The final type of belief (E) that Rokeach identifies is that which is “nonconsequential.” We have certain arbitrary preferences and develop “tastes” over time that determine which cereal we eat, which wine we buy and, more importantly, which house we buy. We would suggest that a cluster of Type E beliefs can be consequential if this cluster determines where we choose to live (segregated or nonsegregated community) and how we choose to vote. With the polarization that is saturating many of our mid-21st Century societies, the clustering is becoming more common and more pronounced. Coupled with an authoritarian bent, a cluster can guide us toward ethnocentrism, sexism, antisemitism and other forms of virulent attitudes and actions.
We wish to mention two other contributions that Milton Rokeach makes to the expanded exploration of authoritarianism. First, he moves from beliefs to attitudes and notes that attitudes are organized belief systems. Each attitude (and belief system) has three components: cognitive, affective and behavioral. Furthermore, an attitude serves one or more of four functions: (1) instrumental, adjustive or utilitarian, (2) ego-defensive, (3) value-expressive and/or (4) structure of knowledge. (Rokeach, 1976, p. 130). Based on research done on the authoritarian personality, we suggest that the second function is most common among those who manifest this personality trait (at least according to Adorno and his psychodynamic colleagues). More contemporary researchers and theorists of a social psychological bent might suggest that authoritarian personalities prevail in a collective setting when the other three functions are being engaged.
The final major contribution made by Rokeach in his later work (Rokeach, 1976, p. 141) concerns the distinction to be drawn between two kinds of attitudes. First, there are attitudes about specific “objects” (people, organizations, policies, etc.). Second, there are attitudes about the situation in which the objects are operating (autocratic, laissez-faire, egalitarian, etc.). We would engage this distinction in providing our own insights regarding attitudes (and belief systems). These insights are founded in something called “attribution theory” (Jones, 1972). Each of us attributes the cause of certain behavior to either something happening inside a specific person or to something happening inside the environment in which this person is operating. These two attributes align directly with Rokeach’s two types of attitude. Furthermore, we can add some “locus of control” theory (Rotter, 1966) to the mix.
When attitudes are focused on the individual object and what is happening inside a person, then it is assumed that there is an Internal Locus of Control. Behavior can be attributed to what is happening in the head and heart of a specific person, organization or political party. Conversely, an External Locus of Control is assumed when the focus of one’s attitude is on the setting in which the person, organization or political party is operating. From the perspective of an External Locus of Control it is all about the reward and reinforcement to be found in the environment. Behaviorism and State theory rule the roost and those non-empirical psychodynamic theories and the focus on personality traits are cast out.
Rokeach recognizes the potential of change to be found in strategies involving each of the four combinations of object and situation attitude: (1) focus on change in the object, (2) focus on change in the situation, (3) focus on change in both object and situation, and (4) focus on change involving neither object nor situation. While Rokeach acknowledges all four strategies, he tends to focus as a social psychologist on the situational variables when seeking to bring about change in attitude. We need only look back at his “experiment” with the three mental patients who each thought they were Jesus Christ. Rokeach changed the situation (brought the three patients together) and looked for change.
