Racial Prejudice and Personality Scales: An Alternative Approach

In the analysis of data from a college sample, the validity of the Authoritarian Personality Theory of racial and ethnic prejudice is questioned, and thus, through this, the psychologistic approach to the study of social attitudes. A rigorously sociologistic approach is shown to be a better predictor of variations in the data than the Authoritarian thesis, even for the covariations between F-scale scores and scores on two different prejudice scales. The importance of differential learning for understanding variations in racial prejudice is stressed. EW issues in the field of social psychology, or in sociology, are more vexing than the relative importance of social and psychic factors in the formation of attitudes. The issue, it is true, seldom arises wlheln the problem deals with variable attitudes among separate and distinct cultures. On the other hand, when the problem deals with variations among individuals from the same culture the issue almost invariably intrudes itself. The field of study then becomes an arena of battle between psychic drive and cultural norm, personality need and social expectation. Here and there one may see a clear victor emerging, but the more frequent vista of thrust and counter-thrust has inspired the conclusion that there can be no single victor. Rather, it is inferred, there should be no battle at all, and any differences of opinion should and could be settled by conversations betweein colleagues. It is not the purpose of this paper to elaborate the "compromise" position. Rather than viewing the conflict as an out-worn luxury, this paper enters the field as a combatant. It is our argument that the conflict is too deep and fundamental to admit of any compromises which leave untouched the essential claims of each position. Because the conflict is so fundamental, we must either choose one alternative and reject the other or we must reject both. We cannot incorporate into one conception two positions which are mutually contradictory. The thesis will be developed by the analysis of a specific problem. In this framework data from a questionnaire designed explicitly for this purpose will be the basis of a re-examination of the "Authoritarian Personality" explanation of individual variations in racial and ethnic prejudices. More explicitly, it is the specific thesis of this paper that a considerably more efficient explanation of racial and ethnic prejudice can be designed than the authoritarian explanation, either in its original 1950 versionl or in its later more tempered form.2 Of necessity, the bulk of the paper will be devoted to the data bearing on the specific question of racial and ethnic prejudice. Besides its justification in its own right, the concentration on prejudice will be the vehicle for pointing up the more general issue. WHICH THEORY OF PREJUDICE? Since its publication in 1950, The Authoritarian Personality has been reviewed, rewarded, and reviled. A decade later the consensus 1 T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.) 2 Gordon W. Allport, The Natture of Prejudice (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954) : Arnold Rose, "Intergroup Relations vs. Prejudice: Pertinent Theory for the Study of Social Change," Social Problems, IV (October 1956), 173-176; Thomas F. Pettigrew, "Personality and Sociocultural Factors in Intergroup Attitudes: A Cross-National Comparison," Co,jflict Resoluttion, II (March 1958), 29-42; George E. Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities (New York: Harper and Brothers, Revised Edition, 1958) ; James G. Martin and Frank R. Westie, "The Tolerant Personality," American Sociological Review, 24 (August 1959), pp. 521-528; Thomas F. Pettigrew, "Regional Differences in Anti-Negro Prejudice," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59 (July 1959), pp. 28-36; and Harry C. Triandis and Leigh Minturn Triandis, "Race, Social Class, Religion, and Nationality as Determinants of Social Distance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61 (July 1960), pp. 110-118. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.91 on Wed, 21 Sep 2016 05:32:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms RACIAL PREJUDICE AND PERSONALITY SCALES 45 among social psychologists appears to be that some measure of its thesis can be accepted even though some of the more extreme versions of the original have been rejected. Subsequent research may have stressed cultural and social variations,3 or suggested other psychological or quasi-psychological factors as alternatives to authoritarianism,4 but the value of personality factors as an explanation of preju-