Chapter 6 from: Vinod K. Kool & John J. Ray (Eds.) "Authoritarianism across cultures". Bombay, India: Himalaya Publishing House, 1983

SOME ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF AUTHORITARIANISM: With Applications in Australia, England, Scotland and South Africa


The problems inherent in the California F scale (Adorno et a1., 1950) as a measure of authoritarianism are now well known (Christie & Jahoda, 1954; Brown, 1965; Kirscht & Dillehay, 1967 McKinney, 1973). They can be summarized as: Openness to acquiescent responding; ideological bias and lack of behavioural validity (See also Titus, 1968 ; Titus & Hollander, 1957 ; Ray, 1976). On all three counts it can be held not to measure what it purports to measure. The need for new or improved measures has, then, long been recognized.


The first revision of the F scale attempted was, of course, to rewrite some of its items so that one had to disagree with them to get a high score. A scale with equal proportions of such revised items and of original items would control against the influence of acquiescent set

The many early attempts at this failed (Christie, Havel & Seidenberg, 1956) because of the fact that the revised and original items generally tended to correlate very little with one another. A high negative correlation would, of course, have been required if true reversed items had been produced. This apparent "irreversibility" of F scale items was then a considerable reflection on/their meaningfulness, not to say their validity. Surely, if an item meant anything, it would be possible to write its opposite.

Although the meaningfulness of F scale items was, thus, demonstrably low, not everybody was prepared to accept the view that it was totally absent. Byrne & Bounds (1964) suggested that the search for adequate reversals of F items should be treated as an empirical one -- that if a large enough number of candidate reversals were tried, at least some successful ones would be found. These authors' own work, however, was confined to student samples and only a few successful reversed items were, in fact, found (See also Cherry & Byrne, 1977).

Lee & Warr (1969) were the first to try out empirical methods of reversed item selection on general population samples. Unfortunately, their item selection methods also eliminated most of the original F scale items as well -- leaving only five out of a total of 30 items that had any content in common with the F original. Their claim to have produced a "Balanced F scale" was thus rather misleading.

In 1972, however, a scale appeared with better claims in this direction. This was the Ray (1972a) "BF" (Balanced F) scale. It was produced by the methods proposed by Byrne &-Bounds (1964) and contained 14 original F items plus 14 "negative" items which were all reversals of F originals. It had reliabilities in excess of .8 and correlations (before reverse-scoring) between its two halves of up to -.7. It must be noted,, however, that some original F items did not appear in the BF scale in any form -- either negative or positive. Instead, some items appeared in two forms -- both the original and a reversed form. The BF scale was shown to work on both student and general population samples..

A short form of the BF scale suitable for use in survey research has also now been produced. The best 14 of the original 28 items were selected on the criterion of those showing the highest item-to-total correlation in Study III of Ray (1972a). These were then included in a random postal survey of the entire Australian population and their performance as a scale in their own right examined (See Ray, 1979c). The short scale showed a reliability of .80 and a pos.-neg. correlation of --.5. With a five-point response option allowed for each item, the mean score was 41.57 with an S.D. of 7.97. The items of this form of the scale are given in the appendix to this chapter.

When re-applied to a random doorstep sample of the white population (N=100) of the city of Johannesburg in the Republic of South Africa., this form of the scale, however, showed a reliability of only .65 and a pos.-neg. correlation of only -.21. The mean and S.D., however, were 42.14 and 5.50 --suggesting that South Africans are not more authoritarian than Australians. The poor homogeneity of the items of the new scale in South Africa is presumably attributable to the generally deviant nature of South African society. For further details of this study see Ray (1979d & 1980b).


An obvious alternative to the F scale would be a scale that simply endeavoured to measure attitude to authority (whether positive or negative) without all the covertness and psychodynamics associated with the F scale. Such a scale is the Ray (1971) "AA" scale. It is a scale expressly written with no value assumptions about attitude to authority. It is based on the view that in some cases acceptance of authority might be good and in others it might be bad. The only task of the scale is to measure just what those attitudes generally are.

Like the BF scale, it was constructed on a general population, rather than a student sample. It is also completely balanced against acquiescent response set. Reliabilities exceed .8 and pos. -neg. correlations exceed -.5 (before reversals).

Unlike the F scale, high scorers on the AA scale ("authoritarians") were found to be slightly better adjusted socially than low scorers. Like the F scale, (Titus, 1968), the only behaviours associated with high AA scores seemed to be a slight tendency towards submissiveness. High AA scorers also were distinctly more conservative in their political party preferences and general social attitudes.

Independent work by Dufty (1975) using only sub-scale 2 of the AA scale on a group of students showed that high scorers were likely to be of Roman Catholic origin, did not value seminar-type discussion highly and were less likely to become sociology students.

In the fourth study of Ray (1971), a short 20 item form of the AA scale was introduced. In study II of Ray (1979), this form of the scale showed a reliability of .86 and a pos-neg correlation of -.55. The sample was a community sample from the Sydney metropolitan area with N of 282. The mean and S.D. of the scale on this sample were 58.59 and 12.75. All items were answered with one of five options. This form of the scale is given in the appendix.


Because of the great influence of their work, Adorno et al (1950) substantially altered the meaning of the word "authoritarian". They gave it a variety of connotations it had not previously had. In Ray (1972c) an attempt was made to get back to the meaning the term had originally had. The idea was to distinguish "Pre-Fascist" attitudes (measured by the F scale) from purely "authoritarian" ones. Authoritarianism in this sense, then, was defined as: "A desire for a form of social organization similar to military institutions and procedures".

The scale produced to measure this concept was the "A" scale. It was normed on a student sample (N=114) and showed there a reliability of .85. The correlation between its twelve negative and twelve positive items was -.61 (before reversals).

Although published after the AA scale, the A scale was in fact devised prior to the AA scale and shares some items with it. Like the AA scale (Ray, 1972b), the A scale shows no relationship with ethnocentrism. This then again testifies to the very specialized (distorted!) nature of the definition of authoritarianism used by Adorno et al. (1950).

The items of A scale are given in the appendix.


One of the supposed components of authoritarianism is submissiveness to those in higher or more prestigious positions. It has also been assumed without good proof that such submissiveness to those above one is accompanied by aggressiveness to those below one (Adorno et al. 1950). As this assumption seemed a gratuitous one, a separate scale was developed which would measure submissive attitudes alone --without any inbuilt assumptions as to what they might be associated with.

It was felt that such a scale would be particularly useful in studying the phenomenon of political deference -- the tendency of a considerable proportion of working class people to prefer political representatives of exalted social origins rather than representatives from their own class.

The 20 item scale produced to measure this concept showed a reliability of .77 on a sample of 96 Australian Army conscripts. It was found that only working class socialist voters got deviant scores on it. Upper to middle class socialist voters, upper to middle class conservative voters and working-class conservatives all got similar mean scores. It was the working-class socialist voters who got especially low scores.

The correlation of the scale with the AA scale mentioned above was a very low .167 -- which confirms the view that submissive and authoritarian attitudes have little to do with one another. Once again, this is contrary to what Adorno et al claim. People who respect authority generally do not necessarily want that authority to consist of eminent and respected -people. See Ray (1972e).


One attribute that has been conceptualized very similarly to authoritarianism is militarism (Eckhardt & Newcombe, 1969). The scale offered as a measure of militarism by Eckhardt & Newcombe, however, is in many ways hardly distinguishable from a conservatism scale. For this reason a new scale was developed simply to measure approval/disapproval of the Army. Although designed for use with members of the Australian Army, it would be suitable for use among civilians also if a small number of items were deleted. See Ray (1972b) and Henley, Dixon & Cartmell (1977). The reliability of the full 40 item scale on 98 conscripts was .94.

On the same sample, the militarism scale showed a significant, negative correlation (-.29) with ethnocentrism. Militarists tend to be racially tolerant rather than racially prejudiced. This could, of course, hardly be more contrary to what Adorno et al (1950) claim. The same study, however, showed that conservatives were racially prejudiced. Militarism and conservatism correlated only .24. This suggests that it was the conservatism rather than the authoritarianism component of the F scale which has in the past produced the observed high correlations between "authoritarianism" and ethnocentrism.

Grenville (1977) has provided validation for the militarism scale by showing that, unlike the F scale, it discriminated between student members and non-members of the (British), Officer Training Corps.


Although easily observable as a phenomenon, authoritarianism of the Left seems to have attracted little interest among scale constructors. One preliminary attempt in this direction was first reported in Ray (1972d) and amplified in Ray (1974a).

The scale produced in this work was a fifteen item inventory of statements characteristic of what was being shouted by students orators and espoused by Left-wing intellectuals at the height of the Vietnam war.

When administered to 404 Australian Army conscripts, it showed a reliability of .65 and correlated .474 with the California F scale and .266 with the Rokeach D scale. This positive correlation with the F scale is in spite of the fact that the new 15 item "HR" scale was as Leftist in tone as the F scale is Rightist. It must then be assumed that a common component of authoritarianism is so strong in the two scales that it completely overrides the ideological opposition between them. A study to ascertain whether acquiescence could form part of this common component was able to rule out such a possibility (Ray, 1974a)

There is, however, one other possible explanation of the correlation between the F and HR scales. It could be that neither measures authoritarianism at all. What the two scales have in common may in fact be "Thoughtlessness" -- the willingness to assent to any platitudinous proposition, regardless of its ideological content or polarity. This, of course, is the explanation of the F scale's function favoured by Peabody (1966).


Perhaps the most widely used alternative to the F scale is the Rokeach (1960) D scale. Rokeach proposes that "closed-mindedness" is the one element of authoritarianism which is common to both the political Right and the political Left and that his D scale provides a measure of this.

While this is a very limited conceptualization of authoritarianism, it does seem reasonable that the D scale could at least measure one component of authoritarianism. It is therefore regrettable that the D scale shares with the F scale the feature of one-way wording. This means that, like the F scale, high scores could be explained as the outcome of acquiescence rather than of true authoritarianism. (See Ray (1979c).

For this reason, there have been many attempts to produce a balanced version of the D scale -- four of them by the present author. All have suffered from various defects. The defects of the earlier attempts are reviewed in Ray (1970). The "BD" scale produced in Ray (1970) worked very well with sophisticated student samples but Ray & Martin (1974 Table 1) shows that this is not true of a freshman sample, and both Ray (1970) and Kirton (1977) that it is not true of general population samples. The best claimant, therefore, would appear to be the Ray (1974b) BD scale Mark II. This scale, however, shows a correlation between its two halves characteristically little above -.3. This is very much less than the correlations observed with the balanced F scale and does hence suggest that the D scale is even harder to balance and hence more ambiguous than the F scale itself. Further Mark III and Mark IV versions of the BD scale have not improved this situation (Ray, 1979e).


Whatever its other problems, it now seems that the F scale is virtually useless as a predictor of authoritarian behaviour. The evidence to that effect has been summarized in Ray (1976) so it will not be repeated here. To the references given, there should perhaps be added papers by Hines (1956) and Perry & Cunningham (1975).

If the F scale will not predict authoritarian behaviour, then, what will ? An obvious possibility is a scale in behaviour inventory format. Such a scale might suffer from the very overtness that Adorno et al (1950) were at pains to avoid but the failure of their "covert" approach really leaves little other possibility open. Behaviour inventories are now routinely used in tasks of clinical prediction, so there seems little reason why they should not be successful in the present area also.

Such a scale was devised and presented in Ray (1976). It was named the "Directiveness" scale and was designed to measure only that component of authoritarianism described as "The desire or tendency to impose one's own will on others". This was felt to be the irreducible minimum definition of authoritarianism. Broader definitions were avoided on the grounds that other possible "components" should be shown to correlate with this most basic component rather than being assumed a priori to go with it.

The 26 item "Directiveness" scale showed a reliability of .74 on its norming sample. It did not correlate with attitude to authority as measured by the AA scale (r = .047). People with authoritarian personalities are not then especially likely to hold authoritarian attitudes. This again is utterly contrary to what Adorno et al (1950) assumed. The correlation of the new scale with peer-rated authoritarian behaviour was a high .54. This contrasted with only barely significant or non-significant such correlations for the AA scale and the F scale (Titus, 1968).

A further check on the validity of this scale was obtained by administering it to a group of 41 Royal Australian Navy officer-cadets studying at the University of New South Wales. Their mean score (and S. D.) on the new scale was 59.63 (6.68). This compared with the general population mean reported in Ray (1976) of 54.88 (8.79). The t for the difference is 2.94 -- showing that the cadets got, as should be expected, significantly higher scores (p <.005). This, then, constitutes a criterion groups validity check for the new scale. A group vocationally required to be authoritarian was shown in fact to be more authoritarian.

One more validity check was carried out -- this time of the concurrent kind. It was endeavoured to show that the new scale (named, for distinctiveness, the "Directiveness" scale) did in fact correlate with a conceptually related instrument. The instrument that seemed to be most highly related conceptually was the Dominance scale from the Jackson (1967) PRF. The two scales were then included in a questionnaire posted out to a random sample of the population of the Australian State of New South Wales. Five hundred questionnaires were sent out and 122 returned. Names and addresses for the survey were selected at random from the Australian electoral rolls The demographic structure of the final sample (N=122) was indistinguishable from that observed in contemporaneous doorstep samples gathered in the Sydney metropolitan area (no significant differences in mean age, sex, occupation or education). This indicates that the postal sampling method does not seriously distort the nature of the sample obtained. On this sample, then, the two scales were found to correlate .659. This is, of course, highly significant and, as such, strong concurrent validation, for the Directiveness scale.

At this stage, the relationship between the new scale and the F scale seems a matter of some interest. The F scale is only partly a measure of attitude to authority as the majority of its items, in fact, make no mention of authority or anything related to it. It seems conceivable however, that the "toughness" component of its items might give it some relationship with the new scale.

In another study, then, the new scale was included in a questionnaire with the Ray (1972a) balanced version of the California F scale. The questionnaire was administered to a random cluster sample of 95 people living in the Sydney metropolitan area. Doorstep cluster sampling is the method used by almost all Australian public opinion polls -- where it generally gives very accurate results. On this sample, then, the two scales were found to correlate .217. This was just significant at the .05 level and, as such, indicates that there is only a very weak relationship between authoritarian attitudes and authoritarian personality.

In a move designed to give the findings on the topic some cross-cultural generalizability, the study immediately above was replicated in the Republic of South Africa. For the replication, however, both scales were used in 14 item short forms only. The sample has already been described above in the section dealing with balanced F scales. The correlation observed between the two scales was -.193 -- which is non-significant. This indicates that the F scale is unrelated to authoritarian personality.

Both studies immediately above show, then, that the grand assumptions of many previous writers in treating evidence about attitudes as if it were also evidence about personality and behaviour were very faulty indeed.

Another matter of obvious interest concerning the new scale is its relationship with racial attitudes and its relationship with measures of psychopathology. As such relationships were central to the work of Adorno et al, the question of whether they exist when a valid scale is used should, in fact, be quite critical.

Ray (1976) reports two studies wherein no relationship between the Directiveness scale and racial attitudes could be found. In the first, a group of Australian students were assessed on their attitudes to Apartheid. In the second, a doorstep sample of Sydney people were assessed on their attitudes to Aborigines. Ray (I978) reports a further study wherein Britons were assessed an their attitude to coloured immigration. Again the correlation of such attitudes with Directiveness scale score was non-significant. Finally, in the South African study mentioned above, subjects also answered a 14 item "Attitude to Blacks" scale [an extension of the Heaven & Moerdyk (1977) instrument]. Again the correlation with authoritarian personality (Directiveness score) was non-significant. The correlation of the BF scale with the "Attitude to Blacks" scale, however, was .588. Clearly, then, although the F scale may correlate with measures of racial attitudes, this correlation is not to be explained as the effect of authoritarian personality. On the evidence of Ray (1973b) -- which shows the F scale as largely indistinguishable from a measure of social conservatism -- the correlation may perhaps be explained as being due to a common component of conservatism.

There have been two surveys wherein the relationship between Directiveness and Neuroticism was examined. The first was the survey of 95 Sydney people mentioned above in connection with the balanced F scale: In this survey, the short form of the Maudsley Personality 'N' scale was included (Eysenck, 1959). The correlation with Directiveness was --.177 (N.S). The second survey was the postal survey of 122 Australians also mentioned above. It also included the same 'N' scale. The correlation with Directiveness on that occasion was --.222. (p< .05). If anything, then, there is a slight tendency for true authoritarians to be non-neurotic.

Further evidence on the mental health of the authoritarian personality comes from Ray (1979f). There a quota sample of 87 people from Sydney (Australia) answered the Directiveness scale plus a variety of scales to measure other well-known social science constructs. Authoritarians were found not to be older, not to be more likely to be males, not to be more likely to be manual workers, not to be more poorly educated, not to be more likely to vote conservative, not to be more neurotic and not to be more dogmatic. Knowing a person's Directiveness score enabled one to make no prediction of that person's standing on any of the above variables. Authoritarians were, however, internally controlled, achievement motivated and unalienated (rs of .208, .309 and -.198). The emerging picture of the validly measured authoritarian personality, then, is one of a solid citizen rather than of a maladjusted misfit.


Now that authoritarianism of the personality can at last be validly measured, we can also assess authoritarianism as a factor in explaining international differences. To this end, the Directiveness scale was given to random doorstep cluster samples, of people in Sydney, London, Glasgow and Johannesburg. Ns were 95, 100, 100 and 100 respectively. The first and the latter of these four samples have already been mentioned above. The N of 100 was chosen because samples larger than this give very little improvement in the size of correlations which will be shown as significant. Since a correlation explaining as little as 4% of the variance will be shown as significant with an N of 100, a larger sample would have been required only if very weak effects were thought of interest. The four particular cities chosen for study were selected as being the largest in their particular countries. This meant that good comparability should have been achieved. In each case the city and adjoining suburbs was chosen as the sampling frame rather than any narrower definition of the city itself.

The Sydney sample received the full Directiveness scale, while the London and Glasgow samples received only its first 14 items (recommended in Ray (1976) as a suitable short form of the full scale). The Johannesburg sample also received a short from of the scale but a form with a slightly different selection of items designed to maximize reliability. It is the items of this short form that are given in the Appendix.

The means and standard deviations of the original short _ form of the Directiveness scale were: Sydney 31.36 (5.38), London 31.38 (5.17) and Glasgow 30.73 (5.48). The means and S.D.s on the improved short form of the scale were: Sydney 29.69 (6.16) and Johannesburg 28.08 (5.79). In no case do any of the other three cities produce mean scores, significantly different from those observed in Sydney. The considerable body of research done in Sydney should, then, be highly generalizable to at least other English-speaking countries.

In line with observations by Burnet (1970) concerning the basic importance of dominance as an attribute among social animals, it would appear that authoritarianism also is a basic attribute of the personality not much influenced by cultural variations in the surrounding milieu.


As two of the most popular constructs in post-war social psychology, it is rather surprising that there has been little research into the relationship between authoritarianism and achievement motivation. Since both attributes would seem to entail some element of putting oneself before other people, some relationship ought to be expected. Studies using the F scale, however, have been both sketchy and contradictory. De Charms, Morrison, Reitman & McClelland (1955) found a weak relationship with F score and self-rated achievement motivation but no relationship with projectively measured achievement motivation. On the other hand, Brown (1953) found an inverse relationship between projectively measured achievement motivation and F score. Slotnick & Bleiberg (1974), however, found a strong positive relationship between self-reported achievement motivation and F score. In a factor analysis of a large body of items, Lorr, Suziedelis & Tonesk (1973) found two significant correlations of .30 and .31 between their two authoritarianism factors and an achievement value scale.

On the whole, the above results do perhaps suggest some confirmation for a relationship between authoritarianism and achievement motivation. It will be of interest, therefore, to see if the relationship is also to be found with a more valid scale of authoritarianism.

All four samples mentioned in the section immediately above did, therefore, receive the Ray (1979 a) short achievement motivation scale. This is a fairly thoroughly validated scale in self report format which was designed from the beginning to be suitable for general population use and which is fully balanced against acquiescence. Ray (1980 a) shows that the longer scale from which the short form was produced was much more valid than a projective achievement motivation measure. It is also, needless to say, much more reliable. The reliabilities observed on the present four samples were: Sydney .76, London .73, Glasgow .72 and Johannesburg .67. Deleting South Africans whose native language was not English brought the reliability back up to .72.

The correlations observed between achievement motivation and Directiveness were: Sydney .331, London .395, Glasgow .489 and Johannesburg .305. All were significant at the .01 level. Clearly, authoritarian behaviours are often motivated by the desire to achieve.

That authoritarian personality goes with achievement motivation does not, however, guarantee that authoritarian behaviour can be explained as an effect of achievement motivation. Although the correlation between authoritarian personality (Directiveness) and authoritarian behaviour is relatively high, it is still far short of the point where one could automatically assume that what is true of authoritarian personality is also true of authoritarian behaviour. Direct correlations between authoritarian behaviour measures and achievement motivation measures would, therefore, be of some interest.

One such is reported in Ray (1973a). There it is shown that a Task orientation scale [one of the two main factors of achievement motivation -- see Ray (1980a)] in fact predicted peer rated authoritarianism better than the 'AA scale (see above) did. Conversely, peer rated authoritarianism predicted scores on the 'Task orientation' scale better than peer rated task orientation did. We thus have a complete "cross-over" between attitudes and behaviour. Task oriented attitudes have more to do with authoritarian behaviour than authoritarian attitudes do.

A less spectacular result but one similar in kind was observed in a recent study designed to develop a measure of achievement motivation in a "catchphrase" format [See Wilson & Patterson (1968)]. In this study a sample of 87 Sydney people answered the new achievement motivation scale (reliability .87) and were rated by people who knew them on several attributes one of which was "Tends to boss people around". The ,correlation between this rating and the catchphrase achievement motivation scale was .191 -- which is significant and in the expected direction. See Ray (1981).

It seems then that on at least some occasions when we see a person behaving in what we would characterize as an "authoritarian" way, he could well be doing so out of achievement motivation. His behaviour may be an outcome of his own desire to get things done. Putting it another way, achievement motivation is a more valid predictor of authoritarian behaviour than the F scale is.


The characterization of the authoritarian given by Adorno et al. (1950) has been shown by all the above results to depend almost entirely on use of the F scale. Other measures of authoritarianism give vastly different results: Given the severe doubts about the adequacy and validity of the F scale also brought out above, it must be concluded that, whatever else they did, Adorno et al told us little or nothing about the real nature of authoritarianism. The "Directiveness" scale, however, gives much better promise in this direction.


{Articles below by J.J. Ray can generally be accessed simply by clicking on the name of the article. I am however also gradually putting online a lot of abstracts, extracts and summaries from older articles by other authors so if an article not highlighted below seems of particular interest, clicking here or here might just save you a trip to the library}

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. The authoritarian personality N.Y. : Harper, 1950.

Brown, R.W. A determinant of the relationship between rigidity and authoritarianism. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychology, 1953, 48, 469-476.

Brown, R. Social Psychology, N.Y. : Free Press, 1964.

Burnet, Sir F.M. Dominant mammal. Sydney: Heinemann, 1970.

Byrne, D. & Bounds, C. The reversal of F scale items. Psychological Reports 1964, 14, 216.

Christie, R. & Jahoda, M. Studies in the scope and method of "The authoritarian personality" Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1954.

Christie, R., Havel, J. & Seidenberg, B. Is the F scale irreversible? J. Abnorm: Soc. Psychol. 1956, 56, 141-158.

Cherry, F. & Byrne, D. Authoritarianism. Chapter 3 in T. Blass (Ed.) Personality variables in social behaviour N.Y.: Wiley, 1977.

DeCharms, R., Morrison, H.W., Reitman, R. & McClelland,, D.C. Behavioural correlates of directly and indirectly measured achievement motivation. In D.C. McClelland, (Ed.) Studies in motivation N.Y.: Appleton Century, 1955.

Dufty, N.F. Student attitudes to authority and to class discussion in relation to program of study and high school attended. Unpublished paper available from author at Western Australian Institute of Technology, 1975.

Eckhardt, W. & Newcombe, A.G. Militarism, personality and other social attitudes. J. Conflict Resolution 1969, 13, 210-219.

Eysenck, H.J. Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory. London : Univ. London Press, 1959

Grenville, J. Unpublished honours thesis presented to the Dept. of Psychology, University of St. Andrews, Scotland, 1977

Heaven, P.C.L. & Moerdyk, A. Prejudice revisited: A pilot study using Ray's scale. J. Behavioural Science 1977, 2, 217-220.

Henley, S.H.A., Dixon, N.F. & Cartmell. Wing Cdr. A.E. A note on the-relationship between authoritarianism and acceptance of military ideology. Brit. J. Soc. Clin. Psychology, 1977, 16, 287-288.

Hines, V.A. F scale, GAMIN, and public school behaviour. J. Educ. Psychol. 1956, 47, 321-328.

Jackson, D N. Personality research form manual N.Y.: Research, Psychologists Press, 1967.

Kirscht, J.P. & Dillehay, R.C. Dimensions of authoritarianism, Lexington : Univ. Kentucky Press, 1967.

Kirton, M.J. Ray's balanced Dogmatism scale re-examined. Brit. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1977, 16, 97-98.

Lee, R.E. & Warr, P.B. The development and standardization of a balanced F scale. J. General Psychol. 1969, 81, 109-129.

Lorr, M., Suziedelis, A. & Tonesk, X. The structure of values: Conceptions of the desirable. J. Research in personality 1973, 7, 139-147.

McKinney, D.W. The authoritarian personality studies The Hague: Mouton, 1973.

Peabody, D. Authoritarianism scales and response bias. Psychol Bulletin 1966, 65 11-23.

Perry, A & Cunningham, W.F. A behavioural test of three F subscales. J. Soc. Psychol. 1975, 96, 271-275.

Ray, J.J. (1970) The development and validation of a balanced Dogmatism scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 22, 253-260.

Ray, J.J. (1971) An "Attitude to Authority" scale. Australian Psychologist, 6, 31-50.

Ray, J.J. (1972a) A new balanced F scale -- And its relation to social class. Australian Psychologist 7, 155-166.

Ray, J.J. (1972b) Militarism, authoritarianism, neuroticism and anti-social behavior. Journal of Conflict Resolution 16, 319-340.

Ray, J.J. (1972c) Non-ethnocentric authoritarianism. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology 8(June), 96-102.

Ray, J.J. (1972d) Militarism and psychopathology: A reply to Eckhardt & Newcombe J. Conflict Resolution, 16, 357-362.

Ray, J.J. (1972e) The measurement of political deference: Some Australian data. British Journal of Political Science 2, 244-251.

Ray, J.J. (1973a) Task orientation and interaction orientation scales. Personnel Psychology 26, 61-73.

Ray, J.J. (1973b) Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A review and an empirical study. Ch. 2 in: G.D. Wilson (Ed.) The psychology of conservatism London: Academic Press.

Ray, J.J. (1974a) Authoritarian humanism. Ch. 42 in Ray, J.J. (Ed.) Conservatism as heresy Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co.

Ray, J.J. (1974b) Balanced Dogmatism scales. Australian Journal of Psychology 26, 9-14.

Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? Human Relations, 29, 307-325.

Ray, J.J. (1978) Determinants of racial attitudes. Patterns of Prejudice 12(5), 27-32.

Ray, J.J. (1979a) A quick measure of achievement motivation -- validated in Australia and reliable in Britain and South Africa. Australian Psychologist 14, 337-344.

Ray, J.J. (1979b) Authoritarianism in Australia, England and Scotland. Journal of Social Psychology 108, 271-272.

Ray, J.J. (1979c) A short balanced F scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 309-310.

Ray, J.J. (1979d) White South Africans' views of blacks. Patterns of Prejudice 13(6), 15-17.

Ray, J.J. (1979e) Is the Dogmatism scale irreversible? South African Journal of Psychology 9, 104-107.

Ray, J.J. (1979f) The authoritarian as measured by a personality scale: Solid citizen or misfit? J. Clinical Psychology 35, 744-746.

Ray, J.J. (1980a) The comparative validity of Likert, projective and forced-choice indices of achievement motivation. J. Social Psychology, 111, 63-72.

Ray, J.J. (1980b) Racism and authoritarianism among white South Africans. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 29-37.

Ray, J.J. (1981) Measuring achievement motivation by immediate emotional reactions. J. Social Psychology, 113, 85-93.

Ray, J.J. & Martin, J. (1974) How desirable is dogmatism? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology 10(2), 143-145.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind: N.Y.: Basic Books, 1960.

Slotnick, R.S. & Bleiberg, J. Authoritarianism, occupational sex-typing, and attitudes towards work. Psychol. Reports, 1974, 35, 763-770

Titus, H.E. F scale validity considered against peer nomination criteria. Psychol. Record 1968, 18, 395-403.

Titus, H.E. & Hollander, E.P. The California F scale in psychological research: 1950-1955. Psychol. Bulletin 1957, 54, 47-64.

Wilson, G.D. & Patterson, J.R. A new measure of conservatism. Brit. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 1968, 7, 264-269.


The short Balanced F (BF) scale. Items marked 'R' are reverse-scored (i.e. "Strongly Disagree" earns the highest score of 5).

1. Homosexuality between consenting adults may be distasteful but it should not be regarded as a crime. (R)
2. Many of the radical ideas of today will be the accepted practices of tomorrow. (R)
3. People who want to whip or imprison sex criminals are themselves sick. (R)
4. It's alright for people to raise questions about even the most personal and private matters. (R)
5. Insults to our honour are not always important enough to bother about. (R)
6. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children are signs of mental illness, such people belong in hospitals rather than prisons. (R)
7. Most honest people admit to themselves that they have sometimes hated their parents. (R)
8. No sane, normal, decent person would ever think of hurting a close friend or relative.
9. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas but as they grow up, they ought to get over them and settle down.
10. Sex crimes such as rape and attacks on children deserve more than imprisonment ; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse.
11. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
12. What the young need most is strict discipline rugged determination, and the will to work and fight for family and country.
13. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.
14. Homosexuals are hardly better than sex criminals and ought to be severely punished


Conscript sample mean was 70.30 with an S.D. of 9.04

1. Human beings are more important than efficiency. (R)
2. If the army allowed more room for individuality, it might be a better institution. (R)
3. People should be guided more by their feelings and less by the rules. (R)
4. In the army, soldiers should not obey an order if it is obviously morally wrong. (R)
5. Patriotism is just a glorified name for national selfishness. (R).
6. Individual freedom is a basic human right. (R)
7. To be efficient is bad if you hurt people in doing it. (R)
8. At the moment it is more important to build good roads than to increase pensions.
9. When Mussolini made Italy's trains run on time, that at least was an important achievement.
10. There is something wrong with anybody who likes to wear military uniform. (R)
11. People should be made to be punctual.
12. School children should have plenty of discipline.
13. The only way Australia will win respect in Asia is by building up strong armed forces.
14. There is always a better alternative for nations to take rather than going to war. (R)
15. Children should be seen and not heard.
16. Before you give children freedom you have to be careful that they will not abuse it.
17. One of the first things children should be taught is to obey their parents at all times.
18. The Armed Forces are largely unnecessary. (R)
19. It is a duty to bring your children up properly.
20. Children should not answer back to their parents.
21. There is far too much regimentation of people nowadays. (R)
22. War is a purifying force.
23. You know where you're going when you have an order to obey.
24. People should not be expected to conform as much as they are today. (R)


1. A national leader should follow the wishes of the community, even if he thinks the citizens are mistaken. (R)
2. There's generally a good reason for every rule and regulation in public service departments.
3. In the Army, soldiers should not obey an order if it is
obviously morally wrong. (R)
4. If the Army allowed more room for individuality, it might be a better institution. (R)
5. There is something wrong with anybody who likes to wear military uniform. (R)
6. Two years in the Army would do everyone the world of good.
7. The Army is very good for straightening men out and smartening them up.
8. Civilians could learn a lot from the Army.
9. I disagree with what the Army stands for. (R)
10. School children should have plenty of discipline.
11. People should be guided more by their feelings and less by the rules. (R)
12. People should be made to be punctual.
13. Efficiency and speed are not as important as letting everyone have their say in making decisions (R)
I4. There is far too much regimentation of people nowadays. (R)
15. You know where you are going when you have an order to obey.
16. People should not be expected to conform as much as they are today. (R)
17. People who say we don't have enough freedom here in Australia don't know what they are talking about.
18. I don't mind if other people decide what I am to do or advise me how to do it.
19. It would be much better if we could do without politics altogether. (R)
20. You can be sure that Army procedures will be good, because they have been tried and tested.

THE DEFERENCE SCALE (Reliability. 77)

1. The son of rich businessman or grazier* has been brought up to take on leadership and responsibility and is therefore the one best fitted to represent the people of his district in Parliament.
2. If a poor man were elected to Parliament he wouldn't know what to do in those high circles.
3. Ruling the country is a task for which only the highly educated are fit.
4. It is best to vote for a man who is already rich because if he gets in, he is less likely to be tempted by opportunities for making money on the sly.
5. Just because a. man is a successful businessman, it doesn't mean he will be any good at running a country. (R)
6. Men who were educated at one of our better private schools would usually be the ones best fitted to run this country
7. This country would be best run by men who have had a university education.
8. A Prime Minister does not need to be a highly educated man because if he is in doubt about something, he can always call on the advice of out-side experts. (R)
9. What we need in Parliament is people who have led the same sort of life that the ordinary man has to put up with every day. (R)
10. We would have a lot more honesty and fair dealing in the Government if more working-men were elected to Parliament. (R)
11. I would prefer to be represented in Parliament by some one my own social class. (R)
12. People who have been to private schools are no better trained than the ones who only went to State-run schools. (R)
13. It is best that this country should be run by upper-class people.
14. This ordinary man would not make a good Prime Minister even if he were given the opportunity.
15. People who are born into rich families are just as likely to be unfit to govern as anybody else. (R)
16. A man from the working class is more likely to make a good member of Parliament than someone from the upper class. (R)
17. I would prefer to be represented in Parliament by a man respected for his social position.
18. There is no reason why the son of a worker shouldn't rise to make a good Prime Minister of the country. (R)
19. If I had the choice of voting for an upper-class person and a man from the working classes, I would prefer to vote for the working-class candidate. (R)
20. Just because a man is way high up socially, it doesn't mean he knows any better what is good for the country. (R)

* Grazier is an Australian term roughly equivalent to the American "Rancher" or (perhaps) the English "Squire".


(To measure authoritarian personality) -- as used in The Republic of South Africa and California Reliability (alpha) was .75 in the R.S.A. and .78 in Australia. All items are responded to "Yes", "?" or "No". These responses are scored 3, 2 or 1 unless the item is marked "R" below --- in which case they are scored 1, 2, 3.

1. Are you the sort of person who always likes to get their own way?
2. Do you tend to boss people around?
3. Are you often critical of the way other people do things?
4. Does incompetence irritate you?
5. Do you dislike having to tell others what to do? (R)
6. If you are told to take charge of some situation, does this make you feel uncomfortable ? (R)
7. Would you rather take orders than give them ? (R)
8. Do you dislike standing out from the crowd ? (R)
9. If anyone is going to be Top Dog, would you rather it be you?
10. Do you tend to dominate the conversation ?
11. Do you let your wife (or husband) get their own way
most of the time ? (R)
12. Are you generally a follower rather than a leader ? (R)
13. Are you argumentative ?
14. Would you prefer to be a worker rather than a manager ? (R)


Replication is one of the cornerstones of science. A new research result will normally require replication by later researchers before the truth and accuracy of the observation concerned is generally accepted. If a result is to be replicated, however, careful specification of the original research procedure is important.

In questionnaire research it has been my observation that the results are fairly robust as to questionnaire format. It is the content of the question that matters rather than how the question is presented. It is nonetheless obviously desirable for an attempted replication to follow the original procedure as closely as possible so I have given here samples of how I presented my questionnaires in most of the research I did.

Go to Index page for this site

Go to John Ray's "Tongue Tied" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Dissecting Leftism" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Australian Politics" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Gun Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Education Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Socialized Medicine" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Political Correctness Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Greenie Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Leftists as Elitists" blog (Not now regularly updated)
Go to John Ray's "Marx & Engels in their own words" blog (Not now regularly updated)
Go to John Ray's "A scripture blog" (Not now regularly updated)
Go to John Ray's recipe blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)

Go to John Ray's Main academic menu
Go to Menu of recent writings
Go to John Ray's basic home page
Go to John Ray's pictorial Home Page (Backup here)
Go to Selected pictures from John Ray's blogs (Backup here)
Go to Another picture page (Best with broadband)