Helfant’s Scale of Hostility in International Relations

Abstract

The Helfant’s Scale of Hostility in International Relations, developed by K. Helfant in 1952, is a classic psychological instrument designed to assess individual attitudes regarding the degree of friendliness, isolationism, and aggressive sentiment held by Americans toward foreign nations. The scale operationalizes hostility not merely as overt aggression, but as a lack of trust and a preference for isolationist policies over international cooperation. It was originally utilized in studies focusing on the relationship between parental and adolescent sociopolitical attitudes during the immediate post-World War II period.

Keywords

International Relations, Political Psychology, Hostility, Isolationism, Foreign Policy Attitudes, Cold War Era, Sociopolitical Attitudes, K. Helfant.

Authors

K. Helfant

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Helfant Scale is to quantify an individual’s disposition toward international engagement, ranging from extreme isolationism and distrust (high hostility) to cooperative internationalism and good will (low hostility). It serves as a measure of underlying sentiment that informs specific foreign policy preferences.

Developed in 1952, the scale was particularly relevant for understanding shifts in American public opinion regarding global involvement following World War II and the onset of the Cold War. Researchers often employed it to study generational differences in political socialization and the formation of fundamental beliefs about global interaction and peace.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of Hostility in International Relations. This construct encompasses several dimensions, primarily focusing on perceived threat from foreign entities, willingness to engage in punitive or aggressive actions, and support for isolationist policies designed to protect domestic interests by avoiding international involvement.

It is conceptualized as a bipolar dimension: one pole represents strong international cooperation, trust, and aid, while the opposing pole represents suspicion, withdrawal, perceived victimhood (“other countries are always getting us into wars”), and a desire for retribution (“get even with any country that tries to take advantage”).

Validity

Specific detailed metrics regarding the original validity of the 1952 scale (e.g., convergent, discriminant, or criterion validity coefficients) are not explicitly provided in the core abstract information. However, its continued use in subsequent academic research, such as the 1982 Master’s thesis by Yatani, suggests it possesses established face and content validity for measuring attitudes toward US foreign policy.

The scale items demonstrate strong content validity, covering core themes such as foreign aid, military involvement, trust in other nations, and the value of international friendliness. In contemporary use, researchers would typically need to confirm its construct validity through modern statistical techniques, ensuring it correlates appropriately with measures of related constructs, such as political cynicism or nationalism.

Reliability

While the original 1952 publication likely included measures of internal consistency, specific reliability coefficients (such as Cronbach’s Alpha) are not present in the sourced material. Given the instrument’s age and structure as a traditional Likert scale designed for research purposes, it is highly probable that its internal consistency was established as acceptable for the time period.

Subsequent studies that have employed the Helfant scale, particularly those utilizing it decades after its creation, implicitly rely on its established stability and consistency. Users should consult the original 1952 monograph or later validation studies (e.g., Yatani, 1982) for specific calculations of test-retest reliability or split-half methods used during its initial development.

Factor Analysis

The original 16 items suggest the instrument is likely either unidimensional, measuring a single continuum of overall Hostility/International Cooperation, or potentially bidimensional, separating components such as Isolationism (withdrawal from global affairs) and Aggression/Distrust (active suspicion or desire for retribution). The specific results of the 1952 factor analysis, if conducted, are not provided here.

In modern applications, researchers often conduct exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis to verify the underlying structure. The strong contrast between items supporting aid (Item 5, 12) and items supporting withdrawal (Item 6, 7) or suspicion (Item 10, 15) points toward a robust factor structure distinguishing between cooperative and hostile foreign policy orientations.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitude Scale / Psychometric Survey

Format: 16 items utilizing a 5-point Likert response scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population, often applied to high school or college students (adolescent and young adult populations).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 16+).

Population Details: Originally standardized on American participants to gauge attitudes toward US foreign policy and international relations. The instrument can be found online at: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/41865

Test Methodology: Self-report questionnaire. Scoring typically involves reversing negative items (those indicating friendliness or cooperation) and summing responses to create a total hostility score. Response options are: Strongly Agree, Agree, Don’t know, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.

Keywords

Attitude Measurement, Foreign Policy, Political Socialization, Internationalism, Psychological Testing, Likert Scale, Hostility, Public Opinion.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not available for 1952 publication)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not available)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not available)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1952

Permissions: The scale is widely cited in academic literature and is often treated as being in the public domain for non-commercial research purposes, especially given its age and availability through university repositories. Users should, however, confirm specific usage rights with the repository or the original publisher (Psychological Monograph).

Fee: Generally considered free for academic research use.

Reference’s

• Helfant‚ K. (1952). Parents’ attitudes versus adolescent sociopolitical attitudes. Psychological Monograph‚ 66; 1-23.
• Yatani‚ C. (1982). Attitudes Toward Political Participation and Preference for Violence. (Master of Art Thesis). Oregon State University.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Helfant’s Scale of Hostility in International Relations

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. In my opinion‚ the United States should give up trying to be on friendly terms with other countries.
2. I think that if the United States is friendly toward other countries they are not as likely to be aggressive toward us.
3. In my opinion‚ only foolish dreamers believe that international friendliness can accomplish anything in the modern world.
4. I feel that in international relations it is just plain common sense to "love thy neighbor as they self."
5. I believe that the U.S. should send food and materials to any country that needs them.
6. In my opinion‚ we shouldn’t risk our happiness and well-being by getting involved with other countries.
7. I think that helping foreign countries is a waste of money.
8. In my opinion‚ international good will is essential to the welfare of the United States.
9. It is my belief that we should get even with any country that tries to take advantage of the United States.
10. I feel that we can’t have "peace on earth‚ good will to men‚" because other nations are not of good will.
11. I think that being friendly with other countries will do more good than harm.
12. It is my feeling that we should try to help all nations‚ whether we get anything special out of it or not.
13. I think that other countries are always getting us into wars.
14. I think that being friendly with other nations is a real help in solving international problems.
15. It is my belief that other nations are often plotting against us.
16. In my opinion‚ all sensible people believe in trying to be friendly with other countries.