Outline the similarities and differences between the research studies of Adorno et al. (1950) and Allum (2011) on personality types.
This essay is going to look at Adorn et al.’s (1950) and Allum’s (2011) studies on personality in block format and then it is going to outline the main similarities and differences. Although, it is impossible to fit all their studies here i,e Adorn et al.’s (1950) work is a book over one thousand pages (McAvoy, 2012) and Allum’s (2011) (McAvoy, 2017) article is over seven thousand words, but it is going to demonstrate the main points in very concise paragraphs.
Theodor Adorno a well-known sociologist from Germany and Frenkel-Brunswick a child psychologist from Austria that had fled Germany in 1930s were invited …show more content…
He argues that, Europeans lack the necessary scientific literacy to distinguish science from pseudoscience, people are confused about what astrology actually is, and last one derived from Adorno et al.’s work on authoritarian personality and his argument that “people with authoritarian personality tend to perceive the outside world as threatening, and they are said to be more superstitious” Adorno (1950) cited in McAvoy (2012, p.33). Allum found support for his claim and he did not try to prove anything. Allum (2011) borrows definitions from Webster-Merriam dictionary to define astrology as “divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects” (Allum, 2011. cited in McAvoy, 2017, p 35) and a horoscope as a “diagram of the relative positions of planets and signs of the zodiac at a specific time (as at one’s birth) for use by astrologers in inferring individual character and personality traits ad in foretelling events of a person’s life” (Allum, 2011. cited in McAvoy, 2017, p 35). Further, Allum uses National Science Board 2000 and 2006 to support his claim that around 25% of American and European public read their horoscopes occasionally, believe in the efficiency of astrology and believe that it is scientific (Allum, 2011, cited in McAvoy, 2017, pp 35-37). He argues that people who believe in astrology are not scientifically literate. (Miller, 2004 cited in Allum, 2011, cited in McAvoy, 2017, pp. 37-38) Furthermore, Allum (2011) uses data from European Commission, 2005a and 2005b to support his hypothesis that many people displayed or unveiled confusion between astronomy and astrology, and people with scientific literacy were able to distinguish science form pseudo-science. Finally, in regard to Adorn et al.’s study and his own hypothesis about
This essay is going to look at Adorn et al.’s (1950) and Allum’s (2011) studies on personality in block format and then it is going to outline the main similarities and differences. Although, it is impossible to fit all their studies here i,e Adorn et al.’s (1950) work is a book over one thousand pages (McAvoy, 2012) and Allum’s (2011) (McAvoy, 2017) article is over seven thousand words, but it is going to demonstrate the main points in very concise paragraphs.
Theodor Adorno a well-known sociologist from Germany and Frenkel-Brunswick a child psychologist from Austria that had fled Germany in 1930s were invited …show more content…
He argues that, Europeans lack the necessary scientific literacy to distinguish science from pseudoscience, people are confused about what astrology actually is, and last one derived from Adorno et al.’s work on authoritarian personality and his argument that “people with authoritarian personality tend to perceive the outside world as threatening, and they are said to be more superstitious” Adorno (1950) cited in McAvoy (2012, p.33). Allum found support for his claim and he did not try to prove anything. Allum (2011) borrows definitions from Webster-Merriam dictionary to define astrology as “divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects” (Allum, 2011. cited in McAvoy, 2017, p 35) and a horoscope as a “diagram of the relative positions of planets and signs of the zodiac at a specific time (as at one’s birth) for use by astrologers in inferring individual character and personality traits ad in foretelling events of a person’s life” (Allum, 2011. cited in McAvoy, 2017, p 35). Further, Allum uses National Science Board 2000 and 2006 to support his claim that around 25% of American and European public read their horoscopes occasionally, believe in the efficiency of astrology and believe that it is scientific (Allum, 2011, cited in McAvoy, 2017, pp 35-37). He argues that people who believe in astrology are not scientifically literate. (Miller, 2004 cited in Allum, 2011, cited in McAvoy, 2017, pp. 37-38) Furthermore, Allum (2011) uses data from European Commission, 2005a and 2005b to support his hypothesis that many people displayed or unveiled confusion between astronomy and astrology, and people with scientific literacy were able to distinguish science form pseudo-science. Finally, in regard to Adorn et al.’s study and his own hypothesis about