**************************************************************************************
Sociology & Social Research, 1983, 67 (2), 166-189.
THE WORKERS ARE NOT AUTHORITARIAN: ATTITUDE AND PERSONALITY DATA FROM SIX COUNTRIES
J.J. Ray
University of New South Wales, Australia
ABSTRACT
There is considerable evidence that working class people tend to be conservative on non-economic social and political issues. Some contrary findings can, however, be found in the literature. It is argued, however, that conservatism and authoritarianism should not be treated as interchangeable. It is further argued that authoritarianism should be measured by scales of demonstrated behavioural validity. This research was done in a series of eight community studies comprising ten samples gathered in California, Australia, England, Scotland, The Philippines, and South Africa. On no occasion was a significant tendency observed for working class people to exhibit authoritarian personalities. There was, however, a fitful tendency for them to be conservative on some social issues.
INTRODUCTION
As Hamilton (1972) notes, Lipset's (1960) thesis that working class people are more authoritarian, conservative and racist has achieved widespread acceptance. As Grabb (1979) notes, however, it is also a thesis that surprisingly few researchers have set out from the beginning to test. The findings relevant to the thesis are quite often something that emerges as a by-product of other research. Additionally, the findings show no clear consensus. Some results refute the thesis; others support it. It is hoped that the following summary review of the literature will illustrate this. Summary though the review is, however, it should suffice to show some of the sources of the apparent conflict in findings. A report of further research designed to overcome at least some of the limitations identified in existing research will then form the main body of this paper.
Two studies that were designed from the beginning as a test of the thesis were those by Eysenck (1972) and Ray (1974a). Both were based on community samples -- the first from England and the second from Australia. Both would seem to support the view that the workers are clearly more conservative on general social issues and radical on economic issues. Whether they show the workers to be more authoritarian, however, depends -- as we shall see -- on what one conceives authoritarianism to be.
Support for Lipset's thesis can be found in a number of other sources also: Brown (1965) summarizes the great body of work done with the F scale as showing a generally negative relationship between scores on that scale and socioeconomic status. McClosky (1958) found conservatism (which as he defines it sounds very similar to Adorno et al. authoritarianism) to be characteristic of the less educated and those of lower occupational status. McKinnon and Centers (1956) found that among non-manual workers "authoritarianism is related inversely to education, occupation and other stratification variables." Hodge and Treiman (1966) found a clear correlation between increasing pro-integration sentiments and rising occupational status (see the first line of their Table 1). Kelly and Chambliss (1966) found lower occupational status people to be more conservative on civil rights and civil liberties issues and more isolationist than internationalist. Pearlin and Kohn (1966) found that "middle class parents in both Italy and the United States are more likely to value the child's self-direction, working class parents the child's conformity to external prescription." Early findings by Hollingshead and Redlich that working class people were more tolerant of deviant behaviour (psychological disorder) were rebutted by Dohrenwend and Chin-Shong (1967) who found that "The appearance of greater tolerance of deviant behaviour in low status groups is an artifact of viewing their attitudes within a high status frame of reference. When both lower and upper status groups define a pattern of behaviour as seriously deviant, lower status groups are less tolerant." Kohn and Schooler (1969) found that self-direction was most valued by men of higher social class position and conformity to external authority by men of lower social class position. Eitzen (1970) found lower class people to be liberal on social welfare issues but conservative on civil rights. Ransford (1972) found that working class persons are more likely to express punitive attitudes towards student demonstrators, oppose granting students more power and feel blacks are pushing too hard for things they do not deserve.
Against Lipset's thesis, on the other hand, is work by Zeitlin (1967) and Lipsitz (1965) who found that education was the critical variable rather than occupation in explaining attitudinal differences. Hamilton (1968) showed that preference for aggressiveness in foreign policy was more characteristic of the middle than the lower class. Stacey and Green (1971) also produced results which they considered supported the influential criticisms of Lipset by Miller and Riessman (1961) - although detailed perusal of their results does show a second-order factor described as reflecting "self-interest combined with a certain firmness of conviction and toughness" which correlated significantly (.31) with non-skilled occupational status. Hamilton (1966) found that "authoritarianism is not especially prevalent among clerical workers who are economically marginal." Rush (1967) found that right-wing extremism related only to low education and not to occupation. Ray (1972b) has also shown that attitude to aggression is not class-polarized. Finally, a review of the evidence for Lipset's theory by Korpi (1971) which supplements some of the evidence reviewed above by extensive data from Scandinavian sources, concludes that the theory is not supported.
On balance, then, one might conclude that there is more evidence for Lipset's theory than there is against it. This is particularly so if we note that a study by Patchen (1970) neutralizes one of Hamilton's points of attack by showing that working class support for withdrawal from Vietnam was due not to pacifism but to a thoroughly conservative isolationism.
Eysenck's work in support of Lipset has also come under attack by Eiser and Roiser (1972) but only by way of the relatively feeble device of requiring ever higher standards of proof before a point is accepted. Against such arguments no proof would ever suffice.
A possible explanation for the conflict that does exist in the literature flows from Hamilton's (1972) demonstration that the class differences generally found in survey data are quite small. Where the sample size is small or the sampling poor such a weak class effect could clearly be washed out or reduced to a level below statistical significance. Against this, however, it might be argued that Hamilton's findings are based on studies of elections in which the class effect was reduced by the nature of the candidates or issues.
One of the deficiencies in the literature is a general failure to distinguish authoritarianism from conservatism. Even Adorno et al. (1950) did consider such a distinction worth making but Lipset, and most of those who came after him, largely ignore it. On one level, this failure to distinguish is very understandable. Adorno et al. (1950) showed an extremely high correlation between the two and even the present author has argued (Ray, 1973a) that what the F scale measures is indistinguishable from our traditional political notions of general social conservatism. On the other hand, many writers (Shils, 1954; Eysenck, 1954; Rokeach, 1960) have sensed that to limit authoritarianism to the political Right flies in the face of all political reality.
One solution to this dilemma is to question whether the California F scale does in fact measure authoritarianism at all. Before we can do this, however, we need to give at least some consideration to what we mean by authoritarianism and conservatism.
When people use these two words in conversation, they seem fairly consistently to be referring to domineering or bossy behaviour on one hand and attitudes supportive of the status quo on the other. There is no immediately obvious connection between the two concepts. The connection only arises when we start to elaborate theories about the causes of the two phenomena. Adorno et al. (1950), for instance, argued that people who want to dominate others are themselves submissive to existing authority and since submission to existing authority is part of the status quo that conservatives wish to maintain, we begin to see how the selfsame attitude scale item could be said on one occasion to measure conservatism and on the other authoritarianism.
In the present work, however, such theories will be regarded as matters requiring proof rather than something that can be assumed. An attempt will be made to use both words in their simple basic meanings without the encrustation of often questionable assumptions that have come to surround them in much of the social science literature.
Formally, then, conservatism will be defined as "acceptance of or respect for the existing or traditional order," while authoritarianism will be defined (as in Ray 1976) as: "The desire or tendency to impose one's own will on others." While such definitions do not embody theories that (for instance) conservatives are motivated by mistrust of their fellow man or that authoritarians are motivated by repressed hostility for their fathers, they do, of course, allow that such motivations could exist. For some readers, of course, such definitions just will not do. For them authoritarianism is that complex of covarying traits that was identified by Adorno et al. (1950) -- rigidity, punitiveness, ethnocentrism, intolerance of ambiguity, hostility, etc. Such readers might reflect on the difficulty that these supposedly covarying traits have not in fact covaried very well in most of the research carried out since 1950 (Brown, 1965; Ray, 1976). If by "authoritarianism" one means "mental rigidity," would it not be better to say "mental rigidity" and be done with it? To assume that a person who shows mental rigidity will also be reliably characterized by (say) political conservatism is simply to ignore the evidence (Rokeach, 1960).
In psychological research, however, lexical definitions such as those given above tend to take second place to "operational definitions." In this spirit, the ultimate definitions of the concepts used in this paper could be taken to be the attitude and personality scales given in the appendices.
Given the above definition of authoritarianism, it may be noted that there is now substantial evidence to show that the California F scale (Adorno et al., 1950), despite the claims made for it, is not sensitive to the tendency to behave in an authoritarian way (Titus and Hollander, 1957; Titus, 1968; Ray, 1976). High F scorers do not characteristically tend to impose their own will on others. Additionally, it may be noted that surprisingly few original F scale items can be seen as even referring to authority or its exercise. It is regrettable, therefore, that only in the work of the present author has any attempt been made to measure authoritarianism in ways independent of the F scale. The present paper reports further attempts to fill this gap.
Another deficiency in much of the available evidence is inattention to the problem of acquiescent response set. This rather dreary technical problem stems from the fact that some people will respond to some attitude questions with undiscriminating agreement. In popular parlance, they "will agree with anything." This set is sometimes so extreme that many respondents will in fact agree with items of deliberately opposite meaning. This tendency towards meaningless acquiescence is a problem in the present case because it seems a lively possibility that it might be more common among working class than among middle class people. It could be a response both of carelessness and of rebelliousness. Unless some means is found to controlling against it, we will never know whether high F scale scores among the workers reflect a higher genuine degree of attitudinal authoritarianism or simply higher rebelliousness against questionnaire-answering tasks. This arises because the original F scale questions are "all positive" - a "yes" in all cases earns a high score. Unfortunately, the F scale constructors were not the only ones to neglect this problem. Much of the other work quoted in support of Lipset (e.g., McClosky, 1958) also uses measures wherein a yes always or usually earns a high score.
Nor is this dilemma easily escaped by referring to the iconoclastic work of Rorer (1965) - who purported to show that acquiescent response style was in general a "myth," that it was an effect of generally little importance. Even Rorer (1965), however, made an exception of ambiguous scales such as the F scale and Peabody (1966) went to some lengths to show how ambiguous the F scale in fact was. Unless, therefore, we have some advance warrant that the measure we use is a clearly unambiguous one, the possibility of its scores being contaminated by acquiescent response set will always be a lively one. Again the present work will attempt to meet this problem head-on.
The bases for the present work are three new scales: The Balanced F (BF) scale, the Attitude to Authority (AA) scale and the Directiveness scale. Their development and validation have been reported m Ray (1972a, 1971b and 1976, respectively). The first is a version of the original F scale wherein half the items are F originals and half are direct reversals of F originals. Unlike some other attempts at such scales, the correlation usually observed between its two halves before reverse-scoring is in the region of -.6. The fact that one can get a maximal score on this scale only by saying "yes" to one half of the items and "no" to the other half represents an experimental control against any systematic effect of acquiescent response style emerging.
The AA scale is also a balanced scale but is designed to be uninfluenced by the complicated psychodynamic conceptualization of authoritarianism propounded by Adorno et al. (1950). It is designed to measure straightforward acceptance/rejection or approval /disapproval for conventional sources and examples of authority. Like the BF scale, it is an attitude scale. Also like the F scale (Titus, 1968) it has been shown to be sensitive only to submissive behaviour - and that only weakly so. High scores on neither the AA nor the BF scale are predictive of authoritarian (domineering) interpersonal behaviour.
It is to remedy this lack of behavioural prediction that the Directiveness scale was constructed (Ray, 1976). Unlike previous instruments in this field, it is a behaviour inventory rather than an attitude scale. It asks direct questions about how people customarily behave rather than questions about what they think. In spite of its directness, its correlations with measures of social desirability response set are generally negligible. Against the criterion of peer rated authoritarian behaviour, however, its correlations have been found to be highly significant. It is this inventory then upon which chief reliance will be placed below.
To place the present work fully in context, however, a brief review of already published work with the above scales in the present field seems necessary.
Previous Australian Studies
One very comprehensive study of the relationship between class and ideology was that reported in Ray (1971a). In this study, a sample of 203 Sydney people responded to six conservatism scales and two authoritarianism scales and were rated on twelve possible class indices. The conservatism scales were designed to provide separate measures of political, social, aesthetic, economic, religious and moral conservatism. The authoritarianism scales were the Ray (1971b) "Attitude to Authority" scale and the Ray (1972c) "Deference" scale. Full details of the resulting correlations can be read off from Table 3 of Ray (1971a) but, with a significance (.05) level for the correlation coefficient of .138, it may be noted that neither occupation nor education predicted attitude to authority. Better educated people and people in higher status occupations, however, were more deferential to expertise and social position. Social conservatism was found to be produced by lesser education and economic conservatism by higher status occupation.
In a second similar study, a random doorstep sample of 118 Sydney people responded to the Ray (1972a) Balanced F (BF) scale, the Ray (1971b) Attitude to Authority (AA) scale, the Ray (1974b) Balanced Dogmatism (BD) scale Mark II and scales to measure political, social, economic and moral conservatism. Details of the results can be found in Ray (1974a) but, with a significance (.05) level for the correlation coefficient of .180, there were no significant correlations with education. Occupation correlated with Social conservatism -.218, Economic conservatism, (.253) the BF scale (-.304) and the BD scale (-.283). Thus, the workers were socially conservative, economically radical, dogmatic and authoritarian. This does represent a very exact confirmation of Lipset's hypotheses. As Hamilton (1972) stresses, however, the effects involved were generally quite weak. It should also be noted that it was only in the special sense of authoritarianism propounded by Adorno et al. (1950) that the workers were more authoritarian. The Attitude to Authority scale showed no class differences. Given the serious doubts that must be entertained concerning the validity of the Dogmatism scale (Ray, 1979a) and given the argument advanced at some length in Ray (1973a) to the effect that the F scale measures nothing other than a quite traditional general social conservatism, the results are, then, consistent with the view that the attitudes of the workers may be conservative but they are not authoritarian.
A third study of relevance in the present context was in fact the validation study for the Directiveness scale. Being designed primarily as a validation study, the sample was deliberately not random. It was in fact selected solely to maximize contrasts in apparent authoritarianism. It was, however, a community study rather than a study of a group of students and the range of demographic characteristics encompassed was considerable. In fact the distribution of scores on age, sex, education and occupation was quite similar to that normally observed in random samples of the general population. N was 282. For our present purposes, the interest lies mainly in the correlations observed between the AA scale, the Directiveness scale and the class indices. But it may be noted, in passing, that the prime validational method employed in this study was peer ratings and that peer-rated authoritarianism and submissiveness correlated highly significantly with the Directiveness scale but only marginally with the attitude scale. It may also be noted that, contrary to Adorno et al., 1950, rated authoritarianism and submissiveness were negatively correlated. For details see Ray (1976). The Directiveness scale correlated .163 with occupation and .229 with education. This implies that authoritarians are significantly more likely to be better educated and of - higher occupational status. The AA scale correlated -.133 and -.226, respectively. This implies that people with authoritarian attitudes are significantly more likely than others to be of lower occupational status and to be lesser educated.
As these results do not appear to fit in very well with those previously reported, the need for further research was obvious. In particular, there was a need for more data on the correlates of authoritarian personality - as these appeared to be precisely opposite to what is usually found with attitude scales.
STUDY I
In this study, a random cluster sample of 95 people living in the Sydney metropolitan area answered a questionnaire containing the BF scale, the Directiveness (authoritarian personality) scale and a short social desirability scale (Greenwald and Satow, 1970).
Cluster sampling is the method used by most Australian and British public opinion polls - where it generally is found to give very accurate results.
As much of the previous research in this area has utilized samples of sizes in excess of 1,000, the use of only 95 respondents on the present occasion requires comment. The samples used by Lipset (1960), Hamilton (1972) Grabb (1979) and others were designed as national public opinion polls. The authors mentioned made secondary analyses of poll data rather than gathering any fresh data of their own. The size of the sample, was determined by the purposes of the polling organization rather than by the purposes of the academic investigators. Public Opinion polls generally have as their prime purpose the high probability estimation of some precise parameter - e.g., the percentage of the population who intend to vote for a particular politician. For this purpose, samples in excess of 1,000 are indeed necessary. The social scientist's prime purpose, however, is generally to determine whether a particular effect (difference, correlation) exists at all. Although he may be very interested in whether or not the workers tend to be authoritarian, it is a matter of some indifference to him whether they are 49.9% more authoritarian than some other group or 51.1% more authoritarian. To a politician, by contrast, the same difference would be crucial. As one might expect, the sample size required for the academic's task is much smaller. A glance at the tables in the back of any statistics book shows, in fact, that the sample sizes tabulated are often simply not given above 60 or 100. Samples as small as 60 or 100 are capable of detecting the existence of such weak effects that further tabulation is seldom necessary. Only if the social scientist were interested in the existence of very weak effects, would he require sample sizes in excess of 60 to 100. In the present case, a correlation explaining less than 5% of the variance would be shown as significant (with N = 95). Weaker effects than this were not thought of great interest. A further exposition of the issues involved here may be found in Lykken (1968).
The reliabilities (Cronbach's, 1951, "Alpha") observed for the various scales were: BF scale .87, Directiveness .79 and Social Desirability .77. As is usual in this field, occupation was scored simply as manual (scored 1) or nonmanual (2). This seems to be as near as we can practicably get to a "class" schema for subdividing occupations and Ray (1971a) has shown that its predictive power is actually greater than a more complex division of occupations into status levels. The point biserial correlation between occupation and the BF scale score was -.110. With Directiveness the correlation was -.099. Neither is significant at the .05 level. Information on the educational background of respondents was also obtained. This was scored as: 1 = primary, 2 = half secondary ("school certificate," "intermediate," "junior"), 3 = full secondary and 4 = tertiary. So scored, education was found to correlate -.304 with the BF scale and -.015 with the Directiveness scale. The first of these two correlations only is significant.
Two findings of methodological interest were the correlations of the Social Desirability scale and the correlation between the two halves of the balanced F scale. This latter was -.65 before reverse-scoring - indicating highly satisfactory construct validity for the scale. Social desirability correlated .209 and -.252 with the BF and Directiveness scales, respectively. Authoritarian attitudes were seen as desirable and authoritarian behaviour as undesirable. The correlations of social desirability with occupation and education, however, were -.068 and .024 - indicating that social desirability could not have been a confounding influence in the results observed. It is, of course, improper to attempt partial correlations where any of the correlations involved is nonsignificant (McNemar, 1962). The effect would, in any case, be negligible, see also McLaughlin (1980).
The findings of the present study, offered no support for Lipset's thesis.
STUDY II
The literature on working class authoritarianism does seem to have been characterized by an unusual degree of cross-cultural emphasis. When most of the psychological literature seems content to base generalizations about all mankind on the responses of American college students, it is refreshing to note survey data from many countries being used. It was, therefore, thought appropriate to test the new measuring instruments being used in the present studies overseas as well.
The short form (Ray, 1976) of the Directiveness scale and Wilson's (1973) short form of his Conservatism scale were, therefore, applied to random doorstep cluster samples of the London and Glasgow conurbations of England and Scotland. N in each case was 100. Other details of both studies can be found elsewhere (Ray, 1979b) (see Appendix B).
The Conservatism scale was found to correlate -.224 with occupation and -.226 with education among the London sample. The Directiveness scale correlated .108 and .096, respectively. Among the Glaswegians, Conservatism correlated -.132 with occupation and -.281 with education. The Directiveness scale correlated .082 and .207, respectively. Correlations above .195 are significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
The London results clearly support the generalization proposed above: That the workers are more conservative but they are not more authoritarian. In the Scottish case, however, the workers were neither conservative nor authoritarian.
STUDY III
This also was an overseas study. A random cluster sample of the Johannesburg Greater Metropolitan area in the Republic of South Africa was carried out - again with an N of 100.- They received an improved short form of the Directiveness scale, the short form (Ray, 1979c) of the BF scale and the Heaven and Moerdyk (1977) "Attitude to Blacks" scale (see Appendices A and C). The improved short form of the Directiveness scale was obtained by selecting from the items of the original scale only those which showed the highest correlations with the total score on the full scale. This gave a balanced short form of 14 items. Because of the pressures towards brevity in doorstep surveys, short forms of scales are frequently the only ones practicable for use.
Other details of this study can be found in Ray (1980a). For reasons of convenience, whites only were sampled. For the present purposes, the following results are of interest: Occupation correlated -.254 with BF score, -.298 with Ethnocentrism and .086 with Directiveness scale score. Education correlated -.402, -.352 and .400, respectively. Correlations above .195 are significant. The workers were then more likely to be racist and authoritarian in their attitudes but were not particularly likely to be authoritarian in personality (i.e., in reported behaviour). Education, however, was a much stronger influence than occupation. Note that better educated people were highly likely to behave in a more authoritarian (domineering, bossy) way.
STUDY IV
This study was carried out in California - the home of authoritarianism research (Adorno et al., 1950) (see Appendices A and C). A random doorstep cluster sample of the Los Angeles conurbation was taken. N was 101. Again for reasons of convenience, whites only were sampled. Other details can be found in Ray (1980b). The sample received the same scales that had been applied in South Africa. The BF scale correlated -.008 with occupation and -.162 with education. The Directiveness scale correlated .176 with occupation and .187 with education. The ethnocentrism scale correlated -.062 with occupation and -.164 with education. None of these correlations are significant. The data from Lipset's own State does not appear to support his theory. This is even true of the F scale data.
STUDY V
Now that five studies had been conducted with Ns in the region of 100, it was desired to see what effect an expansion of the numbers might have. For this purpose, another random doorstep cluster sample of the Sydney area was carried out - this time with a final N of 206. The same short forms of the BF scale and the Directiveness scale that had been employed in Johannesburg and Los Angeles were again used (see Appendices A and C).
The BF scale was found to correlate -.226 with occupation and -.366 with education. The Directiveness scale was found to correlate .166 with occupation and .148 with education. Correlations above .138 are significant. This confirms that the weak positive correlations between occupation and Directiveness that are usually observed do rise to significance if the numbers are large enough. Overall, then, the results indicate that the workers are authoritarian in their attitudes and submissive in their behaviour. The BF and Directiveness scales themselves correlated -.215 - again indicating a slight but significant tendency for attitudes and behaviour to be opposed.
STUDY VI
All the studies so far had, for reasons of economy, been restricted to urban environments. At least some attempt to include rural respondents seemed, therefore, at this stage desirable. The sampling method chosen to accomplish this was postal (mail-out) surveys.
A total of 500 names was, therefore, selected at random from the electoral rolls (registered voter lists) of the entire Australian State of New South Wales. New South Wales does, of course, include substantial rural areas in addition to the Sydney metropolis. Sydney does, however, account for three million of the state's five million population. In its geographical area, New South Wales is larger than either Texas or the United Kingdom. As voter registration is compulsory not only for all citizens but also for many non-citizen immigrants in Australia, the sampling frame was unusually comprehensive.
The sample were mailed a questionnaire which included the short Directiveness and BF scale as well as the same "Attitude to Blacks" scale that had been used in Johannesburg and Los Angeles (see Appendices A and C). A total of 170 usable replies were received. Although such a low response rate must seem to constitute a serious biasing factor, it may be helpful to note that the distribution of demographic characteristics (age, sex, occupation and education) did not, in fact, differ significantly from that observed in the previous doorstep study. Thus, although the final sample was certainly not random, it was nonetheless in important ways representative.
The BF scale was found to correlate -.212 with occupation and -.383 with education. The Directiveness scale correlated .183 and .208, respectively. The Ethnocentrism scale correlated -.047 and -.117. Correlations above .145 are significant. The finding of the previous study - that Authoritarian personality is non-manual or upper to middle class while authoritarian attitudes are manual or working class - was thus replicated.
STUDY VII
This study was inspired by Hamilton's (1972) claim that working class authoritarianism in the United States is a phenomenon only of the South. Australia does have one region that is often compared to the American South - the State of Queensland (Thomas, 1974). Like the American South, Queensland is warmer, has a higher proportion of blacks, is apparently more conservative and produces influential politicians. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to examine whether working class authoritarian might be more evident in Queensland than it had been elsewhere.
A questionnaire was, therefore, made up which included scales of economic, general social and moral conservatism together with a recently developed high-reliability version of the Directiveness scale (Ray, 1981a) (see Appendices D, E, and F). In addition to its greater reliability, this version also had the characteristic of being a "purer" measure of authoritarianism as defined in this paper. Where the 1976 version of the scale showed a significant correlation with aggressiveness, the later version did not.
Seven hundred questionnaires were sent to addresses selected at random from the Queensland electoral rolls (voter registration lists). A further five hundred were sent to randomly selected addresses from the electoral rolls of the State of New South Wales (Australia's oldest and most populous state) for purposes of comparison. In both cases a return rate of 31% was achieved.
In neither state did general social conservatism correlate significantly with either education or occupation. There were some class-related variables, but as Lipset (1960) found in his original studies, it was education rather than occupation which was the better predictor. In New South Wales better educated people were more permissive on moral issues (r = -.264) and more authoritarian (.258). In Queensland the equivalent correlations were -.179 and .330 with the additional finding that better educated people were also more conservative on economic issues (.185). The only significant correlations with occupation were in Queensland - where it was found that people in non-manual occupations tended to be economically conservative (.220) and authoritarian (.239). It may be noted in passing that the conception of Queensland as more conservative on social and moral issues was confirmed. The 't's were 4.34 and 4.25 with ns of 219 and 158 for Queensland and New South Wales, respectively.
The pattern of results with the attitude scales, has more in common with Lipset's findings than with his theory. Most of the expected correlations with occupation did not emerge. The correlations with the personality scale, on the other hand were fairly consistently in a direction significantly opposite to what one would infer from Lipset's theory.
STUDY VIII
Finally, it was thought of interest to compare the results so far with the results to be found in a third-world country. The Marxian theory of class attitudes that Lipset refuted was, of course, based on observations concerning modern industrial societies such as the one in which Marx lived (England) and it would seem quite possible that the whole debate over class ideology might be quite irrelevant in one of the poor agrarian societies of Asia. This study was designed then as a tentative step towards seeing if there was anything in Asia comparable to what Lipset hypothesized for industrial societies.
The country chosen for study was the Philippines. In spite of its history of American rule, this is still one of the poorest countries in Asia - though it has been showing steady economic progress in recent years. The study was carried out in Greater Manila only - the capital city. This was because of the prohibitive cost of carrying out a fully representative general population sample in a country with little modern infrastructure and poor literacy. The 100 respondents sampled were, however, a cluster sample of Manila residents and they were interviewed by Tagalog-speaking interviewers. Fuller methodological details are available elsewhere (Ray, 1981b).
The questionnaire included the same 14-item short forms of the BF and Directiveness scales that had been used previously in Sydney, Johannesburg and Los Angeles. All items were presented both in English and in Tagalog as many Manila people are (often rather mistakenly) proud of their ability to speak English. Both scales did not function well in the situation. The BF scale in fact collapsed entirely -- with virtually zero reliability. The Directiveness scale, however, reached a reliability of .67 with four items deleted. Again Directiveness was found to correlate significantly with both occupation and education (rs of .407 and .331) but in the opposite direction to that inferable from Lipset (1960). It may be noted, however, that occupation was on this occasion measured by a locally-developed "Ecoclass" schema used by the market-research firm carrying out the interviewing. It was felt that the division of occupations into manual and nonmanual might be much less relevant in such a poor country - where nonmanual workers are a very small elite. The important divisions would have to lie within the working class.
Because a major urban centre will be much less representative of the society as a whole in an agrarian culture, the present results are only of a quite preliminary kind but it is interesting that insofar as the study succeeded at all, the results were quite similar to those found elsewhere - authoritarians in the personality sense were of higher, not lower, social class.
To assist review of the many studies reported in this paper, the most important findings are brought together in Table 1.
To assist interpretation of the findings, an appendix is also provided in which the items of the various scales used are given (see Appendix F), where a scale has been used in several forms, the most frequently used form is given except in the case of the conservatism scales. There the most recent (i.e., most up-to-late) forms are given.
TABLE 1. Correlations between scales and two indices of social position. Correlations significant at the .05 level are starred. Decimal points omitted.
Sample type....Reference..........Occup......Educ........Scale
Sydney............Ray (1971a.........047..........-124........Att. to Authority
community..........& 1972c).........181*..........140*......Deference
N = 203.....................................-087..........-231*......Social Conserv.
Sydney............Ray (1974a).......-073..........-133........Att. to Authority
doorstep....................................-304*.........-047.......Balanced F
N 118........................................-218*.........-170........Social Conserv.
...................................................253*.........-118........Economic Conserv.
Sydney.............Ray (1976)........-133*........-226*......Att. to Authority
community..................................163*..........229*.......Directiveness
N = 282
Sydney.............Study I...............-110..........-304*......Balanced F
doorstep...........above................-099..........-015.......Directiveness
N = 95
London.............Study II..............-224*........-226*......Conservatism
doorstep...........above.................108...........096........Directiveness
N = 100
Glasgow...........Study II.............-132..........-281*.......Conservatism
doorstep...........above.................082...........207*.......Directiveness
N = 100
Johannesburg...Study III............-254*.........-402*.......Balanced F
doorstep...........above................-298*.........-352*.......Att. to Blacks
N = 100.......................................086...........400*.......Directiveness
Los Angeles......Study IV............-008..........-162.........Balanced F
doorstep............above...............-062..........-164.........Att. to Blacks
N = 101......................................176............187.........Directiveness
Sydney..............Study V.............-226*.........-366*.......Balanced F
doorstep............above................166*..........148*.......Directiveness
N = 206
New South ........Study VI............-212*..........-383*......Balanced F
Wales Postal......above..............-047...........-117........Att. to Blacks
N = 170.......................................183*...........208*......Directiveness
Queensland.......Study VII............069...........-103........Social Conserv.
Postal above................................220*..........185*.......Economic Conserv.
N = 219.......................................239*...........330*.......Directiveness
New South.........Study VII...........-020...........-147........Social Conserv.
Wales Postal.......above...............112............132........Economic Conserv.
N = 158........................................149.............258*......Directiveness
Manila...............Study VIII............407*...........331*......Directiveness
doorstep............above
N = 100
DISCUSSION
The present work has followed the strategy recommended by Lykken (1968) -- multiple replications across many samples rather than reliance on one large sample. It is, therefore, impressive that of the more than 1,000 people in six countries who received some form of the Directiveness scale, on not one occasion was there any tendency observed for working class people to get higher scores. In fact there was a weak but consistent tendency -- as often significant as not - for people of higher occupational status to get higher scores. If, therefore, we are interested in behaviour-relevant authoritarianism, the workers are clearly not authoritarian.
The validity of the scale is of course critical in assessing this result. Does the scale measure what it purports to measure? It is, of course, precisely this question that has never previously been considered in working-class authoritarianism research. Questions have been taken from public opinion polls without much thought as to what they might measure. Investigators have, in other words, relied on the "face validity" of the questions (or "faith validity" as psychometricians sometimes cynically term it). This practice can be seriously misleading. For instance, Lipset (1960) classes people as authoritarians who, when asked how many parties there should be, reply "one" - on the rationale that the desire for a one-party state arises from a desire to do away with dissent. Quite the opposite may be true. When the present writer was constructing the AA scale, he included the item (inspired by Lipset): "It would be much better if we could do without politics altogether." It was presumed that this was an item to which authoritarians would assent. It turned out in fact to be a strong negative item - an item to which anti-authoritarians tended to assent. It was evidently seen as an item asserting anarchism as a political ideal. In a similar vein, one could contend that people desiring only one political party could thereby be choosing an ideal of brotherly and egalitarian consensus, rather than an authoritarian dictatorship. Such problems are not, of course, confined to Lipset's work. Patchen's (1970) demonstration that Hamilton's poll data had a meaning opposite to what Hamilton had assumed had been already mentioned.
The present work was unusual, therefore, in relying solely on carefully constructed psychological tests. Instead of basing trait inferences on single items of unknown reliability, validity and generalizability, groups of items with demonstrated relatedness and predictive power were used. For details of these demonstrations, the reader must refer elsewhere (Ray, 1976 and 1981a) but as the roughest of summaries it may be said that a person rated by his peers as someone who "desires or tends to impose his own will on others" is highly likely to get a high score on the Directiveness scale. The scale does predict at least one core element of authoritarian behaviour.
The weak tendency of such behaviour to be associated with non-manual occupations is probably too weak to be worth a great deal of discussion but one might suggest that the boss in a job is generally a non-manual worker while the subordinates are often manual workers. Thus, there is a greater vocational requirement for non-manual workers to boss others around. It may be this that the scale is detecting. Authoritarianism may be learned on the job. Perhaps, on the other hand, middle class people are just generally more used to bossing others around.
When we move on to the results obtained with the AA and BF attitude scales, however, the results are somewhat less hostile to Lipset's thesis. On several occasions, the workers did get higher scores on a version of the California F scale. In accordance with Hamilton's (1972) findings, however, this is still a very weak relationship. On the three out of five possible occasions when it did emerge, it was only a little above the minimum level required for statistical significance. Even in Johannesburg (where the highest correlation was observed) occupation accounted for only 6.4% of the BF scale variance.
Nor is the implication of this result clear. It is not in fact clear that the F scale measures authoritarianism at all. If it does not predict authoritarian behaviour (see Ray, 1976) and, in fact, correlates negatively with a scale that does (see Study V above) what can it be said to measure? The answer may be that it is simply a measure of general social conservatism. A great deal of argument to this effect has been presented elsewhere (Ray, 1973a) so will not be recapitulated here. Suffice it to say that the right-wing "bias" of the F scale has long been universally accepted. It is accepted that it does at least in part measure conservatism. That it measures authoritarianism is, in fact, much less accepted (McKinney, 1973). Possibly, the so-called "bias" of the F scale is, in fact, the whole of what it measures.
This interpretation is consistent with the large number of laboratory studies that do at first sight seem to support the validity of the F scale. This point can perhaps best be made by referring to one specific such study. A recent well-executed study of this type is that by Garcia and Griffitt (1978). These authors did at least use a version of the F scale balanced against acquiescence. What they found was that in a mock jury situation authoritarians recommended more severe punishments than others for offenders guilty of incest. In designing the study, the authors had noted that although high F scorers were said by Adorno et al. (1950) to be more punitive, previous research had shown that they were not. Garcia and Griffitt reasoned, therefore, that perhaps authoritarians were punitive only about certain things. Since Adorno et al. 1950, described the authoritarian as excessively concerned about sexual "goings on." Garcia and Griffitt used incest as the target condition in their study. The result, appeared to support everything Adorno et al., had said: Authoritarians were hypersensitive about sexual deviance and they were punitive. Note, however, that conservatives too are said to be punitive (Boshier and Rae, 1975) and there is evidence that people who are generally socially conservative are also conservative on issues of sexual morality (see Table 1 of Ray, 1973b). If the F scale had been conceived as measuring conservatism, therefore, the same predictions might have been derived. Even this interpretation of the results, however, may be too inflated. What Garcia and Griffitt actually did was to give people a set of questions asking them (in part) if they disliked sexual deviants (the F scale) and then another question asking them how heavily they would punish a deviant (the experimental criterion). The finding that answers to the two correlated must be viewed as supremely unsurprising. Garcia and Griffitt's inflation of their finding that people who do not like sexual deviants want to punish them more must be viewed as a prime example of the tendency in modern psychology - so eloquently decried by Smedslund (1978) - to present as empirical findings things that are actually true by definition. The prospect of studies such as this being able to validate the F scale as a measure of authoritarianism as distinct from conservatism are, therefore, remote. The most parsimonious explanation of the present findings with the BF scale, may be to say that the workers show a weak tendency towards conservatism on at least some social issues.
Study VII above, however, shows that even the association between conservatism and occupation is far from universal. Not all scales of conservatism give the same results. This may be due not only to differences in content but also to differences in tone. It may be only the aggressively-worded dismissals of the F scale rather than conservatism per se which are working class.
CONCLUSION
We see, then, that not only the personality (Directiveness) scale data but even the attitude scale data are fairly hostile to Lipset's thesis. Lipset might well contend that authoritarianism as a personality attribute was not what he was talking about and that the Directiveness scale results are hence simply irrelevant to his thesis. This would, to some extent, be a case of being wise after the event as it is only in work subsequent to his and that of Adorno et al. (1950) that the separation between attitude and personality in this field has been noted (Ray, 1976). Adorno et al. 1950, in fact, (upon whom Lipset heavily draws) assumed the two to be so closely related that one could be used as an index of the other. Nevertheless, the fact that the present work gives extensive coverage of both attitude and personality data does enable us to say that even a restriction of Lipset's thesis to political attitudes alone does little to save it.
What then are the broader social implications of the present findings? Lipset's essay was part of a large body of literature devoted to questioning the fit with reality provided by Marxist theories. Does the present paper help to reinstate Marxist assumptions? To an extremely limited extent it does. As the Directiveness scale is a bipolar one -- correlating negatively with peer rated submissiveness and positively with peer rated domineering behaviour -- the admittedly rather flickering picture we have from the present series of studies is indeed a picture of a submissive working class and a dominant middle class. This does sound rather like how things are described in much Marxist rhetoric.
Since, however, being middle class is probably of itself in some ways to be in a dominant position, the most parsimonious explanation of the present results could be that those who seek to dominate others do occasionally succeed at it. One might, in fact, at first expect this to be true of any society. The cross-cultural character of the present data is interesting, therefore, in showing that even this almost commonsense sounding relationship is not in fact universal. A dominant character is effective at promoting personal social advancement only in certain circumstances - circumstances that among the present studies prevailed most in Manila and least in London and Los Angeles. The Directiveness scale correlated with neither index of social position (occupation and education) in Los Angeles, but correlated quite well with both indices in Manila. It is tempting to point out that there are thus some parallels in the present data to the broader political characteristics of the countries in which the data were gathered. If authoritarianism is socially and economically most advantageous in the Philippines, can it be a coincidence that the Philippines was also the only dictatorship included in the present range of societies studied? If authoritarianism gets you nowhere in London and Los Angeles, does not this also tie in with the renowned California libertarianism and the English passion for democracy? The present sample of countries is too small to permit an answer to these questions, but as the data so far stands, it seems clear that the relationship between class and authoritarianism not only varies cross-culturally but may vary in ways fairly accessible to theoretical integration.
APPENDIX A
The items of the short form of the Ray (1976) Directiveness scale as administered in Studies III, IV, V and VI.
Please answer the following questions by indicating "Yes" or "No." If you cannot answer "Yes" or "No," indicate "?."
1. Are you the sort of person who always likes to get his(her) 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?
6. If you are told to take charge of some situation, does this make you feel uncomfortable?
7. Would you rather take orders than give them?
8. Do you dislike standing out from the crowd?
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 his(her) own way most of the time?
12. Are you generally a follower rather than a leader?
13. Are you argumentative?
14. Would you prefer to be a worker rather than a manager?
For items 5, 6. 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14, a "Yes" is scored l, a "?" is scored 2 and a "No" is scored 3. The remaining items are scored 3, 2 and 1 for the same answers respectively.
APPENDIX B
The ten items of the Wilson (1973) Conservatism scale as used in Study II. Indicate whether or not you are in favour of each of the following:
1. Censorship
2. Coloured immigration
3. Divorce
4. Evolution theory
5. Death penalty
6. Working mothers
7. Sunday observance
8. Birth control
9. Co-education
10. Socialism
When scored as a scale, items 1, 5 and 7 were scored 3 for "Yes," 2 for "Not Sure" and 1 for "No." Remaining items were scored l, 2 and 3 for the same answers respectively.
APPENDIX C
The items of the short form of the Ray (1972a and 1979c) Balanced F scale - as used in studies III, IV, V and VI.
Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
1. Homosexuality between consenting adults may be disagreeable but it should not be regarded as a crime.
2. No sane, normal, decent person would ever think of hurting a close friend or relative.
3. Many of the radical ideas of today will be the accepted practices of tomorrow.
4. People who want to imprison or whip sex criminals are themselves sick.
5. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
6. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas but as they grow up they ought to get over it and settle down.
7. It is all right for people to raise questions about even the most personal and private matters.
8. Insults to our honour are not always important enough to worry about.
9. Sex crimes such as rape and attacks on children deserve more than imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse.
10. Most honest people admit to themselves that they have sometimes hated their parents.
11. Homosexuals are hardly better than sex criminals and ought to be severely punished.
12. Sex crimes such as rape and attacks on children are signs of mental illness and such persons belong in hospitals rather than prisons.
13. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents.
14. What the young need most is strict discipline, rugged determination and the will to work and fight for family and country.
Item numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 are scored 1 for "Strongly Agree," 2 for "Agree," 3 for "Not Sure." 4 for "Disagree" and 5 for "Strongly Disagree." The remaining items are scored 5, 4, 2, 3 and 1 for the same answers respectively.
APPENDIX D
The items of the General Social Conservatism scale as used in Study VII.
Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following:
1. The death penalty should be brought back for certain crimes.
2. Any group should have the right to demonstrate in the streets if they want to.
3. Politics should be kept out of sport.
4. We should have complete freedom of speech even for those who criticize everything about our society.
5. Some people are not fit to be allowed to vote.
6. Patriotism is just a glorified word for national selfishness.
a. Out-of-date values and beliefs are one of the things that is holding this society back.
8. The attitudes of the young today are an improvement on those of their elders.
9. Children should be seen and not heard.
10. All children need discipline to help them grow up.
11. Too many people today still have "stick in the mud" attitudes.
12. Rapists should be castrated.
13. Crimes of violence should be punished by flogging.
14. People on unemployment benefits are often just not willing to work.
15. Marijuana smoking is bad for the youth and should remain banned.
16. The police are generally corrupt and brutal.
17. Modern Pop music is often disgusting and degenerate.
18. Queen Elizabeth and her family do a good job and she should remain Queen of Australia.
19. Respect for parents is old-fashioned and is often overdone.
20. People who wear conventional clothes all the time must be pretty dull inside as well.
21. Hippies need something like the Army to straighten them out.
22. School uniforms should be done away with.
23. Much of Picasso and the rest of modern art are at about the level of children's scribbling.
24. Mothers of young children should not go out to work.
25. Military training is unnatural and has a tendency to warp people.
26. The South African system of Apartheid is foolish and unnecessary.
27. Physical punishment in the schools should not be allowed.
28. Women are not really suitable to work as judges or as clergy (i.e., ministers and priests).
29. It is ridiculous to have controls over when hotels are allowed to sell liquor.
30. The British Empire was a good thing while it lasted.
Items numbers 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 16, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27 and 29 are scored 1 for "Strongly Agree," 2, for "Agree," 3 for "Not Sure," 4 for "Disagree" and 5 for "Strongly Disagree." The remainder was scored 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for the same answers respectively.
APPENDIX E
The items of the Moral Conservatism scale as used in Study VII.
Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
1. Any woman should be entitled to an abortion if she wants one.
2. Pornographic books and magazines should be banned if only to keep them away from children.
3. Homosexuality should be legally permitted.
4. Striptease shows are ridiculous and are fit only for weak minds.
5. Girls should remain virgins until they marry.
6. The Pill should be available without prescription to anybody who wants it.
7. Women who have a child without being married do not necessarily have anything to be ashamed of.
8. A couple has the right to find out if they are sexually suited before marriage (e.g., by trial marriage).
9. Marriage is a sacred covenant which should be broken under only the most drastic circumstances.
10. Sex relations except in marriage are always wrong.
11. Sexual practices can easily become dangerous or perverted if people are not very careful.
12. People should worry less about sex and enjoy it more.
13. The only proper purpose of sex is to produce children.
14. Divorce in Australia has now become too easy.
15. All children should be given sex education in their schools.
Item numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 15 are scored 1 for "Strongly Agree," 2 for "Agree," 3 for "Not Sure," 4 for "Disagree" and 5 for "Strongly Disagree." The remainder was scored 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for the same answers respectively.
APPENDIX F
The items of the Economic Conservatism scale as used in Study VIII.
Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:
1. The government should provide a free dental service.
2. There is a need for greater control of the unions by the government.
3. The government should take control of the big industries such as steel.
4. The government should provide free medical care for all.
5. The government should spend more on pensions and other social service payments.
6. There is nothing wrong with large American companies owning businesses in Australia.
7. Australian industry should be given more protection from cheap foreign imports.
8. The government should do everything it can to eradicate poverty in Australia.
9. One of the chief things that is holding Australia back at the moment is the Union movement.
10. Richer people should be made to pay more taxes than they do at the moment.
11. People who want more money should work harder for it instead of just expecting someone to give it to them.
12. Drilling for oil on the Great Barrier Reef should not be allowed under any circumstances.
Item numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 12 are scored 1 for "Strongly Agree," 2 for "Agree," 3 for "Not Sure," 4 for "Disagree" and 5 for "Strongly Disagree." The remainder was scored 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for the same answers respectively.
REFERENCES
{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., E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D.J. Levinson, and R.N. Sanford (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.
Boshier, R., C. Rae (1975) "Punishing criminals: A study of the relationship between conservatism and punitiveness. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 8:37-45.
Brown, R. (1965) Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951) "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychornetrika 16: 297-334.
Dohrenwend, B.P. and E. Chin-Shong (1967) "Social status and attitudes toward psychological disorder: the problem of tolerance of deviance," American Sociological Review 32:417-433.
Eiser, J.R. and M.J. Roiser (1972) "The sampling of social attitudes: Comments on Eysenck's social attitudes and social class," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 11:397-401.
Eitzen, D.S. (1970) "Social class, status inconsistency and political attitudes," Social Science Quarterly 51:602-609.
Eysenck, H.J. (1954) The Psychology of Politics. London: Routledge.
Eysenck, H.J. (1972) Psychology is about People. London: Allen Lane.
Garcia, L.T. and W. Griffitt (1978) "Authoritarianism-situation interactions in the determination of punitiveness: Engaging authoritarian ideology." Journal of Research in Personality 12: 469-478.
Grabb, E.G. (1979) "Working class authoritarianism and tolerance of outgroups: A reassessment," Public Opinion Quarterly 43:36-47.
Greenwald, H.J. and Y. Satow (1970) "A short social desirability scale." Psychological Reports 27:131-135.
Hamilton, R. (1966) "The marginal middle class: A reconsideration," American Sociological Review 31:192-199.
Hamilton, R. (1968) "A research note on the mass support for "tough" military initiatives," American Sociological Review 33:439-445.
Hamilton, R.F. (1972) Class and Politics in the United States. New York: Wiley.
Heaven, P.C.L. and Moerdyk, A. (1977) "Prejudice revisited: A pilot study using Ray's scale," Journal of Behavioural Science 2: 217-220.
Hodge, R.W. and D.J. Treiman (1966) "Occupational mobility and attitudes towards Negroes," American Sociological Review 31:93-102.
Kelly, K.D. and W.J. Chambliss (1966) "Status consistency and political attitudes," American Sociological Review 375-382.
Kohn, M.L. and C. Schooler (1969) "Class, occupation and orientation," American Sociological Review 34: 659-678.
Korpi, W. (1971) "Working class Communism in Western Europe: Rational or non-rational"? American Sociological Review 36:971-983.
Lipset, S.M. (1960) Political Man. New York: Doubleday.
Lipsitz, L. (1965) "Working-class authoritarianism: A re-evaluation," American Sociological Review 30:103-109.
Lykken, D.T. (1968) "Statistical significance in psychological research," Psychological Bulletin 70: 151-I59.
McClosky, H. (1958) "Conservatism and personality," American Political Science Review 52:27-45.
McKinney, D.W. (1973) The Authoritarian Personality Studies. The Hague: Mouton
McKinnon, W.J. and R. Centers (1956) "Authoritarianism and urban stratification," American Journal of Sociology 61:610-620.
McLaughlin, S.D. (1980) "Atheoretical partialling in survey research." American Psychologist 35(9):851.
McNemar, Q. (1962) Psychological Statistics. Third Edition. New York: Wiley.
Miller, S.M. and F. Riessman (1961) "Working-class authoritarianism: A critique of Lipset," British Journal of Sociology 12:263-276.
Patchen, M. (1970) "Social class and dimensions of foreign policy attitudes," Social Science Quarterly 51:649-667.
Peabody, D. (1966) "Authoritarianism scales and response bias," Psychological Bulletin 65:11-23.
Pearlin, L.I. and M.L. Kohn (1966) "Social class, occupation and parental values: A cross-national study," American Sociological Review 31:466-479.
Ransford, H.E. (1972) "Blue-collar anger: Reactions to student and black protest," American Sociological Review 37:333-346.
Ray, J.J. (1971a) The questionnaire measurement of social class. Australian & New Zealand J. Sociology 7(April), 58-64.
Ray, J.J. (1971b) 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) Acceptance of aggression and Australian voting preference. Australian Quarterly 44, 64-70.
Ray, J.J. (1972c) The measurement of political deference: Some Australian data. British Journal of Political Science 2, 244-251.
Ray, J.J. (1973a) 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. (1973b) Dogmatism in relation to sub-types of conservatism: Some Australian data. European J. Social Psychology 3, 221-232.
Ray, J.J. (1974a) Are the workers authoritarian, conservative or both? Ch. 43 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. (1979a) Is the Dogmatism scale irreversible? South African Journal of Psychology 9, 104-107.
Ray, J.J. (1979b) Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism? Australian Journal of Psychology 31, 9-14.
Ray, J.J. (1979c) A short balanced F scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 109, 309-310.
Ray, J.J. (1980a) Racism and authoritarianism among white South Africans. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 29-37.
Ray, J.J. (1980b) Authoritarianism in California 30 years later -- with some cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 9-17.
Ray, J.J. (1981a) Authoritarianism, dominance and assertiveness. Journal of Personality Assessment 45, 390-397.
Ray, J.J. (1981b) Achievement motivation and authoritarianism in Manila and some Anglo-Saxon cities. J. Social Psychology 115, 3-8.
Rokeach, M. (1960) The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.
Rorer, L.G. (1965) "The great response style myth," Psychological Bulletin 63:129-156.
Rush, G.B. (1967) "Status consistency and Right-wing extremism," American Sociological Review 32:86.
Shils, E.A. (1954) "Authoritarianism: Right and Left," In R. Christie and M. Jahoda, Studies in the Scope and Method of `The Authoritarian Personality'. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.
Smedslund, J. (1978) "Bandura's theory of self-efficacy: A set of common-sense theorems," Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 19:1-14.
Stacey, B.G. and R.T. Green (1971) "Working-class conservatism: A review and an empirical study," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 10:10-26.
Thomas, D.R. (1974) "The relationship between ethnocentrism and conservatism in an `authoritarian' culture," Journal of Social Psychology 94:179-18b.
Titus, H.E. (1968) "F scale validity considered against peer nomination criteria," Psychological Record 18:395-403.
Titus, H.E. and Hollander, E.P. (1957) "The California F, scale in psychological research: 1950-1955," Psychological Bulletin 54:47-64.
Wilson, G.D. (1973) "Liberal extremists," New Society 26:263-264.
Zeitlin, M. (1967) "Revolutionary workers and individual liberties," American Journal of Sociology 72:619-632.
POST-PUBLICATION ADDENDA
A quite gross erratum in Study VI above has been corrected. A line was missed out even though the line concerned was correctly in place in the galley proofs! Item 6 in the listing of the BF scale items was also omitted and has been restored. My other two articles in this journal had similar production errors. See below:
Ray, J.J. (1984) Attitude to abortion, attitude to life and conservatism in Australia. Sociology & Social Research 68, 236-246.
Ray, J.J. (1985) Blacks and the crime rate: Some observations from Australia.Sociology & Social Research 69, 590-591.
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 (But see here and here). 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. On all occasions, respondents were asked to circle a number to indicate their response.
Go to Index page for this site
Go to John Ray's "Tongue Tied" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Dissecting Leftism" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Australian Politics" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Gun Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Education Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Socialized Medicine" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Political Correctness Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Greenie Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Food & Health Skeptic" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Leftists as Elitists" blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Marx & Engels in their own words" blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "A scripture blog" (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)
Go to John Ray's recipe blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here or or 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)