Psychological Reports, 1975, 37, 1099-1106. @ Psychological Reports 1975
PERSONALITY AND DOGMATISM AMONG SELECTED GROUPS OF ORTHODOX JEWS1 ROBERT A. HOFFNUNG' Elizabeth General Hospital Co?nrnttnity Mental Health Center Sirmmary.-Four groups of ma!e Orthodox Jews differing in current religious practices and educational affiliation were administered the California Psychological Inventory and the Dogmatism Scale. Matched tetrads of 30 subjects each controlled for age, social class, and generation (how long the subject's family had been in the United States) were then formed. For rhe analysis of scores of the Ca!:fornia Psychological Inventory, Gough's college norms were used. Significant group differences in personality and dogmatism were found, supporting the importance of subcultural religious affiliation as a determinant of personality and dogmatism.
In many minority, ethnic, or religious groups there are those who advocate minimal retention of traditional patterns, favoring the policy of acculturation within the broader framework of American society. On the other extreme, there are those who advocate maximal retention of traditional values and who see in the American legal and social scene not only the necessary permissiveness, but even an implicit invitation or encouragement for the position (Bogardus, 1949). Both of these extremes, as well as many intermediate positions are reflected in the American Jewish community ( Willner, 1967). Although the research literature concerning the relationship between religious affiliation and psychological variables is extensive, the existence of heterogeneous factors within a single religious grouping has largely been ignored. The need to make finer distinctions in terms of religious affiliation seems of particular importance with regard to the Jewish group for which Orthodox. Conservative, and Reform branches, as well as numerous sects within the Orthodox subgroup, can be readily distinguished. The present research is concerned with the influence of subcultural religious affiliation among Orthodox Jews on personalicy and dogmatism. It is the central thesis of this investigation that the varied degrees to which individuals subscribe to and practice their religion are essential determinants of their personality characteristics and levels of dogmatism. Stated in a more general manner, as an individual identifies with a given subculture, his personality and belief structure 'This report is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. reauirements at Fordham Univecsirv, 1973. The author is indebted to loseoh G. Keegan w6o served as mentor and George-Domino, William Krossnec, w i l l & 6. Lawlor, and Marvin Reznikoff who served as members of the dissertation committee, for their valuable suggestions and guidance. 'Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert A. Hoffoung, Elizabeth General Hospital Community Mental Health Center, 925 East Jersey Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201.
1100
R. A. HOFFNUNG
will mirror many of its values and expectations. In a previous study (Hoffnung, 1971), significant differences were found between Orthodox Jewish subgroups in achievement orientation [an objective measure of need achievement devised by Carney ( 1961)I. The present study is an extension and elaboration of the above to more global determinants of personality and belief structure. METHOD Subjects for the study were 200 male graduates of Orthodox Jewish parochial high schools representing each of four Orthodox Jewish subgroups: the Secular Modern Orthodox, the Traditional Modern Orthodox, the Educated Sectarian Orthodox, and the Ultra-orthodox. The above nomenclature was adapted from the analyses of Liebman ( 1965) and Poll ( 1962). These groups were conceptualized as differing in the degree to which they have been influenced by what Mead (1949) has termed "American core culture." For a more comprehensive description of these groups, see Hoffnung ( 1973 ) . Assignment to religious group was made on rhe basis of each subject's current religious practices and educational affiliation. Members of the Secular Modern Orthodox group emphasize secular studies and secular academic achievement, with formal religious education taking a secondary role; all subjects in rhis group were enrolled in a full-time course of studies at a secular university. Members of the Traditional Modern Orthodox group were enrolled in an institution which provided an integrated program of secular education and traditional rabbinic lore. Members of the Educated Secrarian Orthodox group were enrolled in a Rabbinical Seminary but also atrended evening college classes. Finally, members of the Ultra-orthodox group were enrolled in a Rabbinical Seminary full time; members of this group stress strong devotion to the Talmud and other Jewish religious studies and discourage secular education at all levels. All subjects were residents of the Metropolitan New York City area. Subjects were contacted individually and their cooperation requested in completing a short biographic questionnaire which also allowed the computation of the Hollingshead Two-factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957). The California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957) and the Dogmatism Scale, Form E (Rokeach, 1956) were then administered according to standard procedure. Names were not required and subjects were encouraged to answer candidly. Coding was used to facilitate individual feedback of test results if desired by the subject. Following assignment to religious group, 30 matched tetrads were formed, subjeccs being individually matched across groups for age, social class, and generation (how long the subject's family had been in the United States). These controls were instituted in view of the demonstrated effect of these variables on personality (Wessel & Flaherty, 1954; Gough, 1969), dogmatism (Anderson, -
-
PERSONALITY, DOGMATISM AMONG JEWS
1101
1962; Frumkin, 1961), and the personality adjustment of Jews (Sanua, 1956) respectively. For the analysis of the personality scores, a fifth group representing the male college norms reported by Gough (1767) was included. This group was established by generating 30 random scores, distributed in a Gaussian fashion, on the basis of the means and standard deviations reported by Gough for each of the 18 scales.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Group comparisons on each of the standard scales of the California Psychological Inventory by means of an analysis of variance design are presented in Table 1. Significant differences were obtained on 1 3 of the 18 scales, nine at the .Ol level and four at the .05 level. Thus, the present results strongly supported the hypothesis that there would be significant personality differences between the groups. These results were also consistent with those reported by Dayan (1958) and Levinson (1961, 1962) in their research with Yeshiva College students. Recent studies by Sue and Kirk (1972, 1973) with Japanese-American and Chinese-American college students lend further support to the effects of differential acculturation on personality in diverse cultural groups. Application of the Scheffk method (Scheffk, 1953) for each of the 1 3 inventory scales which significantly differentiated between the groups indicated, in all cases, that group personality differences were a function of the normative means, the Ultra-orthodox means, or both. The means for Secular Modern Orthodox, Traditional Modern Orthodox, and Educated Sectarian Orthodox were indistinguishable statistically. Thus, although the results did not support meaningful differences between each of the groups, it appeared that a tripartite classification, namely that of college norms, secz~larly edtlcated Orthodox (clustered Secular Modern Orthodox, Traditional Modern Orthodox, and Educated Sectarian Orthodox), and Ultra-orthodox was supported. It may be that, although the first three groups represent different points on a continuum of acculturation and sectarianism, an even more crucial and perhaps unifying factor is that members of each of these groups have been exposed to secular education at a college level. In view of the above, it would seem that a more detailed analysis of the personality characteristics of the Ultra-orthodox would shed additional light on the effect of subcultural religious affiliation on personality. Gough's (1969) adjectival descriptions of high and low scores for each of the inventory scales are particularly useful in highlighting some of the significant differences between the Ultra-orthodox and the ocher groups as demonstrated by the Scheffk contrasts. Specifically, the Ultra-orthodox scored significantly lower than one or more of the other groups on each of the Capacity for Status, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, Responsibility, Tolerance, Achievement via Independence, Psychological-mindedness, and Flexibility scales of the inventory. Although numerous per-
TABLE 1 MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONSON CAL~FORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY FOR COLLEGENORMS,SECULARMODERNORTHODOX, TRADITIONAL MODERNORTHODOX, EDUCATED SECTARIAN ORTHODOX, AND ULTRA-ORTHODOX GROUPS Scale
Collcge M
SD
Sec. Mod. , M SD
Trad. Mod. M SD
Educ. S-ct. M SD
P
Ulrra M
SD
Code.--Scale names are: Do, Dominance; G,Capacity for status; Sy, Sociability; Sp, Social presence; Sa, Self-acceptance; Wb, Sense of well-being; Re, Responsibility; SO, Socialization; Sc, Self-control; To, Tolerance; Gi, Good impression; Gn,Communality; Ac, Achievement via conformance; Ai, Achievement via independence; le, Intellectual efficiency; F'y, Psychological-mindedness; Fx, Flexibility; Fe, Fernininiry. Note.-N = 30 for each group. * p .05 t p .O1.
PERSONALITY AND DOGMATISM AMONG SELECTED GROUPS OF ORTHODOX JEWS1 ROBERT A. HOFFNUNG' Elizabeth General Hospital Co?nrnttnity Mental Health Center Sirmmary.-Four groups of ma!e Orthodox Jews differing in current religious practices and educational affiliation were administered the California Psychological Inventory and the Dogmatism Scale. Matched tetrads of 30 subjects each controlled for age, social class, and generation (how long the subject's family had been in the United States) were then formed. For rhe analysis of scores of the Ca!:fornia Psychological Inventory, Gough's college norms were used. Significant group differences in personality and dogmatism were found, supporting the importance of subcultural religious affiliation as a determinant of personality and dogmatism.
In many minority, ethnic, or religious groups there are those who advocate minimal retention of traditional patterns, favoring the policy of acculturation within the broader framework of American society. On the other extreme, there are those who advocate maximal retention of traditional values and who see in the American legal and social scene not only the necessary permissiveness, but even an implicit invitation or encouragement for the position (Bogardus, 1949). Both of these extremes, as well as many intermediate positions are reflected in the American Jewish community ( Willner, 1967). Although the research literature concerning the relationship between religious affiliation and psychological variables is extensive, the existence of heterogeneous factors within a single religious grouping has largely been ignored. The need to make finer distinctions in terms of religious affiliation seems of particular importance with regard to the Jewish group for which Orthodox. Conservative, and Reform branches, as well as numerous sects within the Orthodox subgroup, can be readily distinguished. The present research is concerned with the influence of subcultural religious affiliation among Orthodox Jews on personalicy and dogmatism. It is the central thesis of this investigation that the varied degrees to which individuals subscribe to and practice their religion are essential determinants of their personality characteristics and levels of dogmatism. Stated in a more general manner, as an individual identifies with a given subculture, his personality and belief structure 'This report is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the Ph.D. reauirements at Fordham Univecsirv, 1973. The author is indebted to loseoh G. Keegan w6o served as mentor and George-Domino, William Krossnec, w i l l & 6. Lawlor, and Marvin Reznikoff who served as members of the dissertation committee, for their valuable suggestions and guidance. 'Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert A. Hoffoung, Elizabeth General Hospital Community Mental Health Center, 925 East Jersey Street, Elizabeth, New Jersey 07201.
1100
R. A. HOFFNUNG
will mirror many of its values and expectations. In a previous study (Hoffnung, 1971), significant differences were found between Orthodox Jewish subgroups in achievement orientation [an objective measure of need achievement devised by Carney ( 1961)I. The present study is an extension and elaboration of the above to more global determinants of personality and belief structure. METHOD Subjects for the study were 200 male graduates of Orthodox Jewish parochial high schools representing each of four Orthodox Jewish subgroups: the Secular Modern Orthodox, the Traditional Modern Orthodox, the Educated Sectarian Orthodox, and the Ultra-orthodox. The above nomenclature was adapted from the analyses of Liebman ( 1965) and Poll ( 1962). These groups were conceptualized as differing in the degree to which they have been influenced by what Mead (1949) has termed "American core culture." For a more comprehensive description of these groups, see Hoffnung ( 1973 ) . Assignment to religious group was made on rhe basis of each subject's current religious practices and educational affiliation. Members of the Secular Modern Orthodox group emphasize secular studies and secular academic achievement, with formal religious education taking a secondary role; all subjects in rhis group were enrolled in a full-time course of studies at a secular university. Members of the Traditional Modern Orthodox group were enrolled in an institution which provided an integrated program of secular education and traditional rabbinic lore. Members of the Educated Secrarian Orthodox group were enrolled in a Rabbinical Seminary but also atrended evening college classes. Finally, members of the Ultra-orthodox group were enrolled in a Rabbinical Seminary full time; members of this group stress strong devotion to the Talmud and other Jewish religious studies and discourage secular education at all levels. All subjects were residents of the Metropolitan New York City area. Subjects were contacted individually and their cooperation requested in completing a short biographic questionnaire which also allowed the computation of the Hollingshead Two-factor Index of Social Position (Hollingshead, 1957). The California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1957) and the Dogmatism Scale, Form E (Rokeach, 1956) were then administered according to standard procedure. Names were not required and subjects were encouraged to answer candidly. Coding was used to facilitate individual feedback of test results if desired by the subject. Following assignment to religious group, 30 matched tetrads were formed, subjeccs being individually matched across groups for age, social class, and generation (how long the subject's family had been in the United States). These controls were instituted in view of the demonstrated effect of these variables on personality (Wessel & Flaherty, 1954; Gough, 1969), dogmatism (Anderson, -
-
PERSONALITY, DOGMATISM AMONG JEWS
1101
1962; Frumkin, 1961), and the personality adjustment of Jews (Sanua, 1956) respectively. For the analysis of the personality scores, a fifth group representing the male college norms reported by Gough (1767) was included. This group was established by generating 30 random scores, distributed in a Gaussian fashion, on the basis of the means and standard deviations reported by Gough for each of the 18 scales.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION Group comparisons on each of the standard scales of the California Psychological Inventory by means of an analysis of variance design are presented in Table 1. Significant differences were obtained on 1 3 of the 18 scales, nine at the .Ol level and four at the .05 level. Thus, the present results strongly supported the hypothesis that there would be significant personality differences between the groups. These results were also consistent with those reported by Dayan (1958) and Levinson (1961, 1962) in their research with Yeshiva College students. Recent studies by Sue and Kirk (1972, 1973) with Japanese-American and Chinese-American college students lend further support to the effects of differential acculturation on personality in diverse cultural groups. Application of the Scheffk method (Scheffk, 1953) for each of the 1 3 inventory scales which significantly differentiated between the groups indicated, in all cases, that group personality differences were a function of the normative means, the Ultra-orthodox means, or both. The means for Secular Modern Orthodox, Traditional Modern Orthodox, and Educated Sectarian Orthodox were indistinguishable statistically. Thus, although the results did not support meaningful differences between each of the groups, it appeared that a tripartite classification, namely that of college norms, secz~larly edtlcated Orthodox (clustered Secular Modern Orthodox, Traditional Modern Orthodox, and Educated Sectarian Orthodox), and Ultra-orthodox was supported. It may be that, although the first three groups represent different points on a continuum of acculturation and sectarianism, an even more crucial and perhaps unifying factor is that members of each of these groups have been exposed to secular education at a college level. In view of the above, it would seem that a more detailed analysis of the personality characteristics of the Ultra-orthodox would shed additional light on the effect of subcultural religious affiliation on personality. Gough's (1969) adjectival descriptions of high and low scores for each of the inventory scales are particularly useful in highlighting some of the significant differences between the Ultra-orthodox and the ocher groups as demonstrated by the Scheffk contrasts. Specifically, the Ultra-orthodox scored significantly lower than one or more of the other groups on each of the Capacity for Status, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, Responsibility, Tolerance, Achievement via Independence, Psychological-mindedness, and Flexibility scales of the inventory. Although numerous per-
TABLE 1 MEANSAND STANDARD DEVIATIONSON CAL~FORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY FOR COLLEGENORMS,SECULARMODERNORTHODOX, TRADITIONAL MODERNORTHODOX, EDUCATED SECTARIAN ORTHODOX, AND ULTRA-ORTHODOX GROUPS Scale
Collcge M
SD
Sec. Mod. , M SD
Trad. Mod. M SD
Educ. S-ct. M SD
P
Ulrra M
SD
Code.--Scale names are: Do, Dominance; G,Capacity for status; Sy, Sociability; Sp, Social presence; Sa, Self-acceptance; Wb, Sense of well-being; Re, Responsibility; SO, Socialization; Sc, Self-control; To, Tolerance; Gi, Good impression; Gn,Communality; Ac, Achievement via conformance; Ai, Achievement via independence; le, Intellectual efficiency; F'y, Psychological-mindedness; Fx, Flexibility; Fe, Fernininiry. Note.-N = 30 for each group. * p .05 t p .O1.
