Theodor Adorno et al. (1950) and Milton Rokeach (1960) took different approaches to studying authoritarianism. Both of their studies had distinct similarities and differences, which will be discussed in this essay.

Adorno et al.’s F-scale measures the strength of a person’s authoritarian personality traits such as submission to authority, conventionality, aggression towards out-groups, and power-seeking behaviour (Adorno et al., 1950). The scale is based on an individual’s responses to statements regarding these topics; the authors used factor analysis to identify traits associated with certain types of people who tend to exhibit higher levels of authoritarian behavior. Meanwhile, Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale focuses on how resilient one’s beliefs are when confronted with new information or counterarguments that could potentially challenge them (Rokeach 1960). This measure assesses how open someone is to learning new ideas by examining their attitudes toward authority or orthodoxy versus flexibility or diversity in thought processes.

Both approaches are similar in that they use attitude scales as a method for measuring authoritarian behaviors. Furthermore, both models attempt to explain why some individuals may have more extreme views than others when it comes to political beliefs and social/cultural norms. However, there is also an important difference between the two models: Adorno et al.’s focus was primarily on broader behavioral trends while Rokeach’s was largely concerned with specific belief systems themselves rather than general personality characteristics.

In summary, while both approaches attempt to explore the causes of authoritarian tendencies in individuals from different perspectives, they do differ significantly in terms of target population and focus area. Adorno et al.’s approach looks at broader trends among all types of people whereas Rokeach’s narrows down its scope by examining individual belief systems instead.