Short Dogmatism Scale – Troldahl

Abstract

The Short Dogmatism Scale (often designated as the Troldahl-Powell Short-Form Dogmatism Scale) is a 20-item psychometric instrument developed by Verling C. Troldahl and Fredric A. Powell in 1965. Created as an abbreviated variant of Milton Rokeach’s foundational 40-item Dogmatism Scale (Form E), this instrument was engineered to address the operational constraints of survey research, field studies, and public opinion polling, where lengthy personality inventories are methodologically unfeasible. The scale quantifies individual differences in cognitive closed-mindedness, defined by Rokeach as an overarching, structural style of thinking characterized by totalized belief systems, an over-reliance on authority figures, rigid intolerance toward contradictory viewpoints, and pronounced dichotomization between in-groups and out-groups. Administered using a six-point forced-choice agreement format (ranging from “agree a little” to “disagree very much”), the scale measures individual scores along a continuum from cognitive openness to structural dogmatism. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong criterion-related validity with Rokeach’s full 40-item scale ($r = .94$) and acceptable split-half internal consistency coefficients ranging between $.79$ and $.84$ across heterogeneous adult and collegiate cohorts. While developed during the height of Cold War socio-political attitude investigations, the instrument retains substantial contemporary utility across social psychology, political communication, organizational behavior, and the study of ideological extremism.

Keywords

Dogmatism, Open and Closed Mind, Milton Rokeach, Troldahl and Powell, Cognitive Rigidity, Authoritarianism, Belief Systems, Ideological Intolerance, Closed-Mindedness, Psychometrics

Authors

The Short Dogmatism Scale was formulated and psychometrically standardized by Verling C. Troldahl and Fredric A. Powell:

• Verling C. Troldahl, Ph.D.: At the time of the instrument’s publication, Dr. Troldahl served as an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. His scholarly repertoire centered on mass communication models, opinion leadership, public opinion survey methodologies, and attitude change processes.
• Fredric A. Powell, Ph.D.: Dr. Powell was affiliated with the Social Science Research Bureau and the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. His empirical work addressed social influence, source credibility, cognitive balance theories, and the interaction between personality structure and persuasion.
• Intellectual Originator: The theoretical foundation and item corpus derive directly from the work of Milton Rokeach (1918–1988), Professor of Psychology at Michigan State University and later Washington State University, whose monograph The Open and Closed Mind (1960) established the empirical study of structural cognitive organization.

Purpose

The primary rationale for the construction of the Short Dogmatism Scale emerged from the pragmatic limitations of administering the canonical 40-item Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Form E) within large-scale field experiments and public opinion sample surveys. In the 1950s and 1960s, survey research moved increasingly into household interviews, telephone questionnaires, and multi-variable omnibus panels. Under these field conditions, lengthy psychological batteries introduced severe respondent fatigue, heightened refusal rates, and limited the space available for socio-demographic, media consumption, and topical attitude measures.

Prior attempts to truncate Form E, most notably by Rolf H. K. Schulze (1962), had produced a 10-item and a 20-item derivative. However, Schulze’s validation was executed exclusively upon small, homogeneous samples of undergraduate psychology students. Troldahl and Powell set out to build a rigorously standardized 20-item instrument that retained structural equivalence to Rokeach’s theoretical model while validating its performance across both collegiate students and representative general-population adult field samples.

In applied research, the scale serves several critical functions:

• Political Psychology and Ideological Studies: Assessing cognitive intolerance and closed-mindedness as generalized structural traits, distinct from specific ideological contents (such as left-wing versus right-wing political affiliations).
• Communication and Persuasion Research: Evaluating how open versus closed-minded receivers process message arguments, respond to authoritative versus non-authoritative endorsements, and resist persuasion when confronted with discrepant information.
• Sociological and Cross-Cultural Research: Mapping community-level cognitive rigidity, intergroup prejudice, and resistance to rapid social and technological change.
• Organizational and Educational Psychology: Identifying cognitive style correlates of problem-solving, cognitive flexibility, authoritarian leadership preferences, and interpersonal conflict inside professional and academic settings.

Psychological Construct

The Short Dogmatism Scale measures the psychological construct of dogmatism as conceptualized by Milton Rokeach (1960). Rokeach defined dogmatism as:

1. A relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality,
2. Organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which, in turn,
3. Provides a framework for patterns of intolerance and qualified tolerance toward others.

Crucially, Rokeach distinguished between the content of a belief system and its structure. Whereas the widely used California F-Scale (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) was designed to capture authoritarianism tied specifically to right-wing, fascist, and antidemocratic ideology, the dogmatism construct was intentionally designed to measure authoritarianism and intolerance across any ideological spectrum, including Marxism, religious fundamentalism, liberalism, scientism, or political conservatism. Dogmatism represents how a person believes, rather than what they believe.

The construct encompasses three primary interrelated dimensions:

1. The Belief-Disbelief System Dimension

This structural dimension addresses how a person organizes accepted tenets (beliefs) in relation to rejected ideas (disbeliefs). Highly dogmatic individuals exhibit:

• High Isolation: Beliefs and disbeliefs are compartmentalized within cognitive silos to prevent cross-comparison, contradiction resolution, or cognitive dissonance.
• High Disproportion: The magnitude of the disbelief system drastically exceeds that of the belief system; alternative perspectives are rejected en masse without individual evaluation.
• Totalized Rejection: Dissenting viewpoints are perceived as entirely false, corrupt, or malevolent, as operationalized in items like “There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are on the side of truth and those who are against it”.

2. The Central-Peripheral Dimension

This dimension pertains to the individual’s primitive assumptions regarding the nature of the physical and social world, authority, and human nature. Central beliefs form the cognitive prism through which all peripheral information is processed:

• Threat and Helplessness: The world is perceived as an intrinsically hostile, unpredictable, and dangerous place. Man is viewed as fundamentally vulnerable, exemplified by items such as “Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature” and “Most people just don’t give a ‘damn’ about others”.
• Absolute Reliance on Authority: Due to existential anxiety, the individual relies unconditionally on cognitive authorities (leaders, doctrine, institutional dogmas) to interpret reality (e.g., “In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what is going on is to rely upon leaders or experts who can be trusted”).
• Cognitive Dependence: External authorities are invested with arbitrary, dogmatic power, and opinions are adopted based on the status of the communicator rather than the logical validity of the evidence.

3. The Time-Perspective Dimension

Dogmatic cognitive systems characteristically deform temporal orientation. The present is devalued, experienced as painful, miserable, or precarious, while meaning is displaced entirely into an idealized, utopian future or a mythologized past. The individual readily justifies present sacrifices, ethical compromises, or cruelty in pursuit of ultimate future triumphs (reflected in “The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts” and “It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Short Dogmatism Scale integrates concepts from Gestalt psychology, Kurt Lewin’s field theory, and cognitive-developmental models of personality. Rokeach’s theoretical project responded directly to the theoretical and empirical deficiencies of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950).

Adorno and colleagues conceptualized authoritarianism as a psychodynamic syndrome rooted in Freudian ego-defenses, repressed hostility toward punitive parents, and subsequent projection of aggressive impulses onto marginalized out-groups. While pioneering, this formulation conflated the cognitive process of authoritarian thinking with right-wing socio-political attitudes. Rokeach posited that closed-minded cognitive organization could operate symmetrically within radical political leftists, religious dogmatists, institutional academics, or artistic orthodoxies.

To establish a universal model, Rokeach formalized the concept of cognitive systems as dynamic organizations of cognitive representations. In Lewinian terms, cognitive boundaries between regions can vary in their degree of permeability. In an open mind:

• Boundaries between belief and disbelief systems are permeable; new information is evaluated objectively according to its intrinsic cognitive and empirical merits.
• Peripheral beliefs are directly derived from the objective nature of reality rather than through arbitrary dictates from authority figures.
• The individual maintains cognitive flexibility, tolerates ambiguity, and engages in realistic present-oriented problem-solving.

In contrast, in a closed mind:

• Boundaries between regions are rigid and impermeable; cognitive structures are defended against disconfirming evidence through psychological defense mechanisms such as denial, compartmentalization, and perceptual distortion.
• Peripheral beliefs are tethered rigidly to positive or negative authority figures (e.g., believing an assertion strictly because one’s party leader endorsed it, or rejecting a scientific fact strictly because an out-group figure supported it).
• Anxiety over existential helplessness drives an urgent need for cognitive closure, generating rigid adherence to single-cause doctrines (e.g., “Of all the different philosophies which have existed in this world there is probably only one which is correct”).

Troldahl and Powell preserved this theoretical foundation by demonstrating that item reduction did not collapse these multi-faceted dimensions into an oversimplified unidimensional construct. Rather, by selecting items across all primary conceptual sub-domains defined by Rokeach, their 20-item short form retained structural fidelity to the original theoretical model.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Troldahl-Powell Short Dogmatism Scale has been evaluated through multiple empirical strategies:

Criterion-Related and Equivalence Validity

The primary validation criterion for the 20-item scale was its statistical correspondence with Rokeach’s full 40-item Form E Dogmatism Scale. In their foundational validation study, Troldahl and Powell (1965) administered the scale across two distinct cohorts:

• College Student Sample ($N = 227$): The Pearson product-moment correlation between the 20-item short form and the original 40-item scale reached $r = .94$.
• General Adult Population Sample ($N = 84$): Conducted via field interviews in a Midwestern metropolitan area, the correlation between the 20-item scale and Form E yielded $r = .93$.

These findings established that the 20-item short form captures over 86% to 88% of the common variance of the parent 40-item scale, validating it as an equivalent substitute for field research purposes.

Convergent Validity

Extensive empirical investigations have established convergent validity across related cognitive and ideological constructs:

• Correlation with Authoritarianism: The Troldahl-Powell scale correlates moderately to strongly with Adorno’s California F-Scale ($r = .50$ to $.65$). The magnitude confirms overlapping variance regarding conventionalism and submission to authority, while the non-identity confirms that dogmatism remains a broader, less ideologically constrained measure.
• Intolerance of Ambiguity: Scores correlate positively ($r = .38$ to $.52$) with Budner’s Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale and Need for Closure scales (Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), confirming that high scorers actively avoid equivocal or ambiguous cognitive scenarios.
• Ethnocentrism and Prejudice: Demonstrates consistent positive correlations ($r = .35$ to $.48$) with generalized out-group rejection, institutional xenophobia, and stereotypic cognitive attribution.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated against cognitive capability and socio-demographic variables:

• General Intelligence: Correlational indices between the Short Dogmatism Scale and standardized measures of general intelligence (e.g., Wonderlic Personnel Test, WAIS subtests) typically range between $r = -.10$ and $r = -.22$, showing that dogmatism is a distinct personality and stylistic variable rather than a proxy for general cognitive ability.
• Acquiescence Response Set: Because Rokeach’s original items were phrased exclusively in the unidirectional “agree” format to mirror dogmatic certitude, early critics raised concerns regarding acquiescent response bias. However, balancing studies (e.g., Troldahl & Powell, 1965; Robinson & Shaver, 1969) established that while acquiescence accounts for a small portion of variance, construct validity remains robust when controlling for response style.

Reliability

The reliability of the Troldahl-Powell Short Dogmatism Scale has been evaluated through split-half reliability, internal consistency, and test-retest stability:

Split-Half Internal Consistency

In the seminal 1965 validation paper, internal consistency was calculated using the split-half technique corrected by the Spearman-Brown prediction formula:

• College Student Cohort: The corrected split-half reliability coefficient was $r_{sb} = .79$.
• General Adult Population Cohort: The corrected split-half reliability coefficient reached $r_{sb} = .84$.

These values compare favorably with the reliability coefficients reported by Rokeach for the full 40-item Form E (which typically ranged from $.70$ to $.85$), indicating that halving the instrument caused no substantial degradation in internal consistency.

Cronbach’s Alpha

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across varied empirical investigations (e.g., Robinson & Shaver, 1969; Zagona & Kelly, 1966) have confirmed acceptable inter-item consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly falling within the range of $\alpha = .72$ to $.81$. Given the multidimensional theoretical coverage of the 20 items (encompassing primitive threat, authority reliance, and temporal perspective), these alpha levels represent a balance between broad construct coverage and item homogeneity.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability estimates over intervals spanning two to six weeks have yielded test-retest correlation coefficients ranging between $r_{tt} = .71$ and $.83$. These metrics support Rokeach’s contention that dogmatism operates as a relatively stable, enduring cognitive-structural personality trait across adulthood.

Factor Analysis

The factorial structure of Rokeach’s dogmatism battery and its shortened variants has been an area of active psychometric inquiry. Although Rokeach conceptualized dogmatism as an integrated, unified cognitive style, empirical exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses typically extract multiple correlated sub-factors.

Factor Structures in Empirical Research

Structural investigations (e.g., Vacchiano, Strauss, & Hochman, 1969; Zagona & Kelly, 1966) conducted on the item pool from which Troldahl and Powell selected their 20 statements identify four to five primary recurring latent factors:

• Factor 1: Absolute Reliance on Authority / Authoritarian Submission: Defined by heavy loadings on Item 1 (relying on leaders and experts) and Item 8 (seeking external solutions for personal problems). Factor loadings typically range between $.45$ and $.68$.
• Factor 2: Existential Helplessness and Paranoia: Defined by Item 10 (man on his own is helpless and miserable) and Item 12 (most people do not care about others), reflecting central beliefs regarding a hostile world, with loadings ranging between $.50$ and $.72$.
• Factor 3: In-Group/Out-Group Polarized Thinking: Anchored by Item 3 (two kinds of people: for truth or against it) and Item 13 (danger of compromise with opponents), capturing black-and-white interpersonal and political categorization (loadings: $.55$ to $.70$).
• Factor 4: Future-Oriented Utopianism / Self-Sacrifice: Defined by Item 11 (cause devotion gives life meaning), Item 15 (unhappy present vs. future), and Item 20 (better to be a dead hero), with factor loadings between $.42$ and $.64$.
• Factor 5: Cognitive Intolerance and Dogmatic Certainty: Reflected in Item 2 (anger at refusal to admit error) and Item 5 (only one correct philosophy), capturing direct resistance to cognitive divergence.

Structural Models: Unidimensional vs. Bifactor

Contemporary psychometric evaluations indicate that while a single-factor model exhibits moderate fit indices (e.g., $\text{CFI} \approx .84 – .88$, $\text{RMSEA} \approx .075$), a bifactor model or a hierarchical second-order model achieves superior fit ($\text{CFI} > .92$, $\text{RMSEA} < .055$). In a bifactor framework, a broad general factor of General Structural Dogmatism accounts for the dominant common variance across all 20 items, while distinct orthogonal or oblique group factors account for the specific item content dimensions (Authority, Alienation, Dichotomization, and Future Utopianism). This psychometric architecture justifies the conventional practice of summing all 20 items into a single composite dogmatism index.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Short Dogmatism Scale (Troldahl-Powell Short-Form Dogmatism Scale)
• Primary Author: Verling C. Troldahl and Fredric A. Powell (1965), derived from Milton Rokeach (1960)
• Construct Assessed: Generalized cognitive dogmatism and closed-mindedness
• Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / psychometric rating scale
• Item Count: 20 items
• Response Scale: 6-point forced-choice agreement scale without a neutral midpoint:
  • 1 = Agree a little
  • 2 = Agree on the whole
  • 3 = Agree very much
  • 4 = Disagree a little
  • 5 = Disagree on the whole
  • 6 = Disagree very much
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • In standard survey implementations, raw responses are recoded to reflect a linear progression of dogmatic agreement. In the classical Rokeach conversion framework, responses are converted to a $+1$ to $+3$ (agreement) and $-1$ to $-3$ (disagreement) continuum, and a constant of $4$ is added to eliminate negative numbers, yielding a 1-to-7 metric per item:
  • Agree very much = 7 points
  • Agree on the whole = 6 points
  • Agree a little = 5 points
  • Disagree a little = 3 points
  • Disagree on the whole = 2 points
  • Disagree very much = 1 point
  • (Note: When scored directly on a standard 1 to 6 scale, items are reverse-coded such that 1 becomes 4 [disagree a little] or responses are inverted so that Disagree very much = 1, Disagree on the whole = 2, Disagree a little = 3, Agree a little = 4, Agree on the whole = 5, Agree very much = 6).
  • All 20 items are keyed in the positive direction (dogmatic certitude). There are no reverse-keyed items in the standard version.
  • Total Score Range: Under the classic 1–7 scoring system, cumulative scores range from 20 to 140 (or 20 to 120 under standard 1–6 linear scoring), where higher numerical values designate greater structural dogmatism and closed-mindedness.
• Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents aged 16 and older

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Short Dogmatism Scale was published in 1965 by Verling C. Troldahl and Fredric A. Powell in the academic journal Social Forces (Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 211–214). The 20 items selected were drawn directly from Milton Rokeach’s 1960 monograph The Open and Closed Mind (Basic Books). Under standard fair use principles for academic research, the scale is in the public domain for non-commercial educational and scientific research purposes. No royalties, licensing fees, or formal authorization are required to administer the scale for non-commercial research studies, provided appropriate academic citation is accorded to Troldahl and Powell (1965) and Rokeach (1960).

References

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harper & Row.
• Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. https://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/infoserv/isrpub/pdf/Measuresofsocialpsychologicalattitudes_2928_.PDF
• Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality Systems. Basic Books.
• Schulze, R. H. K. (1962). A shortened version of the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Journal of Psychological Studies, 13, 93–97.
• 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/10.2307/2575604
• Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, L. (1969). The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 71(4), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027263
• Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049
• Zagona, S. V., & Kelly, M. A. (1966). The factor dimensions of the Dogmatism Scale: An examination of open and closed mind. Journal of Social Psychology, 68(1), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1966.9922247

Items of the Scale