Research on social and ethnic attitudes is lending increasing support to the contention that beliefs and opinions do not exist in isolation and autonomy, but rather are integrated and interrelated in consistent and meaningful fashion. On social issues where attitudes begin to take on an intensity of conviction, where an opinion as to pro or con commits or obligates the subject in any way, this integrational characteristic is especially marked. Thus, in the case of proor anti-Semitic attitudes an extensive network of related factors has been identified (3, 4). Subjects obtaining high scores on an anti-Semitism scale tend to secure higher scores on various maladjustment inventories, to come from lower socio-economic environments, to be more categorical in style of thinking, to be less favorably disposed toward other minority groups, toward school, labor unions, and Russia, and to be in favor of universal military training. These relationships are sufficiently strong that ethnic attitudes can be reasonably accurately predicted from knowing how a subject feels about these other issues (4)There is reason, too, for believing that this clustering of attitudes and opinions has more than correlational validity. That is, there seems to be a number of underlying variables which synthesize and account for the observed interrelationships, such as the fundamental conservatism and ethnocentrism observed by Frenkel-Brunswik and Sanford in their antiSemitic subjects (3).