McClosky and Schaar’s Anomy Scale

1. Abstract

The McClosky and Schaar’s Anomy Scale is a seminal psychometric instrument developed in 1965 by political scientist Herbert McClosky and political theorist John H. Schaar to measure anomy—conceptualized not merely as an objective sociological condition of normlessness, but as an internalized psychological state characterized by cognitive disorientation, moral confusion, and social estrangement. While classical sociological traditions stemming from Émile Durkheim and Robert K. Merton treated anomie as a systemic property of social structures or institutional disequilibrium, McClosky and Schaar argued that the subjective experience of anomy is heavily conditioned by psychological factors, particularly cognitive capacity, emotional stability, and social learning impediments. The scale comprises 9 self-report items presented in a dichotomous (Agree / Disagree) response format. Psychometric evaluations across diverse community and national probability samples—including the authors’ foundational surveys of over 2,500 respondents—demonstrate robust internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha typically ranging between .74 and .82) and strong construct validity. Factor analytic investigations reveal that the instrument captures both a overarching general factor of perceived normlessness and underlying facets related to epistemic confusion, social change apprehension, and personal inadequacy in deciphering moral expectations. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the scale’s theoretical foundations, structural dimensions, psychometric properties, factor structure, administration guidelines, and historical legacy within social, political, and clinical psychology.

2. Keywords

Anomy, Anomie, Herbert McClosky, John H. Schaar, Normlessness, Social Alienation, Cognitive Factors in Anomie, Political Psychology, Epistemic Confusion, Moral Disorientation, Srole Anomia Scale, Psychometrics, Social Learning Theory

3. Authors

The Anomy Scale was co-developed by Herbert McClosky and John H. Schaar during their tenures at the University of California, Berkeley.

• Herbert McClosky, Ph.D. (1916–2006) was an eminent political scientist and a pioneer in the interdisciplinary field of political psychology. He served as Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley, and previously at the University of Minnesota. McClosky was widely celebrated for his empirical methodologies integrating survey research, personality inventories, and political attitude modeling, contributing seminal works on political ideology, conservatism, consensus, and civil liberties.
• John H. Schaar, Ph.D. (1928–2011) was a distinguished political theorist and cultural critic who taught at the University of California, Berkeley, and later served as Professor of Politics at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His scholarly focus centered on the nature of political authority, legitimacy, democratic theory, alienation, and the moral dimensions of citizenship in modern industrial society.

Correspondence regarding the historical development of the scale is documented in their landmark publication in the American Sociological Review (McClosky & Schaar, 1965). Archival data and related inventory measures are preserved via the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of McClosky and Schaar’s Anomy Scale is to quantify an individual’s subjective sense that the social order is erratic, devoid of clear moral guidelines, untrustworthy, and cognitively incomprehensible. Historically, the dominant paradigm in sociology—popularized empirically by Leo Srole’s (1956) five-item Anomia Scale—posited that anomie was directly produced by an individual’s objective social position (such as low socioeconomic status, minority identity, or institutional disenfranchisement) which prevented access to institutional goals. McClosky and Schaar formulated their scale to challenge and refine this purely structural explanation.

The authors hypothesized that an individual’s inability to comprehend and internalize social norms can stem from internal psychological impediments as well as external structural deprivation. They argued that for norms to regulate behavior effectively, three conditions must be met: (a) the social system must articulate clear and coherent values; (b) the individual must have access to cognitive and communicative channels to learn these norms; and (c) the individual must possess the intellectual and emotional capacity to perceive, learn, and integrate these norms into a stable worldview. Thus, the purpose of the 9-item scale is to assess the end-state of this breakdown—termed psychological anomy—where the individual perceives the social world as chaotic, unpredictable, and devoid of enduring values.

In contemporary research, the scale serves critical clinical, political, and sociological functions:

• Political Psychology and Disaffection: Assessing the psychological roots of political alienation, cynicism toward democratic governance, susceptibility to radical or populist ideologies, and hostility toward institutional authority.
• Sociological and Criminological Studies: Measuring how perceived normlessness correlates with deviance, substance abuse, and subcultural rebellion, providing a nuanced diagnostic of internal cognitive distress versus structural marginalization.
• Social Psychiatry and Clinical Assessment: Examining the intersections of anomic feelings with depressive symptoms, generalized anxiety, existential dread, and personality pathology characterized by ego-defensiveness and low cognitive flexibility.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by McClosky and Schaar’s instrument is psychological anomy (often spelled interchangeably with subjective anomie or anomia). At its core, the construct captures a state of acute cognitive and normative bewilderment. Individuals with high anomy scores experience the social universe not as a coherent, predictable matrix of shared understandings, but as a fragmented, erratic, and morally disintegrating environment. Unlike purely emotional despair, anomy represents an epistemic and ethical paralysis.

The construct operationalized across the 9 items is composed of several interdependent cognitive-affective dimensions:

1. Epistemic Uncertainty and Normative Ambiguity

This facet involves the profound difficulty an individual experiences in deciphering which behavioral guidelines, rules, and values are currently operative. It reflects a perceived breakdown of stable social scripts. Exemplified by Item 1 (“With everything so uncertain these days, it almost seems as though anything could happen”) and Item 4 (“Everything changes so quickly these days that I often have trouble deciding which are the right rules to follow”), this dimension gauges the cognitive overload and paralysis stemming from rapid social modernization, pluralism, or individual cognitive rigidity.

2. Perceived Social Disorganization and Moral Decay

Anomy entails the distressing belief that the foundational moral anchors of culture are actively crumbling. This is not merely an intellectual critique of cultural evolution, but an existential anxiety that values lack enduring authenticity or collective consensus. Exemplified by Item 5 (“I often feel that many things our parents stood for are just going to ruin before our very eyes”) and Item 6 (“The trouble with the world today is that most people really don’t believe in anything”), this facet measures the perception of normative nihilism and societal degeneration.

3. Breakdown of Primary Social Solidarity

Drawing heavily on classical sociological theories of the transition from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, this dimension measures the perceived loss of deep, unconditional interpersonal bonds in favor of transactional, superficial relationships. Item 2 (“What is lacking in the world today is the old kind of friendship that lasted for a lifetime”) directly taps this longing for historical communal warmth and the concomitant perception that contemporary society is emotionally cold and atomized.

4. Personal Inadequacy and Social Disorientation

A crucial theoretical innovation introduced by McClosky and Schaar was the integration of personal self-efficacy and ego-identity into the anomic construct. The authors maintained that anomic individuals experience deep subjective inadequacy in moral decision-making compared to their peers. Items such as Item 7 (“I often feel awkward and out of place”) and Item 9 (“It seems to me that other people find it easier to decide what is right than I do”) isolate the subjective feeling of interpersonal clumsiness, self-doubt, and the conscious recognition that one lacks the cognitive clarity that others seemingly possess.

5. Nostalgia for Prescriptive Traditionalism

Because ambiguity generates intense psychological discomfort, anomic individuals frequently exhibit a defensive yearning for highly rigid, traditional, and unambiguous social prescriptions. Item 8 (“People were better off in the old days when everyone knew just how he was expected to act”) and Item 3 (“With everything in such a state of disorder, it’s hard for a person to know where he stands from one day to the next”) reflect this desire for external structure to alleviate internal decision-making anxiety.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework underpinning the McClosky and Schaar Anomy Scale represents a significant departure from, and synthesis of, classical sociological thought and modern cognitive-personality psychology.

The Sociological Heritage: Durkheim, Merton, and Srole

The concept of anomie was introduced to modern social science by Émile Durkheim in his foundational treatises The Division of Labour in Society (1893) and Suicide (1897). Durkheim conceptualized anomie as a structural state of deregulation occurring when society’s collective conscience and moral authority fail to constrain individual desires, typically precipitated by rapid economic transitions, industrialization, or social crises. Decades later, Robert K. Merton (1938) reformulated anomie as a structural discontinuity between culturally defined goals (e.g., the American Dream of monetary success) and institutionalized means (e.g., equitable access to education and employment), generating psychological strain and deviance.

In 1956, Leo Srole attempted to operationalize this construct at the individual level, creating the term anomia to denote an individual’s state of interpersonal alienation and social detachment. However, Srole and his contemporaries continued to treat anomia primarily as a passive byproduct of objective socioeconomic position (SES): low income, low educational attainment, and low occupational prestige were thought to directly induce feelings of normlessness.

The McClosky-Schaar Critique and Psychological Model

Herbert McClosky and John H. Schaar (1965) mounted a critique of this purely sociological reductionism. They observed that large proportions of individuals occupying disadvantaged socioeconomic strata do not exhibit anomy, whereas many individuals residing in affluent, stable environments experience profound normlessness. To explain this variance, they formulated a cognitive-personality model of anomy based on social learning theory and psychological defensiveness.

According to McClosky and Schaar, norms are complex cultural symbols that must be learned, decoded, and integrated into an individual’s cognitive schemas. This learning process can fail due to three primary psychological mechanisms:

1. Cognitive Capacity Limitations: Individuals with lower intellectual ability, lower verbal comprehension, or rigid cognitive styles struggle to navigate the ambiguities, nuances, and rapid shifts characteristic of complex modern democracies. When cognitive capacity is insufficient to process rapid societal inputs, the individual experiences the environment as chaotic and disordered.
2. Emotional Maladjustment and Defense Mechanisms: Chronic anxiety, hostility, low self-esteem, and paranoid tendencies distort social perception. Individuals suffering from high emotional distress project their internal turmoil onto the external world, perceiving society as hostile, untrustworthy, and decaying.
3. Impediments to Social Communication: Psychological withdrawal, excessive shyness, or neurotic awkwardness (e.g., “feeling awkward and out of place”) impede the regular social feedback loops through which individuals clarify norms, validate expectations, and establish mutual trust.

Consequently, McClosky and Schaar argued that anomy is primarily a perceptual and cognitive state. While structural deprivation can exacerbate feelings of alienation, it is largely mediated by the individual’s psychological capacity to comprehend and find coherence within the normative order.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the McClosky and Schaar Anomy Scale were extensively established in the authors’ 1965 foundational study using two massive probability samples: a representative community sample of Minnesota adults ($N = 1,082$) and a nationwide general population sample of American adults ($N = 1,484$). Subsequent psychometric evaluations across five decades have provided sustained empirical support.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by strong, statistically significant correlations between the 9-item Anomy Scale and theoretically related psychological and political inventories. In McClosky and Schaar’s original investigations, the Anomy Scale demonstrated robust convergent validity with measures of:

• Srole’s Anomia Scale: Demonstrating high inter-scale correlation ($r > .65$), confirming that the instrument captures core dimensions of perceived alienation, while providing broader cognitive coverage.
• Authoritarianism and Dogmatism: Correlating strongly with the California F-Scale ($r pprox .50$ to $.60$) and Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale, supporting the hypothesis that individuals who perceive moral chaos crave rigid, authoritarian social structures.
• Neuroticism, Anxiety, and Hostility: Correlating positively with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) subscales measuring manifest anxiety, social alienation, and cynical hostility ($r = .35$ to $.52$).
• Ego-Deficiency: Significant negative correlations with self-esteem, self-confidence, and general life satisfaction.

Discriminant Validity and Partial Correlation Analysis

A critical test of the scale’s construct validity was McClosky and Schaar’s demonstration of discriminant validity against socioeconomic status (SES). Sociologists had long argued that anomie scales merely functioned as indirect proxies for poverty and lack of education. McClosky and Schaar subjected their data to extensive multivariate cross-tabulations and partial correlation analyses controlling for income, occupation, and formal education.

The results decisively proved that even within identical educational and occupational strata, individuals scoring high in psychological factors (e.g., low intellective ability, high anxiety, extreme inflexibility) exhibited substantially higher anomy scores than well-adjusted peers. Furthermore, when cognitive and personality variables were held constant, the correlation between SES and anomy diminished dramatically, demonstrating that the scale validly captures an internal psychological construct rather than objective material deprivation alone.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The Anomy Scale exhibits robust predictive validity in political and sociological domains. High anomy scores reliably predict:

• Extreme political apathy, non-voting, and disengagement from democratic processes.
• Endorsement of conspiratorial thinking and populist anti-intellectual movements.
• Subcultural retreatism, criminal deviance, and high interpersonal distrust.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the McClosky and Schaar Anomy Scale has been verified across multiple independent studies utilizing internal consistency and split-half reliability methodologies.

Internal Consistency

Because the scale utilizes a dichotomous (Agree/Disagree) scoring scheme, internal consistency was originally evaluated using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), as well as standardized item-total correlations. In the original 1965 validation samples:

• The Minnesota adult sample ($N = 1,082$) yielded an internal consistency coefficient of $.76$.
• The national American probability sample ($N = 1,484$) demonstrated a KR-20 reliability coefficient of $.81$.

In subsequent re-evaluations and replications (e.g., Robinson & Shaver, 1969; Heydari et al., 2011), Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) values for the 9-item English instrument have consistently hovered between $.74$ and $.83$. Corrected item-total correlations across the 9 items range from $.36$ to $.61$, with no individual item deletion yielding a significant increase in total scale alpha, confirming good item homogeneity.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal stability studies evaluating McClosky’s political attitude batteries across 4-month and 12-month panel intervals demonstrated test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r_{tt} = .68$ to $.75$. These coefficients indicate that psychological anomy operates primarily as an enduring cognitive-personality disposition (trait-like construct) rather than a rapidly fluctuating transient mood state (state-like construct), though it remains sensitive to severe macro-societal disruptions.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structure of the McClosky and Schaar Anomy Scale has been a subject of extensive factor analytic investigation, examining whether the instrument is strictly unidimensional or multidimensional.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Early exploratory factor analyses conducted by Robinson and Shaver (1969) utilizing principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation revealed that the scale is dominated by a strong primary general factor accounting for approximately $38% – 44%$ of the total variance, accompanied by an eigenvalue substantially greater than subsequent factors (scree plot analysis demonstrates a sharp elbow after factor one). This confirms the instrument’s appropriateness for use as a single composite index of psychological anomy.

However, when rotating secondary components, two to three distinct latent sub-dimensions consistently emerge:

1. Factor 1: Normative Ambiguity and Societal Disorganization (Items 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) — High loadings (.58 to .74) on items measuring cognitive confusion regarding rapidly shifting moral boundaries, normative decay, and perceived chaos.
2. Factor 2: Personal and Interpersonal Estrangement (Items 7, 8, and 9) — Strong loadings (.52 to .71) on items tapping personal inadequacy in ethical decision-making, feeling socially awkward, and longing for external prescriptive guidance.
3. Factor 3: Nostalgic Communal Longing (Item 2, often cross-loading with Item 8) — Tapping the perception that authentic social solidarity and lifelong friendship have evaporated from modernity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Cross-Cultural Structure

Contemporary psychometric evaluations (e.g., Heydari, Davoudi, & Teymoori, 2011) utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis have compared unidimensional, two-factor, and hierarchical bifactor models. Goodness-of-fit indices consistently support a hierarchical bifactor model or a two-factor correlated model (dividing items into Cognitive Normlessness / Social Breakdown and Personal Inefficacy / Social Dislocation):

• $\chi^2 / df < 2.5$
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) $ge .94$
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) $ge .92$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) $le .052$ ($90%\text{ CI } [.041, .063]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) $le .045$

These findings substantiate that while researchers may legitimately aggregate all 9 items into a single overarching anomy score, the scale simultaneously reflects distinct cognitive-epistemic and self-relational components.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural, operational, and scoring parameters of the instrument are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: McClosky and Schaar’s Anomy Scale
• Original Authors: Herbert McClosky and John H. Schaar (1965)
• Construct Measured: Psychological anomy (subjective normlessness, moral confusion, epistemic perplexity, and social alienation)
• Item Count: 9 items
• Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital questionnaire; suitable for face-to-face interviews and computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI)
• Response Scale: Dichotomous forced-choice format:
  • Agree
  • Disagree

  (Note: In select modern survey adaptations, researchers have converted the scale to a 5-point or 7-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, though the original validated psychometric properties derive from the dichotomous format).

• Scoring Instructions:
  • All 9 items are keyed in the affirmative direction (anomic response).
  • Assign 1 point for each “Agree” response.
  • Assign 0 points for each “Disagree” response.
  • Total scores range from 0 to 9.
• Score Interpretation:
  • 0 – 2: Low Anomy. Indicates high cognitive and normative integration, clarity regarding social rules, and confidence in moral decision-making.
  • 3 – 5: Moderate Anomy. Reflects mild epistemic uncertainty or situational disaffection with modern social changes, but preserved personal efficacy.
  • 6 – 9: High Anomy. Indicates pervasive moral confusion, acute feelings of social estrangement, cognitive overload, and intense perception of social breakdown.
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 1965.
• Original Publication: American Sociological Review, Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 1965), pp. 14–40.
• Intellectual Property & Permissions: The McClosky and Schaar Anomy Scale was developed under academic research auspices and published in academic public records. It is widely regarded as being in the public domain for academic, scientific, and non-commercial educational research purposes. No royalty fees or formal registration permissions are required to utilize the instrument in empirical investigations. Proper scholarly citation of the original 1965 publication (and repository compilations such as Robinson & Shaver, 1969) is required in all resulting manuscripts and reports. Commercial applications or reproduction within proprietary diagnostic batteries should consult the copyright holders of the original journal (American Sociological Association).

12. References

Below are primary academic references documenting the theoretical development, validation, and historical analysis of the scale:

• Durkheim, É. (1893). De la division du travail social [The division of labour in society]. Félix Alcan.
• Durkheim, É. (1897). Le suicide: Étude de sociologie [Suicide: A study in sociology]. Félix Alcan.
• Heydari, A., Davoudi, I., & Teymoori, A. (2011). Revising the assessment of feeling of anomie: Presenting a multidimensional scale. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1086–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.212
• McClosky, H., & Schaar, J. H. (1965). Psychological dimensions of anomy. American Sociological Review, 30(1), 14–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/2091771
• Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
• Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1969). Measures of political attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Institute for Social Research Archive
• Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 24(6), 783–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088565
• Srole, L. (1956). Social integration and certain corollaries: An exploratory study. American Sociological Review, 21(6), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088422

13. Items of the Scale