DOGMATISM IN ADULTS AND CORRELATES OF

EARLY PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS

APPROVED:

Major Professor

Minor Professor

/ . /f - -/•> - c L ^

Chairman of the Department/of Psychology .

Dean'of the Graduate School

Cole, Troy H. Bo5_matj.sm in Adul ts ap.d correlates of

early Parent-Child Re1ationships. MasIcr o£ Science

(Clinical Psychology) ; May. .1 371 , 37 pp.; 2 tables, bibliography,

23 titles.

Fifty-nine college freshman psychology students responded

to the Roe-Siegelman PGR Questionnaire, the short form of

Roteach1 s Dogmatism Sea 1 e (DS) , and the Edwards Personal

Pieierence Schedule (LPPSj in an exploration of the relationship

between dogmatism and perceived early child-rearing practices.

US scores did not correlate wi.fr h perceived re-iecting,

research would indicate

and as hypothesized in this study, but rather correlated with

Perceived Lading parental behavior as other research indicates.

DS scores correlated with the Succorance, Change, and

intraception scales of the EPPS as predicted and s.s research

indicates. The results suggest that children's perceptions

of parental c.hild-rearing behavior are related to their

tendencies to be dogmatic in their beliefs, and apparently

piix.C-C LLi:iias_-Of_._Parent.s as loving has reinforcing properties

tQIUAg child- that may lead to the uncritical acceptance of

DOGMATISM IN ADULTS AND CORRELATES OF

EARLY PARENT - CHILD RELAT IONSHI PS

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Decree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

by

Trey H. Cole, B. S,

Denton, Texas

May, 1971

'ables

Table Pag<

1. Means and standard deviations for the DS, three EPFS's and four PGR subscales for mothers and for fathers of 2 5 nuil.es and 34 females . . . . . . . . . 24

2. Correlations of DS with three EPPS's arid four PGR subscales for fathers and for mothers of 2 5 males and 34 females

. and the total group 25

m

Review of Research and Statement

of the Problem

Basic to a child's repertoire of inlerpersonal

responses is the influence of parental attitudes and family-

experiences . While aclcnowisdging that early learning patterns

of the child with his parents, especially his mother, have

important roles in the development of beliefs and attitudes,

these parent-child interactions never produce one-to-one

changes, due to variations in the child's constitutional

make-up, the immediate environment, and other variables.

Still, the bulk of evidence in the literature (Anderson,

1962; Bolemier, 1966: Frank, 1965; Goldin, 1969; Rebhun,

.1967 ; Sears, Maccoby, $ Levin, 1957; and others) does point

to various links between parental attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors, and corresponding attitudes, beliefs, and

behaviors in the child.

Becker (1S64) reported in a review that when parental

behaviors were investigated on the basis of social class

(based on father's occupation) middle-class parents tended

to be described as warm, tended to use reasoning with the

child, and tended to use guilt-arousing methods or show of

disappointment when disciplining the child. Working-class

1

parents, on the other hr.-nd, were more likely to use physical

punishment> shouting,or ridicule in disciplining the child,

and tended to be iiore restrictive. Also, sex of the parent

and sex of the child, as well as the child's age, reflect

differences in parent-child interactions which must be

accounted for in a study of attitudes and beliefs which are

fostered by parental behaviors. These attitudes and

beliefs are incorporated into the individual's personality

"vrait:t structure and become a part of his repertoire of

responses with which he deals with the outside world.

Measurements of segments of these belief systems with

instnisicnts such as those used in this study may contribute

to understanding the complex interaction between parent-

child relations and belief-disbelief systems.

Research Related to Dogmatism

This study used a short form of Ro'keach's (1960)

Dogmatism Scaljj (DS) proposed by Troldahl and Powell (1965) ,

the Roe -Siegeiman (1963) Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire

(PGR) and the Edwards Personal_ Preference Schedule (EPPS) ,

by Edwards (1954). The EPPS has been used in conjunction

with a measure of dogmatism by Vacchiuno, Strauss, and

ScliifAaan (1968). They Cound that dogmatism was positively

related to needs for Succorance (Sue) and negatively related

to needs for Change (Chg) and Intraception (Int). They

concluded:

Subjects exhibiting dogmatism would seem to have a need (EPFS) to receive support, encouragement, and understanding from others; an intolerance for under-standing the feelings and motives of others; and an avoidance in changing their environment or daily routine [p. 84 J .

Dogmatic attitudes, synonymous with a "closed mind,"

have been extensively studied by Rokeach (1960, p. 5),

and dogmatism has been receiving an increasingly larger

amount of attention in the literature,according to a recent

review by Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman (1969).

Rokeach's concept of dogmatism was proposed as a

general theory of authoritarianism (Rokeach, 1960), differing

from specific, or right, authoritarianism, as conceived in

the early 1950's (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,- §

Sanfcrd, 1950); and was defined by Rokeach (1954) as

(a) a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, (b) organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which, in turn, (c) promotes a framework for patterns of intolerance toward others [p. 195J.

Rokeach (1960) later expanded this definition, giving

both working definitions which described various characteris-

tics of the open and closed mind, and definitions which tied

these characteristics together. Basic characteristics- which

defined the extent to which a person's belief system was

open or closed included

The extent to which. the porscn can receive, evaluate, and act on relevant in Coitus 15 on received from the outside on it's oun j:itrins]c merits, unencumbered by irrelevant factors in the -situation arising from within the person or from the outside jp. 57j.

According to Rokeach (I960), factors from within a.

person include unrelated habits, perceptual cues, and the

need to allay anxiety; irrelevaat factors from the" outside

include

particularly the pressures of reward and punishment arising from external authority, for example., as exerted by parents, peers> other authority figures, reference groups, social and institutional norms, and cultural norms [p. 57],

A key concept was that the more closed a person's

belief system, the more difficult it would be to distinguish

between the information received and the source of the

information (the authority). The incoming information

would be taken as true because the source said it was true,

not because'Of what the information contained. On the

other hand, a more open-minded person should attend to logical

relationships and objectively evaluate incoming information.

Rokeach (I960) did not consider dogmatism as either an

open- or closed-minded system, but rather stated that it

existed as extremes on a continuum, and was an ideal type

which \vras convenient for purposes of analysis.

Real belief-disbelief systems in people exist together,

and are compared to the diaphragm of a camera, closing or

o p e r: nsg a s t h e s i t a a tic n v a r i e s . Further, Rckeach (I960) %

stated that a belief-disbelief system served two functions

at the same time:

the need for a cognitive framework to know and to understand and the need to ward off threatening aspects of reality. To the extent that the cognitive need to know is predominant and the need to ward off threat absent, open systems should result [p. 67].

However, Rckeach (1960) stated, "as the need to ward off

threat becomes stronger, the cognitive need to know should

become weaker, resulting in more closed belief systems [p.

67-68]." The diaphragm of the mind closes as necessary to

ward off threat, but could still function as a cognitive net-

work for satisfying the need to know; and Rokeach proposed (I960):

for most persons in most situations, both sets of needs operate together to one degree or another. A person will be open to information insofar as possible, and will reject it, screen it out, or alter it insofar ?§ necessary [p. 68].

The total belief-disbelief system was viewed by Rokeach

as a network of cognitive defenses against anxiety. He

hypothesized these cognitive defenses were traceable to

childhood experiences.

Taking measures of a person's attitudes toward his mother

and father, anxiety symptoms the person had manifested in

childhood, and the nature of identifications formed in child-

hood, Rokeach (197 0) found that those who scored low on the

Dogmatism Scal_e_, as compared to middle or high scorers,

expressed more ambivalence toward their mothers and fathers',

were more widely influenced by persons (authority) outside

the immediate family, and were less anxious in childhood.

This suggested that those who were not permitted to express

ambivalence toward parents were not only more anxious, but

had a narrowing of possibilities for identifying with other

persons outside the family. Both of these indices seemed to

lead to the "development of closed belief systems [p. 365]."

Rokeach also investigated other areas of the belief-

disbelief system, such as time perspective and religious

dogmatism. And recently, the growing body of research on

dogmatism has been reviewed by Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman

(1969), and divided into ten areas: authoritarianism, the

dogmatic scale, personality, adjustment, group behavior, time

perception, cognitive inconsistency, problem solving, learning,

and parent-child relationships, it can be readily seen that

these ten areas are interrelated and that each contributes

to the concept of the open and closed belief system.

Studies reviewed in the area of parent-child relationships

point to a correlation between parental attitudes and the

individual's dogmatism. Vacchiano, Strauss,'and Hochman

(1969) reported that Anderson (1962) used an analysis of

variance of dogmatism scores categox i zed by sex, intelli-

gence, and anxiety level. The results supported the findings

of Rokeach as reported above. Anderson concluded that

intelligent, anxious females were significantly more dogmatic

than intelligent, non-anxious females, and that intelligent,

anxious males were more dogmatic than intelligent, non-

anxious males. Anderson also found a significant negative

relationship in both males and females between anxiety,

dogmatism, and socioeconomic status: specifically, that

lower anxiety and dogmatism scores were related to higher

socioeconomic status measures. Taken together (Anderson,

1962) , these indicators make "plausible the inference that e

child rearing practices are basic determinants of dogmatism

[p. 135]."

Bolmeier (1966) linked dogmatism in parents to

adjustment of high school students using the Minnesota

Counseling Inventory to measure personality adjustment, the

Iowa Tests of Educational Development for scholastic achieve-

ment, and teachers' ratings. His conclusions (1966)

seem to imply that dogmatism in parents is realted to some aspects of their high school age children. In general , parents who were more open in their thinking according to the dogmatism scale had children who were more apt to score favorably on certain measures of adjustment [p. 5572].

8

More support for the relationship between parental

attitudes toward their children and the development of

dogmatism was shown in a study by Rebhun (1967). He used the

Dogmatism Scale and the Parental Attitude Research Instrument,

finding that dogmatism in male undergraduates correlated

positively with the father's form scales of Fostering

Dependency, Seclusiveness, Breaking the Will, Harsh Punishment,

Demanding Activity, Deification of Parent, Ascendency of

Husband, and Suppression of Affection. Rebhun's findings

"suggest that the dogmatic individual tends to hold parental

attitudes which discourage his children from behavior which

intrudes upon the parents' belief-disbelief system [p. 261]."

Thus, by encouraging reliance on parents, prohibiting

objective consideration of competing beliefs, and narrowing

the child's range of contacts, development of a closed-

minded system in the child was fostered. •

Kirtley and Harkless (1969) made use of the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Dogmatism

Scale (DS), concluding that dogmatism was associated with

"low ego strength (Es) , dependency (Dy) , and tendencies

toward hypochondria (Hs), withdrawal, fantasy, bizarre

thinking (Sc), anxiety, phobias, obsessions, and compulsions

[p. 853]."

9

Plant, Telford, and Thomas (1965) utilized the DS in

conjunction with the California Psychological Inventory

(CPI) and concluded that "highly dogmatic subjects were

psychologically immature and could be characterized as being

impulsive, defensive, and conventional and stereotyped in

thinking [p. 75]."

Although he directed his study mainly at psychopatho'logy,

Frank (1965) also used descriptions similar to those above

when he summarized research on the effects of being brought

up in an atmosphere in which children were described as

"emotionally immature, who are dependent, fearful, negativistic,

emotionally labile, etc. [p. 191]," and who have had "mothers

described as worriers, overattentive, or punitive [p. 191]."

Research in Parent-Child Relationships

Dealing more; specifically with'parent-child relation-

ships, a. very comprehensive review of perceived parental

behaviors has been compiled by Goldin .(1969). He analyzed

the literature in terms of a model using three factors put

forth by Siegelman (1965), i^hich included Loving, Demanding,

and Punishing. Goldin also compared the results in the

literature with a similar model by Schaefer, (1965), but

concluded that Siegelman's mode] encompassed as much as did

Schaefer's and was simpler and more explicit in accounting

for the results of studies.

. I r , A / I

Siege]man's factors of Loving, Demanding, and Punishing

were defined by Goldin (1969) in include the following

parental behavior:

Loving refers to parental support, participation, praise, and affection for the child . . . . Demanding refers to controlling, demanding, protective parental behavior . . . , Punishing refers to the arbitrary use of physical and non-physical punishment, with little concern for the feelings and needs of the child and for little apparent reason [p. 223].

Searching for these three factors in 64 studies dealing

with children's reports of parental behavior, Goldin found

that over 60 percent of the studies investigated variables

encompassed by the Loving factor. Over half of the studies

showed attention to the Demanding factor, while 40 percent

reported the Punishing factor. Goldin also found an

intersect between Demanding and Loving factors in 18 percent

of the studies, describing these factors as similar to

over-controlling love. He added that there may be more

perceived parent-child variables involved, such as parental

consistency, delay of reward, and parental social sex roles,

which might shed more light on the overall parent-child

relationship picture.

Goldin, evaluated several hypotheses frequently encountered

in these studies, including perceptions children report which

differ between mother and father, and between sex and age

11

groups. Also studied v/eie differences in delinquents,

child guidance patients, and maladjusted normals.

Regarding the factor Loving, he concluded (Goldin,

1969) that children perceived mothers as more loving, but

boys perceived both parents as less loving than did girls.

This factor became confused as the children's age increased.

Social class was found to be positively related "to affection

and love; all deviant groups investigated (delinquents,

child guidance patients, and maladjusted normals) perceived

parents as rejecting [p. 231-235 J.

Goldin summed up the Demanding factor this wav: boys,

as compared to girls, generally reported fathers as more

controlling and demanding, but the results were again

confused by sex and age of the child. Middle- and working-

class parents were seen as more dominant and overly strict;

this same psychological overcontrol was seen by maladjusted

normals and guidance patients, while delinquents viewed

parents as not setting limits for responsible social

behavior £p. 231-235].

The Punishing factor (Goldin, 1969) yielded these

results: fathers were seen as more punishing, especially

by boys, though both parents were seen more as "the boss"

as children grew up. Delinquents, child guidance patients,

and maladjusted normals all saw parents as punitive [p. 231-

235].

12

These dimensions, especially the Loving and Demanding

factor (but the Punishing factor as well), suggest a

conceptual framework of parental behavior for study,

according to Siegelman (1965). The Roe-Siegelman (1963)

Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR), used in this

study, provided measures of these constructs.

Six of these PCR measures of parental behavior (Loving,

Rejecting, Casual, Demanding, Neglecting, and Protecting)

were used by Siegelman (1965) in a study which investigated

Introversion-Extroversion personality factors and anxiety

measures. Siegelman's results support those reported by

Rokeach • (1960) in that extroverted and low-anxious males

reported more loving fathers and mothers. Also, Siegelman

said that extroverted and low-anxious females reported

more loving fathers, while more rejecting fathers were

reported by introverted and high-anxious male and female

students. These male students also reported mothers as

rejecting, but female students did not.

Siegelman (1965) suggested that imitation and direct

reinforcement learning might operate so that

Loving parental behavior, for example, may represent an extroverted model for the child, and it is probable that a loving parent, more than a rejecting parent, would reward the extroverted behavior of his child fp. 563 ].

"I *T

ID

Stav-cmc-iit of the Problem

The research cited above offered several approaches

to the study of parent-child relationships relative to

personality traits and belief-disbelief systems. Dogmatism

has been related to behavioral characteristics such as

anxiety, introversion and extroversion, age, sex, social

c1as s, and int e11ig enc e.

Much of the research (Becker, 1964; Rebhun, 1967;

Sears, Maccoby, cj Levin, 1957; and Vacchiano, Strauss,

q Schlffman, 1968) pointed tiL-JJliLks between strict, demanding

types of parental behavior...ajiA-jjogmallaBU. On the other

hand, sc..;?e research has indicated that dogmatic attitudes ma.y be learned «'by children whose parents display more loving

a ~ i i d — c h i l d - r e a r i n g attitudes fAnderson. 1962 ;

Bolmeier, 1966; and Rokeach, 1960).

Taking the former research results as a starting

point, this study centered around the general question:

Is there a positive correlation between a subject's'dogmatism

scores (measured by the DS) and his perception of his

parents as rejecting and demanding in their behavior toward

him (as measured by the PGR)?

Specifically, the hypotheses in this study were

14

1. A significant positive relationship exists between

observed scores on the DS and perception of parents as

Rejecting and Demanding, as measured by the PGR.

2. A significant negative relationship exists between

observed scores on the DS and perception of parents as

Loving and Casual, as measured by the PCR.

3. DS scores will be positively related to Succorance,

and negatively related to Change and Intraception, as

measured by the EPPS.

4. No statistically significant differences between

males and females scores on measures of the DS or measures

of perceived parental behayiors of Rejecting, Demanding,

Loving and Casual exist.

Method

Sub iects

This study used the scores of 59 students in two

freshman psychology classes at North Texas State University.

Beginning with the fall, 1970, semester, students in the

psychology department were required to participate in

research. Participation in this study fulfilled part of

the students' obligation; therefore, they could not be

considered volunteers.

. IS

Of a total of 91 subjects who originally began to

take part in this study, 32 subjects' scores were discarded

for reasons of not being complete or because they only had

one parent living, leaving 59 subjects from intact families _ .

(25 males and 34 females) ranging in age from seventeen

to tvenry-six years.

Description of Instruments

Three paper-and-pencil tests were administered: a

short form of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (DS) , form E,

the Roe -Siegelman Parent-Child Relations Questionnaire (PCR),

and the Edward_s Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) .

The short-form DS was'derived by Troldahl and Powell *

(1965) for the purpose of shortening administering and

scoring times. They chose twenty items from Rokeach's

I960 form E DS, for which he reported a reliability of

from ".68 to .93 [Rokeach, 1960, p. 90]."

Troldahl and Powell (1965) reported that the split-half

reliability was about .84 for the forty-item scale. This

they designated as the "upper limit ["p. 214j" of the reliability

one would expect to obtain when a short form of the DS was

used. They randomly selected twenty items from the forty-

item scale, and obtained a reliability of .73 for these,

designating this point as the lower limit. They then

16

selected items from the forty-iteni scale which correlated

most highly with the total dogmatism score, calculating

the final reliability to fall between the lower and upper

limits, namely .79, for the short form of twenty items.

The twenty-item scale predicted the forty-item dogmatism

scale well (Troldahl and Powell, 1965), as indicated by •

correlations of ".94 and .95 [p. 212j.M

Rokeach (1960) stated that the purpose of the DS

was to measure individual differences in openness or

closedness of belief systems, as discussed earlier, and

also to obtain a measure of general authoritarianism and

general intolerance. He also pointed out at the onset

that it is not what a person believes that counts so much

as it is how he believes it, meaning that any particular

belief system could be on either the closed or open end of

the dogmatism contimuum, depending on the individual.

The forty items in the DS were chosen deductively,

on the basis of their reliability and theoretical power

to differentiate openness and closedness of belief systems.

The form E items represented the final, or fifth revision

of the DS, from which Troldahl and Powell (1965) chose

their short-form scale.

The subjects followed written instructions on the DS

cover sheet,- responding to each item on a six-point

17

scale, ranging from -3 to +3, as follows (Rokeach,

1960) :

+1: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little +2: I agree on the -2: I disagree on the

whole whole +3: I agree very much -3: I disagree very much p« 73

The total score was the sum of scores obtained on all

items. A constant of four was added to each item to eliminate

negative numbers. For the short form DS, total scores could

range from 20 to 140. For all items, agreement (high

scores) indicated closed-mindedness and disagreement (low

scores) indicated open-belief systems.

The Roe-Seigelman PCR (1963) consists of two similar

forms, one for fathers and one for mothers. The PCR was

devised to obtain a measure of the characteristic behavior of parents toward their young children, as experienced by the child. It has been used in studies of late adolescents and of adults who have filled it out with reference to their own childhood [p. 355].

There are 130 items for each parent;- there are ten

subtests, six of fifteen items each for measuring perceived

parental behavior characterized as Loving, Protecting,

Demanding, Rejecting, Neglecting, and Casual. There are

four subtests of ten items each for measuring Symbolic-Love

Reward, Direct-Object Punishment, Direct-Object Reward, and

Symbolic-Love Punishment.

18

Each ' f these subtests can be c-.ur ./•.; £by factor-

analytic methods) to three factors: Loving-Rejecting,

Casual-Demanding, and Overt Attention; and, :.r. i«icussed

earlier, thes-e factors trf-e- generally found .in most parerit-

child studies. The items were adapted from the literature '

and constructed to fit the ten subtest categories.' Judges

assigned items to categories, and those items which were .

not agreed upon were discarded.

Tryon reliabilities reported by Roe and Siegelman

(1963) for subtests range from a low of .687 (Symbolic-

Love Punishment) to a high of .896 (Loving).

Specific behaviors of.parents, rather than attitudes^

were used to increase the objectivity of results, and

subjects were asked to recall these parental behaviors toward

them when they were 12 years old or less.

Responses range from very untrue (one point) to very

true (five points), as outlined below (Roe § Siegelman,

1963):

Very Tended Tended Tended Very true to be to be to be untrue

true neither untrue true nor untrue

S .4 3 2 1 (score) [p. 358].

Score totals for the fifteen item subtests could range from

15 to 75, and from 10 to 50 on the ten-item subtests.

i y

In the present forms, the PGR contains eleven items

which are different for the two parents; all other items

apply to both mothers and fathers.

The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) (1954)

grew out of research aimed at investigating and controlling

what is considered (Edwards, 1953) to be "socially desirable

responses to items in personality inventories [p. 90]."

Measuring a "number of relatively independent normal- person-

ality variables [Edwards, 1954, p. 5]" which were based on

the work of H. A. Murry (1938), Edwards made up a list of

225 statements for the EPPS. Statements were paired in

such a way that social desirability of responses was equally

weighted, and the choice a subject made between the two was

said to be more characteristic of the subject's personality.

Validity data for the EPPS is inconclusive, but its

popularity as a measurement instrument is evidenced by the

fact that over 300 articles citing it were listed in the

Sixth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros, 1965).

The EPPS Manual reported reliability of two types:

split-half and test-retest. Highest reliabilities reported

by Edwards (1954) were on the variables of Heterosexuality

(.87) and Abasement (.88), and lowest on the variables of

Deference (.60) and Achievement and Exhibition (.74).

20

The fifteen manifest needs u.sed as variables in the EPPS

are listed below, followed by definitions of the three

measures with which this study was concerned (Edwards,

1954): Achievement, Deference. Order, Exhibition, Autonomy,

Affiliation, Dominance, Abasement, Nurturance, Endurance,

Heterosexuality, Aggression, and Intraception (Int),

Succorance (Sue), and Change (Chg).

Intraception is to (Edwards, 1954)

analyze one's motives and feelings, to observe others, to understand how others feel about problems, to put one's self in another's place, to judge people by why they do things rather than by what they do, to analyze the behavior of others, to analyze the motives of others, to predict how others will act tp. iij.

Succorance is to (Edwards, 1954)

have others provide help when in trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have others be kindly, to have others be sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, to receive a great deal of affection from others, to have others do favors cheerfully, to be helped by others when depressed, to have others feel sorry when one is sick, to have a fuss made over one when hurt [p. 11 J.

Change is to (Edwards, 1954)

do new and different things, to travel, to meet new people, to experience novelty and change in daily routine, to experiment and try new things, to eat in new and different places, to try new and different jobs, to.move about the country and live in different places, to participate in new fads and fashions [p. Ill-

According to the scoring system, scores can range up

to 27 on the Intraception scale, up to 21 on the Succorance

21

scale, and up to 25 on the Change scale, each representing

the 99th percentile for college student populations.

Design

The design of this study consisted of computing

correlation coefficients on the subjects' scores from

measures on the Dogmatism Scale, the Roe Siegelman Parent-

Child Relations Questionnaire, and the Edwards Personal

Preference Schedule.

Means and correlation coefficients were computed on all

scale scores for ratings of mothers and fathers, and for males'

and fema3es'ratings of mothers and fathers separately.

Expected findings were

Dogmatism scores were expected to be positively

correlated with perceived rejecting, demanding parental

behavior, and need for succorance, and negatively correlated

with perceived loving, casual parental behavior, and need

£or intraception and change. Differences in male a^d female

subjects' perceptions of mothers and fathers were not expected

to be statistically significant.

Procedure

The questionnaires were administered during two regular

class meetings. Subjects were told that their participation

22

would fulfill part of their course requirements, that their

scores were to be used in a master's thesis, and that all

responses on questionnaires would be confidential.

The subjects were also instructed to answer test

items rapidly but honestly, giving the most frank answers

possible. They were told that the instructions were printed

on each test, but to feel free to ask any questions they

might have. Finally, the subjects were instructed to start

on the next questionnaire as soon as they had finished the

first one.

The questionnaires were given in the following order:

First, the whole class completed the DS. Then one half

of the class completed the EPPS while the other half

completed both the fathers' and mothers' forms of the PCR.

It was believed that since none of the subjects knew what

was being measured, there was no need to control the sequence

of test presentation beyond that described above.

The DS, the PCR, and the Intraception, Succorance,

Change, and Consistency scales of the EPPS. were hand-

scored. The EPPS scores were converted to percentages to

make male and female college students scores comparable

with the tests' norms (Edwards, 1954), The scores were

then transferred to key punch cards, from which the data

were analyzed and product .soaent correlations, means, and

standard deviations computed.

Results

Means, standard deviation (SDj, correlations (r), and

tests of differences between means (t) were computed on

ratings of mothers and of fathers for the combined groups

of male and female students and for each group separately.

Means, SD's, and t_ tests for the DS, three EPPS scales, and

four PCR scales are shown in Table 1. Significant differences

(.05) between male and female scores were found, however,

on the PCR subsc.ale Rejecting, in opposition to Hypothesis 4.

Table 2 presents results of correlations of the DS

with the three .EPFS subscales and the four PCR subscales.

Male, female, and total group correlations are shown. The

DS correlation with the EPPS subscale Succorance was significant

at the .01 level, as predicted in Hypothesis 3 for males, but

not for femalr-s. Correlations with the DS and EPPS measures

of Change were not significant, contrary to Hypothesis 3.

24

TABLE 1

Means and standard dev iations for the DS , three EPPS's

and four PCR subscales for mothers and for

fathers of 2 5 males and 34 females

Sex Scales groups Means Sd t

Dogmatism M 71.9 14.5 F 69.3 17.5 .86

Total 70.4 16.2 •

Succorance M 65.4 25.9 ' F 64.4 30.1 Total 64.8 28.2

Change M 53.7 20.2 F 59.4 28.0

Total 57.0 25.0 Intraception M 45.0 26.3

F * 57.4 26.9 Total 52.1 27.1

Rejecting (fathers) M 35.1 14.2 F 29.1 10.5 2.57*

Total 36.1 • 12.4 Rejecting (mothers) M 31.7 8.1

F 28.2 8.6 2.29* Total 29.7 8.5

Loving (fathers) M 54.5 8.1 F 55.6 12.3 1.62

Total 55 - 2 10.7 Loving (mothers) M 57.5 7.9

F 57.2 10.3 .18 Total 57.3 9.3

Demanding (fathers) M 47.9 7.9 F 45.1 8.6 1.86

Total 46.3 8.3 Demanding (mothers) M 44.6 7.6 1.11

F 43.2 6.3 Total 43.8 6.8

Casual (fathers) M 43.4 6.5 F 46.6 9.6 1.27

Total 45.2 8.5 Casual (mothers) M 46.6 7.5

F 47.9 9.4 .46 Total 4 7.4 8.6 .

** "i 71 "i r PI T ~I c c -3 n-ni -Ti -m r* r\ -P m r~\ o t-i „ y AC

25

TABLE 2

Correlations of DS with three EPPS's and four

PCR subscales for fathers and for mothers

of 25 males and 34 females

and the total group

Scales Correlations with DS Males Females Total

Succorance .358** .139 .214

Change .063 - .040 - .018

Intraception -.247 . .334** - .310*

Rejecting (fathers) - .095 -.024 - .033

Rejecting (mothers) .056 - .437** - .231

Loving (fathers) .430** . 204- .261*

Loving (mothers) .289* .508** .439**

Demanding (fathers) .103 .095 .109

Demanding (mothers) .046 - .015 .018

Casual (fathers) .081 .133 .101

Casual (mothers) - .136 .045 - .019

* £<.05. ** E<-01. • •

The EPPS subscale Intraception, however, correlated with the

DS as hypothesized: female scores were significant at the .01

level, and the total group correlation was significant at the

.05 level.

26

Table 2 also shows that, for females' .ratings of

mothers, the PCR subscale Rejecting was significant at the

.0.1 level but in the opposite direction from that hypothesized

(Hypothesis 1) , DS correlations "with the PCR Loving subscale

for males' ratings of fathers, females' ratings of mothers,

and total group ratings of mothers were significant at the

.01 level. A]1 were in the direction opposite that set

forth in Hypothesis 2. In addition, males' and total group

ratings of mothers on the Loving subscale correlated with

DS scores at the .05 level, again in the opposite direction

fro?;< that hypothesized. The PCR subscale Demanding failed

to reach significance, as predicted in Hypothesis 1. The

PGR subscale Casual also showed no significant correlation

with the DS, as was stated in Hypothesis 2.

Discussion

Hypothesis 1, that, there would be a significant positive

relationship between DS scores and perception of parents as

Rejecting and Demanding, was rejected, since the correlation

coefficient not only failed to reach significance but showed

negative correlation tendencies. In fact, females' ratings of

mothers as rejecting correlated significantly in the nagative

direction (Table 2). This negative correlational trend in

\

the Rejecting subscale was accompanied by a very low positive

27

or slightly negative correlation in the Demanding subscale

for both sexes' ratings of parents, as shown in Table 2.

This trend indicated that, subjects who viewed their

parents as rejecting and demanding did not hold dogmatic . •

attitudes,as measured In this study; rather, they seemed

to be more open-minded (or noncommital),

But Rebhtm (1967, p. 261) found significant indications

that dogmatic parents encouraged dependency, tended to make

excessive demands, and. tended to use harsh punishment and

activity control in imposing limits on the child's environment,

which decreased the chances of other ideas competing with

those already held by the ultimate authority, the father.

These findings were comparable with the description

given by Roe and Siegelman (1963) of the subtest Demanding,

in that parents

impose strict regulations and demands unquestioning obedience to them, and they do not make exceptions. They expect the child to be busy at all times at some useful activity. They have high punitiveness. They restrict friendships in accordance with these standards. They do not try to find out what a child is thinking or feeling, they tell him what to think or feel [p. 357J.

In addition, the Rejecting subscale carried these

attitudes and behaviors to a more extreme degree, in that

parents "have no regard for the child's point of view. The

regulations they establish are not for the sake of training

2 9,

the child, but for protecting the parent from his intrusion:.;

Roe Siegelman, 1963, [p. 357]."

However, when Rokeach (1960, p. 57) wrote of the

factors affecting the extent to which a belief-disbelief

system was open or closed, he included ''pressures of reward

and punishment arising from external authority, for example,

as exerted by parents, peers, . . . [p. 57]." The hypotheses

in this study assumed that attitudes in children would be

fostered by parents who controlled them by force, punishment,

and by demanding, rejecting behavior.

But Rokeach (1960) suggested that reward could also be

used to shape attitudes in children. The reward factor

was indicated strongly in this study, as evidenced by the

correlations between the DS and the PCR subscale Loving,

set forth in Hypothesis 2. In fact, it appears that the

Loving subscale, as well as the Symbolic-Love Reward and

the Direct-Object Reward subscales are reliable predictors

of dogmatism in this study (Appendix A).

Roe and Siegelman (1963) described parental character-

istics in the Loving subtest to include the following

behaviors:

These parents give the child warm and loving attention. They try to help him with projects that are important to him, but they are not intrusive. They are more likely to reason with the child than to punish him,

29

but they will punish him . . . . They try specifically to help- him through problems in the best way for .him . . . . They encourage independence and are willing to let him take chances in order to grow towards it [p. 3 5 7].

The Loving subscale, in conjunction with the Casual

subscale, formed the basis of Hypothesis 2 and included

the following description of parents by Roe and Siegelman

(1963):

They do not think about him [the child] or plan for him very much, but take him as a part of the general situation. They don't worry much about him and make little definite effort to train him. They are easy-going, have few rules, and do not make much effort to enforce those they have [p. 357].

The prediction that there woul4 be a significantly negative

correlation between measures on the DS and perception of

parents as Loving and Casual was rejectedsince correlations

did not meet the specified level of significance. And as

mentioned above, there was a significant correlation in the

positive direction, rather than in the negative direction,

between the PCR subscale Loving and the DS scores (Table 2).

The slightly negative correlations on the Casual subscale

failed to meet significance.

Taken together, the' results of Hypothesis 1 and 2 in

this study showed positive correlations between the DS

scores and perceived parental loving behavior, rather than

rejecting behavior. In terms of reward and punishment, as

30

discussed earlier, this study seemed to indicate that Loving

parents fostered dogmatism in their offspring when Rejecting

parents did not. This is plausible within the framework

of learning theory, in that the results of positively rein-

forced behaviors are more easily seen than is behavior in

which attempts have been made to shape or foster attitudes

in the child through punishment.

Hypothesis 3, that DS scores would correlate positively

with the EPPS subtest scores of Succorance, and negatively

with measures of Change and Intraception, could be only

partially accepted, for the following reasons: Succorance

scores correlated positively with males, females, and total

group measures of dogmatism, as hypothesized. The correlation

between the DS scores and measures of Succorance for males

was significant at the .01 level (Table 2). Intraception

subtest scores correlated negatively (£ .05 and £ .01) with

females and total group dogmatism scores (Table 2) , as

predicted. The Change subtest scores were negatively

correlated with DS scores for females, as predicted, but

were not statistically significant. EPPS Change subtest

score correlations with the DS for males were close to zero

(Table 2), with a slight positive trend.

These results are generally comparable to those

reported by Vacchiano, Strauss, and Schiffman (1968). They

31

found correlations between <"he DS and the EPPS subtests

Succorance (r=.25), Change (r~-,25), and Intraception

(r=-.2.1), concluding that

dogmatism was found to be related to need for succorance (dependency on others) and inversly related to needs for change (avoidance of change in behavior and environment) and intraception,(lack . of understanding of the motives of oneself and others) [p. 84J.

One explanation for the failure to obtain significant

results on the Change subtest, might have had to do with

the fact that the subjects in this study were tested at

the beginning of the semester, when they actually were

experiencing changes in their routine at a higher than

average rate.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that no statistically significant

differences would be observed between males' and females'

scores on measures of the DS and the PCR subtests Loving,

Rejecting, Casual, and Demanding. The expectation was that

differences in perceptions of mothers and fathers would

become less distinct as children approached adulthood, as

Goldin (1969) discussed.

This hypothesis can'only be partially accepted. Only

one significant difference in scores between males' and females'

perceptions of parents was observed: that of the Rejecting sub-

test (Table 1), Males rated both mothers and fathers as more

32

rejecting than females, and^they rated fathers as more

rejecting than mothers (£ .05). These findings were generally

in accord with those of Goldin (1969) , and seemed to follow

expectations of parental roles and attitudes toward parents

in our society (Cox, 1970; Roe § Siegelman, 1963; Sears,

Maccoby, § Levin, 1957).

Though not significant at the .05 level, these results

also supported Goldin's findings (1969), in that males, as

compared to females, viewed fathers as less loving and more

demanding than mothers. At the same time, females perceived

both mothers and fathers as slightly more casual than males,

a pattern that Roe and Siegelman (1963) also found.

In order to examine the combined influence of the

three PCR scales which comprise the Roe-Siegelman Loving-

Rejecting factor, a multiple correlation using these three

scales and subjects' sex as independent variables and DS as

a criterion, was computed for fathers and for mothers separately.

An F-test for significance indicated that the sex variable did

not contribute significantly to the proportion of variance

that was predictable in dogmatism. The sex variable was

therefore excluded from the computations. A substantial pro-

portion of the variance in DS can be accounted for by the child's

perception of mothers (21.7%) and by the child's perception

of fathers (15.7%) on the Loving-Rejecting dimension of

33

child-rearing practice-;. The multiple correlations were

,466 for ratings of mothers and .396 for ratings of fathers.

These data suggest that children's perceptions of

parental child-rearing behavior are related to their

tendencies to be dogmatic in their beliefs. Apparently,

perception of parents as warmaffectionate, and rewarding

may lead to the uncritical acceptance of the belief systems

of the parents. Parents who are seen as high in loving

acquire reinforcing properties for the child's beliefs;

in other words, from the child's frame of reference, the

rewarding, loving parents are important authorities, and

the incorporation of their attitudes and values is a rein-

forcing event for the child.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, T. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E.', Levinson, D. , § Sanford, . . R. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.

Anderson, C. A developmental study of dogmatism during adolescence i\?ith reference to sex differences. Journal of Abnormal and Social_ Psychology, 1962 , 65, 132-135.

Becker, W.C. Consequences of different kinds of parental discipline. In M.L. Hoffman § L.W. Hoffman (Eds.),

c/hijhd development research. Vol I_. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964, pp. 169-208.

Bolmeier, G. The relationship of dogmatism in parents to various aspects of adjustment among high school students. Dissertation Abstracts, 1966, 26, 5571-5572.

Buros, 0. (}• d ) The sixth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1965.

Cox, S.H. Intrafamily comparison of loving-rejecting child-rearing practices. Child Development, 1970, 41, 437-448.

Edwards, A.L. The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, 37 (2), 90-9-3."

i Edwards. A.L. Personal Preference Schedule: Manual. New

York: The Psychological Corporation, .1954.

Frank, G.H. The role of the family in the development of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 191-205.

Go!din, P. A review of children's reports of parents behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71(3),

34

5 ( K

Kirtley, D., § Harkloss, R. Some personality and attitudinal correlates of dogmatism. Psychological Reports, 1969, 24, 851-854. " "

Murray, ii.A, Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938.

Plant, W. , Telford, C. , § Thomas, J. Some personality differences between dogmatic and non-dogmatic groups.5?1

Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 67, 67-75.

Rehhun, M. Parental.attitudes and the closed belief-disbelief system. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 260-262.

Roe. A., § Siegelman, M. A parent-child relations question-naire. Child Development, 1963, 34, 355-369.

Rokeach, M. The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psycho-logical Review, 1954, 61, 194-204.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Schaefer, E. A configurational analysis of childrens reports of parent behavior. Journal of Consulting Psychology," 1965, 29, 552-557'.

Sears, R. , Maccoby, E., 5 Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1957.

Siegelman, M. College student personality correlates of early parent-child relationship. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965 , 29, 558-564..

Troldahl, V., § Powell, F. A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces, 1965, 44, 211-214.

Vacchiano, R. , Strauss, P., § Schiffman, D. Personality correlates of dogmatism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 32, 83-85.

Vacchiano, R. , Strauss, P., § Hochman, L. The open and closed mind: a review cf dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71 (4), 261-273. ' ~

36

APPENDIX A

Correlations of DS with three EPPS's and ten PCR subscales

for fathers and for mothers of 25 males

and 34 females and the total group

Scales Cor r Males

elations with Females

DS Total

Succorance .358** .139 .214

Change .063 -.040 . -.018

Intracept.ion - .247 - .334** -.310*

Protecting (fathers) .166 .164 .141

Protecting (mothers) .019 .164 .075

Punishing, Symbolic Love (fa thers) .055 -. 080 - .006

Punishing, Symbolic Love (mothers) - .143 - .177 - .161

Rejecting (fathers) - .09.5 - .024 - .033

Rejecting (mothers) .066 - .437** -.231

Casual (fathers) .081 .133 .101

Casual (mothers) -.136 .045 -.019

Rewarding Symbolic Love (fathers) .152 .280* .235

Rewarding Symbolic Love (mothers) .201 .405** .332*

Demanding (fathers) .103 . 095 .109

Demanding (mothers) . 045 - . 015 .018

Punishing Direct Object (fathers) -.014 - .019 - .096

Punishing Direct Object (mothers) . 045 - .135 - .024

* E<-05. ** p <.01.

1 7

APPENDIX A Continued

o C cl X c s Correl at ions with DS o C cl X c s Males Females Total

Loving (fathers) . 430** . 204 .261*

Loving (mothers) ,289* .508** .4 39**

Neglecting'(fathers) - . 013 -. 066 - .037

Neglecting (mothers) .062 - .280* - .092

Rewarding Direct Object (fathers) .152 .233 . .183

Rewarding. Direct Object (mothers) .033 . 286* .176

* p <.05. **~£< .01