Intellectual Conviction Scale

Abstract

The Intellectual Conviction Scale (ICS), developed by Rokeach and Eglash in 1956, is a psychological measure designed to assess the basis upon which individuals hold their beliefs or convictions. It distinguishes between convictions rooted in rational, ethical, or internal principles and those grounded in pragmatic, expedient, or external consequences. The scale measures the tendency of respondents to justify their attitudes based on utilitarian outcomes (e.g., reciprocity, avoiding punishment, maintaining social standing) rather than intrinsic moral or logical necessity. This instrument provides an early perspective on the cognitive styles later explored extensively in research concerning open and closed belief systems.

Keywords

Intellectual conviction, belief justification, expediency, pragmatic reasoning, open and closed systems, Rokeach, attitude measurement, Social Psychology, Dogmatism

Authors

Rokeach, M., Eglash, A.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Intellectual Conviction Scale is to quantify an individual’s reliance on consequentialist or pragmatic justifications for their strongly held beliefs. Rather than assessing the content of the belief itself (e.g., whether one supports democracy or communism), the scale focuses on the underlying rationale used to support that belief. Respondents who score high on the scale tend to justify ethical, political, or social positions by reference to external rewards, punishments, or immediate utilitarian results, indicating a low level of intellectual conviction based on inherent principles.

The scale was instrumental in early efforts within Social Psychology to understand how people structure their ideologies, serving as a critical precursor to the development of the famous Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (D Scale). It sought to identify individuals whose beliefs were held tentatively, depending on situational outcomes, versus those whose beliefs were deeply integrated into a consistent, principle-based cognitive structure.

Construct

The core construct measured is the degree of intellectual conviction, defined operationally as the extent to which an individual justifies an attitude or belief based on non-logical or expedient reasons. The scale is designed such that disagreement with the items indicates a higher level of intellectual conviction, reflecting a preference for principle-based justification.

The scale items present statements where a commonly accepted moral or social position is justified using an external, pragmatic, or self-serving reason (e.g., “Do unto others as they do unto you” or justifying equal treatment based on lack of scientific evidence regarding body odor differences). Agreement with these items suggests that the respondent views beliefs and moral positions as tools for achieving personal or social harmony, rather than reflections of immutable truths or ethical duties.

Validity

Initial validation studies conducted by Rokeach and Eglash (1956) demonstrated that the scale successfully differentiated between groups expected to exhibit high and low levels of principle-based reasoning. The scale demonstrated good face validity, as the items explicitly utilized utilitarian justifications for widely accepted social norms. Subsequent research, particularly those cited in Robinson and Shaver’s compendium, indicated that the Intellectual Conviction Scale correlated significantly with measures of rigidity, authoritarianism, and closed belief systems, thereby establishing its construct validity as a measure related to cognitive openness and rigidity.

Reliability

While specific detailed reliability coefficients (such as Cronbach’s Alpha) are not uniformly provided in the readily accessible abstracts, the scale’s inclusion in major measurement compilations suggests acceptable internal consistency was established during its initial development and subsequent use in research. Reliability is generally inferred from the scale’s consistent application in studies focusing on belief structures and dogmatism throughout the late 1950s and 1960s. Researchers typically employed standard test-retest reliability checks and assessed internal consistency across the 20 items to ensure the instrument was measuring a single underlying dimension of justification style.

Factor Analysis

The Intellectual Conviction Scale was generally treated as a unidimensional measure in early research, aiming to capture a single continuum ranging from expedient justification to principled justification. While specific results of comprehensive factor analytic studies are not detailed in the original publication abstract, the subsequent development of Rokeach’s D Scale suggests that the ICS served as an exploration of the underlying factors contributing to a closed belief system. Later analyses, such as those that might have been performed by Zagona (1959) or Robinson and Shaver (1969), likely supported a primary factor related to cognitive rigidity and the external sourcing of justification.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire, Psychological attitude scale

Format: 20 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population, primarily used with college students and adults in early studies.

Age Group: Adolescent to Adult

Population Details: Primarily used in North American academic settings during the mid-20th century. Suitable for literate participants capable of understanding nuanced social and political statements.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the following response options: Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, Strongly disagree. Scoring is typically reversed for items where agreement indicates low conviction, such that a higher total score reflects a greater reliance on principled justification.

Keywords

Belief systems, cognitive justification, principled reasoning, expediency, attitude measurement, Rokeach, 1956 scale, psychological assessment, Likert scale

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not available/Applicable for this historical publication.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not available/Applicable for this historical publication.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence related to the original publication would refer to the institutions of Milton Rokeach and Albert Eglash at the time of publication (1956).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1956

Permissions: As a historically significant and published academic scale, the items are generally available for non-commercial research and academic purposes, particularly as documented in public domain compendia like Robinson and Shaver (1969). Researchers should cite the original Rokeach and Eglash (1956) publication.

Fee: Generally available without fee for academic research.

Reference’s

The original PDF containing the instrument can be downloaded here: https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/Measuresofsocialpsychologicalattitudes_2928_.PDF

• Rokeach, M., & Eglash, A. (1956). A scale for measuring intellectual conviction. The Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 135-141. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1956.9921909
• Zagona, Salvatore V. (1959). Dogmatism and A theory of interdependence Between Libertarian and Equalitarian Processes: A study in reciprocal evaluation. University of Arizona, Doctoral Dissertation.
• Robinson, John P, & Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

Items of the Intellectual Conviction Scale

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

1. The reason we should show consideration for others is that they will reciprocate and show consideration for us.
2. Radio and TY programs should employ only loyal Americans, so as not to lose their audiences.
3. What is wrong with socialization, as seen in England, is that it results in severe rationing.
4. The reason you should not criticize others is that they will turn around and criticize you.
5. The American economic and political system is preferable to the Russian, because the Soviet system means long hours at poor wages.
6. The fallacy in Hitler’s theories is shown by the fact that, after all, he lost the war.
7. The reason that criticism is a poor policy is that it prevents you from making and keeping friends.
8. Do unto others as they do unto you.
9. It’s better not to talk about people behind their backs, because sooner or later it gets back to them, and you get a reputation as a gossip.
10. Negroes deserve equal treatment, because there is as yet no scientific evidence showing that there is any real difference in body odors.
11. The fact that God exists is proven by the fact that so many millions of people believe in Him.
12. The trouble with Communism is that, in all of human history, it has never worked.
13. Taxation without representation is wrong because sooner or later people rebel,
14. If a man fails to practice what he preaches, there’s something wrong with what he preaches.
15. You should only criticize others when you are above reproach yourself.
16. The reason it’s better to let people make up their own minds is because they won’t follow your advice anyway.
17. Whether it’s all right to manipulate people or not, it is certainly all right when it’s for their own good.
18. Appreciation of others is a healthy attitude, since it is the only way to have them appreciate you.
19. Generosity is a healthy way of life, because he who casts his bread upon the waters shall have it returned ten-fold.
20. Whether one approves of filibustering or not, it is all right if it’s for a good cause.