1. Stannard, David, “American Historians and the Idea of National Character: Some Problems and Prospects,” American Quarterly, 23 (1971), 202–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. The evidence most often cited against the existence of a “clearly homogeneous personality type” in small, preliterate societies comes from Wallace, Anthony F. C.'s two essays Personality Structure of the Tuscarora Indians as Revealed by the Rorschach Test, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 150, Washington, D.C., 1952Google Scholar, and “Individual Differences and Cultural Uniformities,” American Sociological Review, 17 (1952), 747–50Google Scholar. Wallace found that only 37 percent of his sample shared the modal personality. But Thomas Hay's critical reevaluation of Wallace's methods and results shows that Wallace defined modal personality and applied data from the Rorschach test in such ways that he was bound to find only a small proportion of examinees sharing the modal personality. More reasonable manipulations of the Rorschach data could have yielded higher results. Hay concludes that “statistical analysis of Wallace's Tuscarora data shows that the proportion of the sample included in the modal class is highly significant. This indicates that the search for psychological similarities within a culturally bounded population is meaningful. … The Tuscarora data certainly do not support the contention that psychological similarities are unimportant in the integration of societies” (p. 523). See Hay, Thomas H., “Personality and Probability: The Modal Personality of the Tuscarora Revisited,” Ethos, 4 (1976), 509–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. A large portion of Stannard's article is devoted to criticism of Murray Murphey, G.'s essay “An Approach to the Historical Study of National Character” in Spiro, Melford E., ed., Context and Meaning in Cultural Anthropology (New York: Free Press, 1965), pp. 144–63Google Scholar. Stannard refers to this study, although he finds it faulty, as “by far the most sophisticated handling by an historian of the national character question to date” (p. 213). Stannard concludes that “barring a major breakthrough in technique by the Murphey school, or someone else in a related area, it appears evident that historians will probably not have a great deal to do in the future with primary work on national character study” (p. 219). The psychometric data presented in this essay should represent at least a breakthrough in evidence.

4. The cognitive theory of culture (also referred to as the idealist or mentalist theory) is well demonstrated in Spradley, James, ed., Culture and Cognition; Rules, Maps, and Plans (San Francisco: Chandler, 1972)Google Scholar, whereas the materialist, or behavioral, theory is strongly argued in Harris, Marvin, The Rise of Anthropological Theory (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968)Google Scholar. A good introduction to the debate can be found in Langness, L. L., The Study of Culture (San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp, 1974)Google Scholar, especially, “Idealism and Materialism,” pp. 84–120.Google Scholar

5. Of course, the behavioral theory of personality is best represented in B. F. Skinner's writings; the psychoanalytic theory, in Sigmund Freud's. A very readable introduction to this debate can be found in Stevenson, Leslie, Seven Theories of Human Nature (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974)Google Scholar, the essays on Freud and Skinner. Murphy, Gardner and Kovach, Joseph K. show the development of the debate in their Historical Introduction to Modern Psychology, 3d ed. (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972). Otherwise, any competent textbook for a course in personality theory will do.Google Scholar

6. The safest choice for historians now appears to be the Whitings' integrated general model for “psycho-cultural” research. See Whiting, John W. M., “A Model for Psycho-cultural Research,” Distinguished Lecture, 1973, Annual Report of the American Anthropological Association, 1974, pp. 1–14Google Scholar; Whiting, Beatrice and Whiting, John W. M., Children of Six Cultures: A Psychocultural Analysis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; and the discussions of the model in Bock, Philip K., Continuities in Psychological Anthropology; A Historical Introduction (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1980), pp. 208–12Google Scholar, and Bourguignon, Erika, Psychological Anthropology: An Introduction to Human Nature and Cultural Differences (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1979), pp. 138–44Google Scholar. The model can be applied to national-character studies, and it specifically allows space for work to be done by historians. It still needs more testing in the field, however, and its methodological requirements make it difficult to apply to the study of past national character. Moreover, some historians are likely to resent the Whitings' model because, even in its latest version, it does not include formal intellectual activity or literary achievement as evidence of a people's cultural character. Such an omission is to be expected, since the Whitings designed their model for research on premodern sociocultural systems. There is no reason, however, for denying space to such evidence if the model is applied to modern nations, although the Whitings might ask that high-culture data simply be classified, along with popular-culture data, as evidence of a people's “world view.”

7. By 1973 more than six thousand scholarly articles, books, and graduate theses and dissertations had been based on MMPI results. In a recent review of the test, one psychologist wrote that “The MMPI still holds the place as the sine qua non in the psychologist's armamentarium of psychometric aids. [It] remains matchless as the objective instrument for the assessment of psychopathology.” And another wrote that it is “the most extensively researched instrument in personality assessment.” See King, Glen D., test evaluation in Oscar Krisen Buros, ed., The Eighth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press, 1978), I, 938Google Scholar, and Henry A. Alker, test evaluation in Buros, Eighth Yearbook, I, 935.Google Scholar

8. The form used for this research is by Hathaway, Starke R. and McKinley, J. Charnley, Booklet for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (New York: Psychological Corp., 1970).Google Scholar

9. Psychologists have previously extrapolated more than 450 subtests out of the MMPI.

10. Dahlstrom, W. Grant and Welsh, George Schlager, An MMPI Handbook: A Guide to Use in Clinical Practice and Research (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960), p. 46.Google Scholar

11. Critics of the MMPI have complained about the apparent bias in this sample of Minnesota Normals, but the authors of the test have not been moved to change the standard, for they still believe it is accurate in identifying serious psychopathology: A person who responds affirmatively to the statements “I am afraid I am losing my mind” (182) and “Most of the time I wish I were dead” (339) is in difficulty, no matter what his subculture. However, the authors have said this: “It is an interesting reflection on the adjustment of these Minnesotans of that period [1937] that most of the samples reported in the MMPI literature from other relatively well functioning populations have tended to earn more deviant average profiles.” See Dahlstrom, W. Grant, Welsh, George Schlager, and Dahlstrom, Leona E., An MMPI Handbook, vol. II: Research Applications, rev. ed. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975), p. 153Google Scholar. About three hundred studies had been completed, as of 1975, that compare other distinctive groups with the Minnesota Normals. See pp. 161–63.

12. Hathaway, Starke R. and McKinley, J. Charnley, “A Multiphasic Personality Schedule (Minnesota): I, Construction of the Schedule,” Journal of Psychology, 10 (1940), 249–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The student scores are presented in Dahlstrom, Welsh, , and Dahlstrom, , MMPI Handbook, IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix A, “Frequency of Responses,” pp. 192–213.Google Scholar

13. Swenson, Wendell M., Pearson, John S., and Osborne, David, An MMPI Source Book: Basic Item, Scale, and Pattern Data on 50,000 Medical Patients (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973), pp. 6, 5Google Scholar. The 1963 collegestudent data are found in Dahlstrom, , Welsh, , and Dahlstrom, , MMPI Handbook, IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix A, “Frequency of Responses,” pp. 192–213.Google Scholar

14. Riesman, David, with Glazer, Nathan and Denney, Reuel, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950)Google Scholar. The edition used here is the Yale paperbound printing of 1976, which is the abridged edition with a 1969 preface.

15. Ibid., pp. 14–17.

16. Ibid., p. 20.

17. Ibid.

18. Ibid., p. xiv.

19. Ibid., p. xxxii.

20. Ibid., pp. 72–82.

21. Ibid., p. 147

22. Lest one think other-directed people are amoral, Riesman is careful to mention that they may possess the virtues of respect for others, compassionate sensitivity, and voluntary cooperation; see pp. 159–60 and the 1969 “Preface.”

23. Degler, Carl, “The Sociologist as Historian: Riesman's The Lonely Crowd,” American Quarterly, 15 (1963) 483–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24. Ibid., p. 496.

25. Ibid., p. 497. The main difficulty with Degler's critique is that it does not deal sufficiently with The Lonely Crowd's psychological propositions. It is efficient in finding fault with the concrete examples Riesman uses from nineteenth-century politics and economic life (it says nothing about changes in religious life and thought that might support Riesman's theory), but Degler does not answer the deeper questions: Do Americans tend to think of themselves and others differently nowadays? Were they more concerned with “character” in the past, and did they act like it? Are they more concerned with “personality” at the present time, and do they act like it? Degler may have intended to say “no” to those particular questions, but he does not do so in his essay, nor does he present or refer to evidence that would have allowed him to do so. See the reply to Degler's critique, Strout, Cushing, “A Note on Degler, Riesman and Tocqueville,” American Quarterly, 16 (1964), 100–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Zuckerman, Michael, Peaceable Kingdoms: New England Towns in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Vintage Books, 1972), p. vii.Google Scholar

27. Berghorn, Forrest J. and Steere, Geoffrey H., “Are American Values Changing?: The Problem of Inner- or Other-Direction,” American Quarterly, 18 (1966), 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. Ibid., p. 58. There appear to be two problems with Berghorn's study. First, of the 200 questionnaires he mailed out, only 100 were returned usable. A 50 percent rate of return is not unusual in sociological studies, but it hardly increases one's confidence in the data in this instance. It is possible that the families that did not return the questionnaires were “too busy”; it is also possible that their very lack of other-directedness kept them from returning the forms, and that Berghorn was more likely to receive them from other-directed persons who wished to “share” such information or “resonate” with him. Second, a respondent might definitely answer “not true” to the following statement: “In the long run, the one thing that will determine if a man is a success in his occupation is if he can do his work well, and it matters little what others may think of him personally.” But that answer does not mean the respondent is other-directed. Indeed, although he might acknowledge that what others think of him is more important to his success than how he works, he might also be quite unhappy with that “fact of life.” There appears no room for the respondent to indicate either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with his answer. Thus, Berghorn's questionnaire (at least judging from the two questions in the article) might have discovered beliefs even though it looked for values—discovered what people think is true rather than what they think ought to be true. These two apparent problems could have been avoided if interviews had been used instead of questionnaires.

29. Berghorn, and Steere, , “Are American Values Changing?” p. 59.Google Scholar

30. Ibid., p. 62.

31. Dornbusch, Sanford M. and Hickman, Lauren C., “Other-Directedness in Consumer-Goods Advertising: A Test of Riesman's Historical Theory,” Social Forces, 38 (1959), 99–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also an ingenious article by deCharms, Richard and Moeller, Gerald H., “Values Expressed in American Children's Readers: 1800–1950,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64 (1962), 136–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. They find that “achievement imagery” in children's books (David McClelland's concept, which is akin to inner-direction) increased from 1800 to 1900 but thereafter decreased. This rise and fall also correlated directly with the changing rates of patent issuance by the U.S. Patent Office. They also find tentative evidence that “affiliation imagery,” which is akin to other-direction, has increased. McClelland, David C.'s general study of need for achievement and affiliation, The Achieving Society (New York: Free Press, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has a commentary on deCharms and Moeller's study on pp. 149–52. A study of imagery in 4-H Club journals gives some prior support to deCharms and Moeller's findings; see Strauss, M. A. and Houghton, L. J., “Achievement, Affiliation, and Cooperation Values as Clues to Trends in American Society, 1924–1958,” Rural Sociology, 25 (1960), 394–403.Google Scholar

32. Miller, Daniel R. and Swanson, Guy E., The Changing American Parent; A Study in the Detroit Area (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1958).Google Scholar

33. Ibid., pp. 57–58.

34. Ibid., p. 118.

35. Kassarjian, W. M. M., “A Study of Riesman's Theory of Social Character,” Sociometry, 25 (1962), 213–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. Centers, Richard, “An Examination of the Riesman Social Character Typology,” Sociometry, 25 (1962), 231–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Centers, Richard and Centers, Louise, “Social Character Types and Beliefs About Childrearing,” Child Development, 34 (1963), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

38. Riesman, David, “Some Questions About the Study of the American Character in the Twentieth Century,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 370 (03 1967), 46–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. Ibid., p. 45; and Riesman, David, “Twenty Years After—A Second Preface,” in The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press paperbound abridged edition with a 1969 preface, 1976 printing), p. xvGoogle Scholar. See also his commentary—Reisman, David with Glazer, Nathan, “The Lonely Crowd: A Reconsideration in 1960,” in Lipset, S. M. and Lowenthal, Leo, eds., Culture and Social Character: The Work of David Riesman Reviewed (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1961), pp. 419–58Google Scholar—which is the best collection of follow-up studies, and his essay “The Lonely Crowd, 20 Years After,” Encounter, October 1969, pp. 1–5Google Scholar. What may be happening to otherdirection now, Riesman suggests, is that “the ‘others’ whose direction one seeks and with whom one wants resonance turn out on inquiry to be a small in-group, claiming, at least, to want to ‘do one's own thing’ and to share it with relatively few others, while disparaging the rest” (personal communication, February 14, 1980).

40. Butcher, James N. and Pancheri, Paolo, A Handbook of Cross-national MMPI Research (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1976)Google Scholar. The data are found in Appendix E, “Item-Endorsement Percentages for the National Samples,” pp. 300–379Google Scholar. This appendix includes data from a recent sample of Minnesota college students (3,278 men, 2,369 women) that is larger than those used in this study. These data were not used because they appear to be an averaging of results collected over a fourteen-year period, from 1948 to 1962. It is interesting to note, however, that nearly all the scores from this larger sample show more otherdirection than the 1937 college students but less than the 1963 college students. If other-direction has increased rather uniformly from 1937 to 1963, it makes sense that the scores from the larger sample would be intermediate. See Loper, Rodney G., Robertson, James M., and Swanson, Edward O., “College Freshman MMPI Norms over a Fourteen-Year Period,” Journal of College Student Personnel, 9 (1968), 404–7Google Scholar. That article gives information on the testing, but the item percentages are found only in Butcher, and Pancheri, , Handbook of Cross-national MMPI ResearchGoogle Scholar, under the rubrics “Sample 5” and “Sample 6.”

41. See Appendix C, “Stability of Item Responses,” in Dahlstrom, , Welsh, , and Dahlstrom, , MMPI Handbook, II, pp. 219–30.Google Scholar