American Association for Public Opinion Research

Reactions to Fascist Propaganda-A Pilot Study Author(s): Bruno Bettelheim and Morris Janowitz Source: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Spring, 1950), pp. 53-60 Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2745898 . Accessed: 06/10/2011 19:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Reactions

to

Fascist

Propaganda-A Pilot
Fifty veterans who had previously been interviewed intensively, and whose tolerance attitudes were known, were exposed experimentally to anti-Semitic propaganda. While most of the tolerant men disapproved of the propaganda and intolerant men approved it, there were important deviant cases. Analysis of the reactions of the group indicated that

Study

BY BRUNO BETTELHEIMAND MORRISJANOWITZ

such propagandawas most likely to be effective if it appeared authoritative and objective, and if it served to diminish anxieties of the reciplent without arousing new ones. Bruno Bettelheim is Associate Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Chicago. Morris Janowitz is Assistant Professor of Social Science, also at Chicago.

THE

INFLUENCE

of propaganda on the modification of attitudes is of

primary concern to many students of social psychology. Yet although numerous studies have been made regarding the sources of anti-democratic propaganda, comparatively little is known about audience reactions or what makes for the acceptanceor rejection of non-democratic themes. The following observations,based on a very limited experimental study, are presented at this stage principally because of the almost complete absence of research on this topic. Currently in the United States, efforts to modify inter-ethnic relations in a democratic direction by means of mass propaganda speak mainly in the name of traditionally recognized symbols and values. Likewise, appeals for intolerance do not use slogans of revolutionary propaganda,nor do they present any explicit statement of an alternative social order as was done by the Nazis in Germany. Intolerance propaganda offers no new symbols of political identification; instead it manipulates accepted symbols for disruptive ends. The symbol of democracy is not denied, but it is so manipulated as to make it appear that minority discriminationis needed to protect our democracyagainst some minority which is attempting to control the democraticapparatus. Our own investigation of the impact of anti-Semitic propaganda was carriedout as a sub-studyof a larger investigation of the dynamics of ethnic intolerance. The larger study was based on intensive interviews with a group mainly composed of lower middle class, white,

54

PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, SPRING 1950

gentile males in Chicago, who had served in the army as enlisted men.1 On the basis of the initial interviews, it was possible to divide the sample into three groups in regard to their attitudes toward Jews: those men who gave no evidence of prejudice toward Jews (the tolerant respondents), those who held unfavorable stereotypes about them, for example that they are pushing, or control most of the nation's business (the "stereotyped"respondents), and finally those who in addition to believing in the validity of such stereotyped thinking were outspoken in requesting legal or extra-legal discrimination of the Jews (the "outspoken"and "intensely" intolerant respondents). With the exception of downward social mobility, as we found in our initial study, the tendency to discharge hostility by means of antiSemitism was relatively independent of specific external experiences after the individual had reached maturity. Internal factors were more important. Specifically, ethnic intolerancewas found to be significantly related to anxiety and personal insecurity, while tolerance depended to a large degree on a combination of two independent elements: on the individual's tendency to submit to societal control, and on whether society exercised such control in favor of tolerant attitudes.
EXPERIMENTAL EXPOSURE TO ANTI-SEMITIC PROPAGANDA

One way to analyze these findings further was to expose individuals to some surface experience-such as exposure to propaganda material-and to determine the character of their reactions. In doing so, we recognized that previous studies of the impact of printed propaganda on prejudice have shown that the modification of such attitudes, if achieved at all, is accomplished only after repeated exposure. The purpose of exposing these men, whose attitudes had previously been studied, to intolerance propaganda was not to assess whether specific attitude changes took place. Our chief interest was to gain understanding of the reactions with which the individual responded when confronted experimentally by ethnic appeals. Another question we hoped to throw light on was the way in which different degrees of tolerance were related to differences in the reaction to such propaganda.Because of the small size of our sample we realized that great caution would have to be exercised in projecting our conclusions on to other groups.
1 For the published report of this study, see Dynamics of Prejudice, New York: Harper and
Brothers, I950.

REACTIONS TO FASCIST PROPAGANDA

55

Henry H. Klein, who stated he was a Jew. These two pieces were selected from among the anti-Semitic propaganda available because they concentrated on problems which were connected with predominant fears and prejudices, as far as these could be determined in the initial study. Many veterans, for example, were concerned about employment prospects and, to some degree, whether the immigration of refugees into the United States would influence the labor market. The initial interview also indicated that among the most frequent sources of objections to Jews was that they "got ahead of others," had too much money and influence, and so on. These stereotypedopinions characterized Jews as interfering with the individual's earning power, and, on a larger scale, as controlling the government or other powerful institutions. The first propaganda piece, The Jew Refugee, attacked the Jews mainly as such and did not attack the government. It dealt almost exclusively with the Jew as a dangerous and vicious competitor, and sought to arouse anti-Semitic attitudes by urging absolute restrictions to prevent further immigration. The second piece, Frankfurter Over the White House, attacked the Jews for their alleged domination of the Federal government. An example of how Jews were characterized in both pamphlets may be found on page i6 of the first one. There Jews are describedas having "bloodthirsty,murderousappetites.... The sun never has shone on such a bloodthirsty and vindictive people who cherish the idea of murdering and strangling." Both pamphlets also tried to show that some representativesof society, and by implication that institutions of societal control, were in favor of intolerance. Both

were: (i) The Jew Refugee-Invasion of AmericathroughImmigraOverthe White tion and Whatto Do About It, and (2) Frankfurter House, Baruch Over Congress,RockefellerOver the World, by one

Propaganda booklets were mailed to a sample of fifty veterans who had been interviewed previously. The group was so selected that the distribution of tolerant, stereotyped, and outspoken men was proportionate to that in the larger sample of the initial study. Thirty-three men agreed to a re-interviewwhen approachedwithin two weeks 'after they had received the pamphlets. The printed examples of anti-Semitic propaganda used in this study were typical of those in circulation in 1946. The two pieces used

56

PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, SPRING 1950

aboundedin alleged statements outstandingrepresentatives soof by andpoliticalleaders, fromthe popesto Martin ciety,includingreligious Luther and from the founding fathers to recent presidentsof the United States.
REACTIONS CORRELATED WITH ANXIETIES

On the basis of their over-allresponses was possibleto classify it the men's reactionas approvingor disapproving the anti-Semitic of includedthosewho disapproved contents("disapproving" propaganda of only part of the propaganda). the total 33, Io approved, disOf 14 while 9 were neutral or indeterminate. When they were approved, classified tolerantor intolerant, following distribution as the emerged.
TABLE i
Tolerant Intolerant Total

Approve Disapprove

2 8

8 6

Neutral or Indeterminate
Totals

Io I4

5
I5

4
i8

9
33

On the basis of the outspoken anti-Semites' spontaneousstatements, it can be said that althoughthey approvedof the pamphlets, view the Jew as bloodthirsty murderous. or they did not necessarily such statementsin the anti-Semitic Apparently pamphletswere not intended for literal acceptance.Their purpose was rather to add statementsto the uneasinesswhich vaguely inthrough extravagant tolerantmen felt when confrontedwith the Jewish minority.If the and associations thus evoked free-floating, unpleasant, anxiety-creating then became(subconsciously) connectedwith a minority,the purpose of disruptive anti-Semitic was propaganda achieved. Of the two anti-Semitic pamphlets,it is interestingto note that moremen readandunderstood JewRefugeethanreadFrankfurter The Overthe WhiteHouse.Propaganda which was clearlydirected against a minoritygroupmay have been more effectivein reachingits reader than propaganda which includedin its attacksuchhighly valuedsymbols as the White House, and such outstanding of representatives our socialinstitutions a SupremeCourtjustice(Frankfurter), "elder as an statesman" (Baruch) and a symbol of Americancapitalism(RockeAnotherreasonmay have been that on the basis of title and feller). more "subversive" the content,the secondpiece was considered than

REACTIONS TO FASCIST PROPAGANDA

57

first, since it followed a line of reasoning more easily linked with Nazi propaganda. This explanation is supported by the statements of some of the men. For example, an outspoken anti-Semite said: in "I got a bookletI'm interested and I'm readingit." At that, he took the pamphlet The Jew Refugee out of a drawer and showed it to the interviewer. Then he continued: in "It has a lot of facts and I'm interested readingit." About the other, Frankfurter Over the White House, he said: "I read part of it and threw it in the stove. SometimesI think these things are troublemaking." Thus, while he accepted and preserved the first pamphlet attacking only the Jews, his anxieties were aroused by the second, which attacked important symbols of authority. He not only destroyed it, but also expressedworry about its dangerous implications. Closer examination of the reactions of individual respondents in terms of the initial intensive interview record makes possible a fuller analysis of differential responses in the light of the individual's personal and social controls.
THE DEVIANT CASES

One might have expected that all tolerant men would disapprove of the anti-Semiticpropagandaand that intolerant men would approve. Hence the deviant cases seemed to warrant inspection. Two tolerant men approved of the anti-Semitic material. They were both rather insecure individuals, gullible, and quite afraid of Jewish competition. Their knowledge of inter-ethnic relations was most limited. One of them thought that since a Jew (as was claimed in the pamphlet) was opposed to further influx of Jewish immigrants, he must know what he was talking about. In addition, he said: "Why should only Jews be permittedto immigrate?There are a lot of otherpeoplewho want to come in." In his case, an instinct for fair play combined with his factual ignorance was enough to induce him to approve of the first pamphlet, but the second he rejected. The other tolerant men reacted similarly. Similarly, the six intolerant men who disapproved of the material did so chiefly because they were adversely affected by the second pam-

58

PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, SPRING I950

or phlet.This, they felt, went too far,was too aggressive too subversive, and therefore arousedin them greatanxiety.On the otherhand, they the of approved the first pamphletwhich presented dangerof Jewish of Quite differentfrom this half-hearted disapproval the material with which eight intolerant men was the decisiveness by six intolerant in men approved it. One of them who had beenquiteoutspoken his of anti-Semitic views during the initial interviewdisplayedeven greater affect in the follow-up interview.When questionedabout the pamphlets, he said: You "I'minclined agreeIoopercenton theJewish to problem. see a in dollars thearmy a lot of G.I.scomehomethathavesaved few thousand and andworked hardandthenyoucango up to a bighomewithservants If I hadmy way, can't a couple carsandthepeople evenspeak of English. If be be therewouldn't anyin thiscountry; wouldn't citizens. I ever they a chance outdoHitler." I'll get
PROPAGANDA AND PERSONAL SECURITY

competition.

In line with our findings of the initial study on submissionto would impress externalcontrol,it was expectedthat if any arguments in the men, symbolsof authority(as represented the pamphletsby would be one of them. quoted "authorities") How an uncriticalreliance on the authorityof the prominent names led one man-to accept the intolerantpropaganda(whether these personsreallymade the statements quotedwas not questioned) of He anti-Semite. thought maybe seenfrom the remarks a stereotyped the pamphleton the refugeeswas:
".. prettygood. It has what a lot of big men said aboutthe JewsFord, some senators.It was sent throughthe mail so it must be good or the Jews would raise a big stink.If we keep the ball rolling we might do something."

In general,an increasein underlyinganxietycould often be obsincethe statements madein the pamphlets served,particularly seemed to feed the basicinsecurities the insecuremen. Their reactions of seem to indicatethat anti-Semitic propaganda reachits markin the case may of the insecureindividualif it suggestsactionswhich seem to promise a decrease insecurity of withoutarousing new anxiety.It is particularly
with individuals who are "straddling the fence," whose weak controls

REACTIONS TO FASCIST PROPAGANDA

59

that outer but rejectintolerance whose hostilitypressesfor discharge, the scalesin favorof intolerance. control(authoritative statements)tip An indirect measureof emotionalreactionsto the propaganda materialmay be found in the men's estimatesof how effectivethey thought the materialwould be in modifyingother people'sattitudes. Such observationsattain added significancewhen compared with viewson the effectof the tolerance propaganda. Thus therewas a much greatertendencyon the part of the men to believein the effectiveness anti-Semitic than in that of propaganda of tolerancepropaganda(see Table 2). Only six men of a matched thought the sample who were exposedto pro-tolerance propaganda tolerance would have some effect,while eighteenthought propaganda the anti-Semiticpropagandawould be effective.This differencein
TABLE 2
TOLERANCE PROPAGANDA ANTI-SEMITIC PROPAGANDA

Tolerant Intolerant Men Men

Totals

Tolerant Intolerant Men Men

Totals

Will havean effect Will have no effect Indeterminate

Totals

4 7 2
I3

11 7
20

6 I8 9
33

8 4 3
I5

Io 5 3
i8

i8 9 6
33

It opinionis important. may have been due to the fact that many perto is sonsbelievethatin our societyan invitation aggression moreeffective than an appealto reason-a belief only too often basedon their The violenceof the appealfor anti-Semitic actionwas own attitudes. recognizedeven by thosewho gave the pamphletsonly casualinspection. On the other hand, the rationalappealof the tolerancepropain gandawas equallyobvious.Thereforethe difference opinionon the of materialmay to some effectiveness the two types of propaganda of have been nothing but a reflection generalopinionson the degree effectof emotionaland aggressive statements when comparedto that and of reasonable tolerantstatements.
CONCLUSIONS AND HYPOTHESES

In summary, the overall reactions to intolerancepropaganda of seemedto supportthe main hypotheses the largerinitial study on the natureof ethnicintolerance. When viewedin contextof the study

60

PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, SPRING I950

as a whole, it appeared that reactions ethnic stimuliwere mainly a to function of anxiety and of the adequacyof an individual'scontrols overhis asocialtendencies. thesefactorsremainstable,if no changes If in his socio-economic to situationtake place,then exposure some statements favoringintolerance, even if they are violentlyworded,do not change a man's attitudes,althoughthey may providehim with addiThis was tional notions with which he justifieshis old prejudices. causedno indicatedby the fact that readingof the propaganda pieces significant changesin answersgiven to a seriesof socialdistancequestions used in both the initial and follow-upinterviews. to On the basisof our pilot surveyof reactions intolerance propathe following hypotheseswould appear to warrant further ganda, study as possiblyexplainingthe conditionsunderwhich personssuch as those studiedcan be impressed anti-tolerance propaganda: by I. Their tolerancemust not be deeply anchoredin their general attitudesand beliefs but must be surfacephenomena,reflectionsof what they think are "correct" expectedattitudes. or That is, their controlsmust requireonly conformityratherthan genuinetolerance. 2. The material which they areexposedmust seemauthoritative to and fairly objective.(This is similarto attitudesencountered among Germanpeople,where vague attitudesof tolerancewere swept away statement.The attitudeof these Germanswas: We by authoritative are "littlemen"and when the government tells us how dangerous the Jewsare,we must believeit.) conditionis that the material must 3. The last and most important be so designedas to indicateand urge actionswhich the individual feels are suitable diminishingexistingapprehensions for withoutarousing new ones. At the presentlevel of social stability,fascistpropaganda which makes use of ethnic intolerance-that is, appealsto the individual's asocialtendencies-is not likely to succeedif those appealsgenerate anxieties which the individual not ableto master.In this sample,the is initialintensivestudyfoundthat a reliance external on in authority, the absenceof internalized normsor ego strength,was enoughto restrain asocialtendencies. the degreethat propaganda To can appeals convincof ingly speakin the nameof powerfulsymbols external authority-and not only pretendto do so-to thatdegreemay potentialeffectiveness be realized.