Short Dogmatism Scale – Troldahl

Abstract

The Short Dogmatism Scale (SDS), developed by Troldahl and Powell in 1965, is a concise, 20-item psychological instrument designed to measure generalized dogmatism. This scale is an adaptation and refinement of the much longer original Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Form E, 1960), specifically constructed for efficiency in large-scale field studies and survey research where administration time is limited. The SDS assesses the extent to which an individual exhibits a closed system of beliefs, characterized by intolerance, reliance on authority, and resistance to new ideas.

Keywords

Dogmatism, Rokeach, Troldahl, Powell, Social Forces, Attitude Measurement, Closed Mind, Authoritarianism, Psychological Scale, Field Studies

Authors

Troldahl, V.C., Powell, F.A.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Short Dogmatism Scale (SDS) is to provide researchers with an efficient and psychometrically sound measure of generalized dogmatism suitable for inclusion in extensive surveys or time-constrained field studies. The original Rokeach scale, while seminal, often proved too lengthy for practical application outside of dedicated laboratory settings. Troldahl and Powell sought to create a brief form that retained the core predictive power and factor structure of the Rokeach instrument.

This streamlined approach allows for broader application in areas of communication research, political science, and social psychology, enabling correlation of dogmatic thinking with various behavioral and attitudinal variables, such as resistance to persuasion, media consumption patterns, and political conservatism.

Construct

The Short Dogmatism Scale measures the psychological construct of Dogmatism, conceptualized by Milton Rokeach as a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs. Dogmatism reflects the structure of a person’s belief system rather than the specific content of those beliefs (e.g., liberal vs. conservative). Key dimensions of the construct include:

• Intolerance: Rejection of opposing belief systems and individuals holding them.
• Authoritarianism: Reliance on and reverence for authority figures and experts.
• Anxiety and Threat: A fundamental fear of the world, leading to a rigid defense against perceived threats.
• Future Orientation: A tendency to view the present as miserable, placing hope only in the future or an ideal cause.

High scores on the scale indicate a closed mind, characterized by rigidity, ethnocentrism, and difficulty integrating new information that contradicts existing beliefs.

Validity

Validation efforts for the Short Dogmatism Scale (Troldahl & Powell, 1965) primarily focused on demonstrating its high correlation with the original, longer Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Form E). The authors established that the short form successfully captured the variance associated with the full scale, thereby establishing strong concurrent validity.

Furthermore, subsequent research utilizing the SDS has established its construct validity by showing expected correlations with measures of intolerance, political extremity, and resistance to attitude change. The short form is generally accepted in social psychology as a valid proxy for the Rokeach scale in situations where brevity is paramount, although researchers must acknowledge a slight reduction in predictive precision compared to the 40-item original.

Reliability

The reliability of the Short Dogmatism Scale was a central concern during its development, as shortening a scale often compromises internal consistency. Troldahl and Powell reported acceptable levels of internal consistency, typically measured via Cronbach’s alpha, demonstrating that the 20 items consistently measure the underlying construct.

The authors’ study in 1965, utilizing student and adult samples, showed satisfactory split-half reliability and high correlations between the short form and the parent instrument. The SDS is considered reliable for group comparisons and field research, maintaining sufficient homogeneity among its items to ensure stable measurement of generalized dogmatism.

Factor Analysis

While the original Rokeach Dogmatism Scale was intended to be unidimensional, factor analytic studies have frequently revealed multiple correlated factors, usually reflecting specific components of the closed mind (e.g., intolerance, authoritarian submission, and generalized anxiety). Troldahl and Powell selected the 20 items for their short form based on their ability to load highly onto the primary factor of the Rokeach scale.

The resulting 20-item scale is generally treated as a unidimensional measure in applied research, reflecting the overarching concept of the open vs. closed mind. However, detailed factor analysis of the SDS in subsequent studies, particularly those documented in the 1969 Robinson and Shaver compilation, suggests that while the scale is highly cohesive, it may still reflect underlying sub-dimensions related to dependency on authority and intolerance toward others.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychological Scale / Attitudinal Measure

Format: 20 items rated on a 6-point Likert scale.

Language Available: Primarily English; adaptations may exist in other languages.

Population Group: General population, widely used across student and adult samples.

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

Population Details: Originally validated using samples relevant to communications and social science field studies.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a 6-point scale:

• 1 = agree a little
• 2 = Agree on the whole
• 3 = agree very much
• 4 = disagree a little
• 5 = disagree on the whole
• 6 = Disagree very much

Note: Higher scores typically indicate greater dogmatism, though scoring requires careful attention to item directionality (reverse scoring may be necessary for some items, though not specified in the source content provided).

Keywords

Dogmatism, Rokeach, Troldahl, Short Form, Social Psychology, Attitude Measurement, Survey Research, Likert scale, Psychological Testing

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content. (Original affiliation was likely related to Communication or Social Science departments in 1965).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Short Dogmatism Scale (Troldahl & Powell) was published in 1965. As a derivative measure widely published in academic journals and measurement compilations (such as Robinson & Shaver, 1969), it is generally considered to be in the public domain for non-commercial academic and research use. No specific licensing fee is typically required for its use in standard research settings.

The original instrument, along with related measures of political attitudes, is available in compiled form. The original PDF compilation containing this instrument can be downloaded here: Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (University of Michigan).

Reference’s

The development of the Short Dogmatism Scale relies heavily on the foundational work of Rokeach and subsequent shortening efforts:

• Rokeach‚ M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
• Schulze‚ R.H.K.‚ (1962). A shortened version of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Journal of Psychological Studies‚ 13‚ 93-97.
• Troldahl‚ V.C.‚ and Powell‚ F.A. (1965). A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces‚ 44‚ 211-214.
• Robinson‚ John P.‚ Shaver‚ Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Institute for Social Research‚ University of Michigan/. Ann Arbor‚ Michigan.

Items of the Short Dogmatism Scale – Troldahl

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

• In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what is going on is to rely upon leaders or experts who can be trusted.
• My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he’s wrong.
• There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are on the side of truth and those who are against it.
• Most people just don’t know what’s good for them.
• Of all the different philosophies which have existed in this world there is probably only one which is correct.
• The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.
• The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important.
• I’d like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems.
• Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
• Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.
• It is only when a person devotes him/herself to an ideal or cause that his/her life becomes meaningful.
• Most people just don’t give a “damn” about others.
• To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side.
• It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what’s going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects.
• The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts.
• The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.
• In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood.
• While I don’t like to admit this even to myself‚ my secret ambition is to become a great man like Einstein‚ Beethoven or Shakespeare.
• Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal‚ it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups.
• It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.