CPI and Dogmatism scores for 150 each 1960 and 1970 junior college Ss were compared with those for 105 hippies living in a forest setting. Separate analyses were performed for the males (ns = 75, 75, and 79) and females (ns = 75, 75, and 26). The 1970 college Ss' and hippies' scores were more similar to one another than the scores of either group were to those of the 1960 college Ss. The CPI Responsibility scale strongly differentiated the 3 groups; about 30% of the score variance was associated with group membership. On the whole, the hippie sample's scores were interpreted as indicating exaggerated personality characteristics common to today's college youth.
References
1.
AdlerN.The antinomian personality: The hippie character type. Psychiatry, 1968, 31, 325–338.
2.
BergerB. M.Hippie morality—more old than new. Transaction, 1967, 5(2), 19–27.
3.
Blum, R. H., & Associates. Drags: I. Society and drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
4.
CheekR.NewellS.SarettM.Harbingers: Social relations in groups of LSD users. Paper presented at the conference on Drug Use and Drug Subcultures, Asilomar, California, February, 1970.
5.
CrossH. J.DoostR. M.TracyJ. J.A study of values among hippies. Proceedings, 78th Annual Convention, APA, 1970, 6, 449–450. (Summary)
6.
DavisF.Why all of us may be hippies someday. Transaction, 1967, 5, 10–18.
7.
EarismanD. L.Hippies in our midst. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968.
8.
EhrlichH. J.LeeD.Dogmatism, learning, and resistance to change: A review and a new paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 249–260.
9.
FortJ.Youth—how to produce drop-ins rather than drop-outs. Supplementary Research Report No. 101, Research Department, California Teachers Association, March, 1969.
HaleyJ.The amiable hippie: A new form of dissent. Voices, 1968, 4, 102–110.
12.
HicksR. A.Factor analytic studies of the California Psychological Inventory. Unpublished Master's thesis, San Jose State College, 1960.
13.
KendallR. F.PittelS. M.Life history antecedents of subjective contentment and dysphoria in a hippie culture. Paper presented at the meetings of the Society in Child Development, Santa Monica, California, March, 1969.
14.
KendallR. F.PittelS. M.Three portraits of the young drug user: Comparison of MMPI group profiles. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1971, 3, 63–66.
15.
PlantW. T.MiniumE. W.Differential personality development in young adults of markedly different aptitude levels. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 141–152.
16.
PlantW. T.TelfordC. W.Changes in personality for groups completing different amounts of college over two years. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1966, 74, 3–36.
17.
RokeachM.The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.
18.
VacchianoR. B.StraussP. S.HochmanL.The open and closed mind: A review of dogmatism. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 261–273.
19.
WallR. L.PlantW. T.Personality differences between freshmen of 1958 and 1970. Paper presented at the meetings of the Western Psychological Association, San Francisco, April, 1971.
20.
WeaklandJ. H.Hippies: What the scene means. In R. H. Blum & Associates (Eds.), Drugs: I. Society and drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.
21.
WolfeB. H.The hippies. New York: New American Press, 1968.
22.
ZablockiB.The social structure of drug-cased communes. Paper presented at the Conference on Drug Use and Drug Subcultures, Asilomar, California, February, 1970.
