Dogmatism Scale (Form E)

1. Abstract

The Dogmatism Scale (Form E), commonly designated as the D-Scale, is an iconic 40-item psychometric instrument constructed by social psychologist Milton Rokeach in 1960 to quantify individual differences in the openness or closedness of cognitive belief systems. Designed to overcome the ideological limitations of the California Authoritarianism Scale (F-Scale), the D-Scale operationalizes dogmatism as a generalized, content-independent cognitive structure characterized by authoritarianism, generalized intolerance, and closed-minded resistance to belief modification. The instrument conceptualizes belief architecture across three primary dimensions: the belief-disbelief dimension, the central-peripheral dimension, and the time-perspective dimension. Structurally, Form E represents the culmination of five successive developmental iterations (Forms A through E), refining an initial 57-item pool down to 40 unidirectional items scored on a 6-point bipolar scale without a neutral midpoint (ranging from −3 to +3, conventionally rescaled from 1 to 7 by adding a constant of 4, yielding total scores between 40 and 280).

Extensive normative and validation data obtained across diverse cohorts—including American undergraduate samples from Michigan State University, Ohio State University, and Purdue University, New York collegiate and veteran samples, as well as British university students and industrial automobile workers—demonstrate robust psychometric performance. The corrected split-half reliability coefficients for Form E range from .68 to .85 across university cohorts, with composite internal consistency estimates spanning .68 to .93 across international contexts, and longitudinal test-retest reliability establishing stability coefficients between .71 (5- to 6-month interval) and .84 (1-month interval). Construct validation using known-groups methodologies and cognitive problem-solving paradigms, notably the classic “Joe Doodlebug” synthesis task, confirms that the D-Scale effectively discriminates cognitive rigidity, compartmentalization of contradictory beliefs, and subservience to authority independent of political orientation. Form E remains the gold-standard operationalization of cognitive dogmatism in social, personality, political, and organizational psychology.

2. Keywords

Dogmatism Scale, Form E, Milton Rokeach, cognitive rigidity, open and closed mind, authoritarianism, belief-disbelief systems, intolerance, cognitive organization, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Dogmatism Scale was formulated, validated, and published by Milton Rokeach (1918–1988), an eminent American social psychologist renowned for his pioneering contributions to the empirical study of human values, belief structures, and cognitive organization. Born in Hrubieszów, Poland, Rokeach emigrated to the United States and completed his Ph.D. in psychology at the University of California, Berkeley in 1947 under the influence of the Berkeley social psychology group. During the development of the Dogmatism Scale throughout the 1950s, Rokeach served as Professor of Psychology at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan), later continuing his illustrious scholarly career at Washington State University and the University of Southern California. Inquiries regarding archival documentation of his psychometric scales and theoretical manuscripts are maintained within the psychological archives of Michigan State University and Basic Books historical collections.

4. Purpose

The primary impetus behind the development of the Dogmatism Scale was theoretical and methodological dissatisfaction with mid-twentieth-century instruments measuring authoritarianism, specifically the Authoritarian Personality framework and the F-Scale developed by Theodor Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford (1950). Rokeach recognized that the F-Scale operationalized authoritarianism almost exclusively through right-wing, fascist ideological content, effectively rendering it blind to authoritarian dynamics occurring within left-wing, communist, theological, or scientifically orthodox frameworks. Rokeach sought to formulate an instrument that decoupled the structure of belief systems from their specific ideological content. The ultimate purpose of the Dogmatism Scale is thus to quantify generalized cognitive closed-mindedness—measuring how an individual holds, organizes, and defends beliefs rather than what specific beliefs are held.

In empirical and applied settings, the D-Scale was designed to achieve several diagnostic, clinical, and experimental objectives:

• Cognitive Organization Assessment: To evaluate the degree to which an individual’s cognitive architecture is structurally insulated, compartmentalized, and resistant to newly introduced contradictory evidence.
• Generalized Intolerance and Authoritarianism: To identify generalized intolerance toward out-groups, dissenting ideological systems, and deviation from authority figures, transcending political, cultural, and sectarian boundaries.
• Information Processing and Problem-Solving: To predict individual capability in cognitive synthesis, paradigm shifting, and creative problem-solving under conditions requiring the abandonment of rigid, preconceived assumptions (e.g., the “Joe Doodlebug” problem).
• Organizational and Educational Dynamics: To examine teacher attitudes, instructional styles, managerial decision-making, and institutional resistance to structural change, as documented across decades of educational and administrative literature.
• Clinical and Counseling Research: To assess interpersonal rigidity, defensive self-aggrandizement, existential vulnerability, and dogmatic adherence to therapeutic or maladaptive coping strategies.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the Dogmatism Scale is the Open and Closed Mind, conceptualized as a structural spectrum governing how human beings process reality, organize ideology, and interface with authority. Rokeach postulated that all cognitive systems are organized into hierarchically interconnected belief-disbelief configurations. In a closed (dogmatic) system, cognitive boundaries are rigid, authority is absolute, disbelief subsystems are undifferentiated and vilified, and the external world is perceived as an inherently threatening environment. The construct comprises three structural dimensions manifested across distinct psychological regions:

1. The Belief-Disbelief Dimension

This dimension delineates how an individual’s accepted beliefs relate to alternative systems they reject. It consists of four fundamental structural characteristics:

• Isolation Within and Between Beliefs: Closed systems demonstrate pronounced compartmentalization. High dogmatics can simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs without experiencing cognitive dissonance because the contradictory elements are segregated in isolated cognitive compartments (Items 2 and 3). Furthermore, absolute distinctions are drawn between accepted belief systems and rejected disbelief systems (Item 1).
• Differentiation of the Disbelief System: Open minds possess rich, nuanced knowledge regarding viewpoints they do not endorse. Conversely, closed minds exhibit an undifferentiated perception of disbelief systems, viewing all alternative doctrines as identically false and homogenous (Item 4).

2. The Central-Peripheral Dimension

This core dimension represents the psychological depth and functional interdependence of an individual’s belief structure, arranged hierarchically from primitive foundations to intermediate authority structures and peripheral beliefs:

• Primitive Beliefs: Unconscious, pre-ideological axioms regarding the physical and social nature of the universe. In dogmatic minds, primitive beliefs center on profound existential dread, viewing humanity as intrinsically isolated, helpless, and untrustworthy in an alarming and hostile world (Items 5, 6, 7, 8). Primitive beliefs also embody severe anxiety regarding temporal uncertainty (Items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) and profound underlying feelings of self-inadequacy, masked by defensive self-aggrandizement and compensatory fantasies of historical greatness (Items 14, 15, 16, 17).
• Intermediate Beliefs (The Authority Region): Beliefs regarding the nature of authority and trusted sources of knowledge. Closed minds exhibit absolute submission to centralized authority figures, viewing trusted leaders as infallible conduits of reality while rejecting intermediate consensus (Items 18, 19). They demand fanatical, uncompromising devotion to a single, monolithic “Cause” (Items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26) coupled with acute, punitive intolerance toward non-believers and renegades who deviate from group doctrine (Items 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33).
• Peripheral Beliefs: Specific attitudes, derived beliefs, and opinions acquired through authority conduits. In dogmatic individuals, peripheral beliefs are tied directly to authority dictate rather than empirical evidence, making the individual prone to abrupt “party-line changes” whenever authority figures alter the doctrine (Items 34, 35), accompanied by perceptual narrowing and rejection of diverse perspectives (Item 36).

3. The Time-Perspective Dimension

The temporal orientation of the belief system reflects how past, present, and future are integrated. High dogmatism is characterized by a disrupted time perspective wherein the present is devalued, perceived as intolerable or miserable, and subordinated entirely to an idealized, distant future or mythologized past. The individual views the future as deterministic, predictable, and worth achieving through extreme, all-or-nothing sacrifices (Items 37, 38, 39, 40).

6. Theoretical Framework

Rokeach’s theoretical framework synthesizes principles from Gestalt psychology, Kurt Lewin’s topological field theory, and cognitive personality psychology, deliberately distancing itself from the classical psychoanalytic drive theories underpinning the Authoritarian Personality. Rokeach posited that belief systems serve two fundamental, conflicting psychological functions simultaneously: the cognitive need to know and understand reality, and the ego-defensive need to ward off threat, dread, and existential anxiety.

When threat is low, the cognitive need to know dominates, fostering an open mind characterized by flexible perceptual boundaries, receptivity to novel inputs, reliance on internal criteria for evaluation, and the capacity to synthesize disparate information objectively. Conversely, when internal or external threat is chronically elevated, the defensive need to ward off anxiety becomes preeminent. Under threat, the cognitive apparatus constructs rigid boundaries, relying entirely on external authority figures to dictate reality, compartmentalizing contradictions, and narrowing the perceptual field. Dogmatism is thus theoretically formulated as an overarching cognitive defense mechanism engineered to protect a vulnerable ego against perceived helplessness, isolation, and chaotic environmental complexity.

A crucial theoretical axiom of Rokeach’s model is the distinction between ideological content and cognitive structure. Two individuals holding radically opposing ideological beliefs (e.g., an orthodox religious fundamentalist and an uncompromising militant atheist, or a far-right nationalist and an extreme far-left revolutionary) may possess structurally identical, closed belief systems. Both display cognitive compartmentalization, absolute reliance on authority, black-and-white dichotomization between “the truth” and “falsehood,” and fierce intolerance toward apostates. By focusing on structural organization rather than semantic content, Rokeach established a generalized, content-independent paradigm of authoritarian thinking.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical studies have evaluated the construct, concurrent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Dogmatism Scale (Form E) across diverse populations.

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

Rokeach established initial construct validity through a series of known-groups investigations. In an initial validation attempt, university professors nominated graduate students considered to be exceptionally high or low in dogmatism; however, empirical divergence on Form E failed to reach statistical significance, a finding Rokeach attributed to professors observing students primarily in structured academic contexts rather than informal, ideologically revealing environments. In a subsequent, highly controlled study, psychology graduate students nominated peers whom they knew intimately in both professional and social settings as “most dogmatic” or “least dogmatic.” In this validation sample, Form E demonstrated substantial, statistically significant discriminative power between the nominated groups (p < .01), confirming its sensitivity to behavioral manifestations of dogmatic cognitive structures.

Experimental and Criterion Validity: Cognitive Synthesis

To demonstrate that the D-Scale predicts cognitive functioning independent of general intelligence, Rokeach subjected high- and low-dogmatic participants to the novel “Joe Doodlebug Problem”—a complex, non-ideological problem-solving task requiring participants to overcome established mental sets regarding movement and spatial logic. The task specifically required the synthesis of new beliefs rather than the mere analytical deduction of existing rules. High-dogmatic individuals required significantly more time and exhibited greater cognitive inertia before solving the problem compared to low-dogmatic individuals, confirming that closed-mindedness hampers real-time cognitive restructuring even when tasks are devoid of political, cultural, or religious themes.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Subsequent psychometric investigations have systematically mapped the convergent and discriminant associations of Form E:

• Relationship with Authoritarianism (F-Scale): Form E exhibits moderate to strong positive correlations with the California F-Scale (typically ranging between r = .50 and r = .75), demonstrating that while both scales capture authoritarian intolerance, the D-Scale captures variance across individuals who score low on right-wing authoritarianism yet exhibit cognitive rigidity.
• Anxiety and Neuroticism: Demonstrating theoretical alignment with Rokeach’s threat-defense postulate, Form E correlates positively with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (ranging from r = .35 to .60) and neuroticism dimensions on standardized personality inventories.
• Cognitive Complexity: Form E correlates negatively with measures of cognitive complexity (such as Bieri’s grid) and tolerance of ambiguity, confirming its role as an indicator of structural simplicity in interpersonal construal.

8. Reliability

The psychometric stability and internal consistency of the Dogmatism Scale were evaluated across successive iterative versions (Form A through Form E) and across heterogeneous demographic, occupational, and national samples.

Internal Consistency and Split-Half Reliability

In initial developmental stages, Form A yielded a corrected split-half reliability of .70, while Form B achieved .75. Form C demonstrated lower internal consistency than anticipated, prompting the creation of Form D, which expanded the pool with 30 new items and attained a corrected reliability of .91. Through rigorous item-total correlation and item-discrimination analyses, 26 items were removed from Form D to yield the streamlined 40-item Form E.

For Form E, empirical reliability evaluations across diverse adult and collegiate samples demonstrated consistent internal consistency:

• American Collegiate Samples: Across six distinct college student cohorts spanning Michigan State University, Ohio State University, and Purdue University (N = 959), odd-even reliability coefficients corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula ranged from .68 to .85.
• New York Samples: Across 207 university students attending New York University and Brooklyn College, split-half reliabilities averaged .74 to .79.
• Cross-National College Sample: A sample of 217 British university students attending University College London and another UK university demonstrated a corrected reliability coefficient of .81.
• Industrial Working-Class Sample: In a sample of 60 British automobile factory workers, Form E yielded a corrected reliability coefficient of .78.
• Destitute Veteran Sample: In a sample of 121 destitute veterans in New York City, internal consistency was observed at .80.
• Overall Spectrum: Across the entirety of Rokeach’s developmental and field investigations, internal consistency and split-half reliability estimates ranged from .68 to .93.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability over time was established through longitudinal administrations:

• Over a 5- to 6-month longitudinal interval administered to 58 Ohio State University undergraduate students, the test-retest reliability coefficient was r = .71.
• Over a 1-month interval administered to a cohort of 17 destitute veterans, the test-retest reliability reached r = .84.

9. Factor Analysis

Although Rokeach designed Form E based on an intricate, multidimensional conceptual matrix consisting of three core dimensions and numerous sub-dimensions, the scale was intentionally constructed to yield a single composite score of generalized dogmatism. Subsequent multivariate factor analytic investigations have extensively examined whether the instrument represents a unidimensional construct or an aggregate of distinct latent components.

Early exploratory factor analytic (EFA) investigations conducted by researchers such as Plant, Telford, and Thomas (1965) and Pedhazur (1969) consistently demonstrated that the 40 items of Form E do not collapse into a single general factor. Instead, principal components analyses with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations routinely extract multiple factors, typically ranging between 4 and 14 distinct dimensions depending on extraction criteria and sample composition. Prominent recurring factors identified across psychometric literature (e.g., Vacchiano, Strauss, & Schiffman, 1969) include:

• Factor 1: Generalized Intolerance and Hostility: Marked by items expressing severe disdain for intellectual dissent, anger toward individuals who refuse to admit error, and black-and-white moral categorization (e.g., Items 19, 30, 31, 32).
• Factor 2: Existential Helplessness and Dread: Represented by primitive beliefs reflecting personal isolation, loneliness, and the conviction that humanity is miserable and untrustworthy (e.g., Items 5, 6, 7).
• Factor 3: Authoritarian Submission and Deference: Characterized by an explicit reliance on trusted leaders, experts, and established authority figures to navigate reality (e.g., Items 34, 35).
• Factor 4: Dedication to a Sacred Cause: Capturing the conviction that individual life possesses value only through complete self-abnegation and fanatical devotion to a transcendent ideological mission (e.g., Items 20, 21, 24, 25).
• Factor 5: Future-Oriented Fatalism and Time Fixation: Defined by an urgency to gamble everything on the future while viewing the present as fundamentally unfulfilling (e.g., Items 10, 37, 38).

A recognized psychometric feature of Form E is that all 40 items are keyed in the direction of high dogmatism (unidirectional wording). Methodologists have debated the degree to which an acquiescent response set accounts for common factor variance. However, confirmatory investigations by Troldahl and Powell (1965), who developed a validated 20-item short form, along with structural equation modeling by subsequent researchers, confirmed that despite acquiescence noise and multifactorial complexity, the composite total score demonstrates robust predictive validity as an omnibus index of closed cognitive organization.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Dogmatism Scale (Form E)
• Alternate Nomenclature: D-Scale, Rokeach Dogmatism Scale
• Primary Author: Milton Rokeach (1960)
• Instrument Classification: Self-report psychological assessment / cognitive style inventory
• Item Count: 40 items
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (≥ 16 years of age) possessing adequate reading literacy
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted self-administered questionnaire
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes
• Response Scale: 6-point bipolar scale without a neutral midpoint:
  • +1 = I agree a little
  • +2 = I agree on the whole
  • +3 = I agree very much
  • −1 = I disagree a little
  • −2 = I disagree on the whole
  • −3 = I disagree very much
• Scoring and Transformation Protocol:
  • All 40 items are worded in the positive direction of dogmatism (no reverse-scored items).
  • To convert raw bipolar ratings into a standard 1 to 7 continuum, add a constant of 4 to each item score:
  • −3 becomes 1 (Strong Disagreement)
  • −2 becomes 2 (Moderate Disagreement)
  • −1 becomes 3 (Slight Disagreement)
  • +1 becomes 5 (Slight Agreement)
  • +2 becomes 6 (Moderate Agreement)
  • +3 becomes 7 (Strong Agreement)
  • The theoretical midpoint of 4 represents an imputed neutral position.
  • Total scores are computed by summing the transformed item values, yielding an empirical range of 40 to 280.
  • Higher aggregate scores indicate greater closed-mindedness, cognitive rigidity, authoritarianism, and intolerance.
• Normative Reference Values (Form E): In normative college undergraduate samples, mean composite scores typically cluster between 140 and 160 with standard deviations ranging between 22 and 28. High dogmatism is conventionally characterized by scores exceeding 180 (> 1 SD above mean), while low dogmatism is characterized by scores below 125 (> 1 SD below mean).

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dogmatism Scale (Form E) was formally published in 1960 within Milton Rokeach’s seminal monograph, The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems, issued by Basic Books (New York). Under contemporary academic standards and psychometric measurement conventions, Form E is widely considered to reside in the academic domain for educational, non-commercial, and scholarly research purposes, provided proper bibliographic attribution is accorded to Milton Rokeach and Basic Books. No commercial license fee or certification is mandated to administer the instrument in non-profit psychological research. Researchers intending to incorporate the scale into commercial assessment software, diagnostic test batteries, or profit-generating publications should consult the intellectual property rights holders and historical copyright administrators of Basic Books / Perseus Books Group.

12. References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Brothers.

Esposito, J. (1974). Supervisor personality and task performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 42(4), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1974.11011490

Kleiber, D., Veldman, D. J., & Menaker, S. L. (1973). The multi-dimensionality of locus of control. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(4), 411–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327878500800404

Pedhazur, E. J. (1969). Factor structure of the Dogmatism Scale. Psychological Reports, 25(1), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1969.25.1.301

Plant, W. T., Telford, C. W., & Thomas, J. A. (1965). Some personality pecularities of dogmatic college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 65(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1965.9922230

Rokeach, M. (1954). The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychological Review, 61(3), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055817

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books.

Spivey, J. R. (1975). Dogmatism and the secondary social studies teachers’ perspective. Illinois School Research, 11(3), 26–31.

Troldahl, V. C., & Powell, F. A. (1965). A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces, 44(2), 211–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/2575440

Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Schiffman, D. C. (1969). Personality correlates of dogmatism: A review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 71(4), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027092

Ward, G. R., Cunningham, C. H., & Saladin, G. (1978). Personality profiles and dogmatism in undergraduate teacher education students. Psychology in the Schools, 15(1), 33–36. Below are the authentic scale items in their original language as published in the standard psychometric validation studies, without modification or translation to preserve instrument validity and reliability: