-conditions are present for checking the verification of the above conception, (c) Hence, presuming that each relevant alternative thema, for each successive level of inclusiveness, constitutes high probability expressions of the more inclusive thema from which the former is presumed to be derived, it is necessary to proceed as heretofore indicated in (lc) above. Namely: it is essential to employ a given proportion (statistically determined) of the total number of subscales as expressive of each successive level of inclusiveness. Accordingly, if it is disclosed that a statistically significant proportion of the total number of subscales (indicative of each successive level of inclusiveness) constitutes alternative expression of the same ideological area for a given class and/or status identification. But one of the paired items would constitute an hypothesized response toward an "ingroup" (or "outgroup") type "object"; whereas, its paired opposite would constitute a response contrary to the manner hypothesized. This model for item construction, of course, could be varied in a number of ways in accordance with the polarized manner specifically hypothesized by the requisite theory. 311 In connection with the preceding requirements compare Paul F. Lazarsfeld, "A Conceptual Introduction to Latent Structure Analysis" in Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, ed. by Paul F. Lazarsfeld, op. cit., pp. 349-87. See also pp. 108-13 of the present work. 312 This assertion presumes of course that the reliability of the scale has been successfully established. In accordance with traditional usage a scale is considered to be reliable when it will consistently produce essentially the same data or results when repeatedly applied to the same subject or sample.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH

REQUIREMENTS

179

each successively PRIOR level of inclusiveness, verification of the preceding conception (No. (2) above) is successfullly established. It is essential to reiterate that the specific research requirements, enumerated above, pertain to the construction of the scales; and to the INITIAL processing of the hypothesized themata, and the specific items of expressed ideology (and/or actions) which are presumed to depict these themata. Correspondingly, these initial procedures are only preliminary steps: steps to be taken prior to, and with the ultimate intent of, ascertaining whether certain hypothesized themata appear in some form of relationship, manifested within, and expressed by, the authoritarian personality in a manner forecast by the propositions - and/or deductions drawn from the structural properties of the requisite theory. To achieve this ultimate goal additional considerations must be taken into account in the construction of the subscales. That is, in constructing the subscales so as to achieve verification of the above two conceptions, these additional considerations require that the construction of the subscales be linked to the task of certifying whether certain hypothesized themata are related and expressed in the manner forecast by the propositions and deductions singled out for empirical testing. As such, a successful establishment of this required link (or connection) consists in verifying whether relevant series of successively more inclusive themata constitute alternative expressions of each corresponding independent "factor" involved in each proposition or deduction singled out for empirical testing. These "factors" and their relevant components, have been designated by the letters D, G, S, W, L, and P, on page 166-67. Also, these are the "factors" which the three propositions and/or their deductions hypothesize as being related in some specified form, and as being manifested within and expressed outwardly in these forms by the authoritarian personality type. Hence, for each of these "factors", involved in each proposition and/or deduction to be tested, the relevant series of successively less inclusive themata (which are deductively derived from, and subsumed under, each "factor" in question) must be proven to constitute alternative expressions of that specific respective "factor". Accordingly, to establish successfully the required link between: (a) the above prerequisites required to verify whether the expressed items of ideology (and/or actions) are alternative expressions of certain hypothesized themata and whether certain less inclusive hypothesized themata are alternative expressions of successively more inclusive hypothesized themata, on the one hand; and (b) the certification of

180

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

whether certain hypothesized themata are related and expressed in the manner forecast by the propositions and deductions, on the other; the ensuing additional conditions must be fulfilled in the construction and processing of the scales. (1) A separate scale is needed for each "factor" contained in each proposition and/or deduction to be tested. (2) In which case each scale, representing a single "factor", would be comprised of a number of subscales; and each of the subscales separately would embody relevant alternative themata for EACH successive level of inclusiveness entailed in each "factor" in question. As such, each scale representing each relevant "factor" would be comprised of subscales which would: (a) separately embody each selected alternative thema for each successive level of inclusiveness; (b) represent successively less inclusive themata presumed to constitute alternative expressions of their antecedents, and of which each is presumed to be an alternative expression of the "factor" in question; (c) separately embody a set of scale items presumed to be indicative (i.e., a sign or index) of each respective thema in question; and, in turn these subscale items will have been drawn from a variety of situations relevant to each ideological area selected for consideration. Having constructed the subscales in this manner, the structure of each scale, representing each relevant "factor", would then reflect the various levels of organized data subsumed under each "factor" - between which the theoretical relationships are respectively proposed. In addition, this manner of scale construction would fulfill the probability requirements existing as a consequence of the data "behaving", at these various levels, in accordance with the laws of probability. Hence, the structure of each scale embodies the principle of shifting alternative expression which is presumed to exist at these various levels, as manifested in: (i) the specific items of ideology (and/or actions) which represent alternative expressions of the thema they depict; (ii) the alternative thematic expressions at each successive level of inclusiveness; (iii) the successively less inclusive themata constituting alternative expressions of their antecedents; and (iv) each of the themata at the various levels of inclusiveness constituting alternative expressions of the respective "factor" in question. (See footnote pertaining to where the relevance of sampling considerations lies.318) 313

Once having recognized that it is with regard to the successively derived themata, actions, and specific items of expressed ideology that probability applies, the controversy bearing on where the relevance of sampling considerations lies can be

SPECIFIC RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

181

clarified. As a point of departure it will be expedient to begin with a consideration of the personality type viewed as a whole, i.e., as THE unit of observation; then to direct attention to the internal structure and functioning of the personality type as THE unit of observation. In regard to the personality type as a whole, it will be recalled that the variety of personality structures is presumably due to the manner in which id-strivings are handled - thus, to ego and super-ego organizations. As such, it is assumed that each identical personality structure has evolved, and employs, essentially the same permanent modes of handling id-strivings. Hence, each identical personality structure - including the authoritarian personality type - is an all-or-none matter. That is, each instance of personality structure either qualifies for a particular personality type or it does not. (Concerning the authoritarian personality in this respect see the indispensible core of the requisitie theory on p. 186.) Accordingly, with regard to instances of a given personality type per se the relevance of sampling considerations can pertain only to the frequency of this type in a population comprising two or more personality types. When the internal structure and functioning of the personality type is the unit of observation, other considerations are primarily involved which determine the relevance of sampling. In this connection it is essential to recapitulate the following elaborations. Given the variety of ways with which a motive may be dealt, identical motivational "intents" may be manifested in a diversity of shifting alternative behavioral forms - including behavior diametrically opposed to what would appear to be the "basic intent" of the motive. As a consequence, not only may the "same" behavioral forms represent different motivational "intents", but the "same" motivational "intent" may be expressed in different behavioral forms. Accordingly, the same (or similar) personality structures may be manifested in different behavioral expressions, and the same (or similar) behavioral expressions may be manifestations of different personality types. However, since personality structure is comprised of the dynamic and functional relationships which exist between the successive genetic derivations (representing and reflecting the manner in which idstrivings have been handled genetically), the key to consistency adheres in the themata which portray these genetic derivations. As such, identical personality structures consist of essentially the same structure of dynamic relations existing among the themata running throughout a diversity of corresponding specific actions and items of expressed ideology. Accordingly, any thema may be depicted in a wide range of diverse and contradictory specific actions and ideology: appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that "object" type, in each area of social life, according to the class and/or status identification in question. Hence, in this manner the shifting alternative behavioral expressions of each thema allow for differentially selective actions, thoughts, and opinions, appropriate to changes in the prevailing climate of opinion, requiring varying degrees of frankness and subterfuge. As a consequence, identical personality structures may manifest widely different behavioral expressions; or, essentially the same behavioral expressions may be manifested by personality structures of different types. Correspondingly, the specific actions and items of expressed ideology may vary widely among individuals of different cultures, epochs, class and!or status identity, although each is identical in personality structure. In fact, since the requisite theory postulates the form in which the relationships between certain hypothesized themata are presumed to be manifested in, and expressed by, the authoritarian personality, the occurrence of identical themata in different personality types is not precluded. In view of the preceding elaborations, sampling considerations are essentially irrelevant, insofar as the internal structure and functioning of the personality type constitute the unit of observation. In this connection, chosen scale items as indices of the hypothesized thema, as well as the alternative thematic expressions chosen as being indicative of

182

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(3) If after having successfully accomplished the preceding steps, it is established that a statistically significant proportion of subscales does, in fact, constitute (according to the response of the authoritarian personality) alternative expressions of its respective "factor" at each successive level of inclusiveness; it is then feasible to obtain a test of the relationships between the "factors" as proposed by the propositions and deductions. Proceeding in this manner the next and final step would entail what amounts to no more than crosstabulation,314 in order to ascertain whether hypothesized "factors" are related and unequivocally expressed in the manner forecast by the propositions and/or deductions. As such, it will be feasible to determine: (a) whether "factors" (D, G, S, and W)315 will consistently recur together in each identified instance of an authoritarian personality type; (b) whether the occurrence of (D, G, S, and W) in conjunction with "L" (an extensive infantile super-ego organization) will consistently produce "P" (pervasive externalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal conflicts) as specifically hypothesized: namely, (1) intolerance of, aggression toward, and projection onto, "out-groups"; and (2) identification with, idealization of, and submission to, "ingroups"; (c) whether (D, G, S, and W) occur in conjunction with an extensive "F" (firmly established superego); and if so, whether this association also produces (P); and, if it should, whether (P) is expressed in the same polarized manner specifically forecast for the occurrence of (D, G, S, and W) in conjunction with (L). Restated in general terms this means: Whether the relationships proposed by the requisite theory, and the deductions it allows, each successive level of inclusiveness, are required in each instance to be high probability expressions. Of course, since each thema may be depicted in specific actions and items of expressed ideology appropriate for a variety of situations, toward a variety of "object" types, relevant to a variety of areas of social life, sampling considerations may very well be warranted in the selection of representative situations, "object" types, and areas of social life. (In the latter respect compare item number (b) on p. 177, and footnote number 310 in section D of this chapter.) 314 Essentially, cross-tabulation refers to the tabulation of the number of cases which occur simultaneously in two or more categories. In the present connection it entails ascertaining by means of tabulation whether all sample instances of the authoritarian personality manifest and express the "factors" (proposed in the propositions and deductions) in precisely the manner hypothesized. 315 D = a diversity of strong id-impulses G = pronounced undifferentiation of corresponding id-strivings S = circumscribed ego integration - pervasive and rigid ego defenses - constricted ego organization W = extensive use of repression and reaction-formation - pervasive existence of polarized tendencies.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

183

are manifested and expressed as hypothesized in a contrary (or "control") personality type. Thus, construction of the subscales in the above manner assures the establishment of the required LINK between: (a) a verification of the principle of shifting alternative expression presumed to apply to the hypothesized themata and the specific items of expressed ideology (and/ or actions) depicting these themata, on the one hand; and (b) the certification of whether certain hypothesized themata are related and unequivocally expressed, as hypothesized by the propositions and deductions, on the other. Hence, a bridge is established between the demand for theoretical certitude which is non-equivocal and the equivocality of themata, (actions), and specific items of expressed ideologies, which the method of probability statistics is designed to handle.318 In concluding this section it is essential to consider briefly theoretical adequacy; and then direct attention to the indispensable core of the requisite theory required to sustain the crucial test of empirical validity (if the theory is to be proven empirically tenable). As regards theoretical adequacy, it is evident that empirical validity is unnecessary. That is to say, the structural properties of a theory may be theoretically adequate without necessarily being empirically valid.817 To be theoretically ade318

Concerning the paradox between the no-equivocality requirement inherent in the structural properties of a theory; and the equivocality of themata, actions, and specific items of expressed ideologies, the following observation may be worth noting. Given a comon "root" source of derivations: it is evident that the higher the level of inclusiveness, the fewer the prior derivations - until a level of inclusiveness is reached which is preceded by no other derivation. At the point of the latter the highest in level of inclusiveness is equivalent to the earliest in derivation. Hence, the higher the level of inclusiveness, the greater the correspondence to homogeneous classes (including the laws that apply to homogeneous classes) and the lesser the equivocality. These considerations call attention to the recognition that lawfulness as it pertains to data behaving in accordance with homogeneous classes applied to the class and hence to each unit comprising the class. Whereas, lawfulness as it pertains to data behaving in accordance with the laws of probability applies only to the aggregate. As such, the lawfulness characterizing the principle of shifting alternative expression contains elements that respectively correspond to both of the preceding types. In this connection compare pages 16-17, 93-95, and footnote number 253 in section C of this chapter. 317 In this connection Cohen and Nagel have observed: "It is obvious that it is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine the truth of a proposition directly, but relatively easy to establish the truth of another proposition from which the one at issue can be deduced." Morris R. Cohen, and Ernest Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method (New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1934), p. 22. Cf. also: Rudolf Carnap, "The Two Concepts of Probability", in Readings in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Herbert Feigl and May Brodbeck, op. cit., pp. 438-41. This short section by Carnap, on "the logical concepts of confirmation", constitutes an excellent brief statement. See also Davis' discussion of the "Malthus-

184

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

quate a theory need only be satisfactory (in particular, logically sound) as a deductive system, and allow for the essential deductions required to account, unequivocally, for the body of data it proposes to explain. In the latter respect, since the deductions allowable by the structural properties of the requisite theory can account, unequivocally, for all the attributes (i.e., thema or "characteristics") uniformly attributed to the authoritarian personality, there can be no question regarding theoretical adequacy. By virtue of this recognition it may even be reasoned as follows with respect to the theory's potential empirical validity. Assuming that the "characteristics" (and the behavior in which they are depicted), attributed to the authoritarian personality are accurate: then, since the requisite theory (by means of the deductions allowable) can account, unequivocally, for these "characteristics", the "factors" between which the relationships are proposed, as well as the interrelationships among the propositions, are unassailable. In which case, the failure to sustain empirical validity can only obtain insufficient qualification of the propositions per se - hence, requiring only relatively minor modifications and/or extensions. Be that as it may: inasmuch as the structural properties of the requisite theory entail more than what is indispensible to its structure, it is possible that some facets of its structure could prove to be empirically untenable while its essential core remains empirically demonstrable. As such, attention is directed to what constitutes the indispensible core which must sustain the crucial test of empirical validity. To answer this question it is necessary to worm the indispensible core from amidst the structural properties in which it is embedded. Recapitulated, the structural properties of the theory break down into the following two minimal independent proposals. (1) The occurrence of (D)318 in the "contemporary present" signifies the existence of (G, S. W)319 as derivatives of a genetic development along certain lines. Hence, D, G, S, and W, will consistently recur toian theory as a deductive system"; "Malthus and the Theory of Population", in The Language of Social Research - A Reader in the Methodology of Social Research, edited by Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1955), pp. 546-49. 318 D = a diversity of strong id-impulses. sis g = pronounced undifferentiation of corresponding id-strivings and their affects. S = circumscribed ego integration - pervasive and rigid ego defenses - constricted ego organization W = extensive use of repression and reaction-formation - pervasive existence of polarized tendencies.

SPECIFIC RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

185

gether. The preceding proposal represents a summary statement of the first and second propositions - including the most immediate deduction each allows.320 Restated, these two propositions, and their most immediate deduction, read as follows: Firstly, the greater the strength of diverse id-impulses, the more pronounced the undifferentiation of corresponding id-strivings and their affects, and the more circumscribed the ego integration. Hence: The more circumscribed the ego integration, the more pervasive and rigid the ego defenses which must be maintained to prohibit unacceptable impulses from entering consciousness - and hence the more constricted the ego organization. Secondly, the more pronounced and extensive the undifferentiation of id-strivings, the more extensive the use of reaction-formation (reversal of behavior into the opposite of the striving it expresses) as a permanent means of securing the ego organization against the return of the repressed id-strivings. Hence: The more extensive the use of reaction-formation, the more pervasive the existence of polarized tendencies wherein one pole is accepted and the other rejected - thus, the greater the disposition to employ dichotomies rather than continue in thinking, feeling, and evaluations. From a cursory examination it is readily apparent that, in accordance with the first and second propositions (including the most immediate deduction allowed by each), "factors" D, G, S, and W, are presumed to recur consistently together. Thus, regarding the theory's indispensable core, the essential "factor" (of those mentioned above as consistently recurring together) will be that "factor" in terms of which the connection is established with the succeeding independent structural proposal. In due course, an examination of the third - and final - proposition (including the most immediate deduction it allows) will reveal that "factor" in question to be "W" (extensive use of repression and reactionformation). (2) The occurrence of D, G, S, and W in conjunction with "L" (an extensive infantile super-ego organization) will produce "P" (a consistent and pervasive externalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal conflicts) in a manner hypothesized. The above structural proposal includes a summary statement of the third proposition - including the most immediate deduction it allows.321 Recapitulated this third propo320 321

For a complete formulation see pp. 152-53 and 155-56. For complete formulation see pp. 157-59.

186

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

sition and deduction state: The more extensive the use of reactionformation in conjunction with an extensive infantile super-ego organization, the more pronounced the externalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal conflicts. Hence: The conflict between the urgency toward gratification of unacceptable impulses and the dread of external authority provokes, on the one hand, submission to, identification with, and idealization of, those authorities that seem strongest and most commonly accepted (i.e., his "ingroup"); and, on the other, aggression toward, intolerance of, and projection onto, the unacceptable "others" (i.e., his "outgroup"). Given the consistent recurrence together of "factors" D, G, S, and W: and, also given the proposal that D, G, S, and W in conjunction with L will produce P in a manner hypothesized; then, in accordance with proposition number three, the "factor" "W" (extensive use of repression and reaction-formation) constitutes the essential connection between the first and second independent structural proposals. Accordingly, the indispensable core of the requisite theory consist as follows: The more extensive the use of reaction-formation in conjunction with an extensive infantile super-ego organization, the more pronounced is the externalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal conflicts expressed as specifically hypothesized: namely, (a) intolerance of, aggression toward, and projection onto, "outgroups"; and (b) identification with, idealization of, and submission to, "ingroups". This being the case, if the requisite theory is to be proven tenable the above indispensable core must sustain a crucial test for empirical validity. If the crucial test is to be achieved by means of the use of opinion-attitude scales, such scales must be constructed, and the elicited data processed (or treated), in accordance with the specific research requirements specified above.322 Even if it were not possible to demon322 it w i n have been noticed that no specific mention has been made of scale validity. This omission has been deliberate, and for reasons the reader can very well imagine. Considering the subtle complexity of the issues involved there is the inclination to wish that it could be deferred, perhaps, on some such grounds as its being "beyond the scope of the present inquiry". At present, there cannot even be the satisfaction which may be associated with the remark: "If we cannot see clearly, at least we see the obscurities clearly." In fact, it can only be muttered (but, with conviction!) that there is something more in evidence than traditional considerations would suggest or, in some instances, even allow. In accordance with customary usage a scale (or any other instrument employed to collect data considered to be relevant to some specific purpose) is considered to possess validity when it actually achieves what it was specifically constructed to achieve. Hence: if it was constructed to measure (or "measure") something, it is considered valid if it measures what it purports to measure; if it was constructed to ascertain or establish the

SPECIFIC RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS

187

strate that the requisite theory constitutes a logical derivation from the Researchers' general orientation, since there is congruence between the requisite theory and the Researchers' "Orientation theory", the crucial test for the former would still hold for the latter. The foregoing section has been devoted to the logical derivation of the specific research requirements (as they specifically pertain to the construction and processing of opinion-attitude scales) with which the Investigators of the authoritarian personality, in particular, and the investigators of "Individual Behavior" in general, are required to comply in the implementation of empirical research. Whereas these specific research requirements ultimately ensue from the initial and corollary assumptions concerning the broad body of data (Individual Behavior) for which the specific unit of study (authoritarian personality) represents a specific instance, they also represent requirements which stem most presence of something (i.e., intolerance of ambiguity, or how one perceives, or what motives are present) the instrument is valid if it does this; or, if it was constructed to verify whether relevant items of expressed ideology (and/or actions) are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata for which they are presumed to be expressions: or whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive thema from which the former is presumed to be derived, then the instrument (or scale) is valid if it achieves these purposes. Accordingly, two questions are involved when the validity of research instruments is considered. Namely: (a) what constitutes demonstration that an instrument achieves what it was specifically constructed to achieve? (b) what are the means by which it may be demonstrated that an instrument does in fact achieve what it was specifically constructed to achieve? Therefore it would appear that the solution to the latter question is dependent on the solution to the former, as well as on the specific purpose (or purposes) for which the instrument is constructed. Be that as it may, the solution to either question concerns procedures of confirmation, which insure the relation between elicited data and the specific purpose(s) for which their collection was intended. As such, the procedures of confirmation are logical ones in contradistinction to questions of fact. These considerations direct attention to those logical properties which confirm the adequacy of the theory as a deductive system, on the one hand; and to those research implications inherent in the structural properties of the theory, on the other. In this respect, the latter provides the direction and pointed focus (i.e., relationships in what form, between what classes of data, expressed in what manner) to be observed and incorporated into the construction of the instrument and processing of the data elicited; and the former provides the logic of measurement, mode of reasoning and proof, in conjunction (and/or accordance) with the requirements of the requisite methodology - embodied in the construction and processing of the instrument. Granting the preceding considerations, it must be presumed that confirmation of instrument validity, in essence, is no different from logical confirmation in general; as such, is dependent on the validity of the assumptions entailed in the mode of reasoning employed. It is on this basis that the preceding and subsequent problems pertaining to validity have been handled.

188

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

immediately from the web of relations existing among the requisite theory, the methodology of probability, and the nature of opinionattitude scales as an instrument embodying probability reasoning, logic of "measurement", and mode of proof. In this sense the above specific research requirements constitute a resultant (i.e., a product of synthesis) of prior requirements, emerging from divergent sources comprising a succession of interrelated chain of steps, which extend back to the initial element of control induced by the initial assumption. During the course of the logical derivation of the above specific research requirements it was revealed: (1) Why compliance with these requirements is essential in order to verify (a) whether relevant items of expressed ideology (and/or actions), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata for which they are presumed to be expressions: and (b) verify whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive themata from which the former is presumed to be derived: (2) Why compliance with these requirements is essential in order to establish the necessary bridge between the demand for theoretical certitude which is non-equivocal, and equivocality of themata, (actions), and specific items of expressed ideology, which the method of probability statistics is designed to handle; (3) Why the relevance of sampling considerations only apply with reference to a determination of the frequency of a given personality type in a population comprising two or more personality types, on the one hand; and in regard to the selection of representative situations, "object" types, and areas of social life, on the other; see footnote number 313 on p. 180. (4) Finally, it was revealed what constitutes the requisite theory's indispensable core, which must sustain a crucial test of empirical validity if the theory is to be proven tenable.

E.

THE "ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

It was postulated at the outset of this inquiry that the approaches to social science data are inadequate for the task for which they are being employed. Therefore, it was hypothesized that the inadequacy consists in the failure to fulfill the requirements induced by the initial and

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

189

corollary assumptions entailed in the broad bodies of data in question. More specifically, the inadequacy is due to the failure of theory, methodology, specific techniques and procedures to comply with the requirements induced by the initial and corollary assumptions underlying the broad body of data for which the specific unit of study represents an instance. As such, the character of the present inquiry required, as a separate treatment, a logical derivation of the requisite theory, methodology, and specific research requirements - as prescribed by the initial and corollary assumptions, on the one hand; and an examination of the actual substantive body of "theory" and research of a representative social science approach, on the other. In turn, it was necessary to utilize the former as independent criteria to assess the adequacy of the latter. Thus far, the logical derivation of the independent criteria with which it is essential to comply (in the actual implementation of theory and research pertaining to "Individual Behavior", in general, and the authoritarian personality, in particular) has been accomplished. In addition, there has been a determination of the extent to which the Researchers' supposed personality theory (i.e., their so-called " 'orientation' theory") complies with the requisite personality theory.823 In the remainder of chapter III (comprising this section-E) it is necessary to determine whether what the "original" Researchers investigated, complies with the prescriptions emanating from the requisite theory, on the one hand, and whether how they investigated it complies with the obligatory specific research requirements, on the other. In the above connection it is essential to bear in mind the following considerations. (1) If their approach is to lay claim to being adequate, WHAT the Researchers investigated must be in accordance with the direction and pointed focus prescribed by the requisite theory. As a conceptual "representation" of the structure and functioning of the authoritarian personality, the requisite theory proposes an explanation of the type of behavioral data subsumed under this label. Accordingly, the requisite theory specifies the form in which the relationships between certain hypothesized themata (or "characteristics") are presumed to be manifested in and expressed by, the authoritarian personality. Hence, in view of the fact that the "more directly observable" characteristics (or themata), singled out for empirical investigation by the Researchers, are the same as those drawn from the deductions derived from the requisite theory, it is not sufficient to merely establish 823

See pp. 162-72 of this work.

190

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

and compare the presence or absence of these characteristics (or themata) for each personality type studied.824 What requires investigating is whether certain hypothesized characteristics (or themata) occur in certain forms of relationships which are only manifested in, and expressed by, the authoritarian personality, as hypothesized. (2) Correspondingly, if the Researchers' approach is to further sustain the test of adequacy, HOW they investigated what they did must comply with the specific research requirements logically derived in the preceding section (i.e., section D). With the preceding considerations in mind attention will be directed to: (1) what the "Original" Researchers investigated, and (2) how they investigated it. 1.

WHAT the Researchers

Investigated

In the opening paragraph of their Introduction, addressed to a statement of their problem, the "original" Researchers set forth the "hypothesis" that guided their investigation. This "hypothesis" appears as follows. The research to be reported in this volume was guided by the following major hypothesis: that the political, economic, and social convictions of an individual often form a broad and coherent pattern, as if bound together by a "mentality" or "spirit," and that this pattern is an expression of deeplying trends in his personality. The major concern was with the potentially fascistic individual, one whose 324 An admission of recognition of this condition is reflected in the Researchers' following remarks: " . . . Sometimes high and low scorers are similar in what they say in politico-economic terms, but different in some more subtle way; just as sometimes they are superficially different but similar with respect to underlying trends." Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 657. In another context they note: " . . . highs and lows do not seem to differ in the amount of their underlying dependency (or other deep trends); the difference lies, rather, in the way such impulses are handled and integrated in the personality ...". Ibid., p. 553. And elsewhere they remark: " . . . The same ideological trends may in different individuals have different sources, and the same personal needs may express themselves in different ideological trends." Ibid., p. 2. (Emphasis mine.) Each of the above citations is congruent with the two relevant implications which were logically derived from the initial and corollary assumptions underlying their approach; namely, (1) "identical" personality structures may be manifested in different behavioral expressions, and "identical" behavioral expression may be manifestations of personality structures of different types; (2) diversity of personality types is due to the manner in which idstrivings are handled - thus, to ego and superego organizations. As such, it is presumed that each instance of a given personality type has evolved, and employs, essentially the same permanent modes of handling id-strivings.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

191

personality structure is such as to render him particularly susceptible to antidemocratic propaganda. .. ,825 Six paragraphs later the Researchers reiterate in a similar manner: The present inquiry into the nature of the potentially fascistic individual began with anti-Semitism in the focus of attention. . . . The question was, rather, why is it that certain individuals accept these ideas while others do not? And since from the start the research was guided by the hypotheses stated above, it was supposed (1) that anti-Semitism probably is not a specific or isolated phenomenon but a part of a broader ideological framework, and (2) that an individual's susceptibility to this ideology depends primarily upon his psychological needs.»46 In the aforestated hypotheses the Researchers put forward the two "major" relationships constituting the central focus of what was investigated. Restated, these two relationships in question may be expressed as follows: (a) the numerous opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by an individual are interwoven products of a broad and consistent ideological pattern; and (b) this ideological pattern is an expression of the individual's personality structure. Confirmation that these two "major" relationships do in fact constitute the central focus of what was investigated consists in the detailed descriptive report of their execution of the investigation. Brought into sharp relief, their execution of the investigation actually consisted of the following general procedures identifiable in terms of the specific objectives which each procedure was employed to achieve in the processing of the collected data. These general procedures are listed in the order of their execution. a. There are inter and intra-correlations of opinion-attitude scales constructed to depict each ideological area ("political, economic, and social convictions") selected for consideration.327 Regardless of any other functions the use of this procedure may have served, the Researchers' primary objective was to achieve through its use a verification of the first hypothesized "major" relationship - namely, the numerous 385

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 1. Ibid., pp. 2-3. In another context it is remarked: ".. . W e were concerned, as stated in Chapter I, with the problem of the consumption of ideology by the individual: granted that various ideologies are present in the social environment, why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more democratic forms? The general assumption made was that, granted the possibility of choice, an individual will be most receptive to that ideology which has most psychological meaning for him and the most significant function within his overall adjustment " Ibid., p. 100. 327 The opinion-attitude scales in question are: the "Anti-Semitism (A-S) Scale", the "Ethnocentrism (E) Scale", and the "Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) Scale". 326

192

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by an individual are interwoven products of a broad and coherent ideological pattern. Moreover, this general procedure constitutes the only systematic means (in fact, the only direct means) employed to achieve this objective. b. The above-mentioned opinion-attitude scales, "depicting" the selected ideological areas, are then inter and intra-correlated with a scale constructed to depict "central" personality "trends" ("dispositions" or themata).328 In this instance, as in the first, it is essential to note: regardless of any other functions the use of this procedure may have served, the Researchers' primary objective was to achieve through its use a verification of the second hypothesized "major" relationship. Namely, the hypothesized ideological pattern is an expression of the individual's personality structure. Although this procedure does not constitute the only systematic means (if the latter is used somewhat loosely) employed to achieve the preceding objective, it does represent their principal means.829 In this regard it will be noted that the two succeeding procedures also have this same objective as one of their junctions. c. There are comparison of subjects qualifying as representatives of authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities (by their ranks on the Ethnocentrism scale, and in some instances, one or more of the other opinion-attitude scales), with respect to whether they differ in rating on personality categories educed from, and applied to, data elicited by 328

In the latter instance the scale in question is the "Fascism (F) Scale". Confirmation for this assertion, of course, lies in: (a) what is revealed to be the relevant objectives which the Researchers sought to achieve through the implementation of each general procedure - as disclosed in what they actually did in the execution of the investigation: (b) the relevance of each objective for verifying one or the other of the two "major" hypothesized relationships; and (c) the potential adequacy inherent in each general procedure for achieving the objective of verifying one or the other of the two "major" hypothesized relationships. As such, in the latter connection, one need only compare the second with the succeeding third and fourth general procedures. However, if there is congruence between what the Researchers say and what is revealed in what they actually do, additional confirmation may also be found in what they say. Since in the above respect there is congruence, the following citation is admissible as additional confirmation. The first two sentences of the citation pertain particularly to the third succeeding general procedure. It is remarked: " . . . Actually, the system of scoring categories reflects the theory of the interrelationships between personality and prejudice which was empirically developed in the course of the exploratory study of the bulk of the interviews, individual by individual. This exploratory study preceded the more elaborate checking procedure in which the individual lost his identity in a mass of statistical evidence organized in terms of the scoring categories and evaluated in terms of larger groups. It is only through such a statistical procedure that the original hypotheses can be, and in fact have been to a considerable extent, verified." The Authoritarian and Personality, op. cit., p. 293. (Emphasis mine.) 329

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

193

interview, projective questions, and a modified version of the Thematic Apperception Test. In essence, this procedure determines whether the personality categories, educed from and applied to the sources of data mentioned above, differentiate those subjects qualifying as authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities by means of a "different" test. Hence, one or more of the previously mentioned opinion-attitude scales, "depicting" the selected ideological areas, is "correlated" with "scoring categories" constructed so as to incorporate those personality qualities presumed to characterize personality differences between authoritarian and non-authoritarian types. As such, the principal objective of this procedure, regardless of any additional functions it may have served, was to achieve a verification of the second hypothesized "major" relationship; namely, the hypothesized ideological pattern is an expression of the individual's personality structure. d. Finally, there is a "supplementary general procedure" consisting of intuitive interpretations of excerpts, drawn mainly from the nonclinical parts of interviews with authoritarian and non-authoritarian subjects, bearing on problems and issues pertaining to each of the selected ideological areas. The primary objective of this procedure, as expressed by the Researcher in question, was to obtain "more information about the specific structure of the ideologies and the manner in which personality is expressed in them. . .".8S0 In this regard he notes: " . . . There is good reason to believe that the non-clinical sections of the interview constitute through their inherent structure a link between ideology and personality.. ,".331 Having thus established that each of the general procedures, employed by the Researchers to process their collected data, entailed as their principal objective the verification of one or the other (or both) of the two "major" hypothesized relationships, it is thus confirmed that these two "major" relationships did in fact constitute the central focus of WHAT was investigated by the "original" Researchers. This being the case, it may now be asked whether what the Researchers actually investigated was in accordance with the direction and pointed focus prescribed by their requisite theory. In other words: Does what the Researchers actually investigated comply with what required investigating as prescribed in the direction and pointed focus inherent in their requisite theory? Certainly it is readily apparent from even a cursory examination that 930

»"

Ibid., Ibid.

p. 603. (Emphasis mine.)

194

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

the Researchers' two "major" hypothesized relationships are consistent with their requisite theory. This consistency adheres in the fact that the latter constitutes a specific type instance of the former. Yet, in spite of this consistency, it does not follow that a verification of one establishes the verification of the other. In fact, whereas a verification of the requisite theory may possibly (though not necessarily) establish the verification of the Researchers' two "major" hypothesized relationships, verification of the latter cannot possibly constitute a verification of the requisite theory. This implication is discernible from the recognition that the requisite theory signifies what thematic opinions, attitudes, and values will be interwoven into what form of broad and coherent ideological pattern constituting a product and expression of a particular type of personality structure - labeled the authoritarian personality. As such, EVEN if the general procedures, executed by the Researchers in processing their data, were to provide verification of their two "major" hypothesized relationships, this hypothetical result would not have "significant" relevance with respect to the empirical validity of a particular personality theory, whether it be the Researchers' requisite authoritarian personality theory, or any other. Thus far, it is evident that the two "major" hypothesized relationships, constituting the central focus of what was investigated, do not comply with what required investigating. The pointed focus prescribed by a theory ( A N Y theory of the authoritarian personality consistent with the two hypothesized relationships in the sense of being a specific type instance of them) would at least signify: (a) what thematic opinions, attitudes, and values will be interwoven into what form of broad and coherent ideological pattern; and (b) what type of personality structure expresses such an ideological pattern. In fact, neither of the general procedures employed by the Researchers is of a type which would enable them to verify the existence of a presumed form of broad ideological pattern; neither would these general procedures enable them to verify the existence of a presumed (i.e., hypothesized) personality structure and functioning - if one means by personality structure the dynamic relationships of which it is comprised. At most, only the last of the four general procedures (i.e., the intuitive interpretations of excerpts from interviews) would enable the Researchers to even determine to any extent what the form may be for such an ideological pattern; or, what the personality structure and functioning may be for an authoritarian personality type. As for the first three general procedures, the most that each is capable of achieving (in the way of verifying, or disclosing, the

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

195

existence of certain relationships) is an establishment of the frequency (expressed in some form of ratio) of SOMETHING occurring in association with the occurrence of SOMETHING else.332 As previously noted, to sustain the test of adequacy, insofar as complying with what required investigating, it was necessary to investigate whether certain hypothesized "characteristics" (or, themata) occur in certain forms of relationships manifested in, and expressed only by, the authoritarian personality, as hypothesized. So far, an examination of what the Researchers say they investigated - as set forth in their two "major" hypotheses, as well as what they actually did - as reflected in the general procedures employed to process their collected data, has revealed a failure to sustain the test of adequacy. Considering the general procedures and their having been implemented with the principal objective of verifying one or the other (or both) of the two "major" hypothesized relationships (constituting the central focus of what was investigated), one may even ask: How could such an investigation have in fact constituted a study of the authoritarian personality - at all? The answer to this question lies in the specific types of contents incorporated into the construction of the "data collecting instruments" developed specifically for the investigation, on the one hand; and on the other, in the contents incorporated into "scoring categories" educed from, and applied to, data elicited by means of certain widely-used standard type instruments. Accordingly, the selection of these contents (including the form into which these contents were fashioned in the specifically constructed instruments, on the one hand, and into "scoring categories" derived from data elicited by standard type instruments, on the other) was guided by the Researchers' so-called "'orientation' theory" of the authoritarian personality. In essence, this means that in the construction of the specifically developed instruments (i.e., the scales), as well as in the development of their "scoring (personality) categories", contents were sought (selected, and incorporated) which the Researchers presumed would differentiate authoritarian from non-authoritarian personalities. As such, their understanding of the difference between authoritarians and non-authoritarians was provided by, and/or represented in or as, their so-called "'orientation' theory".833 332

In this connection one is reminded of such high co-variations as reported to exist between the chirp of crickets and the eating of ice cream; or, the inverse relation between the fall of the price of corn and the severity of hay fever cases. 333 In this regard the Researchers note: " . . . Since the main personality trends of concern in the present research were those differentiating highs and lows on ethno-

196

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

From the preceding revelation it is now apparent that the relationships requiring investigation were those which presumably enabled the Researchers to differentiate between authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities. Since these are the relationships governing the selection of the contents, and the form in which these contents were incorporated into the specifically constructed instruments and personality "scoring categories", it is most unlikely that these relationships could have been a subject of what was investigated; unless, of course, these relationships and their corresponding conditions were built into the structure of the specifically constructed instruments, and subjected to specific research procedures not yet considered. The latter considerations will be examined in the second part of this section. The foregoing disclosures are of such crucial significance in the development of the next step in this analysis that, at the risk of appearing to belabor the obvious, they will be recapitulated in order to safeguard against any misunderstanding of what has been divulged. It has been revealed that: (a) the central focus of what was actually investigated by the "original" Reserachers comprised two "major" hypothesized relationships; (b) each of the general procedures (employed to process the collected data) entailed as its principal objective the verification of one or the other (or both) of these two "major" relationships; and (c) even if the general procedures were to provide verification of these two "major" relationships, this hypothetical result would provide centrism, high categories and low categories were sought. The high categories incorporated those psychological qualities which were found to characterize the responses of the ethnocentric subjects, while the low categories appeared to characterize the anti-ethnocentric s u b j e c t s . . . . "It should be noted that the determination and use of categories is not a purely mechanical and atheoretical procedure. The importance of an overall personality theory, especially as applied to the understanding of differences between highs and lows, can hardly be overestimated as an aid in dealing with projective items . . . " . The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 549. Elsewhere it is remarked: " . . . If the reader considers that most of what has gone before in this volume was either known or thought about before construction of the F-Scale began, it will be apparent that in devising the scale we did not proceed in a strictly empirical fashion. We did not consider starting with hundreds of items, chosen more or less at random and then seeing by trial and error which ones might be associated with A-S and E. For every item there was a hypothesis, sometimes several hypotheses, stating what might be the nature of its connection with prejudice " "Once a hypothesis had been formulated concerning the way in which some deeplying trend in the personality might express itself in some opinion or attitude that was dynamically, though not logically, related to prejudice against outgroups, a preliminary sketch for an item was usually not far to seek " Ibid., p. 225. See also pp. 62, 293.

"ORIGINAL"

EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

197

no basis for establishing, or assessing, the empirical validity of an authoritarian personality theory. Furthermore, the preceding disclosures raise the question of how such an investigation could have constituted a study of the authoritarian personality at all. The answer to this question revealed that an investigation of the authoritarian personality occurred by means which included: (a) the choosing of contents (including the form in which these contents were fashioned in the specifically constructed instruments, and the "scoring categories" derived from data elicited by standard type instruments) presumed by the Researchers to be of a type that would differentiate authoritarian from non-authoritarian personalities; and (b) the selection of these contents, categories, and manner of handling them, in accordance with the understanding they possessed of the difference between the authoritarians and non-authoritarians - an understanding provided by, and/or represented in or as, their "'orientation' theory". Since neither of the general procedures (regardless of any additional functions they may have served aside from their principal objective of verifying the two "major" hypotheses) could possibly contribute to an assessment of the validity of the relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality, there is inherent in the Researchers' method a decisive incongruity: an incongruity, which, by virtue of its centrality in their method, adversely affects the outcome of their research efforts. This incongruity is as follows: the choice of contents and their form (as incorporated into scales) was governed by the objective of differentiating authoritarians from non-authoritarians - and hence had as their source the Researchers' "'orientation' theory"; whereas the general procedures employed to process data collected by means of the scales (referred to above) were governed by (and hence had as their source) the principal objective of verifying the Researchers' two "major" hypotheses. Since verification of their two "major" hypotheses cannot possibly contribute to an assesment of the validity of their "'orientation' theory", these two different sources of their procedural methods are, from the point of view of their method, incongruous. A t the outset of the present inquiry it was assumed that the criteria for judging the adequacy of an approach to data must be the same as those criteria establishing the legitimacy, relevancy, and efficacy of the specific techniques and procedures entailed in that approach. Hence, it was reasoned as follows: either (a) compliance with no given sum of specific criteria (in terms of which the legitimacy, relevancy, and efficacy of specific procedures are established) is sufficient to insure the

198

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

yielding of demonstrable social science knowledge; or, (b) there has been no instance in which a study in the Social Sciences (implemented with the objective of achieving demonstrable knowledge) has fulfilled each of the specific (i.e., individual) criteria required to establish the legitimacy and relevancy of the specific techniques and procedures it employed.334 In pursuing this line of reasoning it was apparent that one was impelled to reject the plausibility of (b). Having rejected the plausibility of (b) the following paradox emerged. If the sum of specific criteria establishing the legitimacy and relevancy of specific procedures entailed in an approach, is equal to the sum of specific criteria required to judge the adequacy of that approach, how is it then possible that compliance in the one respect is not sufficient in the other? The resolution of this paradox led to the recognition that the numerous specific techniques and procedures (in addition to each being legitimate and relevant in and of itself) must cohere as an interrelated chain of steps. Without this coherence, the specific criteria involved may establish the legitimacy, and even the relevancy of the technique (and/or procedure) in and of itself, yet the technique (and/or procedure) is nevertheless being employed without reference to the more inclusive criteria establishing its legitimacy and relevancy in the broader context of the particular inquiry. In which case, the legitimacy and relevancy of the technique (and/or procedure) in question may be negated, and hence nullified (i.e., negated in that particular context in which a given chain of steps is required to take a particular direction by the initial and corollary assumptions, if the theoretical problem is to be solved). The incongruity noted above represents a prime example of how the more inclusive criteria (those pertaining to the general procedures) may negate, and hence nullify, the less inclusive criteria (those pertaining to procedures by which the scale contents and 'scoring categories' are constructed and initially processed) establishing the legitimacy of each specific technique and/or procedure in question. 2. HOW the "Original" Researchers Investigated What They Studied The task posed at the beginning of the section was to determine whether what the Researchers investigated complied with the prescriptions emanating from the requisite theory, on one hand; and whether how 334

F o r derivation and elaboration see pp. 1-20.

"ORIGINAL"

EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

199

they investigated complied with the obligatory specific research requirements, on the other. The foregoing examination of what the Researchers say they investigated - as set forth in their two "major" hypotheses, as well as what they actually investigated - as reflected in the general procedures employed to process their collected data, has revealed a failure to sustain the test of adequacy. Attention will now be directed to ascertain whether, how the Researchers investigated what they studied, sustains a test of adequacy: a test of adequacy assessed in terms of how well how they investigated what they studied complies with the obligatory specific research requirements inherent in their approach, and logically derived in the preceding section. These obligatory specific research requirements, it will be recalled, pertain to the construction of their "data collection instruments", as well as to the initial and subsequent procedures required to process data collected by means of such instruments. Of course, in examining what the Researchers investigated, a brief presentation of the general procedures employed to process their collected data was introduced. But as yet there has been no consideration of the specific procedures entailed in the construction of the specifically developed instruments, "scoring (personality) categories", and manner in which data elicited by means of each were initially handled (or processed). Consequently, the latter shall constitute the focus of attention. Considering the disclosures uncovered in the preceding part of this section it would appear as if the present task poses certain complications: complications centering around whether it is necessary to determine if, how the Researchers investigated what they studied complies with (a) what they actually investigated, or (b) what required investigating. However, such complications as would ordinarily be anticipated do not arise for the following reason. Although the Researchers' general procedures do not have direct bearing on what required investigating, the specific (and/or initial) procedures to be considered were supposedly governed by, and hence should have direct bearing on, what required investigating. In addition, as has already been noticed, there is the remote possibility that the relationships requiring investigation, including their corresponding conditions, were built into the construction of the specifically developed instruments (i.e., their scales); and the data achieved thereby may have been subjected to specific research procedures designed to assess the validity of these relationships. Be that as it may, it has been established that an investigation of these relationships, characterizing the authoritarian personality, entails

200

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

certain obligatory specific research requirements which must be fulfilled, regardless of how they may be investigated. A s previously noted, these specific research requirements are essential in order to verify: (a) whether the relevant items of ideology (and/or actions), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata for which they are presumed to be expressions; and (b) whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive thema from which the former is presumed to be derived. A s such, the structure of each scale (presuming scales are used for this purpose) must reflect the various levels of organized data subsumed under each "factor" (or variable) between which the theoretical relationships are proposed. Correspondingly, the manner of scale construction must fulfill the probability requirements existing as a consequence of these data "behaving", at these various levels, in accordance with the laws of probability. Consequently, the structure of each scale is required to embody the principle of alternative expression presumed to exist at these various levels, as manifested in: (a) the specific items of ideology (and/or actions) which represent alternative expressions of the thema they depict; (b) the alternative thematic expressions at each successive level of inclusiveness; (c) the successively less inclusive themata constituting alternative expressions of their antecedents; and (d) each thema at the various levels of inclusiveness constituting alternative expressions of the respective "factors" (or variables) under which it is subsumed — and between which the relationships are proposed.335 With the preceding conditions fresh in mind, it is now feasible to proceed with the task of ascertaining how well how the Researchers investigated what required investigating complies with the requirements inherent in the latter. A s a point of departure the analysis will begin with an examination of the contents and form in which these contents were incorporated in the construction of scales and "scoring categories", each (scales and categories) followed in turn with an examination of the manner in which data elicited by means of each (scales and categories) was initially processed. The Opinion-Attitude Scales, their Contents and Structure In the execution of their investigation the Researchers employed four opinion-attitude scales. Three of these four scales were designed to 335

For a detailed exposition see preceding section (D).

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

201

provide information concerning opinions, attitudes and values, drawn from three ideological areas: information which would depict ideological differences between authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities. The fourth scale was designed to provide information which would depict differences in "central personality trends" (or "dispositions") between authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities. All but one 336 of the four scales are comprised of subscales. In turn, each subscale is comprised of items pertaining to a general theme, or "personality trend" ("disposition") as in the case of the last-mentioned scale. The succeeding presentation will reveal the type of content each scale incorporates, as well as the form in which these contents are incorporated; including the general theme embodied in each subscale and the form "assumed" by items pertaining to each subscale theme. a. Scales designed to depict ideological differences 1. The Anti-Semitism (A-S) Scale337 (subscale general themes with illustrative items) (a) "Offensive" There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always something basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is never totally changed. (b) "Threatening" One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and connive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. (c) "Attitudes" (negative or hostile) Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large percentage of Jews. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to keep out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews and to keep out of the public notice.

336 337

The Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) Scale. The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., pp. 62-67.

202

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(d) "Seclusive" and "Intrusive" T h e Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and stick-togetherness of Jews.

2.

The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere. T h e Ethnocentrism (E) Scale 3 3 8 (This scale is comprised of three subscales. Each subscale "pertains", respectively, to Negroes; minorities in general; uncritical attachment to national cultural values and group ways, and nations as outgroups - the latter subscale given the label "patriotism". It is important to note that the general "underlying trends" (or themes) which each set of subscale items is supposed to represent are not clear. Yet, by definition and the Researchers' summary remarks (pp. 145-50), the subject (ethnocentrism) of the scale leaves no doubt regarding what these general underlying themes are.) 3 3 9

ibid., pp. 105-09. ' This is to say that the Researchers' summary remarks suggest that their understanding of the phenomenon of ethnocentrism emerged after the construction of the scale which was designed to depict and "measure" it. Evidence to support this inference is found not only in the haphazard construction of the scale - as reflected in the labels given each subscale, the general themes which the subscale items are reputed to represent (see subsequent footnotes 340 and 341), and the inclusion of anti-Semitism into the final form of the scale structure, but also in the manner in which the definition of ethnocentrism is introduced. In the latter regard the Researchers note: "From these considerations the following general statement emerges. Ethnocentrism is based on a pervasive and rigid ingroup-outgroup distinction; it involves stereotyped negative imagery and hostile attitudes regarding outgroups, stereotyped positive imagery and submissive attitudes regarding ingroups, and a hierarchical, authoritarian view of group interaction in which ingroups are rightly dominant, outgroups subordinate." (P. 150.) In accordance with this definition, and their concluding remarks regarding ethnocentrism, the underlying general themes for which the subscale items (regardless of the outgroup in question) are required to be indicative are such themes as: threatening, power-seeking, rejection, subordination, segregation or exclusion, offensive, negative and/or hostile attitudes and imagery; in essence, as noted by the Researchers (p. 148), essentially the same underlying general themes as those found in anti-Semitic ideology. It is inconceivable how such inadequacies could have occurred had the requisite theory provided the direction and pointed focus for the empirical investigation. The indispensible core of the requisite theory forecasts: the more extensive the use of reaction-formation in conjunction with an extensive infantile super-ego organization, the more pronounced the externalization of unacceptable impulses, and internal conflicts - expressed as (a) intolerance of, aggression toward, and projection onto, "outgroups"; and (b) identification with, idealization of, and submission to, "ingroups". It would appear that the above inadequacies represent further consequences of the failure to systematically formulate their requisite theory. Failing to do so they presumed that "the more directly observable and measurable aspects of 33

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

203

(a) "Negro" 340 Most Negroes would become officious, overbearing, and disagreeable if not kept in their place. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level as whites are mostly radical agitators trying to stir up conflicts. (b) "Minorities"341 The most vicious, irresponsible, and racketeering unions are, in most cases, those having largely foreigners for leaders. Filipinos are all right in their place, but they carry it too far when they dress lavishly, buy good cars, and go around with white girls.

personality" (singled out for empirical investigation) stemmed from some source other than that from which they actually ensued. As the present inquiry progresses similar revelations will appear to suggest that an execution of empirical research in stages is no substitute for the direction and pointed focus provided by a systematically formulated theory. Cf. pp. 164-68, 100-08 of this work. 340 In reference to the underlying general themes which the items of this subscale are presumed to represent, the Researchers remark: "These items attempt to cover most of the current ideology regarding Negroes and Negro-White relations. Negroes are described as lazy and ignorant (Item 5) and as not really wanting equality with whites (Item 22) (reproduced as second item above): it is 'radical agitators' who stir them up. Do individuals with the opinion that Negroes are 'naturally' lazy or unambitious also have the attitude that when Negroes do strive for higher status they should be 'kept in their place' (Item 34) and prevented from having positions of leadership (Item 11)? Is the attitude that Negroes should be segregated (Items 2, 8, 14) held by the same persons who regard Negroes as threatening and inferior and who favor more active subordination of Negroes? These are some of the questions underlying this subscale " Ibid., pp. 106-07. Emphasis mine.) Cf. preceding footnote number 339. Of course, it may be alleged that by means of such item correlations it is possible to infer the underlying general themes of which the items of this subscale are required to be indicative. Moreover, it may even be adduced, the subscale performs additional functions besides its principal objective. Whatever the merit of such allegations may be, it is clearly apparent that the relationships (characterizing the authoritarian personality) requiring investigation are not built into the structure of this scale-, and if these relationships, and their corresponding conditions, are not built into the scale structure there can be no specific procedures capable of being employed which would allow for an assessment of the validity of these relationships - although they may have guided the selection of the scale contents and their form. 341 Regarding the underlying general themes which the items of this subscale are presumed to represent, the Researchers state: the subscale deals "with various American minority groups (other than Jews and Negroes) about which negative opinions and imagery often exist and toward which attitudes of subordination, restriction of social functioning, segregation, and the like are often directed . . . " . Ibid., p. 107.

204

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(c) "Patriotism" 3 4 2 T h e main threat to basic American institutions during this century has c o m e from the infiltration of foreign ideas, doctrines and agitators. Minor forms of military training, obedience, and discipline, such as drill, marching and simple commands, should b e made a part of the elementary school educational program. 3.

T h e Politico-Economic Conservatism ( P E C ) Scale 3 4 3 (Although this scale is not comprised of subscales, the main focus of the scale items is reported to be o n underlying ideological trends presumed to "characterize conservatism and liberalism as contrasting approaches to politico-economic problems". 3 4 4 T h e "underlying trends" in question are: (a) "Support of the American Status Quo", (b) "Resistance to Social Change", (c) "Support of Conservative Values", and (d) "Ideas Regarding the Balance of Power A m o n g Business, Labor, and Government", (a) Representative items designated as "conservative" America may not be perfect, but the American way has brought us about as close as human beings can get to a perfect society. In general, full e c o n o m i c security is bad; most m e n wouldn't work if they didn't need the money for eating and living.

,42

Concerning the specification of the label "patriotism" the Researchers assert: " . . . the term 'patriotism' as used here does not mean 'love of country'. Rather, the present concept involves blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing group ways, and rejection of other nations as outgroups " (P. 107.) Regarding the underlying general themes which the items of the subscale are presumed to represent, it is remarked: " . . . they are intended to express a general value for obedience and discipline, the opinion that nations are arranged hierarchically from superior to inferior, and the attitude that the superior ones should be dominant - with the assumption that we are one of the superior nations . . . " . Ibid., p. 108. Ibid., pp. 153-58. 344 Ibid., p. 153. While admitting that the conservative-liberal dimension "is, of course, an extremely complex one" (p. 152), the Researchers, nevertheless, conceive of each dimension as being "relatively organized and measurable patterns of current politico-economic thought" (p. 175). It is further noted that neither constitutes a single, unitary attitude; yet each is an ideological system containing a number of trends or components, sub-patterning, inconsistency, and simple ignorance (p. 176). In this connection it is remarked: " . . .The prototypic 'conservative,' in terms of the present scale, is one who supports the status quo and resists changes in existing politico-economic power arrangements, who supports conservative values and traditions, who believes that labor is properly subordinate to employer or management, and who wishes to minimize the economic functions of government in order that individual businessmen can, in free and equal competition, provide

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

205

(b) Representative items designated as "liberal" Labor unions should become stronger and have more influence generally. Most government controls over business should be continued even though the war is over. The artist and professor are just as much value to society as the businessman and the manufacturer. b.

Scale designed to depict differences in "central personality trends" (or "dispositions") between authoritarians and non-authoritarians. The Fascism (F) scale 3 4 5 (Subscale general themes with illustrative items) (a) "Conventionalism" 3 4 8 One should avoid doing things in public which appear wrong to others, even though one knows that these things are really all right. There is too much emphasis in colleges o n intellectual and theoretical topics, not enough emphasis on practical matters and on the homely virtues of living. (b) "Authoritarian submission" 3 4 7

goods of maximum quality at minimum cost to the consumer" (p. 177). " . . . The prototypic 'liberal' is, according to our guiding conception, an individual who actively seeks progressive social change, who can be militantly critical (though not necessarily totally rejective) of the present status quo, who opposes or de-emphasizes numerous conservative values and beliefs regarding business success, rugged individualism, human nature, and the like, and who would diminish the power of business by increasing the power of labor and the economic functions of government" (p. 176). 345 Ibid., pp. 226-41. 346 The Researchers define "Conventionalism" as rigid adherence to middle class values (p. 238). As such, it is remarked: " . . . If . . . adherence to conventional values is determined by contemporary external social pressure, if it is based upon the individual's adherence to the standards of the collective powers with which he, for the time being, is identified, then we should expect a close association with antidemocratic receptivity...." (P. 230.) On the other hand: " . . . If the adherence to conventional values was an expression of a fully established individual conscience, then we should expect no necessary connection between these values and antidemocratic potential...." Ibid., p. 230. Cf. deduction (c) drawn from proposition three of the requisite theory, on p. 159 of this work. See also picturesque profile of the authoritarian personality on p. 42. 347 Referring to: "submissive, uncritical attitude toward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup" (p. 228). " . . . The main emphasis was on obedience, respect, rebellion, and relations to authority in general" (p. 231). In this connection it is further remarked: " . . . It was considered that here, as in the case of conventionalism, the subservience to external agencies was probably due to some failure in the development of an inner authority, i.e., conscience. Another hypothesis was that authoritarian submission was commonly a way of handling ambivalent feelings toward

206

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. What this country needs is fewer laws and agencies, and more courageous, tireless, devoted leaders whom the people can put their faith in. (c) "Authoritarian agression"348 No insult to our honor should ever go unpunished. Homosexuality is a particularly rotten form of delinquency and ought to be severely punished. (d) "Anti-intraception" 449 There are some things too intimate or personal to talk about even with one's closest friends. Books and movies ought not to deal so much with the sordid and seamy side of life; they ought to concentrate on themes that are entertaining or uplifting. authority figures: underlying hostile and rebellious impulses, held in check by fear, lead the subject to overdo in the direction of respect, obedience, gratitude, and the like." Cf. propositions two and three of the requisite theory on pp. 155-58. 348 Denoting: "Tendency to be on the lookout for, and to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate conventional values" (p. 228). " . . . Thus, it may be said that the present variable represents the sadistic component of auhoritarianism just as the immediately foregoing one (authoritarian submission) represents its masochistic component. It is to be expected, therefore, that the conventionalist who cannot bring himself to utter any real criticism of accepted authority will have a desire to condemn, reject, and punish those who violate these values " (P. 232.) Continuing, it is further noted: " . . . it is not only that the authoritarian must condemn the moral laxness that he sees in others, but he is actually driven to see immoral attributes in them whether this has a basis in fact or not. This is a further device for countering his own inhibited tendencies; he says to himself, as it were: 'I am not bad and deserving of punishment, he is.' In other words the individual's own unacceptable impulses are projected onto other individuals and groups who are then rejected . . . " . (P. 233.) Cf. proposition number three and the succeeding deductions of the requisite theory, on p. 157-59. See also the picturesque portrayal of the authoritarian personality on pp. 41-42 of this work. M * "Anti-intraception" is employed to denote: "opposition to the subjective, the imaginative, the tenderminded" (p. 228). In this regard it is also remarked: " . . . The extremely anti-intraceptive individual is afraid of thinking about human phenomena because he might, as it were, think the wrong thoughts; he is afraid of genuine feeling because his emotions might get out of control. Out of touch with large areas of his own inner life, he is afraid of what might be revealed if he, or others, should look closely at himself. He is therefore against 'prying', against concern with what people think and feel, against unnecessary 'talk', instead he would keep busy, devote himself to practical pursuits, and instead of examining inner conflict, turn his thoughts to something cheerful . . . " . Ibid., p. 235. Cf. the first proposition and succeeding deductions of the requisite theory on pp. 152. See also (c) on pp. 86-88, including footnote 82 on p. 88, and pp. 91-93 of this work.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

207

(e) "Superstition and stereotypy"350 Every person should have a deep faith in some supernatural force higher than himself to which he gives total allegiance and whose decisions he does not question. It is more than a remarkable coincidence that Japan had an earthquake on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1944. (f) "Power and toughness"351 To a greater extent than most people realize, our lives are governed by plots hatched in secret by politicians. Too many people today are living in an unnatural, soft way; we should return to the fundamentals, to a more redblooded active way of life. (g) "Destructiveness and cynicism"352 350

Specified as: "The belief in mystical determinants of the individual's fate; the disposition to think in rigid categories" (p. 228). In this conection it is remarked: " . . . It might be hypothesized that one reason why people in modern society - even those who are otherwise 'intelligent' or 'informed' - resort to primitive, oversimplified explanations of human events is that so many of the ideas and observations needed for an adequate account are not allowed to enter into the calculations: because they are affect-laden and potentially anxiety-producing, the weak ego cannot include them within its scheme of things. More than this, those deeper forces within the personality which the ego cannot integrate with itself are likely to be projected onto the outer world; this is a source of bizarre ideas concerning other peoples' behavior and concerning the causation of events in nature" (p. 236). Cf. the first proposition and succeeding deductions of the requisite theory on pp. 15253; including footnotes 253, 255, 257 of this chapter. Also see pp. 142-43, particularly footnote number 236 of this chapter. 351 Denoting: "Preoccupation with the dominance-submission, strong-weak, leaderfollower dimension; identification with power figures; overemphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of the ego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness" (p. 228). In this regard it is remarked: " . . . The underlying hypothesis is that overplay of toughness may reflect not only the weakness of the ego but also the magnitude of the task it has to perform, that is to say, the strength of certain kinds of needs which are prescribed in the subject's c u l t u r e . . . . Closely related to the phenomenon of exaggerated toughness is something which might be described as a 'power complex.' Most apparent in its manifestations is overemphasis on the power motif in human relationships; there is a disposition to view all relations among people in terms of such categories as strong-weak, dominant-submissive, leader-follower, 'hammer-anvil' It appears that he wants to get power, to have it and not to lose it, and at the same time is afraid to seize and wield it. It appears that he also admires power in others and is inclined to submit to it - and at the same time is afraid of the weakness thus implied . . . (p.237). Yet, " . . . He hopes that by submitting to power he can participate in i t . . . " . (P. 238.) Cf. Propositions number two and three, including corresponding deductions, of requisite theory on pp. 155-59; noting particularly deduction (b) under each proposition. See also pp. 44-46 and 88-89 of this work. 352 Referring to: "Generalized hostility, vilification of the human" (p. 228). It is further noted: "According to the present theory (note that phrase!), the anti-

208

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

There are some activities so flagrantly un-American that, when responsible officials won't take the proper steps, the wide-awake citizen should take the law into his own hands. Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict. (h) "Projectivity"353 Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around so much and mix together so freely, a person has to be especially careful to protect himself against infection and disease. The sexual orgies of the old Greeks and Romans are nursery school stuff compared to some of the goings-on in this country today, even in circles where people might least expect it. (i) "Sex"354 No matter how they act on the surface, men are interested in women for only one reason. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped. democratic individual, because he has had to accept numerous externally imposed restrictions upon the satisfaction of his needs harbors strong underlying aggressive impulses. As we have seen, one outlet for this aggression is through displacement onto outgroups leading to moral indignation and authoritarian aggression. Undoubtedly this is a very serviceable device f o r the individual; yet, the strong underlying aggression seems at the same time to express itself in some other way - in a nonmoralized w a y . . . . "The present variable, then, refers to rationalized, ego-accepted, nonmoralized aggression . . . " . Ibid., p. 239. (Emphasis mine.) 353 Specified as: "The disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses" (p. 228). The Researchers further note: " . . . If the antidemocratic individual is disposed to see in the outer world impulses which are suppressed in himself, and we wish to know what these impulses are, then something may be learned by noting what attributes he most readily, but unrealistically, ascribes to the world around him. If an individual insists that someone has hostile designs on him, and we can find no evidence that this is true, we have good reason to suspect that our subject himself has aggressive intentions and is seeking by means of projection to justify them " Ibid., p. 240. 354 Specified as: "Exaggerated concern with sexual 'goings-on'" (p. 228). "The present variable is conceived of as ego-alien sexuality. A strong inclination to punish violators of sex mores (homosexuals, sex offenders) may be an expression of a general punitive attitude based on identification with ingroup authorities, but it also suggests that the subject's own sexual desires are suppressed and in danger of getting out of hand " Ibid., p. 241.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

209

The foregoing presentation constitutes an abbreviated reproduction of the three scales designed to depict contrasting ideological differences; and the one scale designed to depict contrasting differences in personality trends. Reproduction in each instance began with the scale title - signifying in a general way the type of contents embodied in each scale. It was followed in turn by an enumeration of each general theme - signifying the specific contents of each respective subscale comprising the separate scales, and finally a reproduction of representative items pertaining to each subscale theme. A brief examination of the contents embodied in each of the first three (ideological) scales discloses that these are contents (anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, and politico-economic conservatism) presumed to characterize the ideology expressed by authoritarian personalities. Both generally and specifically, these contents are presumed to manifest some aspect of ethnocentrism. As such, the general themes (respectively embodied in each of the subscales) are presumed to be expressions pertaining to either some aspect of rejection of "out-groups";355 or (as in the case of the PEC scale), ethnocentrism as expressed in "resistance to social change and by the tendency to subsume progressive political ideologies under the general heading of 'foreign' outgroups and ideas (threats to ingroup authority)".356 Correspondingly, the items pertaining to each subscale theme (with the exception of the PEC scale) are uniformly stated in a positive ethnocentric form; i.e., the items state the anti-Semitic, anti-Negro, or ethnocentric position. Accordingly, agreement with the items is presumed to be indicative of authoritarianism, and disagreement with the items is presumed to be indicative of non-authoritarianism. In this manner, the selected contents and the form in which these contents were incorporated into the scales were designed to differentiate individuals adhering to the contrasting ideologies of authoritarianism and non-authoritarianism. In a similar manner, the selected contents of the F-scale and the form in which these contents were incorporated into the scale were designed to differentiate between authoritarians and non-authoritarians 355

Such as: (a) meanings imputed to ascribed "outgroup characteristics" or intentions - offensive, threatening, seclusive-intrusive, power-seeking; and (b) methods of dealing with rejected "outgroups" - subordination, restriction, segregation or exclusion, liquidation as expressed in "fascism and the dissolution of democratic values" (p. 150). Presumedly these scales are designed to reflect the PATTERN of rejection or acceptance of the ideology embodied in the scale as well as how. Needless to say this is not clear! 558 Ibid., p. 180.

210

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

in terms of personality trends ("dispositions" of themata). Accordingly, in the construction of this scale, contents were chosen which were presumed to signify personality trends (i.e., conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, etc.) indicative of relationships characterizing personality differences between the two contrasting personality types. These personality trends ("dispositions" or themata) are embodied respectively in separate subscales, comprising scale items presumed to be indicative of each personality trend in question. Likewise, (with the exception of one or two instances)357 the items comprising each subscale are stated uniformly in a form presumed to be acceptable to the authoritaritan personality. Thus, it is presumed that agreement with the items is indicative of authoritarianism and disagreement indicative of non-authoritarianism. To round out those considerations entering into the structure of the scales, it is necessary to mention that aspect of scale structure which allows for "scoring" of the subject's responses. It is already apparent from the preceding considerations that the subject's responses to each scale item are required to be expressed along a continuum, ranging from agreement to disagreement. In this regard the Researchers' procedural preference was to allow six choices of response for each scale item: slight, moderate, or strong agreement, and the same "degrees" of disagreement with no middle or neutral category.358 As such, each subject was required to indicate his "degree" of agreement by marking + 1 , + 2 , or + 3 , his "degree" of disagreement by -1, -2, or —3. Having thus established for the subject such a choice of response categories, the manner of converting these responses into scores entailed choosing a scoring system which would insure the higher scores as being indicative of greater authoritarianism, and the lower scores as being indicative of greater non-authoritarianism.359 To fulfill this requirement the Researchers established the following 7-point scale. - 3 = 1 point - 2 = 2 points - 1 = 3 points 857

+ 1 = 5 points + 2 = 6 points + 3 = 7 points360

Items 12, 20, and 28, in F-scale form 78; and item 12 in F-scale forms 45 and 40. 958 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 71. 359 Thus the use of the terms "highs" and "lows" as synonyms for opposite extremes in total scores, personality "scoring categories", and contrasting personality types. s«o The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 72. In this connection the Re-

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

211

Correspondingly, the subject's scale score is achieved by summing his scores on the single items. To obtain the mean score per item the scale score (or subscale score) is divided by the number of items comprising the scale (or the subscale, in the case of the item mean for a particular subscale). Scores falling within the first and fourth quartiles are employed as limiting values for the identification of subjects qualifying as representatives of the contrasting types (i.e., first quartile or high score - authoritarian; fourth quartile or low score - nonauthoritarian).861 No serious examination of the scale contents, or the form in which they are incorporated into these scales, is necessary in order to recognize that the relationships characterizing the authoritarian personality (and thus requiring investigation) are not built into the structure of these scales. At most, only the respective personality "trends" ("dispositions" or themata), embodied in each F-suft-scale, may even be assumed to constitute reliable indices of the relationships requiring investigation. Moreover, if it was granted that the personality "trends" are reliable indices of the relationships requiring investigation, it would have to be further assumed that these "trends" are indices of the relevant relationships and no other. Furthermore, if there was evidence adduced to establish the reliability of the latter it would then be apparent that the relationships for which the personality "trends" are indices are not exclusively manifested in, and expressed by, the authoritarian personality type.362 As such, such relationships could not account unequivocally for the type of behavioral data subsumed under the label "authoritarian personality". If the relationships characterizing the authoritarian personality and requiring investigation are not built into the structure of the scales there can be no specific procedures capable of being employed which would allow for an assessment of the validity of these relationships even though they may in fact have guided the selection of the scale searchers note: " . . . the scoring skips from 3 to 5 points between - 1 and + 1 . Four points represented the hypothetical neutral response, and was assigned when the item was omitted . . . " . Ibid., p. 72. It should also be noted that in those instances (contained in the PEC and F-scales) where the form of the item runs contrary to the pro-authoritarian position (i.e., pro-ethnocentric or propolitico-economic conservative position) the scoring is reversed. For example: a "pro" item is given a high score ( + 3 = 7 points), whereas a "contrary" item is given a low score ( + 3 = 1, and so on). Cf. ibid., pp. 157 and 242. " i Cf. ibid., p. 77. aea T o be considered subsequently on pp. 227-31.

212

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

contents and their form.368 In fact, the absence of such specific procedures (intended for this purpose) will constitute definitive proof that the relationships requiring investigation were not built into the structure of the scales. Hence, to demonstrate that there is an absence of specific procedures designed to assess the validity of the relationships requiring investigation, those specific procedures (subsequent to the scoring of the scales) employed to process data obtained from the scales will be presented. These procedures are listed in the order of their execution. a. Total-scale reliability: The reliability of the total scale was obtained by correlating scores on part 1 (the half administered first) with scores on part 2 (in second half of questionnaire). All other reliabilities are based on correlations between the odd items and the even items. The correlations were corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula to give the reliability values in the table.364 b. Subscale reliability: Intercorrelations of the subscales were employed to determine the reliability of the subscales.365 c. Item reliability: In connection with the Researchers' investigation, item reliability refers to "the order of goodness of items"; i.e., the effectiveness of the item in discriminating between authoritarian and nonauthoritarian types. The technique employed was Likert's "Discriminatory Power" technique. In this regard the Researchers note: The Discriminatory Power (D.P.) of each item is obtained by the following procedure. Subjects whose total scores fall in the highest 25 per cent of the distribution are considered high scorers, while those whose scores fall in the lowest 25 per cent of the distribution are considered the low scorers. The means of the high scorers is obtained for each item and found to vary from item to item. Similarly for the low scorers. If an item measures anti-Semitism well, then Anti-Semites (high scorers), as determined by the total scale score, will make higher scores on it than will those who are opposed to anti-Semitism (low scorers). The greater the difference between the item mean for the high scorers and that for the low scorers, the greater the Discriminatory Power of that item, and the better the measure of antiSemitism it gives. A positive D.P. indicates that the item is anti-Semitic, in the sense that anti-Semites as determined by the total scale agree with the 363

In essence the incorporation of the conditions specified by, and inherent in, theoretical propositions, when constructing a data collecting instrument, is analogous to the assumptions built into a formula (statistical or otherwise). Just as in the former, the product of the latter's application is subject to the limitations of the assumptions required to be met in the collection of data to which it is applied. Cf. footnote 322 in Section D of this chapter. 384 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 73, footnote (b). 365 Ibid., pp. 74-76.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

213

item to a greater degree than do unprejudiced subjects. If an item has a negative D.P., it has apparently been scored in reverse, since low scorers agree with it more than high scorers do. .. .366 d. "Validation by case studies": This procedure involves no more than checking the scale scores of their two contrasting case study subjects: the two college men - Mack and Larry. The foregoing specific (and/or initial) procedures are uniformly employed in processing data obtained from each scale. They are the only (scale) data processing procedures employed subsequent to the "scoring of the scales" and prior to the general procedures previously disclosed.367 The most cursory observation will reveal that neither of the above specific (or initial) procedures is capable of determining the validity of the relationships for which the scale contents and their form are presumed to be indicative. In fact, each of the above specific procedures (including "d" - "validation by case studies"!) constitutes no more than attempts to establish the reliabilities of the separate scales, their subscales and items. As such, the question of whether the scales do in fact "measure" (test, establish, or verify) what they were constructed to "measure", test, establish, or verify, is actually omitted - as indicated by the absence of procedures capable of achieving such results.898 As for the general procedures, employed subsequent to the above specific procedures, it will be recalled their principal objective was to achieve verification of one or the other (or both) of the two major hypotheses: and, as such, neither of these general procedures could possibly contribute to an assessment of the validity of the relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality.369 Hence, no procedures were employed to process data obtained by means of the scales which would contribute to an assessment of the validity of the relationships requiring investigation; even though these relationships may in fact have governed the selection of scale contents and their form - scale contents incorporated in a form designed to differentiate between authoritarian and non-authoritarian personalities. During the course of establishing the absence of specific procedures 3«« Ibid., p. 77. 367

i.e., the intercorrelation of the four separate scales. See pp. 191-93 of this work. For a specification of the traditional usage of reliability, and an extended discussion of validity see respectively footnotes 312 and 322 in section D of this chapter. a«» For demonstration see pp. 193-95 of the present work. 368

214

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

intended to assess the validity of those relationships for which the scale contents and their form are presumed to be indicative (i.e., those relationships requiring investigation), it was revealed that certain specific procedures were employed, subsequent to the scoring of the scales and prior to the general procedures, which had as their function the establishment of the reliabilities of the separate scales, their subscales and items. Hence, the question arises as to whether these reliability procedures fulfill to some extent the obligatory specific research requirements inherent in what required investigating. More specifically: Do these reliability procedures comply in any way with the obligatory specific research requirements entailed in verifying whether: (a) the relevant items of expressed ideology (and/or actions), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata ("ideological themes", "personality trends" or "dispositions") which they presumedly express and whether; (b) the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive themata from which the former is presumed to be derived? It will be recognized that the two preceding tasks (a and b) coincide with; but each constitutes distinctive elements of, ascertaining whether the scales do in fact "measure" (test, establish or verify) that which they were required to "measure", test, establish, and/or verify.370 As for (a), the first of the above two tasks, deductive elaboration revealed the following requirement to be essential. Given the requisite conditions of scale structure,371 a statistically significant proportion of the "positive" responses to the total number of subscale items is required for successful verification. In this regard neither of the procedures employed to determine the reliabilities of the scales, their subscales and items, is sufficient. In particular, the D.P. technique, employed to determine the "order of goodness of the items", may determine very well the effectiveness of an item in differentiating authoritarians from non-authoritarians; but, it does not contribute to the task of verifying whether an item is in fact an alternative expression of the general theme ("trend", disposition, or thema, embodied in a subscale) for which it is 370

This observation represents another illustrative instance in which several procedural requirements emerging from divergent sources appear as a product of synthesis: a product of synthesis embracing several different procedural requirements emerging from divergent sources representing a succession of interrelated chain of steps. Cf. pp. 186 (particularly footnote number 332) and 197-98 of this work. 371 See pp. 177-78 of the present work.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

215

presumed to be indicative. Nor does the inter-correlation of subscales contribute to this task; and certainly the correlation of equivalent halves of a scale is no aid in this regard. Moreover, using the total scale score and the scale item mean is incompatible with the scoring method required for this task.372 Concerning (b), the second of the above two tasks, deductive elaboration revealed the succeeding requirement to be essential for successful verification. Given the requisite conditions of scale structure,373 a statistically significant proportion of the total number of subscales (indicative of each successive level of inclusiveness) must constitute alternative expressions of each successively prior level of inclusiveness. In this connection it is immediately apparent that neither of the procedures employed to determine the reliabilities of the scales, their subscales and items, is relevant. In fact, task (b) could not be achieved, regardless of the procedure employed, without first clarifying the level of inclusiveness of the various themes ("trends" or "dispositions") embodied in the subscales comprising the separate scales.374

372

Given the structure of the Researchers' scales, including the scales having as one of their primary functions the differentiation of authoritarians from nonauthoritarians in this or that respect, a more useful reliability adjunct for determining the relatedness of items (i.e., from the point of view of "contributing" to the verification of (a)) may have been a correlation of the item scores of a subscale with the total score of that subscale. This would at least appear to be a sounder basis from which to infer that the items comprising a subscale "go together"; even if no inference could be drawn as to whether, in "going together", they were alternative expressions of the general theme ("trend", "disposition" or thema) for which they are supposedly indicative. "» See pp. 177-78 of the present work. 374 Without knowing the level of inclusiveness of the various themes, uncertainty and indecision must prevail regarding the functional significance of specific themata in relation to one another. This uncertainty is revealed in the Researchers' following remark: "As to what kinds of central personality trends we might expect to be the most significant, the major guide, as has been said, was the research which has gone before; they were the trends which, as hypothetical constructs, seemed best to explain the consistency of response on the foregoing scales, and which emerged from the analysis of clinical material as the likely sources of the coherence found in the individual cases " The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 117. For a detailed examination of this weakness, including the source from which it stems, see pp. 100-04 (particularly pp. 102-04), and pp. 111-12, of this work. In the latter respect (i.e., pp. 111-12) this weakness is revealed to be the principal reason for the successive scale modifications by trial and error; during which the low probability scale items were dropped, and items having higher probabilities, as indices, were added successively. As previously noted in still another context, the execution of empirical research in stages is no substitute for the direction and pointed focus provided by a systematically formulated theory.

216

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

The foregoing analysis of the procedures employed by the Researchers to process data obtained by means of scales has disclosed: (a) that the only specific procedures employed subsequent to the scoring of the scales and prior to the general procedures were those used to establish the reliabilities of the scales, their subscales and items; and (b) that there is an absence of specific procedures intended to assess the validity of those relationships for which the scale contents and their form are presumed to be indicative: i.e., those relationships characterizing the authoritarian personality - and hence, requiring investigation. In pursuing the analysis further, it was disclosed that the reliability procedures in no way comply with the obligatory specific procedural requirements inherent in what required investigating. As such, how the Researchers investigated what required investigating, at least by means of their scales, has also failed to sustain the test of adequacy. In addition to the aforestated revelations, it is now known that: (a) the choice of contents and their form (as incorporated into scales) was governed by the objective of differentiating authoritarians from non-authoritarians - and hence had as their source the Researchers' " 'orientation' theory"; (b) the general procedures employed to process data collected by means of the former (i.e., the scales referred to above) were governed by (and hence had as their source) the principal objective of verifying the Researchers' two major hypotheses; and (c) although their scaling method (or scoring system) was governed by (and hence had as its source) the manner in which the Researchers chose to use the selected contents and their form ((a) above) to differentiate authoritarians from non-authoritarians, the particular technique of scoring was governed, on the one hand, by the objective of establishing the reliabilities of the separate scales, their subscales and items; and on the other, by the principal objective of verifying their two major hypotheses ((b) above). As a consequence of the latter choice ((c) above), the technique of scoring (including the numerical product derived therefrom) is incompatible with the technique of scoring required to determine if the scales do in fact "measure" (test, establish or verify) that which they were required to "measure", test, establish, and verify (whether the latter includes the task of verifying if an item is in fact an alternative expression of the general theme ("trend", "disposition" or thema) for which it is presumed to be indicative - or some other). Hence, a pronounced lack of coherence (or congruence) among the various procedural steps is

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

217

disclosed. A s such, it has been demonstrably established that these procedural steps do not constitute a consistent chain of steps. Personality "Scoring Categories", Their Contents and Structure Frequent reference has been made to the personality "scoring categories" educed from, and applied to, data elicited by means of interviews, projective questions, and a modified version of the Thematic Apperception Test. The execution of this aspect of the investigation involved the rating of subjects' responses (as derived from the sources of data mentioned above) in terms of these personality "scoring categories" to determine if such categories differentiate the authoritarians from the non-authoritarians. A s such, the question at issue could be phrased thusly: to what extent are the low score ratings on these personality categories characteristic of the extremely antiethnocentric individuals, and the high score ratings characteristic of the extremely ethnocentric individuals? 375 Hence, as far as the general procedure is involved, one or more of the opinion-attitude scales designed to depict ideological trends is correlated with personality "scoring categories": categories constructed to incorporate those personality qualities presumed to characterize personality differences between authoritarian and non-authoritarian types.376 In concluding this analysis of how well how the Researchers investigated what required investigating, a brief examination will be made of the contents and form in which these contents were incorporated into the personality "scoring categories"; followed, in turn, with an examination of the manner in which data elicited by means of these categories were initially processed. Due to the extremely large number of categories (and sub-categories) comprising each set respectively applied to data elicited by means of interviews, the Thematic Apperception Test, and projective questions, it will not be feasible to reproduce them all; or, for that matter, to reproduce all of a particular set applied to each of the three sources of data. The most that is practicable is to provide, for each of the three separate sources of data, a complete listing of the broad areas to which the categories pertain and include representative instances of the categories in question. Accordingly, the presentation will proceed as outlined. 375

Cf. ibid., p. 584. "« Cf. ibid., p. 549.

218

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

a. The interviews as an approach to the authoritarian personality877 (1) "Attitudes toward parents and conception of family"378 Presumably "High" Categories

Presumably "Low" Categories

(a) "conventional idealization (a) "objective appraisal of of parents" parents" (b) "victimization (quasi-perse(b) "principled open recutory) by parents" jection" "submission to parental "principled in depend(c) (c) authority and values: reence" spect based on fear" (d) "love-seeking succor(d) "ego-alien dependence for things and support on ance - nurturance parents: essentially exploiaffiliation toward tive - manipulative - 'getparents" ting'; an externalized relationship" (e) "ingroup orientation to (e) "individualized apfamily as whole; e.g., emproach to members of phasis on family heredity the family" and 'background'; homogeneous-totalitarian family vs. rest of world; aristocratic superiority of family, etc." (2) "Conceptions of childhood environment" S7B Presumably "High" Categories

Presumably "Low" Categories

(traits ascribed to father by men) (a) "distant, stern, bad temper, (a) "some demonstrative'a barrier between us' " ness" 577 The interview records of 80 subjects (out of approximately one hundred interviewed) were subjected to this part of the investigation (40 were men and 40 were women). "Of the men, 20 were high extremes on the E scale; and 20 were low extremes. For the women, the corresponding numbers were 25 and 15." Ibid., p. 295. According to the Researchers: " . . . an effort was made to balance our samples of high-scoring and low-scoring subjects in terms of age, sex, political and religious affiliation, as well as national or regional background". Ibid., p. 294. 378 Ibid., pp. 339-40. Ibid., pp. 358-59.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

(b) "a moral model"

219

(b) "principled puritanism" (c) "relaxed, mild"

(c) "pseudomasculine: determination, worked his way up, a 'success' " (traits ascribed to father by women) (a) "hardworking provider: (a) "warm, sociable, lov'will do anything for me'.." able" (b) "a moral model" (b) "understanding" (c) "intellectual aesthetic" (traits ascribed to mother by men) (a) "sacrificing, 'kind,' sub(a) "warm, sociable, lovmissive" able" (b) "a moral model" (b) "understanding" (c) "intellectual aesthetic" (traits ascribed to mother by women) (a) "restricting" (a) "some demonstrativeness" (b) "a moral model" (b) "understanding" (c) " 'sweet,' pseudo(c) "intellectual aesthetic" feminine"380 (3) "Childhood events and attitudes toward siblings"»81 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "family status concern"

(a) "family relaxed re status" (b) "objective appraisal"

(b) "conventional idealization of siblings" (c) "feelings of victimization by siblings"

(c) "principled open rejection"

(4) "Attitude toward sex"382 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "status vs. sex: e.g., 'conquests,' emphasis on 'dates,'

(a) "open admission of inadequacy without

Omitted is "power relationship", for both men and women. Cf. ibid., p. 359.

Ibid., pp. 376-77.

Ibid., p. 391.

220

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(b)

(c)

(d)

rationalization of any failure or shortcoming" "rejection of id: anti-id moralism; rejection of sex, or continued attachment to a frigid or impotent partner" "promiscuity as a prominent pattern (no extended love relationship)" "dichotomous sex attitudes: sex vs. affection and object-relations; pure vs. low women (in men); depersonalized sex relations or interests, reference to specific practices"

rationalizing" (b)

"acceptance of id"

(c)

"conscious inhibitions without moralism"

(d)

"fusion of sex and affection: personalized sex orientation or relations"

"genuine respect fondness for opposite sex, often with conflict about one's sex role and open ambivalence toward the other sex" "love-seeking (warmth and affection)"

(e)

"underlying disrespect resentment toward opposite sex, typically combined with externalized, excessive pseudo-admiration"

(e)

(f)

"power orientation: exploitive-manipulative (concrete benefits). In women: surface-submission plus aggressive-castration" "values conventionally determined"383

(f)

(g)

(g) "values individualized"

(5) "Attitude toward people" Presumedly "High" Categories (a)

'8S 884

"moralistic condemnation'

Presumedly "Low" Categories (a) "permissiveness toward individuals; rejections rationalized by reference to principles"

Omitted "traits desired" by men in women and vice versa. pp. 405-06.

Ibid.,

Ibid.,

p. 391.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

(b) "extrapunitiveness (c) "distrust-suspicion, people as threatening; victimization; survival of fittest idea world as jungle" (d) "hierarchical conceptions of human relations" etc.

221

(b) "impunitiveness" and "intrapunitiveness" (c) "trustingness, openness; people essentially 'good' until proved otherwise" (d) "equalitarianismmutuality"

(6) "Attitude toward present self"386 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "self-glorification . . . " etc.

(a) "critical self-appraisal

(7) "Conceptions of childhood self" 386 etc. (8) "Dynamic character structure"387 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "counter-cathectic rejection of 'erotic' orality (or zone sensuality and/or its sublimations, i.e., of verbalemotional-artistic expressiveness)"

(a) "Positive expressions of 'erotic' orality (or zone sensuality, e.g. food cathexis, oral perversions, and/or sublimations, i.e., verbal-emotional-artistic expressiveness-expansiveness)" (b) "anal reaction formations functional and non-moralistic. Means-end relation-

(b) "rigid-moralistic anal reaction-formations as ends-inthemselves; over-emphasis on, and preoccupations Ibid., pp. 422-23.

Ibid., p. 435.

Ibid., pp. 443-44.

222

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(c)

(a) (b)

(a)

with, totalitarian-moralistic (positive and negative) typologizing (e.g., two kinds of people, 'clean' and 'dirty'); emphasis on money and property" "diffuse, ego-alien dependence escapism, dodging responsibility; underlying ego-alien passivity; helplessness-weakness (expressed openly in men only when overwhelmed or victimized - e.g. 'foxhole religion' - with all-or-none character). Characterized by affective poverty and exchange-ability of object" (aggression) "diffuse, 'impersonalized' . . .". "destructive-explosive tendency toward all-or-none, and toward physical expression" (ambivalence) "ego-alien"

etc. (identification) etc. (superego) etc. (strength of ego) etc. (further mechanisms) (a) "distortion of reality" etc.

ship retained; or anal sublimations; or relative absence of anal reaction formations"

(c) "love-oriented succorance-nurturance, acceptance of dependency and affect, specificity of object cathexis"

(a) "focal, personal" (b) "relatively mild, dayto-day. Tendency toward regular release, and toward verbal expression" (a) "sometimes admitted openly; ego-accepted, conscious inhibition of affect"

(a) "realistic-objective re world generally"

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

(9) "Cognitive personality organization" Presumedly "High" Categories

223

888

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "flexible: more adaptable to changing circumstances, more open to rational argument" (b) "tolerant of ambi(b) 'intolerance of ambiguity" etc. guity" b. Projection questions as an approach to the authoritarian per sonality389 (1) What moods are unpleasant or disturbing?360 (a) "rigid set and outlook; preconceived categorizations, inaccessible to new experience"

Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "conscious conflict and guilt" (b) "focal dependency and love-seeking" (c) "open hostility, by self or others, toward love objects" (2) What desires are most difficult to control?391 (a) "violations of conventional values (immorality)" (b) "threatening or non-supporting environment" (c) "rumblings from below"

Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "nonfocal and/or motor aggression"

(a) "focal (usually verbal) hostility directed against violators of achievement values" (b) "the tendency to violate achievement values oneself"

(b) "ego-alien passivity''

>«8 Ibid., p. 461. »89 The number of subjects receiving each of the eight questions to follow varies. Three hundred and twelve of the subjects received questions 3, 4, and 5. " . . . the N varies for the other questions, reaching a low of 65 o n question 8 " Ibid., p. 580. »»» Ibid., pp. 550-55. »« Ibid., pp. 555-59.

224

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(c) "Impersonal sex" etc. (3) What great people do you admire most?892 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "power and control" (b) "conservative Americana" (c) "parents and relatives"

(a) "the arts and philosophy" (b) "physical and biological scientists" (c) "social scientists, liberal-radical political figures"

etc. (4) What might drive a person nuts?893 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "rumblings from below" (b) "threatening, irritating, or non-supporting environment"

(a) "inner psychological states" (b) "dominating, blocking, rejecting environment"

etc. (5) Worst crimes a person could commit?394 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "crude aggression and sex" (b) "other immoral acts" (c) "various legal offensesproperty and money"

(formal low categories not distinguished) general properties indicated such as violation of achievement values, exploitation and discrimination against minority groups, etc.

(6) Most embarrassing moments?895 382 394 395

Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,

pp. pp. pp. pp.

559-61. 561-66. 566-69. 569-72.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

225

Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "violations of convention and etiquette" (b) "blows at exhibitionism and narcissism"

(a) "hurting another's feelings" (b) "feelings of inadequacy, failure, being rejected"

(7) How would you spend your last six months?398 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "conventional morality and inhibition"

(a) "achievement values: creativity and social contribution" (b) "open sensuality and active pleasure"

(b) "incidental, dilute pleasures" (c) "passivity"

(8) What experiences would be most awe-inspiring?397 Presumedly "High" Categories

Presumedly "Low" Categories

(a) "realization of conventional values" (b) "Power: deference and submission toward power figures" (c) "destruction - harm of other persons" (d) "dilute experiences of nature and beauty"

(a) "realization of achievement values" (b) "power as exemplified in man's achievements and in nature" (c) "intense nature experience"

c. The Thematic Apperception Test as an approach to the authoritarian personality398 398 397 398

Ibid., pp. 572-75. Ibid., pp. 575-78.

The Thematic Apperception Test (T.A.T.) "consists of a series of ambiguous pictures, about each of which the subject is asked to tell a story. It is assumed that in describing the characters depicted, in setting forth their actions and the stimuli which affect them, the subject indirectly tells something about himself." As such, "the theory behind the present technique assumes that the particular stories that the subject tells represent his fantasied environment and fantasied way of dealing with the environment " Ibid., pp. 489-90. A set of ten pictures were used by the

226

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

(1)

Intensity and frequency analysis of single need and press3"9 variables contained in stories T h e list of need and press variables employed are those introduced by H. A . Murray. 400 It is not feasible to introduce this long list.) T h e scoring was according to Sanford's revised Murray need-press system. 401 In this regard it is remarked:

Each story is analyzed separately and every variable reflected in the story content is noted and given a value of 1 to 5. The score thus assigned is based upon the degree of intensity of expression in the case of the particular variable and upon its importance to the story as a whole. We shall refer to these quantified scores as intensity scores. The following discussion will be concerned primarily with the comparison of scoring of a particular variable for all pictures in the case of unprejudiced men (or women) and in the case of prejudiced men (or women). In some cases reference will be made also to the number of times a variable is recorded for each of the two groups, regardless of the numerical intensity values that were assigned. These scores will be referred to as frequency scores. 402 (2)

Thematic analysis of stories In this connection the focus centered on "the variables in combination". The objective was to "discover not h o w much of each individual variable is expressed, but rather h o w often

Investigators; five of which were drawn from the group introduced by H. A. Murray and four were "selected by the study staff from current magazines". According to the Researchers: "the test was administered to a group of 80 subjects, consisting of 20 high-scoring (prejudiced) and 20 low-scoring (unprejudiced) men, and 20 high and 20 low-scoring women. In the main, these were the same subjects who were called for interviews . . . " . Ibid., p. 490. 399 Concerning the need and press variables the Researchers note: " . . . the variables fall into two groups, those that represent the direction of activity of the characters within the story and those that denote environmental (personal or physical) influences that act upon these characters. The former variables are termed need variables, the latter press variables. In a particular story, the hero's (or heroes') behavior (i.e., the actions of the central figure or figures) is noted by use of the proper need variable preceded by an "n." Reference to activity from external sources imposed upon the hero (or heroes) is noted by use of a press "p" variable. Secondary characters or central figures in the story who are openly rejected by the story-teller, and whose actions are not directed toward the hero, are termed objects and their behavior is recorded by use of need variables, preceded by the notation "on". Similarly, environmental impositions upon these characters are referred to by use of object press "op" variables . . . " . Ibid., pp. 496-97. 400 H. A. Murray, The Thematic Apperception Test Manual (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1943). Cf. The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., pp. 497-99. 401 R. N. Sanford, Procedure for Scoring the T. A. T. (Cambridge, Harvard Psychological Clinic, 1939). Mimeographed and privately distributed. 402 The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 499.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

227

certain patterns of variables o c c u r . . .".403 For this analysis "hypothetical 'low' and 'high' thema categories" were constructed and applied to stories produced about each picture.404 The preceding exemplification of personality categories, pertaining to each of the encompassed broad areas of data elicited by means of interviews, projective questions, and T.A.T., reveals the choice of content incorporated into the categories. Supposedly, these various contents signify personality qualities presumed to characterize differences between authoritarian and non-authoritarian types. It is not made clear which of these various contents constitutes expression of which of the three differentiated structural components of personality (i.e., ego, super-ego, and id). However, it is apparent that the central feature of most of these so-called personality "scoring categories" lies in what is used as a reference point to construct the opposing "high" and "low" categories. That reference point consists of themes reflecting some aspect of identification with, idealization of, and submission to, INGROUP figures:405 Hence, in these instances of paired categories ("high" and "low") the principal category embodies a theme presumed to characterize the authoritarian's identification with, idealization of, and submission to, ingroup figures; whereas, its opposite paired category embodies a theme which would presumedly characterize the nonauthoritarian's orientation to ingroup figures. This observation is most easily discerned from an examination of the categories employed to encompass the broad areas of data elicited by means of interviews. It will be readily noticed that these themes, respectively, embodying the principal paired category (i.e., "high" categories), express some aspect of what is presumed to be the authoritarian's conceptions of, and attitudes toward, his family and its individual members - including himself (as these conceptions and attitudes were conceived in the past and now conceived in the present). Naturally, if the authoritarian personality is presumably characterized by an identification with, idealization of, and submission to, ingroup figures, and the interview of this personality type is focused in a manner so as to elicit his conceptions of, and attitudes toward, ingroup members, it is reasonable to expect 403 404 405

Ibid., p. 506.

Cf. ibid., pp. 506-07.

The exception being those categories embodying themes which pertain to "Dynamic Character structure", "cognitive personality organization", and the "needs" and/or drives inferred from data elicited by means of the projective questions and T.A.T.

228

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

expressions of the former. Moreover, as such, the categories employed to subsume these conceptions and attitudes must also pertain to this characterization. Having recognized that many (if not most) of the so-called personality themes, embodied in the principal paired categories, characterize what is presumed to be the authoritarian's orientation to ingroup figures, the following question is provoked. How do these so-called personality themes (or categories) differ from those themes respectively embodied in sub-scales designed and keyed to depict authoritarian ideological trends, so as to justify considering the former a facet of personality and the latter a facet of ideology? Certainly, if, in the former instance, the themes reflect the authoritarian's orientation to ingroup figures, and, in the latter instance, the themes reflect the authoritarian's orientation to outgroup figures, there can be no legitimate basis for treating one or the other as a facet of personality, while treating the residuum as a facet of ideology — or, vice versa. Needless to say, this deceptive construction is neither explained nor justified by such a statement as: "Though the two (ideology and personality) may be thought of as forming an organized whole within the individual, they may nonetheless be studied separately . . .".40S In fact, reference to and the execution of separate treatment of ideology and personality in itself calls for close scrutiny.407 While it may not be subject to doubt that ideology and personality may be studied separately, it is open to serious question whether the two may be studied separately as a means of establishing that ideology is organized into a consistent pattern within the individual. Even if it is succesfully established that the opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by a group of individuals do go together to form a pattern, is this finding sufficient to justify the inference that this organized pattern exists within the individuals comprising this group, whose opinions, attitudes and values form this pattern? At best this is certainly dubious!! Moreover, the logical derivations allowable by the Researchers' general orientation negate such a logical possibility. The postulate from which derivations stem negating such a logical possibility (expectation, or prediction) has been phrased in the present work as follows: the "same" (or similar) personality structures may be manifested in different behavioral expressions, and the "same" or (similar) behavioral expressions may be manifestations of personality structures of different 406 4

»'

The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., p. 2. Cf. ibid., pp. 2-3, 8, 12, 14, 31, 151, 648, and 972.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

229

types. 408 A s such, the specific actions and items of expressed ideology may vary widely among individuals of the same or different cultures, epochs, class a n d / o r status identity, although such individuals may constitute "identical" personality types. 409 Correspondingly, one would not anticipate that the contents of the expressed ideology for a group of individuals with "identical" personality structures would constitute an organized pattern. Of course it is recognized that the Researchers are not contending that the constituents (i.e., opinions, attitudes, and values) of ideology are logically related so as to form a consistent pattern. 410 408

For a similar statement by the Researchers compare the following passages: " . . . The same ideological trends may in different individuals have different sources, and the same personal needs may express themselves in different ideological trends." Ibid., p. 2; or, " . . . Sometimes high and low scorers are similar in what they say in politico-economic terms, but different in some more subtle way; just as sometimes they are superficially different but similar with respect to underlying trends." Ibid., p. 657. 40l> For a more detailed exposition cf. footnote number 313 in Section D of this chapter. See also footnote number 16 in Chapter I, also of this work. 410 However, it is precisely a logical relatedness which the Researchers are guilty of attempting to establish when they correlated the contents embodied in those scales designed to depict ideological trends. Support for this contention has been disclosed through an examination of the haphazard construction of these particular scales - as reflected in the labels given each subscale, and the general themes which the subscale items are reputed to represent. {See in this work footnote numbers 339 and 340 in Section E of this Chapter.) In this connection the items pertain to (i.e., specific instances of the general), but are not functional and/or dynamic indicators of, the respective themes required to be embodied in the subscales. Further evidence of the above assertion is found in the Researchers' own words. For example: "Whereas the scales for measuring surface ideological trends conform, in general, with common practice in sociopsychological research, the scale for measuring potentially antidemocratic trends (the Personality F-scale) in the personality represents a new departure. The procedure was to bring together in a scale items which, by hypothesis and clinical experience, could be regarded as 'giveaways' (i.e., "signs or manifestations by which these trends could be recognized") of trends which lay relatively deep within the personality, and which constituted a disposition to express spontaneously (on a suitable occasion), or to be influenced by, fascist ideas." Ibid., p. 15. (Cf. footnote number 148 of this chapter.) In view of the preceding considerations it may very well be asked: why then did they obtain the relatively high correlations reported? The answer to this question is not apparent. It could possibly be that their items, to some extent, reflected (as products, or corollaries of such products) the manner in which the opposing types handled "deep-lying" trends. (Cf. in this work footnote numbers 236 and 229 of this chapter.) Another possibility, although not unrelated, has been expressed by one of the Researchers (T. W. Adorno). He notes: " . . . If our cultural climate has been standardized under the impact of social control and technological concentration to an extent never known before, we may expect that the thinking habits of individuals reflect this standardization as well as the dynamics of their own personalities. These personalities may, indeed, be the product of this very same standardization to a much higher degree than a naive observer is led to be believe. In other words, we have to expect a

230

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Granted that the consistent ideological pattern referred to is a functional and dynamic one: this means the expressed ideological contents axe indices of certain respective ideological themata, functionally and dynamically related to form the consistent pattern. Accordingly, the mere presence in association of the same (or similar) themes (ideological trends, or themata) is no indication that the different individuals expressing them are "identical" in personality structure.411 In view of the foregoing considerations, the Researchers had no rational basis for assuming that the expressed ideologies of different individuals of the same personality type would constitute a consistent pattern; and certainly not a pattern capable of being revealed or established by co-variation of expressed contents. Whatever the ultimate merit of such a research procedure may prove to be empirically, the question implied by such a procedure is, in essence, different from the question involving whether or not ideology is organized into a consistent pattern within the individual. This being the case, the central focus of what the Researchers claimed to be investigating (i.e., whether there is organized within the individual a consistent ideological pattern which is a facet and expression of that individual's personality structure) committed them to determining if the selectively "consumed" ideology is organized within the individual;412 kind of ideological 'over-all-pattern' in our interviews which, though by no means indifferent to the dichotomy of high and low scorers, transcends its boundaries. Our data afford ample evidence that such an ideological over-all pattern exists in fact." Ibid., p. 655. 411 Insofar as what the Researchers say, it is evident that there is awareness and recognition of this consideration. Cf. the following passages: " . . . Highs and lows differ markedly in their manner of handling deep-level trends such as aggression, sex, dependency, anxiety, and the like. We are not yet in a position to say whether one group or the other shows a greater total amount of any given trend; what is clear is that both groups exhibit all of these trends to a significant degree. The primary difference seems to be in the ego functioning, and particularly in the relation of the ego to the deeper levels of personality " Ibid., p. 595. (Emphasis mine.) (Cf. footnote 313 in Section D of this chapter.) Elsewhere it is remarked: " . . . highs and lows do not seem to differ in the amount of their underlying dependency (or other deep trends); the difference lies, rather, in the way such impulses are handled and integrated in the personality . . . " . Ibid., p. 553. In other contexts it is noted: " . . . we should expect some H trends even in individuals attempting to achieve a thoroughly democratic orientation" (p. 585); " . . . It should be understood that, while most highs show most of the high variables, and similarly for the lows, there are numerous exceptions and numerous variations on the central t h e m e . . . " (p. 600); also pp. 278, 389, 473, 484, 530, 597, 600, 703, 711. 412 Cf. the following assertions: "Although the present research is concerned primarily with the organization of ideological trends within the individual, the reader will soon note that the bulk of this volume is concerned not with individuals as such but with variables and their general relationships . . . . " Ibia., p. 31. And in

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

231

yet, the general procedures employed in the execution of the investigation involved an attempt to establish that expressed ideologies of different individuals of the same personality type constitute a consistent pattern. This is tantamount to an attempt to establish f r o m the outside what is presumed to exist inside. All of the long foregoing digression notwithstanding, the contents incorporated into the so-called personality "scoring categories" appertain to the following broad areas of data: (a) some aspect of identification with, idealization of, and submission to, immediate ingroup m e m bers; 413 (b) "Dynamic character structure"; (c) "Cognitive personality organization"; (d) forms of motivations such as drives and "needs"; and (e) attitudes toward and responses to people, "problems", and experiences. Regarding each of these broad bodies of data, paired categories (high vs. low) were constructed so as to incorporate personality qualities (themes, trends, dispositions) presumed to differentiate authoritarians from non-authoritarians. The high categories embodied those "personality trends" presumed to characterize the authoritarians; and the low categories embodied themes presumed to characterize the non-authorianother context it is noted: " . . . We were concerned, as stated in Chapter I, with the problem of the consumption of ideology by the individual: granted that various ideologies are present in the social environment, why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms, while others consume the more democratic forms? The general assumption made was that, granted the possibility of choice, an individual will be most receptive to that ideology which has most psychological meaning for him and the most significant function within his over-all a d j u s t m e n t . . . . " Ibid., p. 100. The succeeding sentence, representing a continuation of the first quoted passage, highlights the Researchers' confusion concerning the character of the abstraction entailed in the study of "Individual Behavior"-, as contrasted with the abstraction entailed in the study of the collective behavior of different individuals of the same personality type. This sentence reads thusly: " . . . This is unavoidable, for although each variable is but an abstraction when lifted out of the total context in which it operates, the study of individuals can proceed only by analysis into components, and the relations of these components can be regarded as significant only if they can be, to some extent at least, generalized . . . . " Ibid., p. 31. As previously noted, the Researchers' task in studying "Individual Behavior" entails ascertaining the form in which the relationships between certain hypothesized themata ("characteristics") are presumed to be MANIFESTED within the authoritarian personality and then EXPRESSED by the authoritarian personality. As such, establishing the mere presence in some type of association ("degree", or otherwise) of the same or similarly EXPRESSED themes is no indication that the different individuals expressing them are "identical" in personality structure. 413

In more specific terms this area of data consists of conceptions of and attitudes toward one's family and its individual members (including one's self) - as these conceptions and attitudes were conceived in the past and now conceived in the present.

232

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

tarians. Since the understanding the Researchers possessed of the difference between authoritarians and non-authoritarians governed the selection of the contents and form in which they were incorporated into their "scoring categories", and this understanding was provided by, and/or represented in or as, their so-called "'orientation' theory", it must be conceded that the relationships characterizing the authoritarian personality (and requiring investigation) were not, in themselves, a subject of investigation. The preceding revelation is confirmed through an examination of the initial procedures, employed to process data secured through applying these "scoring categories" to the three previously mentioned sources of data. Excluding the reliability procedures,414 the manner of processing this data consisted of one or another of the following procedures: (a) a tabulation of category ratings by single categories, achieved by counting the instances of high, low, and "neutral" category ratings in each subject's protocol;415 (b) a summation of "intensity" values (1 to 5) assigned to each "need" and/or press category variable;416 and (c) a repeat of the preceding steps (a) and/or (b) on their two case study subjects - Mack and Larry (referred to by the Researchers as: "validation by means of case studies"). In turn, the preceding initial procedures are followed by the previously mentioned general proce414

In essence these reliability procedures comprise no more than some form of comparison (i.e., percentage (mean) and/or correlation (rank order)) of the ratings of the raters: i.e., interrater agreements on a given number of subjects' protocols using some customary limiting value as statistically significant. Relevant citations in this regard will be found in The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit.: for interviews on pp. 328-33; for T.A.T. on pp. 499 and 507; for projective questions on pp. 581-84. Perhaps it is worth noting in this connection that the foregoing procedures were preceded by the customary methods employed to mitigate rater bias (i.e., "blind" ratings, including randomly mixed coded high and low protocols; and, in some instances, randomization of separately coded responses of the same subject grouped with similarly treated responses of all subjects comprising sample). For the critical reader the aforestated considerations should be balanced with the following citation extracted from the section pertaining to interview rating procedure: " . . . The diagnosis of the subject's personality was thus rendered 'blind.' The raters did know, of course, that their subjects had scored either high or low on the scales for measuring prejudice, but they did not know which were the high and which the low scorers." Ibid., p. 327. One may add of course: What difference does all of the attention to microscopic procedures matter considering the pronounced lack of congruence thus far disclosed between the macroscopic procedures? 415 Employed in the processing of interviews and projective questions (see ibid., pp. 334 and 548); and used for thematic analysis in processing T.A.T. (see ibid., pp. 506-08). 418 Used for the need-press variable analysis in processing T.A.T. Cf. ibid., p. 499 (see citation under C(l) on pp. 226-27 of the present work).

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

233

dure: consisting of a comparison of the combined rating scores of those qualifying as authoritarians with those qualifying as non-authoritarians, as judged by means of a different test (the ethnocentric and/or antiSemitic test). Subsequent to the latter execution some form of test for statistical significance was applied. As can be readily discerned, there are no procedures among those listed above capable of contributing to an investigation of those relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality. As such, the absence of such procedures constitutes confirmation that those relationships requiring investigation were not a subject of investigation - even though they may in fact have guided the selection of the content and form of the personality "scoring categories". It is also immediately apparent that neither of the procedures listed above is capable of determining whether the ratings, in terms of the rating categories, establish the correctness of the interpretations pertaining to the meanings implied in (or by) the categories. Even if interrater agreements of an unlimited number of raters were absolute, the question involving the validity of the interpretations implied by the categories remains to be established.417 It may thus be concluded from the analysis of the personality "scoring categories", as in the analysis of the scales, how the Researchers investigated what required investigating also has failed to sustain the test of adequacy. 3. Other Related Facets of the Investigation Now that it is plainly (and painfully) clear what constituted the central focus of what was actually investigated, and how in fact the Researchers actually investigated it, perhaps it will be feasible to account for the remaining facets of their investigation. To facilitate the implementation of this task will require a recapitulation of the general procedures employed in the execution of the investigation. Each will be followed, in turn, with the inferences drawn vs. the inferences legitimately permissible. These procedures will again be listed in the order of their execution.418 417

This is tantamount to the recognition that at one time it was reported that every one interpreted the earth to be flat. Nevertheless, this high agreement was not congruent with the actual shape of the earth. 418 The last of the four general procedures (intuitive interpretation of excerpts from interviews - see p. 193 of this work) will be omitted since its effective utility is limited to exploration; hence lacking in the potential power for verification.

234

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

a. There are inter and intra-correlations of scales constructed to depict ideological differences between authoritarians and non-authoritarians. The corresponding inference drawn from findings derived through the use of this procedure is: the numerous opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by an individual are interwoven products of a broad and consistent ideological pattern.419 Yet, the most that may be inferred legitimately is that those ideological "trends", expressed by those individuals qualifying as authoritarians (or as non-authoritarians), are "significantly but imperfectly" 420 associated. b. There are inter and intra-correlations of scales "depicting" ideological differences between authoritarians and non-authoritarians with a scale constructed to depict differences between authoritarians and non-authoritarians in "central personality trends" ("dispositions" or themata). The corresponding inference drawn from findings derived through the use of this procedure is: the consistent ideological pattern expressed by authoritarian personalities (or non-authoritarians) is an expression of his personality structure.421 However, the most that may be inferred legitimately from the results of this procedure is: personality trends expressed by individuals qualifying as authoritarians (or as non-authoritarians) are significantly associated with ideological trends expressed by these individuals. c. One or more of the scales "depicting" ideological trends (ethnocentric scale principally) is correlated with ratings on personality "scoring categories". The least conservative inference drawn from this procedure is that differences between authoritarians and non-authoritarians in levels of ethnocentrism are due to the "central personality trends" ("dispositions" or themata) found to differentiate their personalities.422 On the 419

Cf. The Authoritarian Personality, op. cit., pp. 180, 207. Ibid., p. 180. 421 Cf. the following citation: " . . . In short, ideology regarding each social area must be regarded as a facet of the total person and an expression of more central ('subideological') psychological dispositions". Ibid., p. 207; or more conservatively: "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 " Ibid., p. 279. 422 See citation in footnote number 423 on p. 236. More conservative inferences are in line with what may legitimately be inferred. For example, in referring to the results derived from the Projective Question Test, it is remarked: " . . . It has also 42

°

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION

235

contrary, the most that may be inferred legitimately from the results of this procedure is: certain personality trends (themes or "dispositions") successfully differentiate individuals qualifying as authoritarians from those qualifying as non-authoritarians by a different test (the ethnocentric scale). An examination of the aforestated general procedures and corresponding inferences will bring into bold relief the reasoning underpinning the Researchers' broad and loose research design. Through the use of the reasoning thereby disclosed, it will be feasible to pinpoint the source of the remaining related facets of their investigation. As a point of departure, it will be necessary to reiterate that the relationships requiring investigation consist of those relationships presumed to characterize the structure and functioning of the authoritarian personality: relationships which, if empirically verified, will explain (or account for) the uniform behavioral data (specific actions and/or items of expressed ideology) subsumed under the label for this personality type. These are the dynamic and functional (in contrast to logical) relationships which comprise, on the one hand, the requisite theory; and, on the other, presumedly comprise what the Researchers refer to as their "'orientation' theory". Since the relationships in question only GUIDED the selection of the contents and form in which these contents were incorporated into the specifically constructed scales and personality "scoring categories", the relationships requiring investigation were not a subject of direct investigation. At most, these relationships merely provided the understanding employed by the Researchers to construct their scales and "scoring categories" in a manner designed to differentiate between authoritarians and non-authoritarians in this or that respect. Accordingly, through the use of a continuum (ranging from agreement to disagreement) for the subject's scale responses, and opposed paired "scoring categories" for ratings, the subjects' direct responses to scale items and the ratings of their responses elicited by other means (when congruent with the designated polar ends of the scoring axis) were taken as evidence of the difference the corresponding contents presumedly signify. Thus, in essence — when taken separately, been demonstrated that the categories denoted as 'high' are in fact characteristic of the high scorers on the Ethnocentrism scale, the 'low' categories characteristic of the low quartile on E . . . . " Ibid., p. 591. Concerning results derived from interviews it is noted: " . . . rating by categories describes and substantiates in a more systematic, organized, and controlled way the impressions formed about the personality differences between high scorers and low scorers in the course of intensive study of individual cases". Ibid., p. 473.

236

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

each of the scales and the personality "scoring categories" achieve no more than an identification of the presence or absence (suggestions of "degree" or intensity, and frequency notwithstanding) of "trends" (themes) presumed to differentiate the contrasting personality types. Hence, the inferences (or conclusions) drawn are derived by means of reasoning based on the associations of certain groupings of themes established through the use of the general procedures listed immediately above. Reconstructed, this reasoning, by means of which their conclusions were drawn, proceeds somewhat as follows. a. Since high and low scores on the A-S, E, and PEC scales indicate ideological differences existing between the contrasting personality types, and since significant positive correlations were found to exist between the various high scores (and between the various low scores), the numerous opinions, attitudes, and values expressed by an individual constitute interwoven products of a broad and consistent ideological pattern. b. Since high and low scores on the F-scale indicate differences in personality trends between the two contrasting personality types; and since significant positive correlations were found to exist between the high scores (or the low scores) on the F-scale and the various high scores (or the various low scores) on the A-S, E, and PEC scales; the broad and consistent ideological pattern expressed by the authoritarian personalities (i.e., the high scorers), as well as the pattern expressed by the non-authoritarians (or the low scorers), must be an expression of his personality. c. Also: since high and low ratings on certain personality "scoring categories" are indicative of personality differences between the two contrasting types; and these ratings successfully differentiate these two types; then the differences in ideology must be due to the personality factors found to differentiate their personalities - on the assumption that the causal sequence was from the latter to the former. 423 d. However, since the differences between the contrasting personality types may be due to other factors beside those considered, such 423

In this connection, it is remarked: " . . . The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter - on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood " Ibid., p. 56.

"ORIGINAL" EMPIRICAL

INVESTIGATION

237

likely factors must be singled out for special consideration. The Researchers considered such likely factors to be intelligence and education, group membership, economic status, and religion;424 hence, the special consideration given to each. e. Finally; having reasoned that the differences in ideology are due to the personality factors which were found to differentiate the contrasting personality types, the Researchers take note of the assumption it entails, they remark: Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter-on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood. (HENCE) This led to an attempt to learn something about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through investigation of the early social environment. . . ,425

The last sentence of the above quoted passage, with italics supplied, accounts for the illusion of studying the genesis of the two contrasting personality types by means of the retrospective reports of their subjects. In this respect, however, the Researchers do not display the naivete frequently displayed by many of their critics. When considering their subject's conception of his childhood, the Researchers note: As stated in Chapter IX, it is difficult to say how much the image of a parent corresponds to reality and how much it is a subjective conception. However, this distinction may be of less importance when, as in the case here, personality structure rather than its genesis is the major concern. . . .428

Having brought to light the reasoning underpinning the Investigators' loose research design, and then, through its use, disclosing the source of the remaining facets of their investigation, it may be noted that this type of reasoning was the only recourse open to them — as a consequence of neglecting to formulate systematically their requisite theory. Without this systematic formulation, support for their "'orientation' theory" could be achieved only by means of the following conditions. 424

Cf. ibid., pp. 280-88, 185-207, and 208-21, respectively. Ibid., p. 56. (Emphasis mine.) 428 Ibid., p. 358. (Emphasis mine.) Of course, it should be noted as pointed out by Hyman and Sheatsley: " . . . In spite of the above disclaimer, the authors frequently (appear to) accept the respondents' retrospective reports as objectively accurate. For example, when the low scorers report a friendly father, they conclude (italics ours), 'It is quite convincingly evident from the last three records that the fathers of these men possessed, as well as displayed, a good deal of affection for their sons' ((361). ..." Studies in the Scope and Method of The Authoritarian Personality, ed. by Richard Christie and Marie Jahoda, op. cit., p. 99. 425

238

THE "ORIGINAL" INVESTIGATION

Given, by means of an independent measure, the potentially identifiable personality types: if only the hypothesized type (authoritarian personality) manifests the hypothesized characteristics, then it would be reasonable to presume the "'orientation' theory" to be plausible; but only if it was further granted that the hypothesized characteristics are in fact derivable from the "'orientation' theory" and not just any other.427 Failing to formulate systematically their requisite theory, the Investigators, in their empirical investigation, were thus confined to establishing merely the presence or absence of the characteristics, singled out for investigation, for each of the personality types studied. As such, when their empirical findings disclosed the absence of certain hypothesized characteristics, they had no way of knowing the theoretical significance of this absence; likewise, they had no means of knowing the theoretical significance of the presence of those characteristics appearing in a form not hypothesized; nor, the presence of those characteristics appearing in a form contrary to the manner hypothesized. Correspondingly, a test of the indispensible core of their requisite theory for empirical validity remains "untouched" by their investigation. That indispensible core is as follows: The more extensive the use of reaction-formation in conjunction with an extensive infantile super-ego organization, the more pronounced is the externalization of unacceptable impulses and internal conflicts — expressed as specifically hypothesized; namely, (a) intolerance of, aggression toward, and projection onto "outgroups"; and (b) identification with, idealization of, and submission to "ingroups".428 Needless to say, there can be no modifications and/or extensions of a theory from an investigation which fails, in its design, to provide a test of its tenability.

427

For derivation and elaboration see Section C of chapter III, pp. 151-73 of this work. 428 For derivation of this indispensible core of the requisite theory see pp. 184-86.

IV SUBSEQUENT STUDIES OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: 1950-57

A. QUESTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED

Throughout the present inquiry there has been frequent reference to the "Original" investigation of the authoritarian personality in contradistinction to subsequent studies which were stimulated by the "original". Yet, in confining this inquiry to a consideration of those studies employing an identical approach to the investigation of the authoritarian personality it is assumed that these studies (constituting the object of assessment in the present inquiry) comprise a unity or gestalt.1 As such, these studies represent a unified approach, extending through time, to a uniform body of data. Hence, taken as an aggregate extending over a time-span of seven years, it is reasonable to presume that such studies constitute a representative instance of an approach to social science data. Beside the consideration of representativeness, however, it was also anticipated, initially, that given a sufficient lapse of time between the publication of the "original" and subsequent investigations, there would exist an opportunity to investigate the interplay between theory and empirical research through time. In this connection, the prospective plan of the present inquiry had included an investigation of: (a) what modifications and/or extensions of the "original" formulation of the requisite theory, as produced by the findings of the "original" investigation, guided the direction of subsequent studies; (b) what modifi1

The studies in question are conceived to be identical in approach by virtue of their proceeding from a uniform point of departure. This point of departure consists in the assumption that ideology constitutes a broad and consistent pattern, and is an expression of personality structure. Of course, in referring to the studies in question as being identical in approach, by virtue of proceeding from a common point of departure, is not to imply that in each study there is an acceptance of the foregoing assumption. However, the point of departure is no less the same if, in proceeding from it, one does so for the expressed purpose of negating it (i.e., for the purpose of demonstrating its untenability).

240

SUBSEQUENT STUDIES 1 9 5 0 - 5 7

cations and/or extensions of the theory have been produced successively by subsequent studies; and (c) how, in turn, the successive modifications and/or extensions effected still new directions in empirical investigations. Of course, since the "original" and subsequent Researchers jailed to formulate systematically their requisite theory, either prior to the implementation of their investigations or subsequent to their completion, the foregoing considerations are not possible. However, in accordance with the distinction drawn between "original" and subsequent investigations, it is essential to direct attention to the subsequent studies in order to ascertain how well they sustain the two preceding tests of adequacy. That is to say: to what extent does what was investigated in the subsequent studies, and how they investigated it, comply with the prescriptions emanating from the requisite theory and with the obligatory specific research requirements, respectively. To implement this phase of the inquiry an outline ("questionnaire", as it were) was developed and employed as a guide in abstracting from each of a total of 101 studies the required relevant information. (An abridged version of this outline is reproduced on pp. 50-51 of this work.) In what is to follow, however, only that information pertaining to what was investigated and how (i.e., the general and specific procedures employed in processing collected data - subsequent to scoring each data collecting instrument) will be considered. In regard to the former, the primary consideration concerns whether what was investigated constituted one or another of those relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality (i.e., those relationships requiring investigation). Hence, as a preliminary step, it was necessary to establish what problems and/or hypotheses were most frequently investigated. Having thus acquired this information it could then be determined which of the most frequently investigated problems and/or hypotheses pertain to what relationships requiring investigating. Accordingly, in essence, the foregoing task is one of juxtaposing what was investigated with what required investigating. Concerning how the subsequent researchers investigated what was studied, the task appears not to be so clear-cut. Yet, if, as is the case, the concern is one of ascertaining how well the subsequent studies sustain a test of adequacy in their compliance with the previously derived obligatory specific research requirements, only certain specific procedures are strictly relevant. As such, the specific procedures in question are those required to verify whether: (a) the relevant items of

SELECTIONS AND CATEGORIZATIONS

241

expressed ideology (and/or actions), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata ("ideological themes", "personality trends" or "dispositions") for which they are presumed to be expressions; and (b) whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive thema from which the former is presumed to be derived. It has been disclosed through the foregoing analysis that the obligatory specific procedures, required to verify (a) and (b) above, appertain to the construction of the data collecting instrument, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the initial processing of the data of that instrument - as these data pertain to each "factor" (or variable, for which data are being elicited) entailed in the relationship to be investigated. Correspondingly, the obligatory procedures in question are such as to require being executed subsequent to the "scoring" of the data-collecting instrument, and prior to the general procedures employed to relate data pertaining to two or more "factors" - or data pertaining to the same "factor" but expressed by two or more subjects or samples. ALSO, the specific procedures in question are different from those employed to establish the reliability of the data-collecting instrument. Hence, only the obligatory specific procedures in question are strictly relevant. As such, no attention will be given to reliability procedures;2 and no serious attention will be given to the general procedures unless, of course, they have as one of their objectives the exploration or verification of one or more of the relationships requiring investigating. Thus, as a preliminary step in the above connection, it was necessary to establish what procedures (excluding those pertaining to scoring and reliability) were most frequently employed to investigate what problems and/or hypotheses.

B. SELECTION AND CATEGORIZATION OF SUBSEQUENT STUDIES

As previously noted, the basis for selection of studies included in this phase of the present inquiry consisted of the following criteria: (a) empirical investigations published in the United States between 1950-1957 in a recognized journal; and (b) studies stemming from and employing essentially the same type of approach as the "original" investigation of 2

Since reliability procedures are reported when the data-collecting instrument is initially introduced and omitted in subsequent reports involving the use of the instrument their tabulation in Table I on p. 244 has not been included.

242

SUBSEQUENT STUDIES

1950-57

authoritarian personalities. As a means of identifying studies presumed to have stemmed from the "original" investigation two considerations were primary: namely, reference to the "original" research in introductory "theoretical" statements and/or use of instruments developed by the "original" Researchers. On this basis of selection, 101 studies were chosen8 and classified in terms of the specific and general procedures employed to process data with reference to the respective problems and/or hypotheses investigated. Before proceeding to a presentation of the findings, it is necessary to mention briefly the basis of classification. Of course, it is apparent that the categories required are such as to permit a classification in terms of what was investigated and how. However, it may not be clear that the requirement for categories also entails a juxtaposition of what was investigated with what required investigating, on the one hand; and on the other, a juxtaposition of what was investigated with how it was investigated. Regarding the latter, the customary labels are used to refer to the general procedures employed to process data. The obligatory specific procedures, of course, are those frequently referred to in the foregoing analysis, and will be similarly identified. Regarding the former (i.e., the juxtaposition of what was investigated with what required investigating), the categories refer to, and subsume, the Researchers' two "major" hypotheses, and the relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality - as prescribed in the requisite theory's three propositions and the deductions they allow. Studies investigating problems and/or hypotheses not falling within the above categories were grouped together under appropriate headings reflecting their primary consideration, as revealed in the statement of their problem and/or hypothesis. Accordingly, in classifying the subsequent studies of the authoritarian personalities, the categories appearing in Table I (p. 244a) and Table II (pp. 277-84) below are as follows:4 * Given the basis of selection, it is recognized that there are a few instances which may have been (but were not) included and a few instances that should have been excluded. However that may be, there is no reason to suspect that the results are significantly affected by either the omissions or the irrelevant inclusions. 4 In order to provide a means of checking the reliability of the classifications, each study has been chronologically numbered and listed alphabetically by year in Appendix I. In Table II the corresponding number of each study is given along with its classification under each appropriate category. Hence, one need only check the numbered listing for a particular study in Appendix I and then check Table II for its classification regarding each listed category. Also, included among the category listings in Table II are categories signifying the type of data collecting instrument employed in each study. See Appendix II (pp. 275-76) for the code employed in Table II.

SELECTIONS AND CATEGORIZATIONS

243

1.

Problems and/or hypotheses investigated a. The "original" Researchers' two "major" hypotheses (1) ideology constitutes a broad and consistent pattern (2) ideology as an expression of personality structure (3) both b. Relationships requiring investigation (1) proposition number 1 (2) proposition number 2 (3) proposition number 3 (4) one or more of the deductions allowable c. Co-variation of authoritarianism (or some facet thereof) with some other variable (including other facets of authoritarianism) d. Frequency in which the authoritarian personality type appears in a given (sample) population e. "Test" to determine the presence of some differentiating characteristic (or implication deriving therefrom) customarily imputed to authoritarian and/or non-authoritarian personality types f. Evaluation and/or improvement of technique and/or procedure to collect or process data 2. Procedures used in processing data a. General procedures employed to relate data pertaining to two or more "factors" (variables) - or data pertaining to the same "factor" but "expressed" by two or more subjects or samples5 (1) Correlation analysis (a) simple correlation (b) multiple correlation (c) partial correlation (d) factor analysis (2) Test of significance for differences (a) between two statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, percentages (or proportions), coefficients of relative variation, critical ratios, etc.) (b) Chi-square (c) Analysis of variance b. Obligatory specific procedures re (1) whether items of expressed ideology (and/or actions) are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized themata for which they are presumed to be expressions It may be noted that differentiation of the general procedures is not as rigorous as it otherwise would require if it was strictly relevant to the present task.

5

THE FINDINGS

245

(2) whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive themata from which the former is presumed to be derived. c. Reliability procedures (omitted). In accordance with the foregoing categories, the summary findings are reported in Table I (p. 244).®

C.

THE FINDINGS

Having set forth the relevant findings in Table I, it is now possible to determine the extent to which what the subsequent researchers investigated, and how they investigated it, respectively comply with the prescriptions emanating from the requisite theory, on the one hand; and with the obligatory specific procedures, on the other. Concerning what was investigated vs. what required investigating, the results revealed in Table I are clear-cut and definitive. All but two of 101 studies, published between 1950 and 1957, have no direct bearing on the relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality. That is to say, with the possible exception of the two mentioned studies, what is investigated in the remaining 99 studies are not those relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality. Yet, with few exceptions, the contents handled, as well as the selected problems and/or hypotheses which the researchers profess to be investigating, were governed by the relationships requiring investigation. In fact, in most of these studies, the inferences drawn pertain directly to either (a) some remote "derivative" of one or another of the relationships requiring investigation, or (b) some immediate or remote implication deriving from one or another differentiating characteristic customarily imputed to the authoritarian personality. The two studies representing exceptions to the above observations

" The failure of the over-all total (124) to tally with the total number of studies (101) reflects two or more procedures as having been employed to investigate the same problem and/or hypothesis. In those instances where two or more related but dissimilar problems and/or hypotheses were investigated as a part of the same study, only the primary consideration of the investigation was tabulated. Also, studies numbered as 12 and 15 (see Appendix I) are not tabulated, but for different reasons: the former because of inability to obtain a copy of the report; the latter because of the intuitive handling of the data.

246

SUBSEQUENT STUDIES

1950-57

were executed by Sarnoff (22), 7 and Thibaut and Riecken (88). 8 Although the relationships investigated in each of these two studies are without doubt derivatives of deductions allowable by the requisite theory, there may be some doubt as to whether the investigated relationships comply in the sense of specifying the form in which the relationships between certain hypothesized themata (or "characteristics") are presumed to be manifested in, and expressed by, the authoritarian personality. In regard to what was investigated vs. how it was investigated, the results (as revealed in Table I) are certainly clear-cut, but perhaps not without being open to question. With respect to the specific procedural 7

Irving Sarnoff, "Identification with the Aggressor: Some Personality Correlates of Anti-Semitism Among Jews", Journal of Personality, XX (1951), 199-218. The relationships investigated in this study are as follows: 1. those who identify themselves with the aggressor have a greater degree of negative attitudes toward their parents; 2. those who do not identify themselves with the aggressor have a greater degree of positive attitudes toward their parents; 3. those who identify themselves with the aggressor have a greater degree of negative self-attitudes; 4. those who do not identify themselves with the aggressor have a greater degree of positive self-attitudes; 5. those who identify themselves with the aggressor are prone to react passively in the face of hostile interpersonal attacks upon them; 6. those who do not identify themselves with the aggressor are characterized by a greater incidence of direct retaliatory responses to externally imposed aggression. Cf. propositions two and three of the requisite theory on pp. 157-59 and 155-56 of this work. 8 J. W. Thibaut and H. W. Riecken, "Authoritarianism, Status, and Communication of Aggression", Human Relations, VIII (1955), No. 2, 95-120. This study is addressed to the following relationships: (1) "Differences in the power and status of an instigator and instigatee could seriously affect the amount of hostility generated in the instigator, the strength of the aggressive response, and the degree of rejection." (p. 97.) Hence: (a) "Communications to a High Status Instigator will be characterized by lower intensity of overt aggression than communication to a Lower Status Instigator." (2) "Differences in the degree of sensitivity of the instigatee could also influence to a high degree the amount of hostility generated, the strength of the aggressive response, and the degree of rejection." (p. 105.) Hence: (a) "High authoritarians, as compared to low authoritarians, will show greater initial acceptance of High Status Instigators, and less acceptance of Low Status Instigators." (p. 107.) (b) "With increasing authoritarianism, subjects assigned to the H.S.I, treatment will change in the course of the experiment toward less rejection (of the instigator), while subjects assigned to the L.S.I, treatment will change toward greater rejection." (p. 107.) (c) "Intensity of overt aggression will be a positive function of authoritarianism in the L.S.I, treatment and a negative function of authoritarianism in the H.S.I. treatment." "For high authoritarians, the intensity of overt aggression will be greater in the L.S.I, than in the H.S.I, treatment." Cf. deductions (a) and (b) of proposition number 3 of the requisite theory on pp. 157-58.

THE FINDINGS

247

requirements (i.e., appertaining to (a) and particularly (b)) there certainly is no study among the 101 where the data-collecting instrument is specifically constructed to facilitate the verification of (a) and (b); neither are specific procedures employed which have as their principal objective the verification of (a) and particularly (b). However, through the manner in which factor analysis (or analysis of variance) is employed in studies numbered 29, 62, 64, and 86, it is possible that these procedures may contribute to establishing the verification of (a); despite the fact that in each instance the use of the particularly constructed scales (and tests in the case of 86) would appear to mitigate against such a possibility. Each of the aforementioned studies requires additional analysis which is being undertaken with the aid of a fuller report. Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that these studies failed to sustain the test of adequacy; if not in what they investigated, then in how they investigated it.

V CONCLUSIONS

A. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING ASSESSMENT OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY INVESTIGATIONS

The initial phase of the present inquiry began with a logical derivation of the requisite theory, methodology, and specific research requirements, as induced by the initial and corollary assumptions entailed in the study of "Individual Behavior" in general, and the authoritarian personality in particular. Utilizing these logical derivations as independent criteria, the authoritarian personality studies were assessed to determine how well they comply with these requirements. As such, this assessment was conceived to be a test of their adequacy as a representative approach to a body of social science data. Correspondingly, if the theory, methodology, specific techniques and procedures, employed in the studies in question, failed to comply with the requirements induced by the initial and collary assumptions (to which these Investigators are committed), this failure would constitute proof of the inadequacy of this approach for which it was employed. With the above considerations in mind, attention will be directed to the findings derived from an assessment of the supposed "theory", methodology, techniques and procedures employed in studies of the authoritarian personality. 1. The Investigators' Supposed Personality Theory As previously disclosed, the structural properties of a theory include: (a) the explanatory relationships expressed in each of the required minimum number of propositions; (b) the interrelationships existing between the required propositions; (c) the deductions allowable from the structural properties of the theory; (d) the "characteristics" or themata

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

249

drawn from the deductions derived from the theory - which are singled out for empirical investigation; and (e) there are the specific actions and items of expressed ideology in which the respective themata or "characteristics" are depicted. The "original" Researchers' so-called " 'orientation' theory", as explicitly stated, comprises, for the most part, nothing more than statements asserting that the personality type in question manifests certain differentiating characteristics (themata) - referred to as (d) above. Only in the sense that these "characteristics" are the same as those drawn from the deductions derived from the requisite theory (logically derived in the present inquiry) is the Researchers' " 'orientation' theory" consistent with the requisite theory. As a result of the Investigators' neglect to formulate systematically their requisite theory: a. The theory's structural properties (a) through (c) above were unavailable to them. As such, the Investigators (including the subsequent researchers) had no way of knowing which "characteristics" or themata (i.e., (d) above), singled out for empirical investigation, ensued from what structural properties of the requisite theory. b. The "original" Researchers presumed that "the more directly observable and measurable aspects of personality" (i.e., (d) above) stemmed from some source other than that from which they actually ensued. c. The Investigators had no means open to them for establishing that the so-called "more directly observable" characteristics or themata (singled out for empirical investigation) are in fact manifestations of what they are presumed to be manifestations of - other than the broad label (authoritarian personality) under which they were so subsumed. Consequently, the empirical investigations, for the most part, were thus confined to establishing merely the presence or absence of the "characteristics", or themata (singled out for investigation) for each personality type studied. As such, when the empirical findings disclosed the absence of certain hypothesized characteristics, there was no way of knowing the theoretical significance of this absence. There also was no way of knowing the theoretical significance of the presence of those characteristics appearing in a form not hypothesized; or, the presence of those characteristics appearing in a form contrary to the manner hypothesized. Accordingly, under the preceding circumstances, a test of "plausibility" of the "'orientation' theory" had to consist of establishing the presence of the hypothesized "characteristics" in the authoritarian type,

250

CONCLUSIONS

and demonstrating their absence in other identifiable personality types. This is to say: without the systematic formulation of their requisite theory, support for the "'orientation' theory" could be achieved only through the following conditions. Given, by an independent measure, the potentially identifiable personality types: if only the hypothesized authoritarian personality type manifests the hypothesized characteristics, then it would be reasonable to presume the plausibility of the " 'orientation' theory", but only if it was further granted that the hypothesized characteristics are in fact derivable from the " 'orientation' theory" and not just any other. d. The Investigators were confined to a mode of reasoning, in "testing" the plausibility of their "'orientation' theory", which is incompatible with the requirement of that " 'orientation' theory". Or else, they would have had to simply limit their efforts to establishing merely whether certain behavioral end-products (i.e., specific actions and/or items of expressed ideology) are alternative expressions of a particular thema ("characteristic", "trend", "disposition"); and, whether certain themata are alternative expressions of successively more inclusive themata from which they are presumedly derived. (They very last consideration, of course, requires knowledge of the level of inclusiveness of the various themata involved! Hence, without a systematic formulation of the requisite theory, the Investigators are stymied in this direction as well.) Concerning the confinement to a mode of reasoning for "testing" plausibility which is incompatible with the requirement of their " 'orientation' theory", the following has been disclosed. On the one hand, a test of the "orientation" theory's plausibility was confined to establishing the presence of the hypothesized characteristics in the authoritarian type, and demonstrating their absence in other identifiable personality types. Yet, on the other hand, that same "'orientation' theory" committed the Investigators to the assumption that "identical" personality structures may be manifested in different behavioral expressions (including to some extent different themes - or "characteristics"), and the "same" (or similar) behavioral expressions (including to some extent the same themes) may be manifestations of personality structures of different types. The employment of statistical reasoning, "measurement", and mode of proof constitutes verification of the Investigators' acceptance of the latter commitment. This is to say, use of statistical reasoning signifies (and the results of such procedures confirm) that no given personality

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

251

type is precluded from manifesting at least certain of the characteristics imputed only to the hypothesized personality type. In fact, the test of their " 'orientation' theory" hinges not on establishing merely the presence or absence of the hypothesized characteristics in the hypothesized personality type; but instead, on ascertaining whether certain hypothesized "characteristics" (or themata) appear in some form of relationships only manifested in, and expressed by, the hypothesized personality type. (But, of course, the form these relationships are presumed to take is specified in the deductions (i.e., under number 1 on p. 248) drawn from the structural properties of the requisite theory). These deductions were not available to the Investigators, however, since they failed to formulate systematically their requisite theory. Finally, in this connection, the no-equivocality requirement, inherent in the structural properties of the requisite theory (or any theoretical system, for that matter), is incompatible with a statistical mode of reasoning, "measurement", and mode of proof. As such, the demand for theoretical certitude does not allow for the equivocality which the method of probability statistics is designed to handle. (This represents one of the most fascinating, and the most deep-seated, paradoxes in all of science. Its proposed resolution in this inquiry (see section D of chapter III) is considered to be the most significant finding of this investigation.) e. In concluding this assessment of theory, it may be noted: without having formulated systematically their requisite theory, the Investigators had no means of establishing and certifying demonstrable knowledge since the latter consists of empirical verification of systematically formulated theory.

2. The Investigators' Methodology, Specific Techniques and Procedures In pursuing this assessment, to ascertain whether as an approach the authoritarian personality studies sustain a test of adequacy, attention was directed to what the Researchers investigated empirically and how. As the independent criterion for assessing what was investigated, the prescriptions emanating from their requisite theory were employed. Hence, it was determined the extent to which what was investigated complies with the direction and pointed focus prescribed by their requisite theory. To test the adequacy of how they investigated what was

252

CONCLUSIONS

studied, the specific research requirements inherent in their approach were employed as the independent criterion. In this latter connection, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that probability statistics is the requisite methodology for dealing with the "characteristics" or themata (singled out for empirical investigation), and the specific actions and/or items of expressed ideology depicting these themata. These (themata, actions and expressed ideology) have been demonstrated to behave in accordance with the principle of shifting alternative expression - the appearing counterpart of probability. A s such, the specific techniques and procedures to collect and process such data must be chosen from those derived from the methodology of probability, since it is in terms of this requisite methodology that the former is legitimatized. During the course of deriving logically the methological requirements with which the Investigators were required to comply, it was noted that the requisite methodology ultimately ensued from the initial and corollary assumptions entailed in the broad body of data (Individual Behavior) for which their specific unit of study (authoritarian personality) represents a specific instance. The requisite specific research requirements, however, stem most immediately from the web of relations existing among the requisite theory, the methodology of probability, and the nature of opinion-attitude scales (or other specific probability techniques and/or procedures) as instruments embodying probability reasoning, logic of "measurement", and mode of proof. As such, the logically derived specific research requirements constitute a resultant (i.e., a product or synthesis) of prior requirements, emerging from divergent sources comprising a succession of interrelated chain of steps extending back to the initial element of control induced by the initial assumption. (See section D of chapter III.) In accordance with the foregoing considerations, it was determined to what extent what was investigated complies with the prescriptions emanating from the requisite theory, on the one hand; and how it was investigated complies with the obligatory specific research requirements, on the other. In this regard the following findings emerged: a. A s set forth in their two "major" hypotheses, and also reflected in the principal objectives of the general procedures employed to process their collected data, the central focus of what the "original" Researchers INTENDED to investigate comprised two relationships. Restated, these two relationships may be expressed as follows: (1) The numerous opinions, attitudes, and values, expressed by an individual are interwoven products of a broad, consistent, and organized ideological pattern; and

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

253

(2) This ideological pattern is an expression of the individual's personality structure.1 As such, the central focus of what the "original" Researchers claimed to be investigating committed them to determining whether selectively "consumed" ideology is organized WITHIN the individual; and, whether the ideology expressed is a product of this organization. Yet, their separate treatment of ideology and personality as entailed in the choice of general procedures, employed to process their collected data, actually involved an attempt to establish that expressed ideologies of different individuals of the "same" personality type constitute a broad and consistent pattern. In the latter connection, the corresponding conclusion drawn from findings derived through the use of the first general procedure (of those in question) presumes that the mere presence in association of the same (or similar) ideological themes ("trends" or themata) is an indication that the different individuals expressing them are "identical" in personality structure (or type): hence, the themes in question are organized WITHIN the individuals involved. When stated more specifically this deception appears in bolder relief. In essence, when taken separately, each of the scales and the personality "scoring categories" achieves no more than an identification of the presence or absence (suggestion of "degree" or intensity, and frequency, notwithstanding) of themes presumed to differentiate the contrasting personality types. Hence, the inference (corresponding to the "major" hypothesis) drawn is derived by means of reasoning based on the associations (or covariations) of certain groupings of themes established through the use of one or another of the general procedures - employed to relate data pertaining to two or more "factors" (variables), or data pertaining to the same "factor" but expressed by two or more subjects or samples. (It has been noted previously that this mode of reasoning is incompatible with that required by the " 'orientation' theory".) In essence, their separate treatment of ideology and personality by means of the general procedures in question committed them to what amounts to an attempt to establish from the outside what they presumed to exist inside. It may be noted also that the lack of congruence between what they claimed to be investigating and what they actually investigated constitutes a reflection (after-effect, as it were) of the incongruity between the mode of reasoning to which they were con-

1

Cf. figure 3 on succeeding pages 254-56.

254

CONCLUSIONS

Relationships requiring investigation "Orientation theory"

What was actually investigated Hypotheses

Personality F scale

#2

Relationships Presumed to Characterize the Authoritarian Personality (Not explicitly stated)

Anti-Semitism scale

Ethnocentric scale

# 1

Politico-economic scale

Personality scoring categories

# 2

# land 2 Figure 3

255

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

How they investigated what they studied General procedures Reliability procedures Specific procedures 1. Alternate action

Inter- and intracorrelations

and ideology 2. Alternative themata a. Split-half reliability procedure - to establish total scale reliability (correction by means of Spearman-Brown formula) as b. Inter-corrections of sub-scales of the respective scales to establish reliability of sub-scales

Inter- and intracorrelations

c. Likert's Discriminatory power technique to establish reliability of scale items

o c« C o X

*

O O w d c m e«

ffl s

Cross tabulation

Intuitive interpretation of interview excerpts

d. Blind-ratings, including randomly mixed coded high and low protocols; and in some instances randomization of separately coded responses of the same subjects grouped with similarly treated responses of all subjects comprising sample

r

o *< w d

256

CONCLUSIONS

fined, and the mode of reasoning required by their "'orientation' theory". b. Even if the general procedures, executed by the "original" Reseachers in processing their data, were to provide verification of their two "major" hypothesized relationships, this hypothetical result would not have "significant" relevance with respect to the empirical validity of a particular personality theory - be that the Researchers' requisite authoritarian personality theory or any other. Correspondingly, the two "major" hypothesized relationships, constituting the central focus of what the Researchers claimed to be investigating, do not comply with what required investigating. In this same regard, what was investigated in all but two of 101 subsequent studies, published between 1950-1957, are not those relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality - the relationships requiring investigation. c. In the "original" Researchers' construction of the specifically developed instruments (i.e., scales), as well as in the development of their personality "scoring categories", contents and their form were sought, selected, and incorporated which the Researchers presumed would differentiate authoritarian from non-authoritarian personalities. Presumably, the Researchers' understanding of the difference between authoritarians and non-authoritarians was provided by, and/or represented in, or as, their so-called "'orientation' theory". As such, the relationships characterizing the authoritarian personality enabled the Researchers to differentiate between authoritarians and non-authoritarians. Correspondingly, the relationships requiring investigation governed the selection of the contents and the form in which they were incorporated into the specifically constructed instruments and personality rating categories. d. The only specific procedures employed (by the "original" Researchers) subsequent to the scoring of the scales and ratings on personality categories, but prior to the execution of the general procedures, were those establishing the reliability of the scales, their subscales and items, on the one hand; and the reliabilities of the raters, on the other. Hence, there is an absence of specific procedures intended to assess the validity of those relationships for which the scale contents and personality rating categories are presumed to be indicative. Since neither of the general procedures could possibly contribute to an assessment of the validity of those relationships presumed to charac-

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

257

terize the authoritarian, no procedures are employed to process data obtained from the scales and personality rating categories which could contribute to an assessment of the validity of the relationships requiring investigation; even though these relationships may in fact have governed the selection of the scale and rating (category) contents as well as their form. Moreover, without having built these relationships in question, and/or their conditions, into the data collecting instruments there can be no procedures capable of being employed which would allow for an assessment of the validity of these relationships. (See section D of chapter III.) Since neither of the general procedures, regardless of any additional functions they may have served beside their principal objective of verifying two "major" hypotheses, could possibly contribute to an assessment of the validity of the relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality, there is inherent in the Researchers' method another decisive incongruity. This incongruity is as follows. The choice of contents and their form was governed by the objective of differentiating authoritarians from non-authoritarians - and hence had as its source the Researchers' "'orientation' theory"; whereas, the general procedures employed to process the preceding "contents" were governed by (and hence had as their source) the principal objective of verifying the Researchers' two "major" hypotheses. But, since verification of their two "major" hypotheses cannot possibly contribute to an assessment of the validity of their " 'orientation' theory", these two different sources of their procedural methods are, from the point of view of the demands of their method, incongruous. (Note again the adverse effects of the incongruity between the mode of reasoning to which the Researchers were confined and the mode of reasoning required by their " 'orientation' theory".) e. Although the only specific procedures employed, subsequent to the scoring of the scales and ratings on personality categories but prior to the execution of the general procedures, were those establishing reliability, these reliability procedures do not comply in any way with the obligatory specific research requirements entailed in verifying whether: (1) the relevant items of expressed ideology (and/or actions), manifested by the authoritarian personality, are in fact alternative expressions of the respective hypothesized thema ("ideological theme", "personality trend" or "disposition") which they presumedly express; and (2) whether the less inclusive hypothesized thematic expressions are in fact alternative expressions of the successively more inclusive

258

CONCLUSIONS

themata from which the former are presumed to be derived. In essence, when taken separately, each of the scales and the personality rating categories "achieves" no more than an identification of the presence or absence (the intra-correlations notwithstanding) of themes presumed to differentiate the contrasting personality types. Accordingly, the inferences drawn, corresponding to their "major" hypotheses, are derived by reasoning based on the co-variations of certain groupings of themes established by means of the general procedures used to process collected data. Similarly, the inferences corresponding to the relationships presumably characterizing the authoritarian personality (the relationships requiring investigation) are also drawn by means of reasoning based on results derived from the general procedures: procedures which cannot possibly contribute to an assessment of these relationships. It has been repeatedly noted that this mode of reasoning is incongruous with that required by their "'orientation' theory". In the above connection, there is no study among the 101 subsequent studies in which the data-collecting instruments are specifically constructed to meet the obligatory specific research requirements specified in (1) and (2) under (e) immediately above. Neither are there specific procedures employed having as their principal objective the verification of (1) and (2) under (e) above. In sum, how the Researchers investigated what required investigating also fails to sustain the test of adequacy.

3. The Lack of Coherence (or Congruence) in and between the Chain of Steps Comprising the Investigators' "Theory", Methodology, Specific Techniques and Procedures It has been postulated that whatever else the adequacy of an approach to social science data is required to entail, it must include coherence in and between the chain of steps presumed to be relevant to theoretical solutions. Moreover, an approach to data (unerringly derived) cannot be adequate in the latter respect and not be adequate in other respects. Correspondingly, it is not sufficient for each of the numerous and varied techniques and procedures employed in an investigation to be legitimate (reliable and valid) and relevant in and of itself; in addition each must also cohere as an interrelated chain of steps. As a corollary to this postulate, it was noted: in order for coherence in and between the chain of steps to exist, the direction taken by the latter must be

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

259

determined by the initial and corollary assumptions entailed in the broad body of data for which the unit of study represents a specific instance. Hence, when this occurs, these assumptions will determine: (a) the direction

and lines along which the requisite theory has to be

formulated; (b) the type of methodology required; and (c) the specific research techniques and procedures from which choice may legitimately be made. Accordingly, it was reasoned that the failure of prevailing approaches to social science data to yield a body of demonstrable knowledge may lie less in the legitimacy of each (i.e., taken separately) specific technique or procedure, than in whether or not they, as a chain of steps, cohere; and/or whether or not the initial and corollary assumptions determining their direction are congruent with the body of data in question. Hence, the foregoing considerations require a report of findings in this regard. When the above empirical investigations of the authoritarian personality are examined in terms of the coherence required to exist between the chain of steps, the following disclosures emerge. a. Since verification of the "original" Researchers' two "major" hypotheses cannot possibly contribute to a verification of their " 'orientation' theory", a lack of congruence exists between the two "major" hypotheses investigated and the relationships requiring investigating: (i.e., those relationships presumed to characterize the authoritarian personality and represented in, or as, their so-called "'orientation' theory"). b. There is a lack of congruence between the central focus of what the "original" Researchers claimed to be investigating and what they actually investigated. c. There is a lack of congruence between the mode of reasoning to which the Investigators were confined and the mode of reasoning required by the " 'orientation' theory". d. Hence: (1) The choice of contents and their form were governed by the objective of differentiating authoritarians from non-authoritarians - and thus had as their source the Researchers' " 'orientation' theory". (2) The general procedures, employed to process the data collected, were governed by (and hence had as their source) the principal objective of verifying the researchers' two major hypotheses. (3) Although their scoring method (or scoring system) was governed by (and hence had as its source) the manner in which the Researchers chose to use the selected contents and their form to differen-

tiate authoritarians from non-authoritarians, the particular scoring

260

CONCLUSIONS

technique was governed, on the one hand, by the objective of establishing the reliability of the separate scales, their subscales and items; and, on the other, by the principal objective of verifying their two "major" hypotheses. (4) As a consequence of the latter choice, the scoring technique (including the numerical product derived therefrom) is incompatible with the technique of scoring required to determine if the scales do in fact "measure" (test, establish, or verify) what they were required to "measure", test, establish, and verify: i.e., whether an item of behavior is an alternative expression of the particular theme of which it is presumed to be indicative; and, whether less inclusive themes are alternative expressions of successively more inclusive themes. (5) As such, a pronounced lack of coherence (or congruence) among the various procedural steps is disclosed. Therefore, it is demonstrably established that these procedural steps do not constitute a consistent chain of steps. B. IMPLICATIONS DERIVABLE FROM THE USE OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY STUDIES AS A "MEASURE" OF THE ADEQUACY OF APPROACHES TO SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA

The introduction to this investigation began with a search for the solution to the following question. Why have social science inquiries failed to yield a body of demonstrable knowledge? During the course of the initial search it was deduced that the approaches to social science data are inadequate for the task for which they are being employed. Wherefore, the inadequacy was postulated to consist in the failure to fulfill the requirements induced by the initial and corollary assumptions entailed in the broad bodies of data in question. More specifically, the inadequacy was hypothesized to be due to the failure of theory, methodology, specific techniques and procedures to comply with the requirements induced by the initial and corollary assumptions entailed in the broad body of data for which the specific unit of study represents an instance. Conversely, in accordance with this hypothesis, it was postulated that adequacy of an approach to social science data must entail coherence in and between the chain of steps presumed to be relevant to theoretical problem solutions. Correspondingly, for coherence in and between the chain of steps to exist, the direction taken by the latter must be determined by the initial and corollary assumptions underlying the broad body of data in question. Hence: employing empirical studies of the authoritarian personality

EPILOGUE

261

as a specific instance of Individual Behavior, an analysis was made to determine if these studies comply with the requirements induced by the initial and corollary assumptions to which their approach was committed. As such, it was reasoned that: (1) if the requirements are fulfilled and the authoritarian personality studies fail to yield any demonstrable knowledge, the postulate cannot account for the inadequacy of social science approaches; (2) if the requirements are not fulfilled (or only partially or inadequately fulfilled) and the "test" studies fail to yield any demonstrable knowledge, the inadequacy of the approach employed in the studies is due, at least in part, to the reason hypothesized - regardless of what other inadequacies may be involved; (3) given the latter: to the extent that the authoritarian personality studies do in fact consist of a representative instance of proficiency characterizing approaches to social science data in general, the postulate is confirmed. It has been demonstrably established that there exists a pronounced lack of congruence in and between the chain of steps comprising the Investigators' "theory", methodology, specific techniques and procedures. Therefore, it must be concluded that the failure of social science inquiries is due to the reason postulated. C. EPILOGUE

It is, of course, not customary to speak of an epilogue in connection with a scientific treatise. However, it may be justifiable in this instance, since the summary findings thus far reported are exclusive of the extensive findings emerging from this inquiry; and the entire body of findings extend (in their relevance) to all studies of Individual Behavior — where the concern is the explanation of some aspect of individual behavior. This is not to say that all the disclosures in question are discoveries. They are findings in the sense that each constitutes an elaborated implication deriving from the initial and two corollary assumptions entailed in the study of Individual Behavior. Hence, each elaborated implication derives from a common "root" source, and, as a consequence, coheres with each other, and each with the common source. It is in this sense that the findings extend to all studies of Individual Behavior. As such, if one grants the initial assumption, he simultaneously commits himself to its corollaries and their implications. Correspondingly, if the initial assumption is congruent with the body of data in question, one is so committed whether he wishes to be or not. Finally, it may be noted that these elaborated implications represent

262

CONCLUSIONS

the positive side of the postulate with which this inquiry began. That is, each implication represents a specific requirement with which an adequate approach to Individual Behavior must comply. Accordingly, these elaborated implications, as a group, are requirements, deriving from the initial and two corollary assumptions, which impel the investigation of Individual Behavior to take a certain direction. In so doing, they determine the requisite theory, methodology, specific techniques and procedures. In order that this facet of the present inquiry may be telescopically revealed, and, at the same time, provide a summary presentation of the requirements pertaining to all studies of Individual Behavior, the initial assumption, two of its corollaries and elaborated implications respectively derived from each will be briefly presented. The presentation will appear as outlined. 1. Initial assumption: Behavior per se is a representation (or sign), and an effect, of an attempt to fulfill some motivational intent, of which the individual himself may, or may not, be aware. a. First Corollary: The various ways of handling a given motive can lead to, and/or result in, a variety of shifting alternative behavioral expressions of identical motivational intents. Hence: (1) Identical motivational intents may be manifested in a diversity of shifting alternative behavioral forms - including behavior diametrically opposed to what appears to be the "basic" intent of the motive. Thus, there must be some intervening factor which provides the link and continuity between the motivational intent and its incongruous (or congruous) behavioral expression. (2) Not only may the "same" behavioral form represent different motivational intents, but the same motivational intent may be expressed in different behavioral forms. This is tantamount to saying that the same (or similar) personality structures may be manifested in different behavioral expressions, and the same (or similar) behavioral expressions may be manifestations of different personality structures. Hence, in the study of "Individual Behavior" or in the comparative study of different individuals, it is misleading to speak of, or refer to, the "same" behavioral forms as homologous when they appear to serve similar (or the same) momentary functions, and have the same (or similar) observable characteristics. (3) It is fallacious to correlate instances, or classes of instances, of Manifest (expressed) Behavior in the study of the Individual, or in the comparative study of different individuals. Thus: the relationships re-

EPILOGUE

263

quiring investigation are not between various manifest (expressed) behaviors, or "classes" thereof. Instead, these relationships, concerning which theoretical proposals need to be formulated, exist between (a) motivation and behavior (i.e., between something latent and something manifest), and (b) motivation and motivation. (In essence, of course, the latter dimension - "motivation and motivation" is only a facet of the "motivation and behavior" dimension. As such, it appears most distinguishable when drive-motives are viewed and analyzed genetically.) b. Second Corollary: Successive derivations from a common (or "root") motivational source, by means of a series of successive resolutions of conflict and/or oppositions, will produce a series of hierarchically organized motivational derivations. Hence: (1) When viewed genetically, there will exist for each such series, a series of motivational derivations between the "root" source and the diversity of manifest behaviors constituting the end-products of each respectives series. (2) The derivations comprising any given series are dynamically and functionally related to one another, and each to the common source, by means of the techniques exercised to resolve the successive conflicts and/or oppositions. (3) Each motivational derivation of a series will be portrayed or depicted as a recurring thema running throughout a diversity of corresponding specific behavioral acts, which represent alternative expressions of the thema as well as an expression of the organized motivational series of which the thema is a member. (4) Since the successive derivations will vary in their degree of proximity to their common "root" source, the themata of a series will differ in levels of inclusiveness. (5) Obversely, a rough correspondence will exist between the order in genetic sequence and the degree of "depth" the themata represent within personality structure and functioning. (6) The range of behavioral acts depicting any given thema (comprising an organized motivational series) will correspond to the latter's level of inclusiveness. (7) The successively derived themes will be alternative expressions of prior derivations.2 Consequently, those themata at any given level of derivation will represent constancy in relation to those themata that succeed them in derivation, and inconsistancy, flexibility and diversity 2

Cf. figure 4 on p. 264.

264

CONCLUSIONS

in relation to those themata that precede stancy and diversity are diametrical

their derivation. Hence,

con-

expressions of the same process

and structure. (diminishing levels of thematic inclusiveness)

Ai

la *2a - °3a ®4a

Cl ~

C2 c.

Di Do¿t D3 D4

El - E2 E3 E4

("root" motives)

Dii.

Diverse and contradictory behavioral end-products of the series, in which the given series are depicted

(Comparable to the above)

®3b ®4b

Techniques exercised to resolve successive conflicts and/or oppositions - viewed genetically Since in accordance with corollaries Nos. 2 and 4 successive derivations (A t , B, C, D, E and F), by means of a series of successive resolutions of conflicts and/or oppositions (Tj, T 2 , T 3 , T 4 , T 5 , T 6 , etc.), are dynamically and functionally related to one another, and each to the common source (x), it follows that subsequent derivations are alternative expressions of successively prior derivations. Figure 4 Successive Motivational Derivations from Respectively Common ('root') Motives Viewed Genetically (8)

A s such, the relationships existing between these motivational

derivations constitute a pattern of organization for which the corresponding diverse

and contradictory

behavioral end-products are an

expression. ( T h e related behaviors expressing such a pattern are not logically

related but are dynamically

and functionally

related by means

EPILOGUE

265

of the techniques exercised to resolve the successive conflicts and/or oppositions.) Thus, for each thema comprising a series, a wide variety of behavioral acts may exist in which the thema may be expressed. In this manner, any given thema may be depicted in a diversity of specific and contradictory behavior acts - appropriate for this or that situation, toward this or that "object" type, in each area of social life (i.e., political, economic, family, recreational, etc.), according to the class and/or status identification in question. c. Given the foregoing elaborated implications, it was demonstrated how these considerations: (1) Necessitate a distinction between (a) the motivational genesis of a pattern of behaviors, and (b) the momentary activation (or motivation) of specific behaviors', the latter comprising and expressing instances of the genetically derived pattern in any given present. Thus, a distinction is made between the activation of behavior at any given point in time, and what guides the direction (i.e., particular form) the momentarily activated behavior takes. Hence, it is revealed how the past (genetically derived themes) is recapitulated in the present. (2) Solve the problems pertaining to: (a) stability and directional continuity, or transitory vs. perpetuated effects - despite fluctuations in motivational intensity. (Were there not stability and directional continuity, coherence in ideas, behavior, and modes of thought could not recur consistently in one ideological area after another. There could not be the reported unity and coherence comprising the structure of broad individual ideological patterns); (b) the existence of previously observed motives during the momentary absence of activation; (c) how inactive motives may be in a constant state of activation; and (d) individual selective "consumption" of ideology and particular behavioral forms of expression. (3) Direct attention to the recognition that behavior (no matter how diverse and contradictory) constitutes an end-product of the series for which it is an expression. Correspondingly, the motivational derivations, the themata depicting them, and the behavioral end-products expressing the themata, represent qualitatively different forms and expressions at different levels of the same genetic motivational process and structure from which they have emerged. As such, it is via the themata that the past (as represented in and by the genetic motivational derivations which the themata portray) is recapitulated in the present (as represented in and by the diverse and contradictory specific behavioral acts in which the themata are depicted). Moreover, since the presently

266

CONCLUSIONS

recurring themata portray the successive genetic derivations, the structure of the dynamic relations existing among these themata (for which the corresponding diversity of actions and ideologies are an expression) must also reflect the genetically derived, hierarchically organized motivational structure. Consequently, the dynamic motivational structure, the corresponding structure of the dynamic relations existing among the themata, and the dynamic pattern of behavioral end-products depicting the prior structure, will represent different forms and expressions at different levels of the same process and structure. Accordingly, each is a non-reversed mirror image (i.e., a reflector) of each other. Hence, since the motivational structure is accessible only through the direct observation of behavioral end-products, depicting the thematic relations portraying the motivational structure, the thematic relations must constitute the focal point of the empirical analysis of personality organization and functioning. (4) Solve the problem pertaining to the nomethetic demands of science regarding personality study. Since the infinite variations of personality structures are a function of the manner in which drive-motives are handled - thus, of "ego" and "superego" organization, it is only with regard to personality types that the nomethetic demands of science can possibly be fulfilled: and, in this instance, only if it is assumed that each distinguishable personality type has evolved and employs essentially the same genetically developed modes of handling drive-motives. (5) Finally: it may be noted that the foregoing elaborated implications solve the problem of how it is possible that the structural properties of a (classical) theory (conceptualized according to the laws of logic and consisting of the minimum number of logically independent conceptual elements found necessary to support the structure) can constitute a conceptual "representation" of a reality which, in itself, is widely diverse and contradictory. In this connection it was disclosed that the personality theory must embody the two dimensions of (a) "motivation and behavior", and (b) "motivation and motivation". As such, this means the theory must reflect depth - as signified by the hierarchical genetic development, as well as breadth - as signified by a contemporary global view. (The former involves "mirroring" the hierarchy entailed in the series of motivational derivations existing between root motivational sources and subsequent behavioral expressions.)

APPENDIX I

The 101 studies listed below comprise the "population" of subsequent empirical studies stimulated by the "original" investigation and published in the United States between 1950-1957. 1950 1. Crown, S., "Some Personality Correlates of Warmindedness and Anti-Semitism", /. Soc. Psychol. XXXI (1950), 131-43. 2. Dembrose, L. A., and Levinson, D. J., "Ideological Militancy and Pacifism in Democratic Individuals", J. Soc. Psychol. XXXII (1950), 101-13. 3. Gough, Harrison G., Harris, D. B., Martin, William E., and Eduards, Marcia, "Children's Ethnic Attitudes: I. Relationship to Certain Personality Factors", Child Develop. XXI (1950), 83-91. 4. Harris, D. B., Gough, H. G., and Martin, W. E., "Children's Ethnic Attitudes: II. Relationship to Parental Beliefs Concerning Child Training", Child Develop. XXI (1950), 169-81. 5. Himelhoch, Jerome, "Tolerance and Personality Need: A Study of the Liberalization of Ethnic Attitudes among Minority Group College Students", Amer. Sociol. Rev. XV (1950), 79-88. 6. Lindzey, G., and Rogolsky, S., "Prejudice and Identification of Minority Group Membership", J. Abnorm. Psychol. XLV (1950), 37-53. 7. Mayo, G. D., and Kinzer, J. R., "Comparison of the Racial Attitudes of White and Negro High School Students in 1940-48", J. Psychol. XXIX (1950), 397-405. 8. Mussen, P. H., "Some Personality and Social Factors Related to Changes in Children's Attitudes toward Negroes", J. Abnorm. Psychol. XLV (1950), 423-41. 9. Raake, M. J., and Trager, H. G., "Children's Perception of the

268

10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

APPENDIX I

Social Roles of Negroes and Whites", J. Psychol. X X I X (1950), 3-33. Rokeach, M., "Effect of Perception-Time upon Rigidity and Concreteness of Thinking", J. Exp. Psychol. X L (1950), 206-16. Rokeach, M., "Narrow-Mindedness and Ethnocentrism", Amer. Psychol, V (1950), 308. Sanford, Fillmore H., Authoritarianism and Leadership; A Study of the Followers' Orientation to Authority (Philadelphia Institute for Research in Human Relations, I V ) (1950), 189. Scheffler, I., and Winslow, C. N., "Group Position and Attitude Toward Authority", J. Soc. Psychol. X X X I I (1950), 177-90. Tresselt, M. E., and Becker, M., "Scales of Judgment and Personality Correlates", /. Gen. Psychol., X L I I I (1950), 221-30.

1951 15. Bienenstok, Theodore, "Antiauthoritarian Attitudes in the Eastern European (Shtetl) Community", Amer. J. Sociol. L V I I (1951), 150-58. 16. Bloch, Jack and Jeanne, "An Investigation of the Relationship between Intolerance of Ambiguity and Ethnocentrism", J. Personality, X I X (1951), 303-11. 17. Campbell, D. T., and McCandless, B. R., "Ethnocentrism, Xenophobia, and Personality", Hum. Relat. TV (1951) 185-92. 18. Christie, Richard, and Garcia, John, "Subcultural Variations in Authoritarian Personality", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., X L V I (1951), 457-69. 19. Gough, H. G., "Studies of Social Intolerance: I. Some Psychological and Sociological Correlates of Anti-Semitism", J. Soc. Psychol., X X X I I I (1951), 237-46. 20. , "III. Relationship of the Pr Scale to Other Variables", J. Soc. Psychol., X X X I I I (1951), 257-62. 21. , " I V . Related Social Attitudes", J. Soc. Psychol, X X X I I I (1951), 263-69. 22. Sarnoff, Irving, "Identification with the Aggressor: Some Personality Correlates of Anti-Semitism Among Jews", /. Pers., XX (1951), 199-218.

1952 23. Bird, C., and others, "Infiltration and the Attitudes of White and

LIST OF SUBSEQUENT STUDIES

24.

25. 26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

31.

32.

33. 34.

35.

36.

269

Negro Parents and Children", J. Abnorm. Psychol., XLVII (1952), 688-99. Eager, J., and Smith, M. B., "Note on the Validity of Sanford's Authoritarian-Equalitarian Scale", J. Abnorm. Psychol., XLVII (1952), 265-67. Evans, R. I., "Personal Values as Factors in Anti-Semitism", (Tabs). /. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVII (1952), 749-56. Goodnow, R. E., and Tagivri, R., "Religious Ethnocentrism and its Recognition among Adolescent Boys", J. Abnorm. Psych., XLVII (1952), 316-20. Grossack, M., "Study of Attitudes toward American Policy in Germany (exploration of the relationship between anti-semitic ideology and attitudes)", Publ. Opin. Quart., XVI, 3 (1952), 44042. Hollander, Edwin P., "The Significance of Attitudes toward Authority Figures in Discriminating between Naval Aviation Cadets of 'High' and 'Low' Motivation", U.S. Naval School Aviat. Med. Res. Rep., (1952), Proj. No. N M.001, 058. 05. 03, 12, III. Kerr, W. A., "Untangling the Liberalism-Conservatism Continuum", J. Soc. Psychol., XXXV (1952), 111-25. Lundberg, G. A., and Dickson, L., "Selective Association among Ethnic Groups in a High School Population", Amer. Soc. Rev., XVII (1952), 23-35. Morse, N. C., and Allport, F. H., "Causation of Anti-Semitism: an Investigation of Seven Hypotheses", J. Psychol., XXXIV (1952), 197-233. O'Connor, Patricia, "Ethnocentrism, 'Intolerance of Ambiguity' and Abstract Reasoning Ability", /. Abnorm. Psychol., XLVII (1952), 526-30. Prothro, E. T., 'Ethnocentrism and Anti-Negro Attitudes in the Deep South", J. Abnorm. Psychol., XLVII (1952), 105-08. Prothro, E. T., and Jensen, J. A., "Comparison of Some Ethnic and Religious Attitudes of Negro and White College Students in the Deep South", Soc. Forces, XXX (1952), 426-28. Prothro, E. T., and Miles, O. K., "Comparison of Ethnic Attitudes of College Students and Middle Class Adults from the Same State", J. Soc. Psychol., XXXVI (1952), 53-58. Rokeach, M., "Attitudes as a Determinant of Distortions in Recall", J. Abnorm. Psychol., XLVII Sup. (1952), 482-88.

270

APPENDIX I

37. Sanai, M., "Relation between Social Attitudes and Characteristics of Personality", J. Soc. Psychol., XXXVI (1952), 3-13. 38. Sanai, M., "An Empirical Study of Political, Religious, and Social Attitudes", Brit. J. Psychol., Statistics Sect., V (1952), 81-92. 1953 39. Adelson, J., "A Study of Minority Group Authoritarianism", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVIII, 4 (1953), 477-85. 40. Altus, W. D., and Tafejian, T. T., "M.M.P.I. Correlates of the California E-F Scale", J. Soc. Psychol., XXXVIII (1953), 14549. 41. Biere, J., "Changes in Interpersonal Perceptions following Social Interaction", / . Abnorm. Psychol., XLVIII (1953), 61-66. 42. Brown, R. W., "Determinant of the Relationship between Rigidity and Authoritarianism", J. Abnorm. Psychol., XLVIII (1953), 469-76. 43. Davidson, H. H., and Kruglov, L. P., "Some Background Correlates of Personality and Social Attitudes", J. Soc. Psychol., XXXVIII (1953), 233-40. 44. Goodstein, Leonard D., "Intellectual Rigidity and Social Attitudes", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVIII, 3 (1953), 345-53. 45. Gump, P. V., "Anti-Democratic Trends and Student Reaction to Pres. Truman's Dismissal of General MacArthur", J. Soc. Psychol., XXXVIII (1953), 131-35. 46. Hoffman, Martin L., "Some Psychodynamic Factors in Compulsive Conformity", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVIII (1953), 383-93. 47. Janowitz, Morris, and Marvick, D., "Authoritarianism and Political Behavior", Pub. Opin. Quart., XVII, 2 (1953), 185-201. 48. Jones, Stewart, and Gaier, Eugene L., "A Study of the AntiDemocratic Potential of Teachers", J. Educ. Res., XLVII (1953), 1-18.

49. Levitt, E., and Zelen, S., "The Einstellung Test as a Measure of Rigidity", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVIII (1953), 573-79. 50. McCurdy, Harold G., and Eber, Herbert W., "Democratic Versus Authoritarian: A Further Investigation of Group Problem Solving", J. Pers., XXII (1953), 258-69. 51. Meresko, Robert, Reuben, Mandel, Shontz, F. C., and Marron, W. R., "Rigidity of Attitudes Regarding Personal Habits and its

LIST OF SUBSEQUENT STUDIES

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

271

Ideological Correlates", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLIX, 1 (1953), 89-94. Mischler, E. G., "Personality Characteristics and the Resolution of Role Conflicts (Particularly Respecting the Authoritarian Personality)", Pub. Opin. Quart., XVII, 1 (1953), 115-35. Prothro, E. Terry, and Melikian, Levon, "The California Public Opinion Scale in an Authoritarian Culture", Pub. Opin. Quart., XVII (1953), 353-62. Radke-Yarrow, M., and Lande, B., "Personality Correlates of Differential Reaction to Minority Group Belonging", /. Soc. Psychol., XXXVIII (1953), 253-72. Scodel, A., and Müssen, P., "Social Perception of Authoritarians and Non-Authoritarians", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLVIII (1953), 181-84. Young, P. C., Bass, B. M., McGhee, C. R., Hawkins, W. C., "Personality Variables Related to Leaderless Group Discussion Behavior", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psych., XLVIII (1953), 120-28. 1954

57. Brodbeck, Arthur J., and Perlmutter, Howard, "Selfdislike as a Determinant of Marked In-group Out-group Preferences", J. Psychol., XXXVIII (1954), 271-80. 58. Cohn, Thomas S., and Carsch, Henry, "Administration of the F Scale to a Sample of Germans", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLIX (1954), 471. 59. Corder, Robert Floyd, "A Factorial Approach to Anti-Democratic Attitudes", Purdue Univ. Stud. Higher Educ., No. 82 (1954), 42 pp. 60. Dorris, Ronald J., Levinson, Daniel J., and Haufmann, Eugenia, "Authoritarian Personality Studies by a New Variation of the Sentence Completion Technique", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLIX (1954), 99-108. 61. Hollander, E. P., "Authoritarianism and Leadership Choice in a Military Setting", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLIX, 3 (1954), 365-70. 62. Jones, Eduard E., "Authoritarianism as a Determinant of First Impression Formation", J. Pers., XXIII (1954), 107-27. 63. Masling, J. M., "How Neurotic is the Authoritarian?" J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., XLIX, 2 (1954), 316-18.

272 64.

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

APPENDIX I

O'Neil, W. M., and Levinson, Daniel J., "A Factorial Exploration of Authoritarianism and Some of its Ideological Concomitants", J. Pers., X X I I (1954), 449-63. Pearl, David, "Ethnocentrism and the Self-Concept", J. Soc. Psychol., X L (1954), 137-47. Perlmutter, Howard V., "Some Characteristics of the Xenophilic Personality", / . Psychol., X X X V I I I (1954), 291-300. Rubin-Rabson, G., "Several Correlates of a Conservatism-Liberalism Attitudes Scale", J. Soc. Psychol., X X X I X (1954), 47-55. Siegel, Sidney, "Certain Determinants and Correlates of Authoritarianism", Genet. Psychol. Monogr., X L I X (1954), 187-229. Stagner, Ross, "Attitude Toward Authority: An Exploratory Study", J. Soc., Psychol., X L (1954), 197-210. Steiner, Ivan D., "Ethnocentrism and Tolerance of Trait 'Inconsistency'," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., X L I X (1954), 349-54. Sullivan, P. L., and Adelson, J., "Ethnocentrism and Misanthropy", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., X L I X , 2 (1954), 246-50.

1955 72. Bass, Bernard M., "Authoritarianism or Acquiescence?" J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol, L I (1955), 616-23. 73. Davids, Anthony, "Some Personality and Intellectual Correlates of Intolerance of Ambiguity", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., LI (1955), 415-20. 74. Dowling, B., "Some Personality Factors Involved in Intolerant Behavior", / . Soc. Psychol., X L I (1955), 325-27. 75. French, E., and Ernest, R. R., "The Relation Between Authoritarianism and Acceptance of Military Ideology", J. Personality, X X I V (1955), 181-91. 76. Haiman, Franklyn S., "A Measurement of Authoritarian Attitudes toward Discussion Leadership", Quart. J. of Speech, X L I (1955), 140-44. 77. Huffman, P. E., and Levinson, D. J., "Authoritarian Personality and Family Ideology: I. A Scale for the Measurement of Traditional Family Ideology", J. of Personality, X X I I I (1955), 25173. 78. Jones, Marshall B., "Authoritarianism and Intolerance of Fluctuation", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., L (1955), 125-26. 79. Kates, S. L., and Diab, L. N., "Authoritarian Ideology and Atti-

LIST OF SUBSEQUENT STUDIES

80.

81.

82.

83. 84. 85. 86.

87. 88.

89. 90.

273

tudes on Parent-Child Relationships", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., LI (1955), 13-16. Leavitt, Harold J., Hax, Herbert, and Roche, James H., "Authoritarianism and Agreement with Things Authoritative", J. Psychol., XL (1955), 215-22. Levinson, D. J., and Huffman, P. E., "Traditional Family Ideology and its Relation to Personality", J. of Personality, XXIII (1955), 251-73. Lyle, W. H. Jr., Levitt, E. E., "Punitiveness, Authoritarianism and Parental Discipline of Grade School Children", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., LI (1955), 42-46. Medalia, N. Z., "Authoritarianism, Leader Acceptance, and Group Cohesion", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., LI (1955), 207-13. Meer, Samuel, "Authoritarian Attitudes and Dreams", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., LI (1955), 74-78. Pearl, David, "Psychotherapy and Ethnocentrism", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., L (1955), 227-29. Smock, Charles D., "The Influence of Psychological Stress on the 'Intolerance of Ambiguity'," J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., L (1955), 177-82. Stotsky, Bernard A., "The Authoritarian Personality as a Stereotype", /. Psychol., XXXIX (1955), 325-28. Thibaut, J. W., and Riecken, H. W., "Authoritarianism, Status, and the Communication of Aggression", Hum. Relat., VIII, 2 (1955), 95-120. Wagman, Morton, "Attitude Change and Authoritarian Personality", J. Psychol., XL (1955), 3-24. Webster, H., Sanford, N., and Freedman, M., "A New Instrument for Studying Authoritarianism in Personality", J. Psychol., XL (1955), 73-84. 1956

91. Faris, C. D., "Authoritarianism as a Political Behavior Variable", J. Politics, XVIII (1956), 61-82. 92. Haythorn, W., et al., "Behavior of Authoritarian and Equalitarian Personalities in Groups", Human Relations, IX, 1 (1956), 57-73. 93. Jones, Marshall, "Notes on Authoritarian Confinement and Scholastic Aptitude", Psychol. Rep., II (1956), 461-64.

274 94. 95. 96. 97.

98.

APPENDIX I

Katz, D., et al., "Ego-Defense and Attitude Change (Studies in Anti-Negro Bias)", Hum. Relat., IX, 1 (1956), 27-45. Mackinnon, W. J., and Centers, R., "Authoritarianism and Urban Stratification", Am. J. Sociol., L X I (1956), 610-20. Mackinnon, W. J., and Centers, R., "Authoritarianism and Internationalism", Pub. Opin. Quart., X X (1956-57), 621-30. Paul. I. H., "Impression of Personality, Authoritarianism and the Fait-Accompli Effect", J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., L I I I (1956), 338-44. Roberts, A. H., and Rokeach, Milton, "Anomie, Authoritarianism and Prejudice: A Replication (of Srole's Study)", Amer. J. Sociol., L X I (1956), 355-58.

1957 99. Berkowitz, Leonard, and Lundy, Richard, "Personality Characteristics Related to Susceptibility to Influence by Peers or Authority Figures", J. Personality, X X V (1957), 306-16. 100. Kaufman, Walter C., "Status, Authoritarianism, and Anti-Semitism", Amer. J. Sociol., L X I I (1957), 379-82. 101. Perlmutter, H. U., "Some Relationships Between Xenophilic Attitudes and Authoritarianism among Americans Abroad", Psychol. R., I l l (1957), 79-87.

APPENDIX II In this Appendix a table is presented classifying the hypotheses, data collecting techniques, and processing procedures used in the studies of the authoritarian personality given in Appendix I. Code Employed in Table II A = Relationships actually studied A' = "Original" Researchers' two "major" hypotheses A\ = Ideology constitutes a broad and consistent pattern A'2 = Ideology an expression of personality structure A', = Both A4 = Co-variation of authoritarianism (or some facet thereof) with some other variable (including other facets of authoritarianism) A5 = Frequency in which the authoritarian personality type appears in a given (sample) population A6 = "test" to determine the presence of some differentiating characteristic (or implication deriving therefrom) customarily imputed to authoritarian and non-authoritarian personality types A7 = Evaluation and/or improvement of technique and/or procedure to collect or process data B = Relationships requiring investigation Bi = Proposition no. 1 of the requisite theory B2 = Proposition no. 2 of the requisite theory B3 = Proposition no. 3 of the requisite theory B4 = Deductions allowable by the requisite theory C = Data collecting instruments Ci = Scales, inventories, surveys, opinion questionnaires, and secondary means of obtaining data Q = Projective type test (i.e., T.A.T., Rorschach, sentence completion, projective questions, tachistoscopic, etc.) C3 = Test situation involving some task which the subject is required to perform (i.e., intelligence tests, MMPI, Necker

276

APPENDIX II

Cube, Einstellung water-jar problems, Rozenzweig picturefrustration test, etc.) C4 = Interview C5 = Experimental variations D = Procedures used in processing data Di = Reliability procedures (omitted) D2 = Specific research requirements pertaining to shifting alternative expression of items of behavior and themata D3 = General procedures used to relate data pertaining to two or more "factors" (variables) - or data pertaining to the some "factor" but "expressed" by two or more subjects or samples D3a = Correlation analysis Simple correlation identified by the sign - + Multiple correlation identified by the sign - * Partial correlation identified by the sign - # D3b = Chi-square D3e = Test of significance for differences between two statistics (i.e., means, sigmas, percentages, coefficients of variation, critical ratios) D3d = Analysis of variance D3e = Factor analysis

277

CLASSIFICA HON OF STUDIES

General procedures

Procedures used to process data

« Q «

m

0 «9 0

> > > > >

« p» a

> >

m * Q M Q •

*

+ + + + +

+ +

0 m

Data collecting instruments

u J

> m

u

>

>

M U

u

>

> >

>

> > > > > > > >

>

>

Required relations

««

« «

e*

m

!

> > >

>

•

>

<

>

>

-

m

>

> >

>

>

k rf

Q

a

«

Q

>

+ + + +

+ +

+ + + + + +

M

Q

Q v>

u Data collecting instruments

*

u

u«

> > > >

M

Ü

>

> > > > > > > > > >

Required relations

«* «0 m N

pq

«


>

>

>

V)

<
> > >

u

>

>

• >

> > >

P>

«

> > >

> m

S

M

vo r- oo OS © m en (N M » vo t'- oo en en m

280 General procedures

Procedures used to process data

APPENDIX II o m Q •0 > >

> >

> > >

> >

>

+ +

*

+

>

+

*

+

+

Ö 0 »0 u

Data collecting instruments

> > >

u

>

>

>

> >

U

>

> >

> > > > > > > >

>

>

>

> >

>

>

>

> > > > > >

m m« m m

>

V»

>

*

>

< 'Original' hypotheses

>

>

> >


>

*

Required relations

rq

> >

o

u

Relations actually studied

I—I f Iï/~n " S

>

> > >

> > > >

< «s


m •t 5

«n fS Tf -

Q

>

f> Q to Q

>

> >

> >

A to Ö

>

>

>

>

•

+ + +

«0 Q

+

*

+ + + +

e*

a Q

m u

>

>

u*

60

.5 £ 8 §

>

> >

u

° s (3 CA «.s Q

u

>

>

>

u

>

> >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

n* (0 o n

3

o1

«


>

>

V» C

cU 3

*

'Original' hypotheses