F. Validation by Case Studies: the F-Scale Responses of Mack and Larry
The responses of Mack and Larry on the F scale may now be compared with their remarks in the interview. In Table 13 (VII) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group mean, and the D.P. for each of the 38 items in the F scale (Form 78), the items having been grouped according to the scheme of F-scale variables.
Table 13 (VII)
Responses of Mack and Larry on the F Scale (Form 78)
Group Group
(N = 295)
Conventionalism
12. (Modern church) 5 7 4.67 0.19
19. (One should avoid) 2 1 3.63 0.76
38. (Emphasis in the colleges) 5 2 3.91 1.20
55. (Leisure) 7 6 5.20 2.11
58. (What a man does) 6 1 3.48 1.70
60. (Important values) 5 5 4.17 1.60
Cluster mean 5.00 3.66 4.18 1.26
Authoritarian Submission
20. (Progressive education) 3 1 3.28 1.07
23. (Undying love) 6 7 3.62 2.61
32. (Essential for learning) 7 6 3.61 1.67
39. (Supernatural force) 1 1 3.97 2.54
43. (Sciences like chemistry) 1 2 4.35 2.79
50. (Obedience and respect) 6 2 3.72 3.09
74. (Tireless leaders) 2 1 5.00 1.66
77. (No sane, normal person) 6 5 4.12 2.12
Cluster mean 4.00 3.13 3.96 2.19
Authoritarian Aggression
6. (Women restricted) 2 1 2.93 1.75
23. (Undying love) 6 7 3.62 2.61
31. (Homosexuals) 6 6 3.22 2.16
47. (Honor) 5 2 3.00 2.09
75. (Sex crimes) 6 1 3.26 2.81
Cluster mean 5.00 3.40 3.21 2.28
Anti-intraception
28. (Novels or stories) 5 1 3.02 1.29
38. (Emphasis in colleges) 5 2 3.91 1.20
53. (Things too intimate) 3 5 4.82 1.99
55. (Leisure) 7 6 5.20 2.11
58. (What a man does) 6 1 3.48 1.70
66. (Books and movies) 6 2 4.10 2.48
Cluster mean 5.33 2.83 4.09 1.80
Superstition
2. (Astrology) 5 6 2.60 1.74
10. (Pearl Harbor Day) 1 1 2.22 2.20
39. (Supernatural force) 1 1 3.97 2.54
43. (Sciences like chemistry) 1 2 4.35 2.79
65. (World catastrophe) 1 1 2.58 1.55
Cluster mean 1.80 2.20 3.78 1.70
Power and »Toughness«
9. (Red-blooded life) 1 2 3.99 2.04
35. (Law in own hands) 1 1 2.50 1.42
47. (Honor) 5 2 3.00 2.09
70. (Plots) 7 2 3.27 1.65
74. (Tireless leaders) 2 1 5.00 1.66
Cluster mean 3.20 1.60 3.55 1.77
3. (Force to restore) 3 5 3.04 1.98
9. (Return to fundamentals) 1 2 3.99 2.04
14. (Rats ...germs) 6 5 4.44 1.60
17. (Familiarity) 3 1 3.33 1.86
24. (Things unstable) 5 5 5.01 0.79
30. (Reports of atrocities) 6 5 4.20 0.43
35. (Law in own hands) 1 1 2.50 1.42
42. (For one reason) 1 1 2.06 1.05
56. (Crime wave) 5 5 4.60 1.16
59. (Always war) 7 1 4.26 2.59
67. (Eye to profit) 7 3 3.71 2.21
Cluster mean 4.09 3.09 3.74 1.56
Projectivity
46. (Sex orgies) 5 2 3.64 2.11
56. (Crime wave) 5 5 4.60 1.16
65. (World catastrophe) 1 1 2.58 1.55
70. (Plots) 7 2 3.27 1.65
73. (Infection and disease) 5 1 4.79 2.02
Cluster mean 4.60 2.20 3.78 1.70
Sex
31. (Homosexuality) 6 6 3.22 2.16
42. (For one reason) 1 1 2.06 1.05
46. (Sex orgies) 5 2 3.64 2.11
75. (Sex crimes) 6 1 3.26 2.81
Cluster mean 4.50 2.50 3.05 2.03
Over-all meanb 4.31 2.95 3.71 1.80
a The group means and D.P.'s are based on all four groups taking Form 78 (see Table 3 (VII), note a).
b Over-all means are based on the sum of the 38 individual items, with no overlap.
The mean F-scale scores of the two men seem to be in keeping with the earlier observation that they do not represent the most extreme cases found in the study. Mack's mean score, 4.31, is just inside the high quartile for the group of Public Speaking Men in which he was tested; it is only slightly above the average score of the Working-Class Men (4.19) and well below that of the San Quentin Group (4.73). Larry's mean score, 2.95, is barely low enough to be included in the low quartile for the Public Speaking Men. It is, however, well below any of the group means obtained in the study.
Turning to the 9 variables within the scale, it may be noted that on 7 of them Mack's mean score is above the group mean. He deviates from the group most markedly in the case of Authoritarian Aggression. This is consistent with what was set down as one of the outstanding features of his interview, that is, his tendency to blame and to condemn on moral grounds a wide variety of individuals, groups, and agencies – F[ranklin] D[elano] R[oosevelt], the New Deal, the O.W.I., the Civil Service, in addition to various ethnic minorities. That homosexuals, sex criminals, those who insult »our honor,« and anyone who does not have undying love for his parents should be regarded in the same way is not surprising. It is to be noted, however, that he does not agree that »women should be restricted in certain ways.« This inconsistency may be interpreted in the light of the following quotation from the clinical section of his interview:18
»I hope to get married to the girl I'm going with now. She is an awfully nice companion. Most girls are interested only in a good time and want fellows with lots of money to spend. I didn't have the money for giving them a swell time. The girl I'm in love with now lived nine miles from me. She attended a rival high school. I dated her once in high school. When I got back from the army, I worked in a lumber mill. This girl had graduated from – and started teaching. Her uncle is the vice-president of the bank. I talked to him about buying an automobile that she was interested in. I looked it over for her, since I knew something about cars, and told her it was in good condition. I got started going with her that way. I found out that she wasn't interested in money, but was interested in me in spite of my discharge from the army, my poor health, and prospects. She's just very good – not beautiful, but a tremendously nice personality. She is French with some Irish in her. She has a nice figure and is very wholesome. When we get married depends on circumstances. It's quite a responsibility. She wants to get married now; she is teaching in –. I'm under the GI Bill. If I get assurance of four years in college. I might get married this spring. We're well suited; I know she's interested in me, because I have so little to offer. We're both at the proper age. I intend to work part time. I don't like her teaching; I like to support my wife. I've always had that idea. But maybe under the circumstances, that won't be fully possible. She is a good cook and that is an asset, what with my stomach condition. When I tell her that you approve of our marriage, she will be pleased, but, of course, I'm always a man to make my own decisions.«
It seems that Mack does believe that »a woman's place is in the home,« but was prevented by the logic of his situation at the time from saying so in his questionnaire.
Sex, Anti-intraception, Conventionalism, and Projectivity, in the order named, are the other variables on which Mack is well above the group mean. Sex was not mentioned in the interview protocol given in Chapter II.[19] The following quotation from the clinical part of Mack's interview may, however, throw some light on his responses to the Sex items in the scale:
(Where did you get your sex instruction?) »I never had any from my parents, though I did get some suggestions from my aunt; no real instruction. What I know I have picked up from reading. I've listened to men talk, but accepted little of it; I weighed it in the light of what I have read.«
(What was your first sex experience?) »It was in 1940–41, the aftermath of a New Year's party in Washington. There was liquor. I was always a backward boy.«
According to well-supported theory, it is precisely the kind of sexual inhibition and »backwardness« described here, and further expressed in the extreme conventionalism of the passage about plans for marriage, that lies behind the moralistic and punitive attitude toward the supposed sexuality of other people which is the main theme of the Sex items in the scale. The inconsistency seen in Mack's disagreement with the statement that »men are interested in women for only one reason« might be explained in the same way as was his response to Item 6 (Women restricted): agreement would contradict too sharply the facts of his present situation. It is to be noted, however, that the item (For one reason) has a very low group mean and a low D.P.
Mack's interview could serve well as a model of Anti-intraception. His emphasis upon practicality, efficiency, and diligence as ends in themselves, his tendency to ignore social and psychological determinants of human characteristics and human events, his failure to take into account possible inner sources of his opinions, the discrepancies between his expressed values and what appear to be his real motives, were outstanding features of his interview. The several Anti-intraception items of the F scale seem to have afforded him an excellent opportunity to express these same tendencies. An interesting discrepancy occurs in the case of Item 53 (Things too intimate), where his score of 3 is well below the group mean. This response is not very consistent with the pattern of values that he sets forth in his interview, but it seems quite consistent with what he does in the interview: as the above passage in which he discusses his approaching marriage well illustrates, he is able within the space of an hour to come to a rather free discussion of certain intimate matters with a stranger. True, his generally deferential behavior in the interview is probably an aspect of his Authoritarian Submission, but, more than this, there is a strong indication that however much Mack may assert his independence he is really a rather lonesome and troubled young man who would like to talk with someone who understood him.
One familiar with Mack's interview might have expected him to go higher on Conventionalism. One of his major reasons for rejecting so many groups is that they violate conventional values, and his positive evaluations of ingroups are in the same terms – honesty, charity, thrift, diligence, etc. His ideas about work and about love and marriage seem to be utterly conventional. True, his mean score for Conventionalism is as high as it is for any other variable save Anti-intraception, and one reason why he does not stand out more sharply from the group is that the group mean itself is high – higher than for any of the other variables. Furthermore, the Conventionalism items, as a group, were not very discriminating, the mean D.P., 1.26, being the lowest of those obtained for the several variables. Item 19 (One should avoid), on which Mack's score is below the group mean, does not discriminate between the high and low quartiles; that he should not agree with it seems consistent with his expressed value for independence. It is interesting that despite his rejection of religion in the interview, he refuses to criticize the modern church when invited to do so by Item 12. His conventionalism will not allow him to attack so well-established an institution.
From Mack's interview (Chapter II)[20] we inferred that one reason he accuses various groups and agencies of wishing to establish a closely cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup was that he wished to do the same thing himself; unable to justify such antisocial wishes, he sees them as existing not in himself but in the world around him. This is projectivity in a rather extreme form, and if Mack had not gone above the group mean on this variable, in his scale responses, we should have had to conclude that something was radically wrong with the scale. His score of 7 on Item 70 (Plot) seems perfectly in keeping with what he had to say about politics in his interview. His responses to Items 46 (Sex orgies) and 73 (Infection and disease) are consistent with the picture of sexual inhibition given above. That he is well below the group mean on Item 65 (World catastrophe) seems attributable to the value for hard-headed scientificness which he expressed both in his interview and in his response to items under the heading of Superstition. It is notable that his scientific »realism« does not insure that he keeps his feet on the ground when it comes to interpreting social events. (Indeed, it seems to have the opposite effect, and one might inquire if this is not generally true.)
Mack stands only slightly above the group mean on Destructiveness and Cynicism. This is a reminder of the fact that his interview leaves the impression of a relatively »mild case«; he makes no rabid statements, nor does he show any taste for violence. Attention to the individual items of the Destructiveness and Cynicism group shows that it is those pertaining to open or all-out aggression on which he scores at or below the mean, while he goes well above the mean on items that have to do primarily with cynicism. It is interesting to recall, in this connection, his outstandingly high score on Authoritarian Aggression. One might say that Mack cannot express aggression directly unless it is done in the name of some moral authority or unless it is against some group that has been rejected on moral grounds.
It might be suggested that another way in which Mack handles aggression is by means of cynicism. There was certainly no want of cynicism in his interview – the bureaus grab power, the civil servants think only of themselves, Roosevelt selfishly seeks a fourth term, etc. – and he obtains top scores on the items most expressive of this trend: 30 (Reports of atrocities), 59 (Always war), 67 (Eye to profit). This is, of course, hypothesizing that Mack has unconscious aggressive tendencies which are projected onto human nature and the world. Something like a high-water mark in cynicism is reached by Mack when he agrees, rather emphatically, with both Item 30 (Reports of atrocities are exaggerated) and Item 48 (Germans and Japs should be wiped out) of the E scale: in agreeing with the former he is saying that the Germans were not as bad as they were pictured; in agreeing with the latter he is saying that nevertheless we ought to wipe out as many of them as possible.
On the strength of Mack's interview, we should expect him to obtain one of his highest mean scores on Authoritarian Submission. Glorification of such ingroup authorities as General Marshall, the War Department, the big capitalists, and God as »strictly a man,« was one of the interview's outstanding features. Yet his scale score on this variable (4.0) is at the group mean. Consideration of the items which pertain to this variable can effect some reconciliation of scale and interview, but it also reveals certain weaknesses in the Form 78 scale. The items on which Mack scores well above the mean – 23 (Undying love), 32 (Essential for learning), 50 (Obedience and respect), and 77 (No sane, normal person) – are those which express Authoritarian Submission in its purest form: three of them have to do with family loyalty and the third with authoritarian education. When it comes to the items which have to do with religion, however – 39 (Supernatural force) and 43 (Sciences like chemistry) – and in which ideas and feelings first experienced, presumably, in relationships with parents are now represented on a cosmic plane, his value for the objective-scientific comes to the fore and his scores are as low as they could be. One might say that Mack's submissive tendencies are insufficiently sublimated to permit their expression in abstract religious terms; the forces which are important for him are more tangible; they have concrete existence either in men or in physical objects. In this light, it is surprising that he does not agree with Item 74 (Tireless leaders). This item, be it noted, has a very high group mean and a relatively low Discriminatory Power. It seems likely that for some of the truly submissive subjects, like Mack, the item is too open, comes too close home, so that in responding they go contrary to their strongest feeling, while the great majority of the subjects, for whom the item was not emotionally involving, responded in accordance with the element of objective truth in the statement. Rephrasing of this item in later forms seems to have improved it by minimizing the rational aspect and by putting the emphasis more squarely on leadership. Another poor item, it seems, is 20 (Progressive education). Liberals and potential fascists alike, very probably, are attracted by the word »progressive.« That Mack is no real supporter of progressive education is attested to by his enthusiastic endorsement of Item 32 (Essential for learning) which is about as clear a statement of educational reactionism as could be found.
Mack is below the group mean on the rather unsatisfactory Power and »Toughness« cluster. All the items of this cluster have been discussed above. The correspondence between interview and scale lies in the fact that in neither place does he show any strong inclination to be a tough and aggressive fellow. It is in his admiration for power and in his willingness to submit to it, rather than in any wish to be an aggressive leader, that his potentiality for fascism lies.
Enough has been said about Mack's extraceptive outlook, as seen both in his interview and in the scale responses discussed above, so that his very low score on Superstition is no more than is to be expected. The surprising thing, perhaps, is that he should agree with Item 2 (Astrology), when the great majority of the subjects do not. His agreement here suggests that his relative lack of superstition is not based upon a genuine identification with science as a way of life, but rather upon his general need to appear hard-headed and realistic and unlikely to be »taken in.«
In general, there is rather close correspondence between Mack's interview and his scale responses. Discrepancies appear chiefly when the scale, which concentrates upon things thought to be generally significant, fails to catch something which is relatively specific and unique, and, more commonly, when the particular scale item is deficient and fails to discriminate between high and low scorers. There is reason to believe that the latter difficulty has been largely overcome in the revisions of the scale.
Turning to a consideration of Larry's case, it may be noted first, that he scores below the group mean on all the F scale variables save one, Authoritarian Aggression. He deviates most widely from the mean, in the low direction, on Power and »Toughness,« Projectivity, and Anti-intraception; then come Superstition and Authoritarian Submission; and he comes close to the mean on Destructiveness and Cynicism, Sex, and Conventionalism.
Less can be said about the relative lack of these tendencies in Larry than about their operation in Mack. Larry agrees with none of the statements in the Power and »Toughness« cluster, and this accords with the interview's picture of him as a rather soft and agreeable young man. He agrees with only one of the Projectivity statements, Item 56 (Crime wave), and even here his score is barely above the group mean on a statistically poor item. His lack of this tendency was commented upon in the discussion of his interview, where his willingness to admit his – not too lofty – motives and his inclination to find the origins of his own views were noteworthy. A low score on Anti-intraception is certainly to be expected from a man who gives considerable attention to his own feelings, makes a positive value of pleasure, says he likes to »philosophize,« and discusses psychological determinants of prejudice – as Larry did in his interview. Inconsistencies appear in the case of Items 55 (Leisure) and 53 (Things too intimate), where he goes somewhat above the mean; the former may be taken as an expression of his conventionality, while the latter would appear to be connected with his special problem – »that disease« (tuberculosis) that he had.
There was nothing in Larry's interview to suggest that he was superstitious and, hence, it is to be expected that he should obtain a low score on the Superstition variable. Why he should agree with the astrology item is a question. Perhaps it should not be surprising to find an element of mysticism in this weak and rather passive character. Authoritarian Submission was rather prominent in Larry's interview. He made it clear that he has a great deal of respect for his family and that he has had little occasion to rebel against them either in deed or in thought. That he is still below the mean makes it clear that in order to be high on this variable something more than ordinary respect for proper authority is required: the submission must be exaggerated or overdone, and it must be generalized to include other objects besides family members. Two of the three items on which Larry goes above the mean – 23 (Undying love) and 77 (No sane, normal person) – refer specifically to ingroup feelings in regard to the family; the third, 32 (Essential for learning), gives him an opportunity to express his conventionality.
Larry is below the group mean on Destructiveness and Cynicism, but the naive optimism and friendliness toward the world which he showed in his interview is enough to raise the question of why he is not still lower. One thing to note is that the items on which he goes up have, in general, high group means and low D.P.'s. It seems that these items approach close enough to being clichés so that most people agree with them, and Larry is enough of a conformist to go along.
In connection with Larry's score on Sex, which is .55 below the group mean, the following quotation from the clinical section of his interview is enlightening.
(Sex?) »No great problem. I thought about girls all the time, as boys will, and I looked at them. I started out with them at about 15. I liked them a lot and associated with them at school and in the neighborhood. You know, you have the usual sexual desires, but you don't let them bother you.«
(Sex morals?) »I feel a girl should remain a virgin until 21 or 22 anyway. If she expects to marry soon after that, she should wait until after marriage, but if she is a career girl or doesn't want to get married, then an affair with an unmarried man is OK if they keep it quiet and secluded so the moral standards of others are not lowered. She should pick out one fellow to have a sex relation with, not carry on with several.«
(You?) »Not until after I came out of the hospital, when I was 23 or 24. Since then I've had several affairs, lasting a few weeks or a month. I won't marry until I have more security. She almost has to be a virgin, though not necessarily. I lost respect for the women I slept with. I know that's selfish, but I guess that's the way most fellows are.«
Although this is conventional enough – »the way most fellows are,« as Larry says – it does not bespeak the kind of inhibition which we conceive to lie behind high scores on the Sex items. Actually, Larry's score on this variable would have been very low were it not for his score of 6 on Item 31 (Homosexuality). It is possible that he is not free of worry in this area – but this is a matter that had best be left until it is time to discuss the clinical material itself.
Enough has been said about Larry's conventionalism to make it appear reasonable that he should be close to the mean on this variable. A problem is presented by the fact that he is actually above the mean on Authoritarian Aggression. True, his score is still far below that of Mack, but Larry's interview gave the impression of a young man who would hardly want to punish anybody, and it is a criticism of the scale that it fails to confirm this impression. The two items on which his score goes up are 31 (Homosexuals), which was discussed above, and 23 (Undying love). This latter item, though it has an element of punishment in it, also expresses Authoritarian Submission, and Larry's response is probably to be explained on the basis of his family loyalty. The group means and D.P.'s of the Authoritarian Aggression items are, relatively, quite satisfactory. It seems that in regard to the present variable, the F scale was not a fine enough instrument to give the true picture in Larry's case.
The differences between Larry and Mack seem to be reflected fairly well in their F-scale responses. Mack scores higher than Larry on all the variables save one, Superstition. Mack is more than 2 points higher on Anti-intraception, Projectivity, and Sex, more than 1 point higher on Power and »Toughness,« Authoritarian Aggression, and Conventionalism, and 1.00 and .87 higher, respectively, on Destructiveness and Cynicism, and Authoritarian Submission. It is particularly interesting that the variables which are most differentiating, that is, Anti-intraception, Projectivity, and Sex, are those which seem to be at the greatest distance from the overt content of fascist ideology. They are variables that seem to have their sources deep within the personality and to be relatively impervious to superficial changes in the external situation. It will remain for later chapters to show that as we go deeper into the person the differentiation between high and low scorers becomes more clear-cut and dependable.