The Dogmatism Scale

Abstract

The Dogmatism Scale (D Scale), developed by Milton Rokeach, is a standardized psychological instrument designed to measure the relative openness or closedness of an individual’s belief systems. The scale specifically targets the structure and organization of these systems, rather than the content of the beliefs themselves (e.g., political or religious specifics). This distinction is crucial, setting it apart from instruments like the Authoritarianism (F) Scale. Individuals scoring high on the D Scale are classified as dogmatic, exhibiting a closed belief system characterized by absolute adherence to authority, a perception of the world as threatening, and a tendency to isolate conflicting ideas.

The scale underwent multiple revisions (Forms A through E), culminating in the final and most utilized version, Form E, which contains 40 items. The response format is a 6-point scale ranging from +3 (strongly agree) to -3 (strongly disagree), excluding the zero point. For scoring, this is converted to a +1 to +7 scale by adding a constant of 4. The total score, ranging from 40 to 280, provides a measure of general intolerance and rigidity, with higher scores indicating a more closed belief system.

Keywords

Dogmatism Scale, D Scale, Milton Rokeach, belief systems, closed mind, open mind, authoritarianism, intolerance, psychological assessment, Form E.

Authors

Milton Rokeach

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dogmatism Scale is to quantitatively assess an individual’s general belief orientation—specifically, the degree to which that orientation is open or closed. The scale was intentionally created to measure dogmatism universally, transcending specific domains such as politics or religion, thereby capturing a fundamental cognitive style.

By measuring the structural orientation (how beliefs are held) rather than the content (what beliefs are held), the D Scale provides a robust measure of generalized authoritarianism and intolerance. It identifies individuals who are quick to reject ideas conflicting with their accepted views and who rely exclusively on absolute authority, contrasting them with those who actively seek diverse perspectives and test conflicting information to resolve discrepancies.

Construct

The construct underlying the Dogmatism Scale is the **Openness-Closedness of Belief Systems**. This dimension describes how an individual processes information, responds to conflicting ideas, and relates to authority.

A **closed belief system** (dogmatism) is fundamentally defined by an excessive reliance on absolute authority. Key characteristics include viewing the external world as inherently threatening, exhibiting high intolerance, and utilizing mental compartmentalization to maintain contradictory beliefs in isolation without critical self-evaluation. In contrast, an **open belief system** respects, but does not blindly accept, authority. Individuals with open systems actively seek out and evaluate information from diverse sources, testing conflicting concepts through application to resolve discrepancies, and generally do not perceive the world as fundamentally threatening.

Validity

The initial validity of the Dogmatism Scale was primarily established using the “Known Groups” method, a technique used to demonstrate concurrent validity. This method involved identifying subjects judged by experts or peers to be either extremely high or extremely low in dogmatism.

Early findings were inconsistent across two initial studies. The first study, involving non-psychology students selected by faculty, failed to show any significant differences between the judged high- and low-dogmatism groups across the D Scale, Opin­ionation Scale, F Scale, and Ethnocentrism (E) Scale. However, the second study, utilizing subjects selected by psychology students from their acquaintances, found a highly significant difference (p = .01) in the predicted direction, supporting the scale’s validity.

Milton Rokeach accounted for the discrepancy by suggesting that the formal student-professor relationship in the first study might have induced a “masking” effect, where students presented a more guarded, less dogmatic facade to professors than they would to peers, thereby compromising the accuracy of the faculty judgments.

Reliability

The scale’s revisions, particularly through Forms A to E, were systematically executed with the objective of increasing reliability. Form D demonstrated the highest reported reliability coefficient at .91.

Form E, the definitive 40-item version, showed reliability coefficients ranging from .68 to .93 across the various normative samples. Rokeach asserted that these figures were satisfactory, considering the broad and diverse nature of the items used—many of which appeared unrelated but were necessary to capture the structural breadth of the belief system.

Factor Analysis

The Dogmatism Scale is fundamentally conceptualized as a measure of a single, unifying construct: the openness-closedness of the mind. While formal factor analysis results are not detailed in the foundational source material, the item development process emphasized measuring the general disposition toward intolerance and rigidity, rather than distinct, separable content areas.

The scale’s theoretical design supports a unitary dimension encompassing aspects like intolerance of ambiguity, reliance on authority, and threat perception. Subsequent research often uses the D Scale as a single-score index of dogmatism, although modern psychometric studies have occasionally explored potential sub-factors related to specific content domains.

Instrument

Test Type:

Self-report psychological scale (Assessment of general belief system structure and orientation)

Format:

40 items (Form E). Responses are collected using a 6-point Likert scale, converted to a 7-point scale for final summation.

Language Available:

English (Original). Rokeach noted its perceived validity for use in international settings, including Eastern European countries, suggesting early translation efforts.

Population Group:

General adult population. Suitable for research involving social, political, and personality psychology.

Age Group:

Adolescents and Adults.

Population Details:

Normative data for Form E (N=508) included samples from multiple American universities (Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue), British colleges (University College in London, Birbeck College), British automotive workers, and samples of destitute veterans from a VA domiciliary. Mean scores ranged from 141.3 to 183.2.

Test Methodology:

The test is self-administered, typically requiring about 20 minutes to complete. Scoring involves summing the converted item scores (ranging from 1 to 7) to achieve a total score between 40 and 280. No items are negatively worded.

Keywords

Rokeach, D Scale, closed belief system, open belief system, psychological measurement, Likert scale, personality, social psychology, political psychology.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

Not available/Applicable (Milton Rokeach, scale developed pre-ORCID era).

Affiliation Email addresses:

Not available.

Correspondence Address:

The primary source is Rokeach, M. (1956). The open and closed mind. New York: BasicBooks.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The core theoretical framework and the first forms of the scale were introduced around 1956, with the final Form E formalized in Rokeach’s 1960 publication, “The Open and Closed Mind.” Researchers typically cite the 1960 publication when utilizing Form E. Permissions for commercial use or large-scale testing should be directed toward the original publisher or the Rokeach estate.

Reference’s

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Bumswik, E., Levinson, J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: W. W. Norton.

Gilmore, S. K. (1969). Personality differences between high and low dogmatism groups of Pentecostal believers. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8, 161-166.

Hoge, D.R., & Carroll, J. W. (1973). Religiosity and prejudice in northern and southern churches. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 181-197.

Kilpatrick, D. G., Sutker, L. W., Sutker, P. B. (1970). Dogmatism, religion, and religiosity: A review and re-evaluation. Psychological Reports, 26, 15-22.

Mangis, M. W. (1995). Religious beliefs, dogmatism, and attitudes toward women. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 14(1), 13-25.

Rokeach, M. (1956). The open and closed mind. New York: BasicBooks.

Stricklan, B. R., & Weddell, S. C. (1972). Religious orientation, radical prejudice, and dogmatism: A study of Baptists and Unitarians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 395-400.

Items of the THE DOGMATISM SCALE

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

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement using the following rating scale.

• -3 = strongly disagree
• -2 = disagree
• -1 = slightly disagree 0 = neutral
• +1 = slightly agree
• +2 = agree
• +3 = strongly agree

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.
2. The highest form of government is a democracy, and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.
3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups.
4. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes.
5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.
6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place.
7. Most people just don’t give a “damn” for others.
8. I’d like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems.
9. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future.
10. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in.
11. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion, I just can’t stop.
12. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood.
13. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying.
14. It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward.
15. While I don’t even like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein or Beethoven or Shakespeare.
16. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important.
17. If given the chance, I would do something of great benefit to the world.
18. In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful of really great thinkers.
19. There are a number of people I have come to hate because of things they stand for.
20. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived.
21. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful.
22. Of all the different philosophies that exist in this world there is probably only one that is correct.
23. A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a pretty “wishy-washy” sort of person.
24. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to a betrayal of our own side.
25. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion, we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do.
26. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own happiness.
27. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the people who believe the same things he does.
28. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one’s own camp than by those in the opposing camp.
29. A group which tolerates too many differences of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long.
30. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth.
31. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he is wrong.
32. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt.
33. Most of the ideas that get printed nowadays aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
34. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what’s going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted.
35. 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.
36. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one’s own.
37. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts.
38. If a man is to accomplish his mission in life, it is sometimes necessary to gamble “all or nothing at all.”
39. Unfortunately a good many people with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don’t really understand what’s going on.
40. Most people just don’t know what’s good for them.