Differentiation of arguments in relation to attitude, dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity

77 male and 81 female undergraduates wrote arguments favouring American intervention in South Vietnam and arguments opposing American intervention. They had 5 minutes to write each set. Half the Ss wrote pro arguments fust, then con arguments. The other half did the reverse. Ss then completed an attitude scale concerned with American intervention, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, and Budner's test of intolerance of ambiguity. As predicted, Ss reported a greater number of arguments consistent with their attitude than arguments not consistent with their attitude. Contrary to prediction, Ss who were high in dogmatism or high in intolerance of ambiguity did not report relatively more consistent than inconsistent arguments when compared to Ss low in dogmatism or low in intolerance of ambiguity. Nor did they report a relatively low number of arguments inconsistent with attitude. Results were related to those of a previous study and discussed in terms of information reception and processing. 1969 Australian Psychological Society