Dogmatism and Learning: A Five-Year Follow-up

Abstract

This paper represents a further attempt at assessing the functional significance of non-intellectual factors in learning in a college classroom sirnation. Specifically, the intent of this paper is to assess the relative differences in the long-term effects of dogmatism and academic aptitude on the retention of materials in a single college course in particular, and on all college performance in general. The construct of dogmatism, introduced and defined by Rokeach (1954, 1960), provides the general framework for this research. Our concern is with the closed cognitive suucrure of dogmatic persons, and the concomitant of such closedness-resistance to change of systems of beliefs. In the first attempt to demonstrate the relationship between dogmatism and learning, Ehrlich ( 1961 ) tested and confirmed two interrelated hypotheses: (a ) dogmatism was found to be inversely related to the degree of learning in an introductory sociology course; and (b) the relationship between dogmatism and learning was independent of academic aptitude. As was expected, low dogmatic Ss entered the sociology classroom with a higher level of learning, learned more as a result of classroom exposure, and retained this information to a significantly greater degree than the more dogmatic Ss. The data presented here represent a re-study of the same population after a time lapse of five years, in contrast to the first study in which the time lapse was 5 to 6 months. Such a time span permits not only a re-examination of the original findings, but also an examination of Ss' overaU college grades, i.e., their cumulative point-hour ratio (CPH). METHOD Subjects.-The original sample consisted of 100 students enrolled in four introductory sociology sections, who were present for both the first and second administration of the test battery, and for whom Ohio State Psychological Examination (OSPE) scores were available from the university. For the final administration, by mail, only 90 of the original 100 respondents could be contacted; and from these 65 completed returns (72%) were received? P~ocedwe.-During the first week of the academic quarter Ss were given Rokeach's dogmatism scale and a 40 item true-false test of sociological knowl'The overlap in returns bemeern this follow-up and the earlier one (~hrlich, 1961) was minimal and did not allow fo: a simultaneous analysis of all four time periods. For only 41% of the original sample were questionnaires available for all rime periods, and these Ss were biased sinnificantlv in the direction of being lowest on doemacism and