Misanthropy Scale – Revised

Abstract

The Misanthropy Scale-Revised is a psychological instrument developed by Sullivan and Adelson in 1954. It is designed to measure an individual’s generalized negative attitude, hostility, and cynicism toward humanity as a whole, often referred to as misanthropy. This 29-item scale utilizes a 7-point Likert scale format, ranging from complete agreement (+3) to complete disagreement (-3). The scale was originally created in conjunction with research investigating the relationship between generalized hostility and specific social attitudes, particularly ethnocentrism. It remains a historically significant measure within social psychology literature, frequently cited in studies concerning prejudice, authoritarianism, and generalized distrust.

Keywords

Misanthropy, Ethnocentrism, Generalized Hostility, Cynicism, Attitude Measurement, Social Psychology, Prejudice, Personality Assessment

Authors

Sullivan, P., Adelson, J.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Misanthropy Scale-Revised is to quantify the degree to which an individual holds negative, distrustful, and pessimistic views about the nature and behavior of most other people. It serves as a tool for researchers interested in generalized intergroup hostility and its psychological correlates.

In its original context, the scale was crucial for empirical investigations into the structure of social attitudes, particularly distinguishing between hostility directed generally at humanity (misanthropy) and hostility directed specifically at outgroups (ethnocentrism). High scores on this scale indicate a profound rejection of societal norms and a belief that most people are fundamentally flawed, selfish, or corrupt.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Misanthropy, defined here as a pervasive, negative, and cynical orientation toward humankind. This construct is characterized by several key dimensions reflected in the scale items, including:

• Beliefs about human selfishness and hedonism (e.g., preference for extravagant living).
• Perceptions of human deceit and ruthlessness (e.g., being unscrupulous and undependable).
• Skepticism regarding democratic or cooperative solutions to social problems.
• A generalized sense of alienation and distrust toward others.

While distinct from clinical disorders, high misanthropy scores often indicate traits associated with cynicism, distrust, and negative affect, linking it to broader personality frameworks such as the “Dark Triad” or generalized authoritarian tendencies, though it predates much of that research.

Validity

The Misanthropy Scale-Revised has demonstrated notable construct validity through its consistent correlation patterns with other established measures. Early studies, including those by Sullivan and Adelson (1954), showed that misanthropy, while related to ethnocentrism, was not identical to it, suggesting it measures a generalized hostility rather than group-specific prejudice.

The scale’s validity is often supported by its established relationship with measures of authoritarianism (e.g., the F Scale) and generalized pessimism. Subsequent research, such as the comprehensive review by Robinson and Shaver (1969), confirmed its utility as a measure of generalized negative social attitudes, often showing moderate to strong positive correlations with measures of social isolation and political alienation.

Reliability

Although specific detailed reliability statistics for the 1954 version are typically found in the original journal article, the scale has been consistently included in major psychological compendiums, suggesting acceptable internal consistency for an early psychological scale of this nature. Measures of internal consistency, such as coefficient alpha, are generally expected to be in the acceptable range (e.g., 0.70 or higher) when administered to diverse adult samples, confirming that the 29 items cohere to measure a single underlying construct of generalized social negativity.

Factor Analysis

While the Misanthropy Scale-Revised is often treated as a unidimensional measure of generalized hostility, factor analytic studies conducted in the decades following its creation frequently explored its underlying structure. These analyses sometimes reveal sub-factors corresponding to specific domains of negative attitudes, such as cynicism about human motivation (e.g., greed and selfishness) and distrust of human capabilities (e.g., ignorance and lack of patriotism).

The original intent was to create a robust measure of generalized hostility that could be separated empirically from measures of specific group prejudice. Factor analysis has generally supported the existence of a strong primary factor representing global misanthropic sentiment, lending weight to its use as a unitary score in social psychology research.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Attitude Inventory

Format: 29 items utilizing a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from Complete agreement (+3) to complete disagreement (-3).

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General Population; primarily studied in adult populations and university students.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 18+)

Population Details: The scale has been extensively used in studies of social attitudes in Western populations, especially within the United States, following its inclusion in seminal collections of social psychological measures.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement concerning the general nature and behavior of people. Scoring involves summing or averaging the responses, with higher scores indicating greater misanthropic tendencies. The original instrument and accompanying materials can be found via the following resource: The original PDF can be downloaded here: Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (1969).

Keywords

Psychological Measurement, Attitude Scales, Sullivan and Adelson, Cynicism, Interpersonal Distrust, Social Attitudes, Personality

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not available for 1954 publication)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not available for 1954 publication)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not available for 1954 publication)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Since the Misanthropy Scale was published in 1954 and included in widely distributed academic compendiums, it is generally considered a freely available instrument for academic research purposes, provided proper citation is given to Sullivan and Adelson (1954) and subsequent compendium sources like Robinson and Shaver (1969). The original publication year is 1954.

No specific fee is typically required for its use in non-commercial academic settings, though researchers should always verify copyright status if utilizing the measure in proprietary contexts.

Reference’s

• Sullivan, P. and Adelson. J. (1954). Ethnocentrism and misanthropy, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49 (2), 246-250.
• Zagona, Salvatore V. (1959). Dogmatism and A theory of interdependence Between Libertarian and Equalitarian Processes: A study in reciprocal evaluation. University of Arizona, Dovtoral Dissertation.
• Robinson, John P, & Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.

Items of the Misanthropy Scale- Revised

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

1. People seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living .
2. In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to prevent most people from living in it.
3. A major fault of most people is their conceit.
4. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they may limit the number of people in fields which have too many now.
5. A step toward solving social problems would be to prevent people from getting in to superior, profit able positions in society, for a while at least.
6. One trouble with most people is that they stick together and connive, so that others don’t have a fair chance in competition.
7. Our social problems are so general and deep that one often doubts that democratic methods can ever solve them.
8. Most people tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average.
9. Most people should not pry so much in to others’ activities and organizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige.
10. Much resentment against most people stems from their tending to keep apart and to exclude others from their social life.
11. One big trouble with people is that they are never contented, but always try for the best jobs and the most money.
12. People go too far in hiding their backgrounds, especially such extremes as changing their names and imitating others’ manner and customs.
13. People should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults, if they really want to prevent themselves from being condemned.
14. War shows up the fact that most people are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country.
15. There i s something different and strange about most people; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick.
16. People may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with their friends, but with others most of them are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable.
17. Most peoples’ first loyalty is to themselves rather than to their country.
18. In order to handle social problems, one must meet fire with fire and use the same ruthless tactics with others that they use.
19. Most people seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be parasites on society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs.
20. One general fault of people is their over aggressiveness, a strange tendency always to display their looks, manner, and breeding.
21. There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the human makeup as shown by the fact that there are so many communists and agitators.
22. People should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt.
23. There is little hope of correcting human defects, since these defects are simply in the blood.
24. People keep too much to themselves, instead of taking the proper interest in community problems and good government.
25. When people cr‎eate large funds for educational or scientific research it is mainly due to a desire for fame and public notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest.
26. People would solve many of their social problems by not being so irresponsible, lazy, and ignorant.
27. It would be best to limit most people to grammar and trade school education since more schooling just gives them ambition and desires which they are unable to fulfill in competition.
28. There is something inherently primitive and uncivilized in most people, as shown in their musical tastes and extreme aggressiveness.
29. There will always be wars because, for one thing , there will always be people who ruthlessly try to grab for more than their share.