Dogmatism Scale (Form E)

Abstract

The Dogmatism Scale (Form E), developed by Milton Rokeach and published in 1960, is a widely cited 40-item psychological instrument designed to quantify individual differences in the openness or closedness of a person’s belief system. The scale specifically measures the degree of dogmatism, which is conceptualized as general authoritarianism and general intolerance, independent of specific ideological content. All statements are formulated as opinions and are negatively worded. Form E represents the final, refined version resulting from extensive item analysis and five developmental revisions, making it the most frequently cited instrument for measuring this construct.

Keywords

Dogmatism, Rokeach, Form E, belief system, authoritarianism, intolerance, open mind, closed mind, psychological measurement, personality scale, social psychology.

Authors

Milton Rokeach.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dogmatism Scale (Form E) is to empirically assess the structural properties of belief systems, rather than focusing on the specific content of those beliefs. It seeks to differentiate individuals along a continuum ranging from highly open-minded to highly closed-minded (dogmatic). This measurement allows researchers to study how the organization and structure of a belief system influence cognitive rigidity, resistance to change, and general social attitudes.

By measuring dogmatism, the scale provides insight into an individual’s tendency toward generalized authoritarianism and generalized intolerance. It is intended for use in academic and social psychological research settings to understand the personality correlates of political and social behaviors.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of dogmatism, defined by Rokeach as a relatively closed belief system characterized by resistance to new information, insulation of beliefs from contradictory evidence, and dependence on external authority. The 40 items are structured around three fundamental, interrelated dimensions of belief systems:

• Belief-Disbelief Dimension: This dimension (four items) focuses on the isolation of beliefs, which includes the accentuation of differences between the belief and the disbelief systems, the coexistence of contradictions within the belief system, and the relative amount of knowledge possessed.
• Central-Peripheral Dimension: This extensive dimension (36 items) examines rigidity across different levels of belief. It incorporates the specific content of primitive beliefs (e.g., feelings of isolation and helplessness, uncertainty about the future, self-adequacy, and self-aggrandizement as defense), the formal content of the intermediate belief region (e.g., authoritarianism, belief in a cause, and intolerance), and the interrelations among primitive, intermediate, and peripheral beliefs (e.g., tendency to make a party-line change, narrowing of focus).
• Time-Perspective Dimension: Integrated within the central-peripheral framework, this aspect specifically addresses attitudes toward the past, present, and future, particularly the focus on the future and the need for certainty regarding future events.

Validity

Two primary studies utilizing the known-groups approach were conducted to establish initial construct validity. In the first study, comparing graduate students selected by professors as high or low dogmatic, no significant differences were observed. However, the second study, which utilized psychology graduate students to select peers they perceived as most and least dogmatic, yielded significant differences, providing empirical support for the scale’s ability to successfully measure the intended construct.

Subsequent research by other academics has further investigated and confirmed the scale’s overall utility. Studies have been conducted to establish various forms of validity, including predictive validity (the scale’s ability to forecast future behavior), concurrent validity (its correlation with existing relevant measures), and criterion validity (its ability to distinguish between groups based on external criteria related to dogmatism).

Reliability

The development process for the Dogmatism Scale was characterized by extensive revisions and reliability testing across its five forms. The corrected reliability coefficient for Form A was 0.70, and Form B achieved 0.75. Form C demonstrated lower reliabilities than expected, leading to the creation of Form D, which incorporated 30 new items and achieved a high corrected reliability of 0.91.

The final 40-item version, Form E, maintained robust reliability. For the British college sample, the corrected reliability was 0.81, and for the British automobile factory workers, it was 0.78. Internal consistency, measured via odd-even reliability coefficients corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula across six samples of American and British college students, ranged from 0.68 to 0.85. Test-retest reliabilities were also satisfactory: 0.71 over a five- to six-month period for 58 Ohio State University students, and 0.84 over a one-month period for 17 veterans. Overall reliability estimates across all major samples ranged from 0.68 to 0.93.

Factor Analysis

The scale was developed primarily based on the theoretical framework outlined in The Open and Closed Mind, focusing on the three structural dimensions of the belief system. The refinement process relied heavily on item analyses during the transition through Forms A, B, C, and D. Although Rokeach structured the scale around three theoretical dimensions, the high internal consistency and overall measurement approach suggest that the scale primarily loads onto a single, overarching factor representing generalized dogmatism.

While the original documentation does not specify a formal statistical factor analysis beyond item analysis, subsequent independent research often confirms its unidimensional nature in measuring generalized closed-mindedness. The original research provided comprehensive data analysis, including means, standard deviations, and normative data for the original samples across all five forms of the scale.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report attitude scale / Personality Inventory

Format: 40 Likert-type items (statements expressing negative opinions)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General Adult Population, used extensively in educational, industrial, and clinical settings.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (Primarily tested on university students and working adults).

Population Details: Reliability data were drawn from diverse samples, including 959 university students across three Midwestern US universities, 207 students from New York universities, 217 students from British universities, 121 destitute veterans in New York, and 60 automobile factory workers in Great Britain.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 6-point scale (ranging from “I disagree very much” to “I agree very much”). For final scoring, a constant of 4 is added to the raw score of each item to create a 1–7 scale, where a higher total score indicates a more dogmatic (closed) belief system.

Keywords

Dogmatism Scale, Rokeach, belief systems, closed-mindedness, personality assessment, social attitudes, psychological measurement, Form E, authoritarianism, intolerance.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not available.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not available.

Correspondence Address: Not available (Based on 1960 publication).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1960 (Final Form E published).

Permissions and Fees: The Dogmatism Scale is widely available in academic literature following its publication in Rokeach’s book, The Open and Closed Mind. It is generally permissible for non-commercial academic research use. Users seeking commercial or clinical application rights should contact the original publisher, Basic Books, or the Rokeach estate.

Reference’s

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.

Esposito, J. (1974). Supervisor personality and task performance. Journal of Experimental Education 42:17–20.

Kleiber, D., et al. (1973). The multi-dimensionality of locus of control. Journal of Clinical Psychology 29:411–16.

McColskey, W., et al. (1985). Predictors of principals’ reliance on formal and informal sources of information. Evaluation and Policy Analysis 7:427–36.

Spivey, J. R. (1975). Dogmatism and the secondary social studies teachers’ perspective. Illinois School Research 11:26–31.

Ward, G. R., et al. (1978). Personality profiles and dogmatism in undergraduate teacher education students. Psychology in the Schools 15:33–36.

Items of the Dogmatism Scale (Form E)

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

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 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 to be a live coward.
15. While I don’t 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 the 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 idea or cause that life becomes meaningful.
22. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which 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 the 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 in the same thing 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 much 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’s wrong.
32. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt.
33. Most of the ideas which 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.

Scoring

The Dogmatism Scale (Form E) employs a modified Likert-type response format. Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using the following 6-point scale:

• I agree very much = 3
• I agree on the whole = 2
• I agree a little = 1
• I disagree a little = −1
• I disagree on the whole = −2
• I disagree very much = −3

For the calculation of a final score, a constant value of 4 is added to the raw score of each item (e.g., a score of 3 becomes 7, and a score of -3 becomes 1). This transformation results in a final 1–7 scale, where higher scores reflect greater levels of dogmatism.