Psychological Correlates of Dogmatism and Heterogeneity of Power in Small Groups

Transcription

1 Loyola Unversty Chcago Loyola ecommons Dssertatons Theses and Dssertatons 1969 Psychologcal Correlates of Dogmatsm and Heterogenety of Power n Small Groups Joel Robert Kaplan Loyola Unversty Chcago Recommended Ctaton Kaplan, Joel Robert, "Psychologcal Correlates of Dogmatsm and Heterogenety of Power n Small Groups" (1969). Dssertatons. Paper Ths Dssertaton s brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dssertatons at Loyola ecommons. t has been accepted for ncluson n Dssertatons by an authorzed admnstrator of Loyola ecommons. For more nformaton, please contact ecommons@luc.edu. Ths work s lcensed under a Creatve Commons Attrbuton-Noncommercal-No Dervatve Works 3.0 Lcense. Copyrght Joel Robert Kaplan

2 PSYCHOLOGCAL CORRELATES OF DOGMATSM AND HETEROGENETY OF POWER N SMALL GROUPS by JOEL ROBERT KAPLAN A DSSERTATON SUBMTTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LOYOLA UNVERSTY N PARTAL FULFLLMENT OF THE REQUREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHLOSOPHY FEBRUARY 1969

3 -,, LFE Joel Robert Kaplan was born on August 14, 1940, n Chcago,.. llnos. He attended grade schools n the Chcago area, and n tjune, 1958, was graduated from New Trer Hgh School n Wnnetka,, llnos. He attended the Unversty of llnos n Urbana from h958 to 1960, then transferred to Washngton Unversty, St. Lous m Mssour, from whch he was graduated n June, 1962, wth a h Bachelor of Arts degree n Psychology. He enrolled n the f' ' Graduate,, n July, attendng Mental \1 School of the Unversty of Wsconsn, Madson, Wsconsn4 ' 1962, n the feld of ndustral Psychology. Whle ths nsttuton, he held a Natonal nsttute of Health Fellowshp and dd research n psycho-pharmacology n September, 1963, he transferred to the Graduate School of Loyola Unversty, Chcago, llnos, from whch he receved a baster of Arts degree n Socal-ndustral Psychology n February, h966. n February, 1970, he receved the Doctor of Phlosophy degree n Socal-ndustral Psychology from the same nsttuton.

4 -- ment w ACKN"OWLEDGMENTS The wrter wshes to thank the Loyola Unversty Depart- of Psychology for the use of subjects and laboratory facltes. dssertaton been Specal acknowledgment s due Dr. Homer Johnson, the drector, whose contnued advce and gudance have of great value durng the preparaton of ths dssertaton. l M Specal thanks are also due to Dr. Ronald Walker and Dr. Patrck Laughln for ther many suggestons and crtcal readngs of the research proposal and fnal manuscrpt.

5 Chapter ) l... V. v. V. CONTENTS Problem Revew of the Related Lterature Method, A. Subjects B. Apparatus... C. Procedure D. Statstcs Results Dscusson Summary.... Page Appendx References v

6 r: ltable t 1.. ". J V. v. V. V. F.. X. LST OF TABLES Page Means and Standard Devatons for Scores Obtaned by Students Tested on Rokeach's Dogmatsm Scale. 31 Dstrbuton of Groups and Subjects among Expermental Treatments. Dstrbuton of Responses (n Percentages) to Relatons Problem of 41 Male Students Dstrbuton of Responses (n Percentages) to Relatons Problem of 21 Female Students... Human... Human Dstrbuton of. Responses (n Percentages) to Human Relatons Problem of 62 Male and Female Students. 43 Treatment Means for Measures of Dependent Varables: A, Bl, B2, B3, B4, BS, B6, and B7 S7 Treatment Means for Measures of Dependent Varables: B234, BS67, B-All, C, D, E, F, and DP S8 Summary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - tems Bl (Satsfacton wth Group Rankng) and B2 (Satsfacton wth Group Dscusson) S9 Summary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - tems B3 (Frendlness of Group Dscusson) and B4 (Hostlty and Antagonsm n Group Dscusson) 60 Summary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - tems BS (B.oredom wth Task) and B6 (Enjoyment of Task) Summary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - tem B7 (Meannglessness of Task) and B234 (Dscusson Satsfacton) 64 Summary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - BS67 (Task Satsfacton) and B-All (Overall Measure of Morale v 6S

7 f"' Table Page r. Surrunary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - tems C (Emergent Leadershp) and A (Opnon Change). 67 XV. l xv. 11 Surrunary Table: 2 X 3 Factoral Analyses of Varance - tem E (Perceved Productvty) and DP (Dstrbuton of Partcpaton) 68 Surrunary Table: Sngle-Factor Analyses of Varance for.the Heterogeneous Groups - tems D (Power and Perceved Amount of Total Corrununcaton) and F (Power and Perceved nfluence Attempts). 69 v

8 CHAPTER Problem The purpose of ths study was to determne the relaton- M shp between dogmatsm and heterogenety of power (the ndepen- 1 dent varables) and the followng dependent varables' (1) morale (or satsfacton), (2) emergent leadershp, (3) opno1 change, (4) perceved productvty, (5) dstrbuton of partc- 1 paton, (6) power and perceved amount of total communcaton, J and (7) power and perceved nfluence attempts. These varables were studed n small groups consstng of three to fve members., nterest n dogmatsm grew out of studes of the related concept of authortaransm, whch has been nvestgated by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswck, Levnson, and Sanford. These wrters constructed the Calforna F. Scale to measure authortaransm. There has been a great deal of crtcsm of ths Scale, largely havng to do wth the contenton that the Scale dentfes rghtwng but not left-wng authortarans. Mlton Rokeach devsed the Dogmatsm Scale, whch, n the opnon of ths wrter, does not suffer from aome of the lmtatons of the F Scale. Rokeach, n constructng ths Scale, was nterested more n the structure than n the content of belefs. He states: "A person may adhere to Communsm, Exstentalsm, Freudansm, or the 'New 1

9 conservatsm' n a relatvely open or n a relatvely closed 2 manner." (Rokeach, 1960, p. 87) For Rokeach, dogmatsm s closed-mndedness, and non-dogmatsm s open-mndedness. Some theoretcal statements by Rokeach concernng the nature and meanng of dogmatsm are of nterest here. Rokeach (1963) states: we wll now defne dogmatsm as (a) a rela- tvely closed cogntve organzaton of belefs and dsbelefs about realty, (b) organzed around a central set of belefs about absolute authorty m whch, n turn, (c) provdes a framework for pat-. terns of ntolerance and qualfed tolerance toward r others p. 159 Rokeach (1963) further states: t s wdely recognzed, however, that authortaransm s also manfest among radcals, lberals, and mddle of the readers as well as among conservatves and reactonares. Furthermore, authortaransm can be recognzed as a problem n such aeas as scence, art, lterature, and phlosophy, where f acsm and ethnocentrsm are not necessarly the man ssues or may even be totally absent as ssues dogmatsm, whch s assumed to nvolve both authortaransm and ntolerance, need not necessarly take the form of fascst authortaransm or ethnc ntolerance. t s thus seen that the total range of phenomena whch may properly be regarded as ndcatve of authortaransm s consderably broader than that facet of authortaransm studed so ntensvely by the authors of The Authortaran Personalty to a great extent authortaransm cuts across specfc deologcal orentatons dogmatc authortaransm may well be observed wthn the context of any deologcal opentaton, and n areas of human endeavor relatvely removed from the poltcal or relgous arena. p. 166

10 f 3 Dogmatsm s one of the ndependent.varables n ths study, the other beng heterogenety of power. Ths latter varable was manpulated by varyng votng power n some groups (heterogeneous groups) but not n others (homogeneous groups). The manpulaton of ths varable s descrbed n detal n the secton on expermental procedure, and lttle need be sad about t here. Suffce t to say that the assumpton was made that the greater the number of votes a subject s able to cast, the greater s hs power. Relatvely few studes of heterogenety of power have been conducted. However, there have been a relatvely large number of studes dealng wth varous other types of heterogenety, e.g., heterogenety of values, atttudes, nterests, personalty, ntellgence, etc. There have been a number of studes of the effects of varyng amounts of power (e.g., the effects of hgh, medum, and low power), but ths s not what s beng nvestgated here, although t s related to t. A number of studes of heterogenety have compared relatvely homogeneous groups wth relatvely heterogeneous groups. n the present study, absolutely homogeneous groups (absolutely homogeneous only wth respect to the varable beng studed) were compared wth absolutely heterogeneous groups (absolutely heterogeneous only wth regard to the varable beng studed). n

11 4 other words, n the homogeneous groups, there were no dfferences at all n votng power, whereas n the heterogeneous groups there were no smlartes n votng power n the sense that no two members of a group had the same number of votes. By comparng two sets of groups whch dffered absolutely rather than relatvely t was thought that dfferences n regard to the dependent varables would more readly manfest themselves. There are, n a sense, two readly dscernble types of heterogenety. One s expermentally,.e., artfcally, created' heterogenety, and the other s the natural type of heterogenety 'Whch s found outsde the psychologcal laboratory, that s to say n "real lfe. 11 Ths type of heterogenety, although found, outsde the laboratory, may be studed wthn the laboratory and often s. For example, people are naturally heterogeneous wth respect to ntellgence, but such heterogenety can rather easly be studed wthn the laboratory.

12 5 s emprcal justfcaton for ncludng data from both types of power defnton p t s the belef of ths expermenter that heterogenety of power n ths study, although expermentally created, corresponds to and s smlar to naturally occurrng types of hetero- genety of power. 1 The varable of heterogenety of power has practcal sgl nfcance. Many examples of groups whch are heterogeneous n regard to power could be chosen. However, n order not to labor the pont, only one example wll be gven. The nteracton of a.group.of executves composed of members of lower, mddle, and top management (heterogeneous power groups) wll, n all probablty, be consderably dfferent from the nteracton of lexecutves composed entrely of members of mddle a group of managenen t (homogeneous power group). f these groups have the responsl blty of makng decsons, the decsons are lkely to dffer, l at least n some cases. Many other examples could be gven, but the pont should be clear that heterogenety of power s a var- ' lable that occlu:s n numerous, natural, "real lfe" stuatons and whch s of consderable practcal sgnfcance. The basc desgn of ths study was a 2 X 3 factoral exper,ment, the results of whch were analyzed through use of analyss of varance. t s well known that through analyss of varance nteracton effects as well as man effects are able to be

13 p 6 ' determned. Thus, t was possble to study the nteracton between the heterogenety of power varable and the dogmatsm varable, whch was of nterest because of the strong possblty that reactons to dfferences n power would be nfluenced by the degree to whch subjects were dogmatc. n other words, the nteracton was of nterest because the expermenter felt that t was qute concevable that a relatvely dogmatc person, wth a typcally authortaran temperament, would react to the power herarchy whch was establshed n ths experment n a dfferent manner than a relatvely nondogmatc person, wth a typcally democratc temperament, and ths study was desgned, n part, to determne whether or not such dfferences would occur. The dependent varables measure three dfferent dmensons of behavor: (1) subjects' reactons to the group dscusson, (2) subjects' perceptons of the group dscusson, and (3) subjects nteractons durg the group dscusson. The expermenter felt that there would be dfferences n all three of these areas,.e., that homogeneous subjects would perceve, react, and nteract dfferently from heterogeneous subjects, and that hgh dogmatsm subjects would perceve, react, and nteract dfferently from low dogmatsm (or medum dogmatsm) subjects Thus, the dependent varables were desgned to measure all three aspects of behavor.

14 For the purposes of ths study, dogmatsm may be defned 7 Also for v fas dogmatsm as measured by Rokeach's Dogmatsm Scale. r. p the purposes of ths study, heterogenety of power may be defned 1 as heterogenety of votng power

15 F CHAPTER Revew of the Related Lterature A number of studes of dogmatsm have made t possble to obtan a farly good pcture of the "dogmatc" as opposed to the "non-dogmatc" ndvdual. t s, however, mportant to bear n n mnd the fact that the term "dogmatc" n ths context refers only to an arbtrary area on a contnuum rather than to a dscrete category. Ths -wrter has classfed the studes on dogmatsm whch are revewed n ths secton nto three categores: (1) dogmatsm n relaton to personalty, (2) dogmatsm n relaton to learnng and memory, and (3) dogmatsm n relaton to cognton. n other words, ths -wrter wll attempt to answer the queston: How does the "dogmatc" ndvdual dffer from the 11 non-dogmatc 11 ndvdual as regards certan aspects of personalty, learnng and memory, and cognton? The three categores overlap to a consderable extent, partcularly as regards cognton and personalty. The term 11 personalty 11 here manly to the non-cogntve or dynamc aspects of personalty,.e to ts motvatonal and affectve components. refers t s relatvely easy to see how dogmatsm n relaton to personalty and cognton are relevant to ths study, but dogmatsm n relaton to learnng and memory does not appear to be 8

16 partcularly relevant, and the queston may arse as to why such f r studes have been ncluded n ths revew of related lterature. The answer s.twofold: (1) The wrter s nterested n con- l'structng a general pcture of the dogmatc ndvdual, and such l studes, dealng as they do wth such a crtcally mportant area of human behavor, are necessary for the sake of completeness; and cogntve,, " whether (2) such studes are closely related to personalty and varables, and, n fact, the queston often arses some types of "dogmatc behavor" are due to learnng ;and memory factors or to personalty and cogntve factors. t s frequently very dffcult to separate these two sets of f;factors as they relate to dogmatsm. By determnng some of the major characterstcs of dog- lmatsm, t wll be possble to formulate a number of hypotheses whch are susceptble to expermental test. The frst group of studes to be revewed deals wth dog- lmatsm n relaton to personalty. n a study by Zagona and Kelly (1966), hgh dogmatc _s l were compared to low dogmatc Ss on acceptance or rejecton of a novel and unorthodox muscal-artstc presentaton (jazz musc jaccompaned by mult-colored, fast-movng geometrc patterns). ;Hgh dogmatcs demonstrated sgnfcantly greater dslke for lthe experence, as shown by ratng scale and questonnare 9

17 , responses. khe groups. ' Art judgment dd not dffer sgnfcantly between Roberts and Hermann (1960) compared hgh and low scorng Ss on the Rokeach Dogmatsm Scale wth respect to anome and 10 tme-perspectve. They concluded that hgh dogmatcs tend to bave mbalanced rather than future-orented tme perspectves, land because of ther greater anome,. are dsturbed wth regard.; to the future as well as wth regard to the present. Kemp and Gratton (1961) found that college students who ere low n dogmatsm had fewer personal problems than dd hgh. :dogmatc students. They also found that counsellng was more r: effectve n reducng the number of such problems n the case of l low dogmatc students than n the case of hgh dogmatc students. Plant, Telford, and Thomas (1965) nvestgated person- :1 alty dfferences between dogmatc and non-dogmatc groups. n ths study a battery of psychologcal tests, ncludng the Rokeach Dogmatsm Scale (D Scale), fve scales from the CP, the '. bstudy of Values (AVL), and the SCAT, was gven to a large sample of enterng junor-college freslunen.,, descrbe from chosen. n order to study and to some of the ways n whch hghly dogmatc persons dffer non-dogmatc persons, extreme groups on the D Scale were Comparsons for these extreme groups were made on CP favl. and SCAT scores. n addton, the comparsons on the CP

18 11 and AVL were made for samples who had extreme scores on the D µ, f. t/ H j,, ' " t j scale but who were matched on apttude-test score. Nondogmatc males compared wth dogmatc males and nondogmatc females compared wth dogmatc females were found to dffer sgnfcantly on each of the fve CP scales. Wthout excepton, the nondogmatc groups had the hghest means on the CP scales. t was concluded that hghly dogmatc..s were psychologcally mmature, and could be characterzed as beng mpulsve, defensve, and conventonal and stereotyped n thnkng. Zagona and Zuc.her (1964) nvestgated nteracton and role behavor n groups selected from the extremes of the open-closed cogntve contnuum. n ths study, two expermental groups of 30 each were formed from both ends of a dstrbuton of 517 ; Dogmatsm Scale sc:ores. Each group made up a "conference secton" n general psychology, and for a full semester, Es, actng also as secton nstructors, made systematc observatons under normal classroom condtons and conducted small-group experj ments wth Ss drawn from these sectons. n contrast to low- j dogmatcs, hgh dogmatcs were leader-orented, nhbted, uncreatve, unspontaneous, anxous, demanded structure n problem stuatons, and readly yelded to challenges from authorty fgures. '

19 f " = Hallenbeck and Lundstedt (1966) studed the effect of dogmatsm on the adjustment to dsablty of 32 blnd men. was consdered to be a sgn of nonacceptance of the dsablty and depresson was consdered to be a sgn of acceptance. Dena] l Anxet1 was hypotheszed as the basc factor lnkng denal and dogn1atsm1, Type of onset, ether gradual or sudden, was also correlated wth j degrees of denal and depresson. Ratng scales descrbng 1 f denyng and depressed behavor and judgment of tape-recorded t, _) 1 ntervews measured the dependent varables. The fndngs were: l There was a postve relatonshp between denal (1) There was an nverse relatonshp between depresson and ' dogmatsm; (2) and dogmatsm; and (3) The sudden onset condton cancelled out the dogmatsm-denal relato4shp (.e., only n the case of H gradual onset was there a postve correlaton of dogmatsm and 11 the denal tendency). J The next group of studes has to do wth dogmatsm n relaton to learnng and memory. n a study by Erlch (1961), the effect of degree of dogmatsm, as defned by Rokeach, upon learnng n a classroom f. stuaton was tested on college.s. t was hypotheszed that f ;,, J " 1 1 fj dogmatsm mpled a "closed cogntve structure" ths could affect the capacty to learn, ndependently of academc apttude. The results confrmed the hypothess.

20 f, Pyron and Kafer (1967) conducted a study of the recall of f1 :1 nonsense and atttudnal rgdty. n ths study, 60 Ss frst heard 20 complete nonsense sentences read on tape. They then attempted to recall the correct response element of each sentence after hearng only the stmulus element. 13 The sentences were con- structed n such a way that response elements were ncongruent wth stmulus elements. An attempt was made to dfferentate 10 nterestng from 10 unnterestng nonsense sentences. Recall of both knds of nonsense was studed n relaton to three measures of atttudnal rgdty: The Dogmatsm Scale, the Change nven-., tory, and the orgnal F Scale...s who scored low (more open) on 1. ' dogmatsm tendd to recall sgnfcantly more nterestng non- ; l sense sentence elements than _s who scored hgh (more closed). Chrstensen (1963) conducted a study of dogmatsm and learnng wth a sample of 166 students n an ntroductory psychology course and found no confrmaton of Erlch's (1961) H fndngs that the Dogmatsm Scale predcts classroom learnng..< 11 " Chrstensen, however, found postve support for prevous fndngs of the ndependence of dogmatsm and apttude. Workn from Rokeach's defnton of a closed belef system, Baker (1964) developed a study to examne the relatonshps of such a system n a settng wheren new materals were to be learned n a socal learnng and socal adjustment settng.

21 ' 14 t was hypotheszed that there are no dfferences: (1) n learnng of psychologcal concepts b e t ween n d' v d uals manfestn1 f. open or closed belef systems (.e., non-dogmatc and dogmatc, H J ndvduals), and (2) n ntellgence between ndvduals manfestng open or closed belef systems. The frst hypothess was rejected, and the second hypothess was confrmed. The next group of studes s concerned wth dogmatsm n j relaton to cognton. ' Lo Scnto and Hartley (1963) conducted a study havng to do wth relgous afflaton and open-mndedness n bnocular resoluton. n ths study, 20. _s, 10 Jewsh and 10 Catholc, were exposed to a stereoscopc task and a test of open-mnded- ness. The stereoscopc task nvolved a seres of 22 sldes parng Jewsh and Catholc symbols, words and pctures, exposed under condtons of conflct, thus callng for some form of bnocular resoluton by _s The test of. open-mndedness was Rokeach's Dogmatsm Scale. There was a statstcally sgnfcant tendency to report seeng materal assocated wth the "other relgon 11 Long and Zller (1965) nvestgated dogmatsm n relaton to predecsonal nformatonal search. n ths study, 'Rokeach' s Dogmatsm Scale and four decson measures of tendences to reserve judgement were admnstered to 72 freshman women. A :

22 " sgnfcant negatve relatonshp was found between dogmatsm and each of the four decson measures. The non-dogmatc nd- c t. vdual tended to delay decson and engage n pre-decsonal search, to requre more tme for psychophyscal judgements, and u to respond "don't know" to statements of opnon under condtons.. fl of nadequate nformaton. The authors nterpreted dogmatsm as a defense mechansm whch nterferes wth processng of pre- 1 decsonal nformaton. Vdulch and Kaman (1961), usng the autoknetc phenom- l enon, studed the relatonshp between the status assgned to the source of a communcaton and the degree of dogmatsm of the recevers. t was found that the more dogmatc subjects attached greater mportance to the status of the source of the communcaton than dd the less dogmatc subjects. Rokeach and Vdulch (1960) conducted a study of dogmatsm n relaton to problem-solvng. n ths study, the 30 college sophomores who, on the Dogmatsm Scale, scored the hghest (the closed-mnded or dogmatc group) and the 30 who scored the lowest (the open-mnded or non-dogmatc group) were selected from a pool of 249 students. Each of these subjects was tested ndvdually on a problem whch requred that three commonly held belefs be overcome and be replaced wth three new belefs, whch must then be syntheszed nto a new cogntve 15

23 16 system. As predcted, the open-mnded subjects were sgnfcantly superor to the closed-mnded subjects n mean tme requred to solve the problem. The superorty of the openr: mnded subjects was related to ther greater ablty to synthe- r: j sze the new belefs nto a new cogntve system, ths ablty beng related to a greater capacty to remember the belefs, as measured by post-expermental recall tests. Ths capacty, n j turn, appeared to reflect the greater wllngness of the open- mnded subjects to entertan novel and strange problems. Emo- t t '. tonal rejecton of the problem was found more frequently among t:. the closed-mnded subjects. f: Rokeach, Swanson, and Denny (1960) found that closed- mnded chess players performed equally as well as open-mnded chess players on chess-lke problems. However, t was also found' that closed-mnded non-chess players were nferor to open- mnded.non-chess players on the same problems. : Leckart and Wagner (1967) conducted a study of stmulus famlarty dogmatsm, and the duraton of attenton. n ths g study, 38 males and 30 females vewed each of 30 black and whte ; ' photographs for as long as they wshed..: Half the photographs were judged by the Es to be unfamlar to college students; the remanng ones were judged famlar. After the lookng task, all. _s completed the Dogmatsm Scale. t was hypotheszed that the

24 p 17 l open-mnded.s would spend more tme lookng at the novel stmul than would the closed-mnded.s. ths hypothess. The results faled to confrm Mller (1965) nvestgated nvolvement and dogmatsm as factoral desgn wth 5.s per cell..s were selected from extreme quartles of 800 hgh school students pre-tested on both dogmatsm and atttude 'toward fluordaton. Half the.s were expermentally nvolved n ther poston, and the other half 8 were nvolved n an rrelevant ssue. A taped dscrepant comr muncaton on fluordaton, supposedly an ntervew wth a pre- H vous.was presented to all.s. As predcted, hgh nvolvement, and dogmatsm reduced the communcaton's persuasveness, but nvolvement contrbuted most of the curtalment. Con.s who were. both dogmatc and relevantly nvolved gave sgnfcantly more boomerang responses. A study by Costn ( 1968} found that dogmatc.s showed no greater resstance to learnng general prncples of behavor than dd non-dogmatc.s. However, dogmatc.s were more resst- ant to changng specfc false belefs about human nature than were non-dogmatc.s. The author concluded that the results support Rokeach's vew that the Dogmatsm Scale does measure

25 .. 18 general authortaransm, rather than smple-mndedness and ts r; consequent acquescence. t would now be well to consder the hypotheses whch are ndcated by these studes. On theoretcal grounds alone, t would seem reasonable to expect less opnon change among dogr: matc persons, for such persons, by defnton, adhere strongly j 'to ther opnons and are reluctant to change them. However, n addton to these t,heoretcal consderatons, a number of the ]emprcal,, studes whch ths wrter has already revewed " l<rokeaoh and Vdulch, 1960; Mller, 1965; and Costn, 1968) s ' justfy,, the followng hypothess: The greater an ndvdual's " g dogmatsm, the greater s hs resstance to opnon change. Dog- matsm Rokeach's n ths context refers to dogmatsm as measured by Dogmatsm Scale.,. 9 The Dogmatsm Scale s bascally a measure of authortar- ansm, and authortaran persons tend to be leader-orented. lths s a well"."'known fact, although t s brought out n only one of the studes whch have been revewed n ths secton (Zagona and Zucher, 1964). The followng hypothess can therefore be g lformulated: groups, The greater the dogmatsm of the members of small the greater s the ncdence of emergent leadershp n lthose groups. Leadershp wll emerge n hghly dogmatc groups ln response to the members' need for such leadersh.p.

26 ,,. 19 The -wrter would now lke to revew a number of studes to do wth the effects of homogenety vs. heterogenety, especally as regards productvty, morale, and conununcaton. 1 Exlne and Zller (1959) conducted a study of status l; congruency " n wth j and nterpersonal conflct n decson-makng groups. ths study, 20 groups of three female students were rated respect to status dmensons of ablty and votng power.,. tstatus-congruent (homogeneous) groups were found to be more con- ' f.: genal, characterzed by less nterpersonal conflct, superor n t1 f 'task performance, and characterzed by greater dscusson agree ment than status-ncongruent (heterogeneous) groups. Dsagreen "ment was not found to be related to status congruency.,, Hoffman (1950) conducted a study of homogenety of member personalty and ts effect on group probem solvng n ths study, the capacty to solve problems was studed n two groups, lone composed of..s wth smlar personaltes (as measured by the Gulford-Znunerman Temperament Survey), the homogeneous group,,, land a heterogeneous group. t was found that heterogenety of personalty was assocated wth hgh productvty. On the task j wth purely objectve crtera (mned road problem), Hoffman found that heterogeneous groups produced solutons of sgnf- 11 cantly hgher qualty. The dfference was not sgnfcant on the f; task prmarly requrng consensus. The author concluded

27 lthat the pro d uc t' on o f creatve. so 1 utons. to a facltated by a multplcty of perceptons. problem s.. The superorty lof heterogeneous groups has been further demonstrated n a second " 1, ) 1961 Festnger and Thbaut (1951) present some evdence that lstudy whch used a wder range of tasks (Hoffman and Maer, hperceptons of heterogenety lead to subgroup formaton. They ;' found that (wth low pressure toward unformty) a greater per- F, cepton the of heterogeneous group composton produced a decrease n tendency to communcate to devant group members. Gerard (1953) conducted a study whch was concerned wth fthe effects of varatons n perceved group homogenety wth respect to task ablty and pressures to help acheve a group,, ; k soluton on nfluence processes. n order to contrast homogenety wth heterogenety, members of some groups were nstructed that lall members had equal task sklls and members of other groups " that there were marked dfferences n member sklls. 20,, l Wthn each of these condtons, hgh and low pressures toward unformty were appled by nformng some but not other groups that they 1 would later have to defend ther group opnons. Groups were. compared n terms of opnon change and patterns of communcaton., Wth respect to number of communcatons and number of 11 nfluence 11 the data showed lttle consstent evdence of conununcatons, dfferences between groups varyng n perceved homogenety of

28 abltes and pressures toward unformty. A greater tendency toward the formaton of subgroups was found n groups perceved as beng heterogeneous. Schutz (1958) conducted a study havng to do wth "funda- mental nterpersonal relatons orentatons. 11 Schutz dstng- ushed two basc orentatons - a power orentaton and a personal ' orentaton. By means of atttude scales, Schutz was able to compose groups whch were ether compatble (homogeneous) or ncompatble (heterogeneous) wth respect to these fundamental nterpersonal orentatons. The compatble groups were ether power orentated or personal orentated. ncompatble groups 21 l were,l formed wth two subgroups, each of whch was centered about 'a "focal person. 11 Both focal persons were relatvely hgh n Rdomnance, but one subgroup leader and hs supportng member were llow n personalness, and the other subgroup members were hgh n lpersonalness. n general, Schutz found that ncompatble groups lperform less effectvely. Ths decrement was most severe for r, tasks g condtons whch requred the most nteracton and agreement and under of hgh tme pressure. n a study by Cattell, Saunders, and Stce (1953) 80 ten- r man,, groups were tested on a wde varety of tasks. t was found j that accuracy of group judgments was hgher n groups hetero geneous ' n the personalty trats of surgency, radcalsm,

29 , 22 l character ntegraton, and adventuresomeness. But n these same J arouos, ;J... sveness t "' of r. ':) heterogenety n senstvty, suspcousness, and aggres- resulted n slowness.n decson makng and a feelng blockage of goal achevement. n a study by Carter and Haythorn (1956) creatve groups whch were homogeneous and heterogeneous n authortaran r. Jatttudes ' were compared. The homogeneous groups, relatve to the f f.. heterogeneous groups, were ound to be rendler and to have r: ;hgher morale. The members of heterogeneous groups, conversely, 1 1 " were observed to exhbt more conflct and competton. A " f greater tendency toward clque formaton was also found n the 1;heterogeneous groups The clearest evdence for hgher morale n homogeneous lgroups s found n the studes of Exlne and Zller (1959) and carter and Haythorn (1956). and 11 n addton, the studes by Festgner Thbaut (1951), and Gerard (1953) found that heterogenety or perceptons of heterogenety lead to subgroup formaton, whch s ndcatve of lower group cohesveness and thus of lower morale. The followng hypothess can therefore by formulated: Morale s hgher n homogeneous groups than n heterogeneous groups. As regards homogenety and productvty, Exlne and Zller (l959) and Schutz (1958) found homogeneous groups to be more productve, whereas Hoffman (1959) and Hoffman and Maer (1961)

30 ' lfound heterogeneous groups to be more productve. Cattell, ' lsaunders, and Stce (1953) found that homogenety n certan t characterstcs leads to superor performance, and heterogenety n other characterstcs leads to superor performance. Because of the conflctng and ambguous fndngs (or at least the lack of clear-cut fndngs) n ths area, ths wrter has not formu- lated g relaton 1.. ths a hypothess concernng actual or perceved productvty n to group heterogenety. Heterogenety of power vs. homogenety of power s, n study, an absolute type of comparson, for there are no rpower dfferences at all wthn the homogeneous groups. Ths j tstudy s also concerned wth relatve comparsons between group 1 members j wth varyng amounts of power. More specfcally, ths study s concerned, n part, L th: (1). dogmatsm n relaton to the correlaton between amount of power and perceved amount of total communcaton, and (2) dogmatlsm n relaton to the correlaton between amount of 1power and perceved nfluence attempts. t would, therefore, be 11 well power to revew a number of studes havng to do wth amount of n relaton to communcaton and nfluence attempts. After lthese studes are revewed, consderaton wll be gven to the,1 possble effects of dogmatsm upon these relatonshps. "

31 A number of studes ndcate that hgh power persons com- 1 muncate more than do low power persons., Gerard (1957) found that Ss who were gven postons of l1eadershp and authorty communcated more than dd other _s. l Borgotta (1954) found that _s who thought they had hgh power-status (n ths case Ss who expected to receve socometrc choces from others) communcated more than persons who thought 5,, lthey had low power-status (n ths case _s who dd not expect to receve socometrc choces from others). Hurwtz, Zander, and Hymovtch (1953) conducted a study n N J whch persons receved a pre-conference ratng whch was com 1 ;pleted by two local people qualfed to estmate the status ' accorded these persons by persons n the same professon. t was 'l ratng, found that hgh power Ss, as determned by the pre-conference communcated more than low power Ss. d Lana, Vaughan, and McGnnes (1960) conducted a study of r leadershp and frendshp status as factors n dscusson group nteracton. n ths study, socometrc choces on frendshp l and leadershp crtera were made on members of two communty groups who engaged n three dscusson sessons concernng lmental health flms. were ndces of frendshp and leadershp status obtaned from these groups and related to an ndex of verbal N actvty, labeled nteracton status. Leadershp status and

32 : nteracton status were hghly correlated, as were leadershp status and frendshp status. Frendshp status and nteracton status, however, were not correlated. Those dscusson partcpants who were relatvely low n leadershp status drected ther comments to those members whom they dentfed as leaders. t was concluded that frendshp status does not nfluence an ndvdual's nteracton status wth the small dscusson group. t was further concluded that dscusson of a corrnnuncaton n jthe small group stuaton s largely confned to the perceved leaders of the group. tve 1 1 Mussen and Porter (1959) found that subjects rated effec- by ther peers after a bref leaderless dscusson were -characterzed by a hgh frequency of partcpaton., n an experment where the only corrnnuncaton was through wrtten letters, Shaw and Glchrst (1956) found a correlaton between number of letters wrtten and leadershp rankngs. Bates (1952) conducted a study of some socometrc aspects of socal rankngs n a small, face-to-face group. By means of questonnares, tape recordngs, and observaton, two hypotheses were tested. The concluson was that the greater the conformty of an ndvdual to group norms, the hgher wll be hs socal lrank. The other hypothess concernng the orgnaton of acton for others dd not lead to defnte conclusons. However, Bates

33 26 found a correlaton of.85 between the amount of corrununcatons sent and socometrc rankng on who 11 contrbuted the most to carryng out the assgned task of the group. 11 Borgotta and Bales (1956) found a correlaton of.so between smlar measures. t would now be well to consder a number of studes havng to do wth the relatonshp between amount of power and nfluence attempts. Levnger (1959) found that hgh power subjects ntated. more nfluence attempts than low power subjects. Three separate easures of power were used n ths study. Subjects who were told lt.at they were more competent than ther partners, subjects whose,', 1.:.nartner was more accept"ng of ther suggestons, and subjects who. ' ad hgh perceved power were rated by observers as makng more 'nfluence attempts and havng a hgher degree of assertveness than other subjects. French and Snyder (1959) conducted a study n whch n-

34 " t; '""'l found that hgh power non-com.ssoned offcers (n ths case, n more well-lked offcers) were ' r, cnon-corrunssone.. d 0 ff. cers. t' r, more nfluental than low power t s clear from the precedng studes that hgh power persons conununcate more than low power persons. Ths statement s supported by the followng studes: Gerard (1957), Borgotta l (1954), Hurwtz, Zander and Hymovtch (1953), Lana, Vaughan, and ;l.mcgnnes (1960), Mussen and Porter (1959), Shaw and Glchrst. (1956), Bates (1952), and Borgotta and Bales (1956).. Ths wrter l /would therefore expect a rather hgh postve correlaton between ount of power and amount of conununcaton. However, ths study r:s nvestgatng the perceved amount of conununcaton n relaton b to amount of power rather than the actual amount of connnuncaton 1n relaton to amount of power. (n order to avod confuson, t l t. should be ponted out that ths study uses two separate and. dstnct measures of conununcaton. One of these measures, the 1 perceved amount of conununcaton, and ths measure s beng 1dscussed here. The other measure of conununcaton measures the actual amount of conununcaton n order to determne the dstr- buton of partcpaton n the varous groups. Ths latter ' measure of communcaton, however, has nothng to do wth amount of power and s not beng dscussed here. n other words, t s lj 1 the subjectve rather than the objectve measure of communcaton whch s beng dscussed here.) 27 " rt '

35 Ths wrter beleves that there s a close but not neces- r ' fsarly perfect correspondence between actual and perceved amounts of communcaton,.e., he beleves that the subjects' perceptons lare, n ths case, relatvely accurate. f ths s true, then t would be expected that there would be a farly hgh postve cor- relaton between amount of power and perceved amount of total communcaton. r What s of nterest here, however, s the effect of dogmatsm upon ths relatonshp, and n ths wrter's.. there laton 28 opnon, s not suffcent emprcal evdence to warrant the f ormu of a hypothess concernng such an effect. Levnger (1959) found that hgh power subjects ntated ':more nfluence attempts than low power subjects; Lpptt et. al. r:(1952) found that subjects who were perceved as possessng hgh bower ntated more nfluence attempts than others; and French j 1and r Snyder (1959) found that hgh power subjects were more l nfluental than others, possbly due to the ntaton of more nfluence attempts. t would therefore seem reasonable to expect,, = la postve correlaton between amount of power and perceved f f 1 t h h b t 'amount o n uence attemp s, assumng agan t at t e su ]ec s f,perceptons are relatvely accurate. However, as was the case wth the conununcaton varable, there s not suffcent emprcal Lvdence to warrant the.formulaton of a hypothess concernng the effect of dogmatsm upon ths relatonshp. ' '

36 CHAPTER Method Sub-ects f. The subjects n ths study were 120 male students enrolled r, ln the ntroductory psychology course at the Lake Shore Campus of Loyola Unversty. The majorty were freshmen, although a nu.llber. were sophomores, junors, or senors, and most were 18 or 19 years:, ' ' of age. The desgn of ths study requrec prelmnary testng n {; 'larder to classfy each potental subject nto one of three levels f:. B (h. h d. ). ;,of dogmatsm g, me um, or low Accordngly, Rokeach s n. Dogmatsm Scale was admnstered to 258 male students enrolled n ::the ntroductory psychology course at Loyola Unversty. One group of subjects (the low dogmatsm subjects) was selected from ' among those students who scored n the lower thrd on the Dogrna- 1 tsm Scale; a second group of subjects (the medum dogmatsm subjects) was selected from among those students who scored n the. ddle thrd on the Dogmatsm Scale; and a thrd group of subjects 1 (the hgh dogmatsm subjects) was selected from among those r: students ' who scored n the upper thrd on the Dogmatsm Scale. Scores mddle f,: n the lower thrd ranged from -110 to -21; scores n the thrd ranged from -20 to +l; and scores n the upper thrd 29

37 ,,.---.,,,...,..._...,,._...,...,...,..,..._....,_...,...,._..,j ;1 kanged from +2 to +64. g and standard devatons 1. tested on the Dogmatsm all levels combned.,, Table presents the group szes, means, for the scores obtaned by students Scale for each level of dogmatsm and for The experment was set up n such a way that t appeared to the subjects to be three separate experments. Three sgn-up folders were used, each of the folders contanng an alphabetcal " hst of the students elgble to serve n that partcular exper- l,, t ' mental condton (whch was ether a hgh, medum, or low dogma- tsm condton, althogh t was, of course, not dentfed as -1 fjsuch to the subjects). From the student's pont of vew, each lst appeared to contan the names of students elgble for a '1 jpartcular experment rather than a partcular expermental con :d t " on. The restrctons specfed on the sgn-up folders were: 11(1) the student's name must be on the lst, and (2} each subject could partcpate n the experment only once. 11 Although, deally, t would have been desrable, for a tnumber of reasons, to have groups of equal sze, t was not fl 11 possble to accomplsh ths. t was therefore necessary to use 30 ' ' ' lgroups of three, four, or fve members, a stuaton whch was not "' deal but whch n no way volated the basc desgn of ths experment. n a number of cases, fewer than three students sgned up and reported to the expermental room for a gven

38 r:== l ;. N 1. ' TABLE 1 Means and Standard Devatons for Scores Obtaned by Students Tested on Rokeach's Dogmatsm Scale ; [) , Group Mean ; Low Dogmatsm f.,,,.. Medum.,.'1 Hgh Dogmatsm Dogmatsm t 1 Sample

39 32 : 1 expermental sesson, and t was not possble to run groups n " ;'such cases. A number of students (fewer.than 10% of the total) ':who reported to the expermental room were not elgble to par- l ltcpate n that partcular condton,.e., ther names dd not ['appear on the approprate lst. The expermenter was able to t 'dentfy and elmnate the majorty of these students. However, Ga post-expermental check revealed that two of the 120 subjects :jwho had served n the experment were not elgble for the partcular condton n whch they had served. Dogmatsm n summary, the score whch a subject receved on the Scale determned the condton to whch he was assgned (hgh, medum, or low dogmatsm condton), and the," partcular group n whch he served was determned by a process k " of " the ' 1,, " was j 11 ong random selecton. n regard to the heterogenety varable, assgnment of subjects to homogeneous or heterogeneous groups also determned by a process of random selecton. r, f Apparatus Table 2 presents the dstrbuton of groups and sub]ects the sx expermental treatments. t The apparatus used n ths experment was as follows: j (l) :1 lhu.an J ng The Dogmatsm Scale (used only n prelmnary testng), (2) a relatons problem, (3) a tape recorder, (4) sheets contan numbers from one to 300, (5) cards wth dentfyng letters

40 TABLE 2 Dstrbuton of Groups and Subjects among Expermental Treatments Treatments Groups Subjects 1 Heterogeneous. Hgh Dogmatsm l Medum Dogmatsm.Low Dogmatsm : j Homogeneous jhgh Dogmatsm Medum Low Dogmatsm Dogmatsm

41 '. r-.. land votes, and ( 6) a questonnare constructed by the exper- :. benter. The Dogmatsm Scale s descrbed n the appendx. The Dogmatsm Scale s scored smply by addng up the scores on the ndvdual tems to obtan a total score. T.hs 34 score may be ether postve or negatve. Snce each stataent H supposedly t' ne greater s the amount of dogmatsm, and the hgher the nega- g ndcatve of dogmatsm, the hgher the postve score, 1tve score, the lower s the amount of dogmatsm. The human relatons problem reads as follows: Sam, a student n the eghth grade, s, n the words of hs prncpal, "A bad case who s headed for the juvenle court." The prncpal would lke to expel Sam, but hestates to do so because Sam's father s nfluental n the town. The prncpal has tred everythng wth Sam called hm down, pleaded wth hm, made hm st n the offce wth hs face to the wall, used corporal punshment, called Sam's parents, and placed hm on probaton. Sam stll remans mpudent and truant. The prncpal has wrtten Sam's mother, askng her to come to the school to talk over Sam's behavor, but she phoned to say she s too busy and has no tme to bother wth hs school problems. Sam s at present on probaton. What should be done wth Sam? The followng are suggested solutons: A. Send Sam to a psychatrst, chld psychologst, or socal welfare counselor. B. Try to stmulate Sam toward goals whch mght gan hm greater acceptance. c. Try to get hs parents to realze the serousness of the stuaton. D. The whole famly should be sent to a psychatrst, psychologst, or socal welfare counselor. E. Attempt to determne why he s the way he s, and nsttute a campagn to correct the reason.

42 Cards wth the letters A, B, C, D, and E were placed n front of subjects n the homogeneous groups for purposes ' of den tfcaton. n the heterogeneous groups, the wrtng on the cards Las s follows: A-1 vote; B-2 votes, C-3 votes, D-4 votes, and b-5 votes. A tape recorder wth a counter was used to record the,.. roup dscussons. each Sheets contanng numbers from 1 to 300 were used durng group dscusson to record the nteracton of the subjects. After the group dscusson had ended, a questonnare constructed by the expermenter was admnstered to the subjects. 1 11The questonnare was as follows:, f:name bo. of votes j QUESTONNARE. Fnal ndvdual rankng. n,, Rank the solutons from best (1) to poorest (5). Ths s an ndvdual rankng rather than a group rankng and s smlar to the frst rankng, whch was completed pror to the dscusson. The purpose of ths rankng s to determne the effect of the group dscusson upon opnons. Soluton A B Rank

43 36 B. [1. ll fl strongly agree ' n t -- strongly dsagree d G Soluton c D E Rank ndcate the degree to whch you agree or dsagree wth the followng statements by checkng the approprate space. 1. was satsfed wth the group rankng. moderately agree mldly agree mldly dsagree moderately dsagree 2. was satsfed wth the group dscusson. moderately: dsagree mldly dsagree mldly agree moderately agree 3. The group dscusson could be descrbed as frendly. strongly dsagree strongly agree ;strongly dsagree t \ ; ---- strongly agree 8 : strongly dsagree moderately dsagree mldly dsagree mldly agree moderately agree 4. The group dscusson could be descrbed as hostle and antagonstc. moderately agree. mldly agree 5. The task bored me. moderately dsagree mldly dsagree mldly dsagree mldly agree moderately dsagree moderately agree strongly agree strongly dsagree strongly agree

44 r tstrongly agree " a strongly agree t k. ' ;1 moderately agree The task was enjoyable for me. mldly agree mldly dsagree moderately dsagree )j strongly dsagree 7. The task was meanngless nsofar as was concerned. moderately agree mldly agree mldly dsagree moderately dsagree strongly dsagree Was there some ndvdual n the group who could be descrbed as the leader of the group? (a) Yes (b) No. (Crcle the letter of the correct answer.) Rate all the members of the group (ncludng yourself) as to ther amount of communcaton (both verbal and nonverbal) by usng the followng scale A B No communcaton Very small amount of communcaton Small amount of communcaton Moderate amount of communcaton Large amount of communcaton Very large amount of comrruncaton c D How productve, n your opnon, was the group dscusson: (Check the approprate space.) extremely productve generally productve nether productve nor unproductve generally unproductve totally unproductve To what extent dd each member of the group try to exert pressure to force the other members to accept hs solutons? E

45 , , 1. Not at all 2. Slghtly 3. Somewhat 4. Qute a bt 5. Extremely Rate each of the group members (ncludng yourself) usng the above scale. A B c D E for t would now be well to consder the scorng procedures the questonnare and the measure of the dstrbuton of jpartcpaton. These procedures have reference only to the raw '. [;data; actual statstcal procedures are presented n a later t. secton. n regard to the tems measurng morale (the B tems), the r,more a response ndcated hgh morale, the. hgher the score t receved. Each response receved a score between one and sx. lfor example, f a subject checked "strongly agree" n response 11 the statement: was satsfed wth the group rankng," ths to response would receve a score of sx; the response "strongly dsagree" would receve a score of one, and ntermedate responses ft j 1 would receve ntermedate scores ( 2, 3, 4, or 5) For tems C (emergent leadershp), the number of "yes" \' responses was tabulated for each group and was dvded by the total j score f number of responses to ths queston n order to obtan a for each group.