Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford


  • Komi T. GermanEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_655-1



A relatively unchangeable, unjustified certainty in one’s beliefs.


An important discovery from early personality research was that individuals display varying degrees of rigidity toward information that is unfamiliar or contrary to their existing beliefs (Pornpitakpan 2004). To explain this phenomenon, Rokeach (1954) developed the concept of dogmatism. He defined dogmatism as a relatively closed cognitive system of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority which, in turn, provides a framework for patterns of intolerance and qualified tolerance towards others. The function of dogmatism is to provide a schema for organizing an individual’s experiences in political, religious, and scientific domains of life (Rokeach 1960). This systematic patterning of attitudes and beliefs across various domains gave rise to the idea that dogmatism represents a basic...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  2. Altemeyer, B. (2002). Dogmatic behavior among students: Testing a new measure of dogmatism. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 713–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B., & Altemeyer, R. A. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, R. (1965). Social psychology. London: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (pp. 135–178). New York: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Crowson, H. M., DeBacker, T. K., & Davis, K. A. (2008). The DOG Scale: A valid measure of dogmatism? Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drakeford, G. C. (1969). The EPI and scales of rigidity and dogmatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8, 9–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duckitt, J. (2009). Authoritarianism and dogmatism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 298–317). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards, A. L. (1959). Edwards personality preference test: Schedule A. New York: Psychological Corp.Google Scholar
  10. Eysenck, H. J. (1956). The psychology of politics and the personality similarities between fascists and communists. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitts, W. H., & Roid, G. H. (1964). Tennessee self-concept scale. Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests.Google Scholar
  12. Fromm, E. (1947). Man for himself: An inquiry into psychology of ethica. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Greenberg, J., & Jonas, E. (2003). Psychological motives and political orientation – The left, the right, and the rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003). Psychological Bulletin, 129, 376–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korn, H. A., & Giddan, N. S. (1964). Scoring methods and construct validity of the dogmatism scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24, 867–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Patterson, D. M. (1978). Psychopathology and dogmatism in college males: a descriptive analysis. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  16. Plant, W. T., Telford, C. W., & Thomas, J. A. (1965). Some personality differences between dogmatic and nondogmatic groups. Journal of Social Psychology, 67, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roiser, M. J., & Willig, C. (1995). The hidden history of authoritarianism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 77–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rosier, M., & Willig, C. (2002). The strange death of the authoritarian personality; 50 years of psychological and political debate. History of the Human Sciences, 15, 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rokeach, M. (1954). The nature and meaning of dogmatism. Psychological Review, 61, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rokeach, M. (1956). Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the authoritarian personality. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(18, WholeNo. 425), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  23. Rokeach, M., & Fruchter, B. (1956). A factorial study of dogmatism and related concepts. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53, 356–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shils, E. A. (1954). Authoritarianism: ‘Right’ and ‘Left’. In R. Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and methods of the authoritarian personality: Continuities in Social Research (pp. 24–49). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Smithers, A. (1970). Personality patterns and levels of dogmatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 183–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Schiffman, D. C. (1968). Personality correlates of dogmatism. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 83–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vacchiano, R. B., Strauss, P. S., & Hochman, L. (1969). The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 71, 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • John F. Rauthmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA