The approaches that determine the theoretical framework in the current study are summarized in relation to each other.

Polarity Theory and Normative Humanistic Ideology Tomkins (1978, 1987) has defined ideology as a comprehensive understanding of the political stance an individual maintains toward belief-based and value-based components of human living. Individual, group, or cultural ideologies may be understood according to the two orthogonal dimensions of normativism and humanism. The humanistic ideological orientation views humankind as an end in itself, an active, creative, thinking, desiring, and loving force. The normative ideological orientation maintains that reality exists prior to, and independent of, humankind and that human beings must struggle toward this potential through conformity to norms and set rules. Tomkins’ polarity theory explains the differences of ideology and personality depending on humanistic and normative orientation, between left and right, theological beliefs. This study is mainly concerned with the value system of the polarity theory.

According to Tomkins, normative socialization is oriented toward parenting and directing the child along predetermined pathways. The objective is to have the child become obedient to these external standards, and to ignore or defer pleasure deriving from his or her own feelings. Thus, normative socialization teaches denial of the validity of one’s own effects (Stone & Schaffner, 1988). Humanistic socialization could be thought of as child-centered education. According to humanistic orientation the child’s feelings and desires are central, and growth is seen as springing almost spontaneously from the child’s inner self. Feelings and sensitivity are to be savored and relished, not denied. One of the basic guides for the child’s decisions is his/her own feelings (Stone & Schaffner, 1988). For example, childhood experiences arising from focus on the child and his or her inner self are expected to reinforce feelings of excitement, joy, surprise, distress, and shame, in turn leading the child to gravitate toward the humanistic orientation, or left-wing perspective. In contrast, more structured, punitive education engenders emotions such as anger and contempt, which reflect the normative orientation, or right- wing perspective (Jost & Hunyady, 2002).

Schwartz and the Cultural Value Approach Schwartz’s cultural value approach is related to understanding how values are developed at a cultural level, Schwartz demonstrates that cultural values are alternative solutions for social problems. Three dimensions related to the approach are: (Sagiv & Schwartz, 1995; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) 1) conservatism-autonomy (beliefs related to individual group relations); 2) hierarchy-equality (beliefs related to responsibility of social behavior); 3) superiority-harmony (beliefs related to individuals’ responsibility for environment and life).

The first dimension – autonomy versus conservatism – represents the relationship between the individual and society. If autonomy is of more importance than conservatism, the person is viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in his or her own uniqueness, who seeks to express his or her own internal attributes (preferences, traits, feelings, motives) and is encouraged to do so.

The second dimension – egalitarianism versus hierarchy – refers to the relationships between an individual and “the other”. If hierarchy values dominate, this means that culture uses power differences and relies on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles to bring about responsible social behavior.

The third dimension – harmony versus mastery – concerns the relationships between the individual and his/her environment. If harmony is favored over mastery, the culture focuses on the fit between the individual and the world, on its acceptance and preservation rather than on its change and exploitation.

System Justification System justification theory focuses on the motivated tendency for people to do cognitive and ideological work on behalf of the social system, thereby perpetuating the status quo and preserving inequality (Jost, 1995; Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost et al., 2003). The main aim in system justification theory is to understand how and why people rationalize the existing social system, especially when their support appears to conflict with other important motives to maintain or enhance self-esteem and to maintain and enhance group standing (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Thompson, 2000). System justification theory hypothesizes that, under certain conditions, members of the disad- vantaged groups would be even more likely than would members of advantaged group to support the status quo. If there is a motivation to justify the system to reduce ideological dissonance and defend against threats to the system’s legitimacy, then it may be that those who suffer the most because of the system will be the ones who would explain, justify, and rationalize the system most vigorously (Jost et al., 2003).

Perceived Control over Performance The concept of perceived behavioral control is by no means new or original to the theory of planned behavior. A similar idea appears in the health belief model (Rosenstock, 1966), where it is termed barriers, and in the model of interpersonal behavior (Triandis, 1977), where it takes the form of facilitating conditions. Perceived behavioral control owes its greatest debt, however, to Bandura’s work on self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989, 1997). Perceived self-efficacy refers to people’s beliefs about their capabilities to exercise control over their own level of functioning and over events that affect their lives (Bandura, 1991, p. 257). Defined at this general level, perceived self-efficacy differs greatly from perceived behavioral control, which is focused on the ability to perform a particular behavior. Consistent with this line of reasoning, perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned behavior refers generally to people’s expectations regarding the degree to which they are capable of performing a given behavior, the extent to which they have the requisite resources and believe they can overcome whatever obstacles they may encounter (Ajzen, 2002).

In relation to the general theoretical background summarized and the results of related research mentioned, the aim in this study was to investigate the relationships among values, humanism, perceived democratic level of the educational system, control beliefs, and justification of the educational system.

The instruments used in the data collection were:

Polarity Scale The Polarity Scale was developed by Tomkins, Stone, and Schaffner (1988). The revised scale consists of 59 paired items, and the participants give their response by making a choice between the paired items. Göregenli (1997) used the adaptation of the scale to the Turkish context with a sample of 522 adults. The 14 items with negative item-total correlations and those below 0.10 were eliminated, and the last format had 45 items and the alpha coefficient for the Polarity Scale was obtained as 0.69.

In the current study the 20 items of a short form of the Polarity Scale were used and the alpha coefficient of the scale for this study was 0.73. The respondents were to determine the statement that best reflected their belief from the paired items, with 1.00 indicating normative and 2.00 indicating humanistic orientation. The total item scores compute the total scores of the participants, with lower scores indicating normative orientation and higher scores indicating humanistic orientation.

Schwartz Value Scale The second instrument was rated on a 6-point Likert scale designed by Sagiv and Schwartz (1995) to determine how important each value is for the respondent. The definition and item numbers of the value dimensions of the scale are distributed as: 1) Power (P): attainment of social status and prestige, and the control or dominance over people and resources (Item no: 2-17-39); 2) Achievement (A): personal competence (Item no: 4-13-24-32); 3) Hedonism (H): pleasure or sensuous gratification for oneself (Item no: 10-26-37); 4) Stimulation (St): excitement, novelty and challenge in life (Item no: 6-15-30); 5) Self-direction (SD): independent thought and action (e.g., creating, choosing, exploring) (Item no: 1-11-22-34); 6) Universalism (U): understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and of nature (Item no: 3-8-19-23-29-40); 7) Benevolence (B): preserving and enhancing the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (Item no: 12-18-27-33); 8) Tradition (T): respect, commitment, and acceptance of customs and ideas that one’s culture or religion imposes on the individual (Item no: 20-21-25-28); 9) Conformity (C): restraint of action, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms (Item no: 7-9-16-36-38); and Security (Se): safety, harmony, and stability of society or relationships, and of self (Item no: 5-14-31-35).

Giray (2003) adapted the scale to the Turkish context and Cronbach’s alpha values were determined to be between 0.58 and 0.81 for dimensions and 0.83 for the total scale. The Turkish adaptation of the Schwartz Value Scale is used in this study and coefficient alpha value was determined as 0.79.

Perceived Democracy in Education System Scale (PDES) The third scale was developed by the researchers to determine the perceptions related to the democratic level of the education system. The scale consists of a 5-level Likert- type scale with a total of 10 items related to the participation level of teachers and students in different aspects of the system; perceived equality, human rights, and discrimination in textbooks and curricula. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.80 for this study.

Control Beliefs Scale (CB) The CB was developed by the researchers to determine the perceptions related to personal control over the system, and is rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale consisting of five items related to perceived control over the education system (e.g., “It’s impossible to determine any change in the system by my effort”; “The education system would be democratic if everyone did what he/she should”). Cronbach’s alpha is 0.54.

System Justification Scale (SJ) The SJ was developed by the researchers to determine the perceptions related to justification of the system. It is rated on of a 5- point Likert-type scale with five items such as: “Authority and hierarchy are necessary for efficiency”; “Depending on the conditions we are living in, a more democratic system can’t be possible”. Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.60.

The participants evaluated the educational system in 10 domains using a 5-point Likert scale. The responses demonstrate that the issue perceived as the least democratic by the teachers is the “equality of opportunity” dimension (candidate M = 2.07 and teacher M = 1.98) and there is no significant difference between teacher and candidate perceptions in this item.

Women are seen to be more humanistic (women M = 35.76, men M = 34.43) (F(1, 364) = 22.39, p < .000) and women (M = 24.58) perceive the system as less democratic than do men (22.82) (F(1, 364) = 6.48 p < .05). The tendency towards conformity is also related to sex. Men (M = 18.80) are seen to be more conformist than are women (M = 17.90) and this difference in tendency is significant (F(1, 364) = 4.63, p < .03).

Age is also significantly related to perceived democracy of the system and system justification (F(2, 363) = 7.56, p < .000). As the participants get older they are seen to justify the system more (participants aged 19-25 = 16.27, 26-40 = 15.47, and 41 and higher = 14.62). Teachers justify the education system more than the candidates do.

Also, control beliefs of the participants are related to age (F(2, 363) = 6.09, p < .002). As the participants’ age increases so the belief in personal control over democratization of the education system decreases (participants aged 19-25 = 16.29, 26-40 = 15.36, and 41 and higher = 15.19). Teachers believe that they have less control over democratization of the system compared with the teacher candidates.

Age is also significantly related to some dimensions of value scales. Older participants are seen to have higher scores on security (participants aged 19-25 = 16.75, 26-40 = 17.10, and 41 and higher = 18.02) (F(2, 363) = 5.19 p < .006); and conformity (participants aged 19-25 = 17.66, 26-40 = 18.50, and 41 and higher = 19.52) (F(2, 363) =7.99, p < .0004).

Teacher candidates are seen to justify the education system less (candidate M = 15.21, teacher M = 16.24) (F(1, 364) = 9.24, p < .01) and to have a belief that they can control the system to be more democratic (candidate M = 16.31, teacher M = 15.50) (F(1, 364) = 6.58, p < .05). Teachers are seen to value conformity (candidate M = 17.60, teacher M = 18.80) and security (candidate M = 16.73, teacher M = 17.32) more than candidates do. The differences between the value scores of teachers and candidates for these dimensions are seen to be statistically significant.

Polarity Scale and Schwartz Value Scale scores are significantly related. The humanistic orientation is negatively related with justification of the system (r = -.14, p < .01) and power (r = -.21, p < .01), and positively related with universal equality and democracy (r = .19, p < .01).

System justification is negatively related to the perceived democracy level of the educational system scores (r = -.11, p < .05). Participants who perceive the education system as democratic are seen to have higher scores on traditionality (r = .29, p < .01). In the same way, participants with higher scores on traditionality (r = .29, p < .01), power (r = .12, p < .05), and conformity (r = .29, p < .01) are seen to have higher scores on system justification. System justification is negatively related to personal control beliefs (r = -.32, p < .01). Participants who justify the system also believe that they have limited control over the system. Participants with low scores on system justification have higher self-direction scores (r = .11, p < .05). High scores on control beliefs are negatively related with security (r = -.11, p < .05), power (r = -.11, p < .05), and conformity (r = -.12, p < .05). Traditionality is positively related with universality (r = .11, p < .05).

The findings in this study support the importance of understanding teachers’ personal ideologies related to the aims of democratization, and the power they perceive with regard to control of the system.

The complexity of the contemporary world turns the spotlight on the formal education system and its role in transmission of values of democracy and peace. Today many are calling for public schools to address issues related to democracy, peace, and values, but the question is: “Are the schools and educators ready for this responsibility?”. Values are conscious and unconscious preferences with which the majority of the society complies. All schooling entails the imparting of societal values held by teachers who mostly mirror the mainstream society. Understanding these value tendencies and dominating ideologies are the starting points for any kind of effort to restructure the system.

The results in this study indicate that there is a significant correlation between teachers’ and teacher candidates’ values, perceptions of how democratic the system is, and beliefs about personal control over the education system. Results reveal that teachers and candidates evaluate the education system as moderately democratic in general and especially low in such domains as equality and student partnership in the planning and application of the system. This result supports the findings related to the authoritarian profile of the Turkish education system (Ertürk, 1970; Gömleksiz, 1988; Gözütok, 1993; Gürşimşek, 2002; Köymen, 1992). Other researchers demonstrate that, in the schools’ authoritarian system that prioritizes concepts such as respect, subordination, and reverence, more importance is placed on form than meaning in rituals and ceremony. Teachers are seen to have more normative tendencies depending on seniority and normative ideology is related to authoritarianism and the discipline beliefs of teachers (Gürşimşek & Göregenli, 2004). In related studies it has also been demonstrated that individuals whose personal ideologies are defined as high normative maintain a more conservative and authoritarian orientation (Altemeyer, 1996; Carlson & Brincka, 1987; de St. Aubin, 1996).

The results demonstrate that, even though teachers perceive inequality and moderate democracy in different domains of the system, they justify the system more than candidates do and also believe that they have less control over the system. Value orientation related to traditionality, security, and conformity is seen to be related to this tendency too. Teachers are seen to be more traditional, to be more in need of security, and to conform more than the candidates do. These findings support the results of other studies related to system justification and conservative ideology (Göregenli, 2004; Jost et al., 2003).

Results demonstrate that, as the age of the participant increases, conservative values and system justification also increase. One assumption about this finding may be that university education with a less conservative structure may be effective for developing more democratic values. Another assumption that gives more hope might be that the results are an indicator of a social and cultural change of society. Due to the changes in social climate as a whole, the new generations are educated differently in schools and families, and there is a hope that a more critical and self-conscious generation of teachers is entering the school system. The democratization of the school system is a necessity to make use of the democratic beliefs of this new generation of teachers.

Women are seen to have less conservative values at all scale levels and men have a higher tendency for conformity. Women also perceive the education system as less democratic. The education system in Turkey – as in many developing countries – is not equal in opportunity for both genders. Through education, women are seen to get more freedom of expression and participation in the public arena. This limited opportunity for realization of oneself by education might be an important reason for women to perceive the system as less democratic and the demand for equality in education as a cause for less conservative values. These findings related to the perceptions of women are consistent with those of other studies carried out with Turkish samples (Göregenli & Gürsimsek, 2004).

Finally, school is part of society and as such it incorporates a process of replication of the dominant worldviews and values existing in the larger society. Democratic values should play a more significant role in the education of teachers. This would mean helping teachers understand that every decision they make is based on their own implicit worldviews and values and empowering them to participate. Researchers have demonstrated that social activism and participation in social issues have positive effects on socialization, self- actualization, and control beliefs (Clary & Synder, 2002; Sagie, Elizur, & Koslowsky, 1990). Results in this study demonstrate that worldviews and values are significantly related to control beliefs and equality perceptions and this finding supports the system justification theory (Jost et al., 2003). It could be suggested that the reciprocal relations between these approaches should be investigated in different cultural frameworks and with different samples to enhance the theoretical framework for understanding the belief systems of individuals and ideological background of behavior.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1-20.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Carlson, R., & Brincka, J. (1987). Studies in script theory: Ideology and political imagination. Political Psychology, 8, 563-574.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (2002). Community involvement: Opportunities and challenges in socialising adults to participate. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 581-591.

de St. Aubin, E. (1996). Personal ideology polarity: Its emotional foundation and its manifestation in individual value systems, religiosity, political orientation, and assumptions concerning human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 152-165.

Ertürk, S. (1970). On yi löncesine kiyasla öğretmen davranişlari. Ankara: MEB.

Giray, A. (2003). Savaşa yönelik tutumlarin, değerler ve normatif hümanist tutumlarla ilişkisi. Yayınlanmami¸ lisans tezi. Ege Üniversitesi Psikoloji Bölümü, (Danışman: M. Göregenli).

Gömleksiz, M. (1988). Demokratik bir sınıf ortamı açısından öğretim elemanı ve öğrenci davranışlarinin degğerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamı¸ yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi: Ankara.

Göregenli, M. (1997). Normatif-hümanist tutumlarla otoriterlig˘e kar¸ı tutumlarin ili¸kisi. Ege Üniversitesi. Araştirma Projesi.

Göregenli, M. (2004). Şiddet ve işkenceye yönelik tutumlar, değerlendirmeler ve deneyimler. İzmir: Barosu Yayınları.

Göregenli, M., & Gürşimşek, I. (2004, July). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and perceived equality in educational process. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology in Lund, Sweden.

Gözütok, F. D. (1993). Okulda dayak: Araştırma. Ankara: Ofset.

Gürşimşek, I. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarininin öğrenme stratejileri ve öğrenmeye ilişkin motivasyonel inanclar. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8, 135-157.

Gürşimşek, I., & Göregenli, M. (2004). The relations between normative-humanistic attitudes and discipline beliefs in a Turkish preschool teachers’ sample. Teacher Development, 8, 81-92.

Jost, J. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Political Psychology, 16, 397-424.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as a motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111-153.

Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism and political attitudes among African American and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232.

Köymen, İ. (1992). Comparison of learning and study strategies of traditional and open learning system students in Turkey. Distance Education, 31, 108-117.

Rosenstock, I. (1966). Why people use health services. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44, 94-124.

Sagie, A., Elizur, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1990). Effect of participation in strategic and tactical decisions on acceptance of planned change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 459-465.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for outgroups’ social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 437-448.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Stone, W., & Schaffner, P. E. (1988). The psychology of politics. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tomkins, S. S. (1978). Script theory: Differential magnification of affects. In H. E. Howe & R. A. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 201-236). University of Nebraska Press.

Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Script theory. In J. Aronoff, A. Rabin, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 147-216). New York: Springer.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1-20.

Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Carlson, R., & Brincka, J. (1987). Studies in script theory: Ideology and political imagination. Political Psychology, 8, 563-574.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (2002). Community involvement: Opportunities and challenges in socialising adults to participate. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 581-591.

de St. Aubin, E. (1996). Personal ideology polarity: Its emotional foundation and its manifestation in individual value systems, religiosity, political orientation, and assumptions concerning human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 152-165.

Ertürk, S. (1970). On yi löncesine kiyasla öğretmen davranişlari. Ankara: MEB.

Giray, A. (2003). Savaşa yönelik tutumlarin, değerler ve normatif hümanist tutumlarla ilişkisi. Yayınlanmami¸ lisans tezi. Ege Üniversitesi Psikoloji Bölümü, (Danışman: M. Göregenli).

Gömleksiz, M. (1988). Demokratik bir sınıf ortamı açısından öğretim elemanı ve öğrenci davranışlarinin degğerlendirilmesi. Yayınlanmamı¸ yüksek lisans tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi: Ankara.

Göregenli, M. (1997). Normatif-hümanist tutumlarla otoriterlig˘e kar¸ı tutumlarin ili¸kisi. Ege Üniversitesi. Araştirma Projesi.

Göregenli, M. (2004). Şiddet ve işkenceye yönelik tutumlar, değerlendirmeler ve deneyimler. İzmir: Barosu Yayınları.

Göregenli, M., & Gürşimşek, I. (2004, July). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and perceived equality in educational process. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology in Lund, Sweden.

Gözütok, F. D. (1993). Okulda dayak: Araştırma. Ankara: Ofset.

Gürşimşek, I. (2002). Öğretmen adaylarininin öğrenme stratejileri ve öğrenmeye ilişkin motivasyonel inanclar. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 8, 135-157.

Gürşimşek, I., & Göregenli, M. (2004). The relations between normative-humanistic attitudes and discipline beliefs in a Turkish preschool teachers’ sample. Teacher Development, 8, 81-92.

Jost, J. T. (1995). Negative illusions: Conceptual clarification and psychological evidence concerning false consciousness. Political Psychology, 16, 397-424.

Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as a motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111-153.

Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism and political attitudes among African American and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209-232.

Köymen, İ. (1992). Comparison of learning and study strategies of traditional and open learning system students in Turkey. Distance Education, 31, 108-117.

Rosenstock, I. (1966). Why people use health services. Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44, 94-124.

Sagie, A., Elizur, J., & Koslowsky, M. (1990). Effect of participation in strategic and tactical decisions on acceptance of planned change. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 459-465.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for outgroups’ social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 437-448.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

Stone, W., & Schaffner, P. E. (1988). The psychology of politics. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Tomkins, S. S. (1978). Script theory: Differential magnification of affects. In H. E. Howe & R. A. Dienstbier (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 201-236). University of Nebraska Press.

Tomkins, S. S. (1987). Script theory. In J. Aronoff, A. Rabin, & R. A. Zucker (Eds.), The emergence of personality (pp. 147-216). New York: Springer.

Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.