Dogmatism Scale (DS)

Abstract

The Dogmatism Scale (DS), developed by Milton Rokeach in 1960, is a widely recognized psychological instrument designed to measure generalized cognitive rigidity, or closed-mindedness. Unlike earlier measures focused on specific political ideologies like the F-Scale, the DS aims to assess the structure of an individual’s belief system—how open or closed it is—regardless of the content of those beliefs.

It focuses on underlying psychological characteristics such as authoritarianism, intolerance toward conflicting ideas, and reliance on external authorities. The scale is a self-report instrument consisting of 40 items, typically utilizing a multi-point Likert-type response format to quantify the degree of dogmatic thinking.

Keywords

Dogmatism, Open Mind, Closed Mind, Authoritarianism, Belief System, Cognitive Rigidity, Rokeach, Personality Assessment, Social Psychology, Measurement Instrument.

Authors

Milton Rokeach.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dogmatism Scale is to quantify an individual’s level of generalized dogmatism. Rokeach defined dogmatism as a relatively consistent way of thinking that is characterized by the degree of open-mindedness versus closed-mindedness of a person’s belief system. The scale was created to differentiate between individuals who hold rigid, impermeable belief systems and those who possess more flexible, adaptable systems.

It specifically seeks to measure the extent to which an individual exhibits authoritarianism, intolerance of contradictory evidence, and dependence on authority figures for guidance, thereby predicting behavior across various ideological and social contexts.

Construct

The scale measures Dogmatism, which Rokeach conceptualized as an overarching personality variable related to the structure and organization of beliefs, rather than their specific content. A highly dogmatic person possesses a closed belief system characterized by isolation of beliefs, a high reliance on external authority, and a pervasive sense of threat or fear.

The construct encompasses several theoretical dimensions, including intolerance of ambiguity, self-abasement, self-aggrandizement, and a sense of isolation or loneliness. The DS is considered a measure of general authoritarianism but is theoretically distinct from earlier measures because it purports to measure rigidity across the political and religious spectrums, allowing for the identification of dogmatism in individuals holding either left-wing or right-wing ideologies.

Validity

The validity of the Dogmatism Scale has been extensively studied since its introduction. Studies generally support its criterion validity, showing significant correlations between high DS scores and various forms of intolerance, prejudice, and resistance to attitude change. For instance, high dogmatism is often associated with narrower perspectives and difficulty synthesizing information that challenges core beliefs.

However, concerns regarding construct validity have focused on the scale’s potential overlap with measures of general intelligence and its susceptibility to acquiescence bias (the tendency to agree with statements regardless of content). Form E, the most common version, has shown acceptable convergent validity with other measures of social rigidity, although some researchers suggest it may measure a combination of general maladjustment and cognitive closure rather than pure dogmatism.

Reliability

The Dogmatism Scale is generally reported to have high internal consistency, contributing to its widespread use in research. Various studies across different populations and cultures have reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently in the range of 0.70 to 0.90, indicating strong reliability. Test-retest reliability measures also suggest that dogmatism, as measured by the DS, is a stable personality trait over time, confirming the scale’s utility in longitudinal studies.

Factor Analysis

Early factor analyses conducted by Rokeach suggested the scale was largely unidimensional, supporting the concept of dogmatism as a single, overarching construct of open versus closed-mindedness. However, subsequent independent factor analyses have often yielded multi-factor solutions, typically identifying two to six distinct factors.

Commonly extracted factors include dimensions related to intolerance, isolation/loneliness, and reliance on authority. The debate over the scale’s precise factor structure persists, often being linked to the influence of acquiescence bias, which can artificially inflate correlations between items and complicate attempts to isolate underlying latent factors.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychological Scale.

Format: 40 items (Form E is the most referenced version). Items are presented as statements requiring agreement or disagreement using a Likert-type scale. Scoring options include a 6-point scale (e.g., I agree very much to I disagree very much) or a 7-point scale (e.g., 1=Strongly agree to 7=Strongly disagree).

Language Available: Primarily English, extensively translated and adapted into numerous languages globally.

Population Group: General population; frequently used in social psychology and personality research.

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

Population Details: Originally validated primarily on university students, but subsequent research has applied it broadly across diverse demographic groups in studies of political attitudes, communication, and cognitive style.

Test Methodology: Respondents rate their level of agreement with each statement. High scores indicate a high degree of dogmatism or closed-mindedness.

Keywords

Cognitive Style, Rigidity, Prejudice, Ideology, Belief System Structure, Closed-mindedness, Social Values, Personality Trait.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Milton Rokeach was active prior to the establishment of ORCID systems).

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Historically unavailable).

Correspondence Address: N/A (Historically unavailable).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dogmatism Scale (DS) was first published in 1960. Given its age and widespread academic use, the scale items are often considered to be in the public domain for research purposes, though researchers should always cite the original source: Rokeach (1960), The Open and Closed Mind. No standard licensing fee is typically associated with academic use of the scale itself.

The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/284376/1/azu_td_5906119_sip1_m.pdf

Reference’s

• Dileo, Becker G. (1967). Scores on Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale and the response set to present a positive social and personal image. J Soc Psychol, 71(2), 287-93.
• Gulo, E. Vaughn., Lynch, Mervin D. (1973). Evidence on the Validity of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (DS) Form E. College Student Journal, 7(3), 62-67.
• Price, Fiona Swee-Lin. (2000). Intercultural contact, ethnocentrism and the mediating role of epistemology. University of Melbourne, Doctoral Dissertation.
• Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
• Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, L. (1969). The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 71(4), 261-273.

Items of the Dogmatism Scale (DS)

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

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