- Email: [email protected]
The Protestant work ethic and conservatism
Person. imlirid. Diff. Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 205 206. 1983
I)19I 8,'-;6983 I)2021)5412803.00() Copsriglal a, 198:~ Pcrgamola Plc~,s ltd
Printed in Great Britain All rights reserved
The Protestant Work Ethic and conservatism AI)RIAN FURNHAM and CATHkRINF; BLAND
Department of Psycholoyy, University Colle~le London, 26 Be~!fbrd Way. London W C I OAP, U.K. (Receiued 6 May 1982)
INTROD[ CTION Beliefs in the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) as measured by a validated self-report questionnaire (Mirels and Garrett, 1971) have been shown to be directly related to other sot(o-economic beliefs. For instance PWE beliefs have been shown to be associated with beliefs about the causes of poverty (McDonald, 1972) and unemployment {Furnham. 1982a) as well as attitude to work (Greenberg, 1978), .job satisfaction (Stone, 1975) and social security [Furnham, 1982a). However the PWE has also been considered to bc a personality variable and related to numerous other individual differences measures (Mirels and Garrett. 1971). t-'or instance PWE scores have been shown to be positively related to terminal and instrumental values (McDonald, 1972: Rim, 1977), guilt (Mirels and Garrett. 1971) and ethical bclicg [McDonald, 19721 and negatively related to external locus of control beliefs (McDonald, 1972: Mircls and Garrett, 197l: Lied and Pritchard, 1976). Furthermore PWE scores have been shown to be related to authoritarianism PWE and California F Scale scores arc significantly positively correlated {0.51 Mirels and Garrett, 1971:0.44 McDonald, 19721. However as Wilson and Patterson (I 9681 have noted, previously awulable tests of conservatism or authoritarianism (such as the California F Scale) have a number of serious problems. Consequently they devised a new measure of conservatism which has bccn extensively used (Eyscnck, 19771. Apart from previous studies relating tfie PWE to the California F Scale, there tire other reasons to expect a positive relationship between PWE beliefs and conservatism. Studies on the value patterns of conservatives (Joe et al., 19811 and high PWE believers (Furnham, 1982bL studies on the religions beliel~ of conservatives (Wilson and Lillie, 1972) and high PWE believers IBeit-Hallahmi. 1979) and studies on age differences between conser',atives (Wilson, 1973a) and PWE believers (Feather. 19791 would all suggest that conservatism and the PWE are closely related. Indeed, a number of the characteristics of a conservati,
Sut~ject s Seventy-nine adult Ss completed the questionnaire. There were 45 men and 34 women, till of whom were nonstudent adults in full- or part-time employment. Their ages ranged from 18 62.
hr~l rttmdtlI5 The Ss were asked to complete two questionnaires:
1. The Protestant Work Ethic Scale (Mirels and Garrett, 1971). This is a 19-item inventory, which is rated on a 7-point agree disagree scale. Of the 19 items. 16 are scored in the direction of high PWE endorsement and 3 in the direction of low PWE endorsement. Scores range from 5 to 130. The scale has been widely used in studies of attitudes to work (Greenberg, 1978), unemployment IFurnham, 1982a) and religion (Bent-Hallahmi, 1979). 2. The Wilson and Patterson Conservatism Scale [Wilson and Patterson, I968). This is a 50-item inventory, which is rated on a 3-point scale (Yes, 'L No). The items are keyed in the direction of conservatism and scores range from 0 to 100. The scale, which has been shown to be muhidimensional (Eysenck, 1976), has been used to demonstrate the relationship between conservatism and art preference (Wilson et al.. 1973), projective aggression (Wilson. 1973b) and child-rearing practices (Thomas, 1975). Procedure For the most part Ss were tested in their place of work. The questionnaire was completed anonymously and took between 10 and 15 min. RESULTS
Firstly, based on the mean and standard deviation of the PWE scores, the Ss were divided into three groups: Low (PWE < 45, N - 32); Intermediate (PWE ~> 45 ~< 55, N = 14): and High (PWE ~< 55, N = 33). Following this a one-way ANOVA was computed on the total Conservatism score of the three groups. The mean score of the Low group was 32.3; the Intermediate group's mean was 33.12 while the High group scored 42.06. This difference was highly significant (F - 16.27, P < 0.001). To further investigate this relationship a Pearson product moment correlation was computed on all the Ss PWE and Conservatism scores. This revealed a r = 0.47 which is also highl) significant (P < 0.00011. 205
206
NOTES ANI) SHOP, [ER ('OMM[
[able
I M e a n s . S D s a n d F lcxe] R~r each of the I h r e e >ubscale scores lcsullillg f r o m the factor anal3sis Factor 1
PWE stole I o~ l\ t~1 Middle I \ 141 I t i g h I \ : ;1} t Ict¢l * I'.
** l'
NI('ATIONS
,
tactor 2
lructor t
Mean
SD
Mean
SI)
Mean
SD
77S 10.7 c) 14.09
660
7]5 942 S 27
4~1 24{) 3 58
]50 207 294
] (17 (I 9I 14~
g] V
>51
91~/**
2Sq*
I144**
i)(l~l: !lO{ll
Hinderer as the ('onscrvatism scale has been shown to be muhidimensional [Eysenck. 1976: Wilson. 1973a) a factor anal,,sis IVarimax) was computed on the ('onserwltism scale data. This revealed three clear factors. The lh'st factor ~;ts labelled "'Touflhmimh,dnc.sC because of the Ioadings of the items {Death Pcnahy 0.66: Nti+icl Rules 0.59: White Superiority 0.58: Royally 0.57: etc3. This factor which accounted tot 13.5",, of the total xariance was ~ery similar to thc third faclor found by' Eysenck 11976). The second factor was labelled "'Permissicem'~.~.Morali*v'" because of thc loadings (Stripteasc shows 0.60" Nudist Camps 0.66: Church Authority 0.55: Sabbath Obserwtncc 0.54: ('ousin Marriage 0.47: clc.). This factor which accot.lnled for 9.6". of the loHI[ va,'iancc was very similar to the lirst factor found b3 Eyscnck (1976). Finally the third factor \~as labelled "'RacismLiheralism'" because of the loadings (Aparthcid 0.41: Mixed Marriages 0.40: School [lnil\)rms 0.55: Chaperones 0.40). This f~lctor accounted for 5.6",, of the total v:.iri;.inee. ltelns loading 0.40 and aboxc on each of the three factors ~c,-c lnkcn to be the nlost ilnportant determinants of thc factor. The total scores of the selccled items for each of the three factors were then calculated for each Ss. Thus il ~ a s possible to do an ANOVA on each of the three subscale scores {see Table 1L Thus it can bc seen on each of the subscalc scores, as well. lhat there is a signilicant difference between people ~ h o score low and high on the PWE and their social attitudes. With one exception {Factor 2) the interlnediatc PWE group's score is between the t\~o. I)IN('I
NNION
It has been demonstrated lhal PWE beliefs are closely related to more general conservative social attitudes. l:urlhermore this relalioi>hip is consistent across subscale as well as total scores. That is. PWE beliefs are lelated quite consistently to various dimcnsions of conservative belic[s, i.e. Permissiveness. ToughnmMedness etc. Eysenck (1976) found 13 mcaningfnl primary fitctors arising from the Wilson Patterson questiolmaire and il is probable that PWE beliefs would be related to all of them. Thus although PWE beliefs may no longer be related to religious beliefs {Ray. 19821 they cci-tamly appear to bc related to socio-political beliefs. Recently. various writers have predicted the decline m the PWE as a function of nlacro-ccononlic changes, the rise of unemployment etc. (Kelvin. 19801. Indeed, Kelvin (1980) quoted a British Conservative Party Minister as predicting the decline in beliefs in the PWE. But it may be naive to suggest that these PWE beliefs arc isolatcd from other social attitudes and political beliefs. This study has demonstrated that PWE beliefs arc closel? related to an entire range of conservative beliefs and hence it would be unlikely thai PWE would change without the other beliefs doing likewise. 11 seems then. most strange that a Conservative Cabinet minister ~ oul d ~elcome the decline in conservative beliefs!
REFERENCES
BHT-HALLAHMI B. (1979) Personal and social components of the Protestant Ethic. J. soc. P.~vchoL 109, 253 267. EYSlN('K H. J.(1976) Structure of social attitudes. Psychol. Rep. 39, 463 466. E'*'SENCK H. J. (1977) Psycholoqy is ,tbout People. Penguin Harmondsworth. FtA~ HER N. T. (1979) Value correlates of conservatism, d. Person. soc. Psychol. 37, 1617 1630. f:'URNHAM A. (1982a) The Protestant Work Ethic and attitudes towards unemployment. J. occup. Ps.l'chol. In press. FUR\HAM A. (1982b) The Protestant Work Ethic. human \,alnes and attitudes towards taxation. J. econ. P~ychol. In prcss. GI~,I!ICxIIlip,~.;J. (1978) Equity. equality and the Protestant ethic. J. exp. soc. lGychol. 14, 217 226. J<)lc V.. JoN,:s R. and MILHk P. (1981) Value patterns of a COlaservative. Pcr.~on. indirid. D([]I 2, 25 31. K~t.',IN P. (1980)Social Psychology 2001: social psychological bases and implications of unemployment. In "lhc Derelopment O/Social Ps.l'choh~qy {Edited by GIt.MOl R R. and Dt('K S.I. Academic Press. London. Lltl) T. and PmlCHArD R. (1976) Relationships between personality wlriables and components of the cxpediancyxalcncc model. J. appI. P~vchol. 61, 463 467. M ( I ) o N M I ) A.(1972) More on the Protestant ethic..l, co,~uh.c/in. Psychol. 39, 116 122. MIRII.S H. and G.\RRICII J. (19711 Protestant ethic as a personality variable. J. c,,sult, c/in. Psycho/. 36, 4(1 44. RA', J.(1982) Thc Protestant ethic m Australia. .]. soc. P~)ch,d. 116, 127 138. RIM Y.(1977) Signiticance of work and personality, d. occup. P.s3¢hol. 50, 135 138. S loXlc E. {1975) Job scope, job satisfaction and the Protcstant ethic. ,I. rocaI. Bvhor. 7, 215 225. THOMAS D. (1975) ('onserw~tism. authoritarianism and child-rearing practices. Br. J. soc. Psychol. 14, 97 98. WII.SON G. IEd.) (1973a) TM' t~sl'cholo:13 ' O/('onscrcalisnl. Academic Press. London. WIlsoN (}.{1973b) Proiective aggression and social attitudes. Psychol. Rep. 32, 1015 1018. W,LSON G. D. and LIt.HE F. 119721 Social attitudes of salwltionists and humanists. Br. d. sot'. olin. Ps.vchol. I 1 , 2 2 0 224. Wu.sox G. D. and PAl[, rsoN .1. (1968) A ncx~ mcasure of conservatism. Br../. soc. olin. I'.svchol. 7, 264 269. Wn S()N O. D.. At rNM.XN J. (llld M..xim ws T. 119731 Conserxatism and art preferences..l. [)t'l'?,oll. ';oc. Psychol. 25, 286 288.
I)19I 8,'-;6983 I)2021)5412803.00() Copsriglal a, 198:~ Pcrgamola Plc~,s ltd
Printed in Great Britain All rights reserved
The Protestant Work Ethic and conservatism AI)RIAN FURNHAM and CATHkRINF; BLAND
Department of Psycholoyy, University Colle~le London, 26 Be~!fbrd Way. London W C I OAP, U.K. (Receiued 6 May 1982)
INTROD[ CTION Beliefs in the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) as measured by a validated self-report questionnaire (Mirels and Garrett, 1971) have been shown to be directly related to other sot(o-economic beliefs. For instance PWE beliefs have been shown to be associated with beliefs about the causes of poverty (McDonald, 1972) and unemployment {Furnham. 1982a) as well as attitude to work (Greenberg, 1978), .job satisfaction (Stone, 1975) and social security [Furnham, 1982a). However the PWE has also been considered to bc a personality variable and related to numerous other individual differences measures (Mirels and Garrett. 1971). t-'or instance PWE scores have been shown to be positively related to terminal and instrumental values (McDonald, 1972: Rim, 1977), guilt (Mirels and Garrett. 1971) and ethical bclicg [McDonald, 19721 and negatively related to external locus of control beliefs (McDonald, 1972: Mircls and Garrett, 197l: Lied and Pritchard, 1976). Furthermore PWE scores have been shown to be related to authoritarianism PWE and California F Scale scores arc significantly positively correlated {0.51 Mirels and Garrett, 1971:0.44 McDonald, 19721. However as Wilson and Patterson (I 9681 have noted, previously awulable tests of conservatism or authoritarianism (such as the California F Scale) have a number of serious problems. Consequently they devised a new measure of conservatism which has bccn extensively used (Eyscnck, 19771. Apart from previous studies relating tfie PWE to the California F Scale, there tire other reasons to expect a positive relationship between PWE beliefs and conservatism. Studies on the value patterns of conservatives (Joe et al., 19811 and high PWE believers (Furnham, 1982bL studies on the religions beliel~ of conservatives (Wilson and Lillie, 1972) and high PWE believers IBeit-Hallahmi. 1979) and studies on age differences between conser',atives (Wilson, 1973a) and PWE believers (Feather. 19791 would all suggest that conservatism and the PWE are closely related. Indeed, a number of the characteristics of a conservati,
Sut~ject s Seventy-nine adult Ss completed the questionnaire. There were 45 men and 34 women, till of whom were nonstudent adults in full- or part-time employment. Their ages ranged from 18 62.
hr~l rttmdtlI5 The Ss were asked to complete two questionnaires:
1. The Protestant Work Ethic Scale (Mirels and Garrett, 1971). This is a 19-item inventory, which is rated on a 7-point agree disagree scale. Of the 19 items. 16 are scored in the direction of high PWE endorsement and 3 in the direction of low PWE endorsement. Scores range from 5 to 130. The scale has been widely used in studies of attitudes to work (Greenberg, 1978), unemployment IFurnham, 1982a) and religion (Bent-Hallahmi, 1979). 2. The Wilson and Patterson Conservatism Scale [Wilson and Patterson, I968). This is a 50-item inventory, which is rated on a 3-point scale (Yes, 'L No). The items are keyed in the direction of conservatism and scores range from 0 to 100. The scale, which has been shown to be muhidimensional (Eysenck, 1976), has been used to demonstrate the relationship between conservatism and art preference (Wilson et al.. 1973), projective aggression (Wilson. 1973b) and child-rearing practices (Thomas, 1975). Procedure For the most part Ss were tested in their place of work. The questionnaire was completed anonymously and took between 10 and 15 min. RESULTS
Firstly, based on the mean and standard deviation of the PWE scores, the Ss were divided into three groups: Low (PWE < 45, N - 32); Intermediate (PWE ~> 45 ~< 55, N = 14): and High (PWE ~< 55, N = 33). Following this a one-way ANOVA was computed on the total Conservatism score of the three groups. The mean score of the Low group was 32.3; the Intermediate group's mean was 33.12 while the High group scored 42.06. This difference was highly significant (F - 16.27, P < 0.001). To further investigate this relationship a Pearson product moment correlation was computed on all the Ss PWE and Conservatism scores. This revealed a r = 0.47 which is also highl) significant (P < 0.00011. 205
206
NOTES ANI) SHOP, [ER ('OMM[
[able
I M e a n s . S D s a n d F lcxe] R~r each of the I h r e e >ubscale scores lcsullillg f r o m the factor anal3sis Factor 1
PWE stole I o~ l\ t~1 Middle I \ 141 I t i g h I \ : ;1} t Ict¢l * I'.
** l'
NI('ATIONS
,
tactor 2
lructor t
Mean
SD
Mean
SI)
Mean
SD
77S 10.7 c) 14.09
660
7]5 942 S 27
4~1 24{) 3 58
]50 207 294
] (17 (I 9I 14~
g] V
>51
91~/**
2Sq*
I144**
i)(l~l: !lO{ll
Hinderer as the ('onscrvatism scale has been shown to be muhidimensional [Eysenck. 1976: Wilson. 1973a) a factor anal,,sis IVarimax) was computed on the ('onserwltism scale data. This revealed three clear factors. The lh'st factor ~;ts labelled "'Touflhmimh,dnc.sC because of the Ioadings of the items {Death Pcnahy 0.66: Nti+icl Rules 0.59: White Superiority 0.58: Royally 0.57: etc3. This factor which accounted tot 13.5",, of the total xariance was ~ery similar to thc third faclor found by' Eysenck 11976). The second factor was labelled "'Permissicem'~.~.Morali*v'" because of thc loadings (Stripteasc shows 0.60" Nudist Camps 0.66: Church Authority 0.55: Sabbath Obserwtncc 0.54: ('ousin Marriage 0.47: clc.). This factor which accot.lnled for 9.6". of the loHI[ va,'iancc was very similar to the lirst factor found b3 Eyscnck (1976). Finally the third factor \~as labelled "'RacismLiheralism'" because of the loadings (Aparthcid 0.41: Mixed Marriages 0.40: School [lnil\)rms 0.55: Chaperones 0.40). This f~lctor accounted for 5.6",, of the total v:.iri;.inee. ltelns loading 0.40 and aboxc on each of the three factors ~c,-c lnkcn to be the nlost ilnportant determinants of thc factor. The total scores of the selccled items for each of the three factors were then calculated for each Ss. Thus il ~ a s possible to do an ANOVA on each of the three subscale scores {see Table 1L Thus it can bc seen on each of the subscalc scores, as well. lhat there is a signilicant difference between people ~ h o score low and high on the PWE and their social attitudes. With one exception {Factor 2) the interlnediatc PWE group's score is between the t\~o. I)IN('I
NNION
It has been demonstrated lhal PWE beliefs are closely related to more general conservative social attitudes. l:urlhermore this relalioi>hip is consistent across subscale as well as total scores. That is. PWE beliefs are lelated quite consistently to various dimcnsions of conservative belic[s, i.e. Permissiveness. ToughnmMedness etc. Eysenck (1976) found 13 mcaningfnl primary fitctors arising from the Wilson Patterson questiolmaire and il is probable that PWE beliefs would be related to all of them. Thus although PWE beliefs may no longer be related to religious beliefs {Ray. 19821 they cci-tamly appear to bc related to socio-political beliefs. Recently. various writers have predicted the decline m the PWE as a function of nlacro-ccononlic changes, the rise of unemployment etc. (Kelvin. 19801. Indeed, Kelvin (1980) quoted a British Conservative Party Minister as predicting the decline in beliefs in the PWE. But it may be naive to suggest that these PWE beliefs arc isolatcd from other social attitudes and political beliefs. This study has demonstrated that PWE beliefs arc closel? related to an entire range of conservative beliefs and hence it would be unlikely thai PWE would change without the other beliefs doing likewise. 11 seems then. most strange that a Conservative Cabinet minister ~ oul d ~elcome the decline in conservative beliefs!
REFERENCES
BHT-HALLAHMI B. (1979) Personal and social components of the Protestant Ethic. J. soc. P.~vchoL 109, 253 267. EYSlN('K H. J.(1976) Structure of social attitudes. Psychol. Rep. 39, 463 466. E'*'SENCK H. J. (1977) Psycholoqy is ,tbout People. Penguin Harmondsworth. FtA~ HER N. T. (1979) Value correlates of conservatism, d. Person. soc. Psychol. 37, 1617 1630. f:'URNHAM A. (1982a) The Protestant Work Ethic and attitudes towards unemployment. J. occup. Ps.l'chol. In press. FUR\HAM A. (1982b) The Protestant Work Ethic. human \,alnes and attitudes towards taxation. J. econ. P~ychol. In prcss. GI~,I!ICxIIlip,~.;J. (1978) Equity. equality and the Protestant ethic. J. exp. soc. lGychol. 14, 217 226. J<)lc V.. JoN,:s R. and MILHk P. (1981) Value patterns of a COlaservative. Pcr.~on. indirid. D([]I 2, 25 31. K~t.',IN P. (1980)Social Psychology 2001: social psychological bases and implications of unemployment. In "lhc Derelopment O/Social Ps.l'choh~qy {Edited by GIt.MOl R R. and Dt('K S.I. Academic Press. London. Lltl) T. and PmlCHArD R. (1976) Relationships between personality wlriables and components of the cxpediancyxalcncc model. J. appI. P~vchol. 61, 463 467. M ( I ) o N M I ) A.(1972) More on the Protestant ethic..l, co,~uh.c/in. Psychol. 39, 116 122. MIRII.S H. and G.\RRICII J. (19711 Protestant ethic as a personality variable. J. c,,sult, c/in. Psycho/. 36, 4(1 44. RA', J.(1982) Thc Protestant ethic m Australia. .]. soc. P~)ch,d. 116, 127 138. RIM Y.(1977) Signiticance of work and personality, d. occup. P.s3¢hol. 50, 135 138. S loXlc E. {1975) Job scope, job satisfaction and the Protcstant ethic. ,I. rocaI. Bvhor. 7, 215 225. THOMAS D. (1975) ('onserw~tism. authoritarianism and child-rearing practices. Br. J. soc. Psychol. 14, 97 98. WII.SON G. IEd.) (1973a) TM' t~sl'cholo:13 ' O/('onscrcalisnl. Academic Press. London. WIlsoN (}.{1973b) Proiective aggression and social attitudes. Psychol. Rep. 32, 1015 1018. W,LSON G. D. and LIt.HE F. 119721 Social attitudes of salwltionists and humanists. Br. d. sot'. olin. Ps.vchol. I 1 , 2 2 0 224. Wu.sox G. D. and PAl[, rsoN .1. (1968) A ncx~ mcasure of conservatism. Br../. soc. olin. I'.svchol. 7, 264 269. Wn S()N O. D.. At rNM.XN J. (llld M..xim ws T. 119731 Conserxatism and art preferences..l. [)t'l'?,oll. ';oc. Psychol. 25, 286 288.