PERSONALITY PROFILES AND DOGMATISM I N UNDERGRADUATE TEACHER EDUCATION STUDENTS

a. ROBERT WARD CLAUDE H. CUNNINGHAM MARY LUE SUMMERLIN

University oj Houston Houston Independent School District University of Houstorc

A sample of 435 junior education majors in a large Southwestern university were given the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and the 0 inion Scale. Correlations were computed between these two scales, and a pro&e of person- ality factors was developed which defined the nature of authoritarianism or dogmatism. A step-wise multiple regression analysis revealed that an accurate prediction formula for dogmatism could not be developed from the personality factor scores. Implications for teacher education programs include research to determine if treatment programs can be developed to change a student’s degree of dogmatism, and the importance of screening procedures which include an assessment of open-mindedness.

A measure of authoritarianism can be a valuable tool for evaluating teacher education majors. Research indicates that authoritarian personalities often gravi- tate toward t,he ministry, military, politics, police work, and teaching, the primary purpose being to exercise power for personal gratification (Gregory, 1955). An authoritarian teacher frequently perceives a classroom and his/her position in it as a source of almost unlimited power (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). According to Fromm (1941), the mere sight of a powerless person makes the authoritarian person want to attack, dominate, or humiliate. Such a person would quite likely lack the capacity for providing children with support, warmth, and acceptance in a teaching situation. Data from a scale measuring authoritarianism or dogmatism would provide pertinent information for education majors during a personality assessment evaluation.

The purpose of this study was to develop a profile of “personality factors’’ which may better define the nature of authoritarianism or dogmatism. The benefits to students receiving this feedback would include the opportunity of working with any aspect of their profile which they might feel would be important in becoming a more effective teacher.

METHOD Sample and Instrumentation

The subjects in this study were 435 junior education majors from the College of Education a t the University of Houston; approximately 80% were female. These students were given the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) and the Opin- ion Scale (0s). The OS included Form E of Dogmatism and the Locus of Control Scale. Correlations were computed between the 16PF and the Opinion Scale. A pro- file of personality factors highly related to dogmatism was developed. A multiple regression analysis (Kelly, Beggs, bf cNeil, Eicheberger, & Lyons, 1969) was com- puted to determine if a measure of dogmatism could be derived from the 16PF alone, thereby negating the necessity of administering the Opinion Scale.

The 16PF (Cattell, 1973) is a self-report inventory designed to assess major personality dimensions. These dimensions were derived through factor analysis of over 100 components related to personality, each independent of all others. Cattell

Requests for reprints should be sent to G. Robert Ward, Dept. of Counselor Education, Univer- sity of Houston, Houston, TX 77004.

33

34 Psychology in the Schools, January , 1978, Vol. 16, No. 1.

(1965) has defined these scales in bipolar terms which he regards as the “source traits” of normal personality structure. The reliability coefficients for the 16 factors on Form C range from .67 to .86 on a test-retest with a two- to seven-day interval when correlated with Form D on 150 undergraduate male and female American students.

The items of the Dogmatism Scale (DS), developed by Rokeach in 1960, have been interspersed with the external items from the Locus of Control scale developed by Rotter in 1966. Kleiber, Veldman, and Menaker (1973) interspersed the external items in order t.o better disguise the purpose of the Dogmatism Scale. With the addition of the external items, the instrument was renamed the Opinion Scale. The present study concentrated on only the original 40 items of the DS. Thus, for the purpose of clarity, the authors will refer to this instrument as the Dogmatism Scale

Rokeach (1960) reports split-half reliability coefficients ranging from .68 to .93. Item analysis has shpwn that high and low dogmatic subjects differ consistently and significantly on the mqjority of the items. Correlations and comparisons among various groups with variables such as geographic area, age, and education are pre- sented and support the statement that DS, Form El does in fact measure dog- ma.tism.

(DS) *

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The correlations between 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire and Dogmatism

Scale showed 11 of the 16 factors to be significant a t the .05 level; 9 were significant a t the .01 level. (See Table 1.) The differentiating factors on the 16PF with a posi- tive correlation a t the .01 level of significance were .35 (N) Shrewdness, forthright vs. shrewd; .35 (0) Guilt proneness, placid vs. apprehensive; .28 (L) Paranoid suspiciousness, trusting vs. suspicious; 2 6 (Q4) Ergic tension, relaxed vs. tense; and .18 (G) Superego Strength, expedient vs. conscientious. The differentiating factors with a negative correlation a t the .01 level of significance were -.21 (C) Ego strength, affected by feelings vs. emotionally stable; -.18 (H) Adventurousness, shy vs. venturesome; - .17 (I) Sensitive, tough-minded vs. tender-minded; and - .14 (Q1) Radical, conservative vs. experimenting.

An examination of the correlation coefficients between the 16PF scores and the Dogmatism scores calls attention to t,he relative importance of particular per- sonality characteristics. The relevance of these factors involves not only differences between open-minded students vs. closed-minded students, but also the magnitude of their scores relative to the norms. The open-minded student appears to be forth- right, placid, trusting, relaxed, expedient, emotionally stable, venturesome, tender- minded and experimenting. This student would be able to evaluate and act on information independently. The closed-minded student is shrewd, apprehensive, suspicious, tense, conscientious, affected by feelings, shy, tough-minded and con- servative. This student would need to be exposed to pressures, rewards, and punish- ments in order for him/her to evaluate and act on this information. This type personality would probably benefit from working with a counselor in attempting to resolve a potential problem or need conflict.

The significant correlations between the 16PF and the Dogmatism raised the question of whether scores on the Dogmatism could be estimated from those sig-

Personality ProJiles and Dogmatism 35

TABLE 1. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DOGMATISM AND THE 16 PERSONALITY FACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE

Variables Correlation Coefficient

A B C E F G H I L M N 0 Qi

Q2

Qs

Q4

Sociable Intelligence Ego Strength Dominance Surgency Superego Strength Adventurousness Sensitive Paranoid Suspiciousness Unconcerned Shrewdness Guilt Proneness Radical Self-sufficiency Self-sentiment Control Ergic Tension

- .09 .lo*

- .21** .07

- .03 .18**

- .18** - .17**

.28** - .lo*

,35** .35**

- .14** . 08

- .03 .26**

N = 435 * p <.05 **p <.01

nificant factors from the 16PF. A step-wise multiple regression analysis was com- puted.

These results show 12 factors from the 16PF which were significant with the Dogmatism score. The amount of variance in the dependent variable, i.e., dogma- tism, explained by the inclusion of the 12 independent variables, i.e., personality factors, in the regression equation was determined to be statistically significant with an F ratio of 14.11 ( p <.01) (Kelly, et. al. 1969, p. 61). From the 12 factors of the 16PF and the dogmatism score, the authors selected 10 factors with dogma- tism to be presented in the following prediction equation:

Dogmatism = 98.47 + (2.12) (B) - (.70) (C) + (.30) (E) + (2.22) (G) - (.59) (H) - (1.09) (I) + (3.18) (L) - (.98) (M) + (2.21) (N) + (1.46) (0)

The multiplying weights in the equation are for use with the raw scores on the 16PF. When this equation was applied to the 435 students in the sample, it gave rise to a mean estimated score of 144.30, with a standard deviation of 25.58. A multiple correlation of .53 with the actual Dogmatism scores was established. Even though this relationship is significant, the multiple correlation of .53 was considered to be too low to try to predict an individual’s score from the 16PF. It was ascer- tained from the present study that an accurate prediction formula could not be developed from the personality factor scores.

In conclusion, this study indicates that a profile of personality factors can be developed from the 16PF which defines the nature of dogmatism. Additionally, it

36 Psychology in the Schools, January, 1978, Vol. 16, No. 1.

was ascertained that an accurate prediction formula for dogmatism could not be developed from the personality factor scores.

The findings in this study have implications in developing a teacher education program. According to Kemp (1962), dogmatism is seen as a relatively stable frame- work for perceiving, thinking, and relating. Further research pertinent to education programs should be investigated to determine if treatment programs can be devel- oped to change a student’s degree of dogmatism. If such programs are found to be effective in developing open-mindedness in education majors, then such education programs should incorporate these methods into their curriculum. However, if this type research proves ineffective in changing the degree of open-mindedness, then the selective process for students applying to education programs should be scruti- nized through careful screening procedures t o determine their degree of dogmatism.

REFERENCES ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK, E., LEVINSON, 0. J., & SANFORD, R. N.

CATTELL, R. B. CATTELL, R. B. FROMM. E. Escape from freedom. New York: Rinehart. 1941.

The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950.

The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965. Personality and mood by questionnaire. Washington : Jossey-Bass, 1973. - I -

GREGORY, W. E. Aut,horitarianism and authority. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 61, 641-643.

KELLY, T. J., BEGGS, D. L., MCNEIL, K. A., EICHEBERGER, T., & LYONS, J. Research in behavioral

KEMP, C. G. Influence of dogmatism on the training of counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

KLEIBER, D., VELDMAN D. J., & MENAKER, S. L. The multi-dimensionality of locus of control.

ROKEACH, M. ROTTER, J. B.

science multiple regression approach. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press, 1969.

1962, 9, 155-157.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 29, 411-416. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Bocks, 1960.

Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, Whole No. 609, 1-28.