Iran J Public Health, Vol. 46, No.3, Mar 2017, pp.

326-332 Original Article

Dogmatism and Happiness

*Maryam MALMIR 1, Mohammad KHANAHMADI 2, Dariush FARHUD 3, 4
1. Research Center of Life Style, Medical Sciences Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2. Aging Research Center, Scientific Cultural Foundation of Farhud, Tehran, Iran
3. School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4. Dept. of Basic Sciences, Iranian Academy of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

*Corresponding Author: Email: maryam.malmir81@gmail.com

(Received 22 Aug 2016; accepted 12 Nov 2016)

Abstract
Background: Happiness is a drive and constructive force of life. A person feels wellbeing under different effective
factors. Religious dogmatism that has an influence on the entire world is one of the depreciatory factors of happiness
or wellbeing. The current study decided to analyze the relation between dogmatism and wellbeing, and according to a
model, answer the following question: how does religious dogmatism decrease wellbeing?
Methods: This study is a correlation research. Population of study includes all people with 30-50 yr old who live in
Tehran, Iran, in 2015. Among all, 180 subjects were selected as in access sample. The Oxford happiness questionnaire
and Rokeach dogmatism scale were used. Data were analyzed by Pearson correlation test.
Results: There is a significant negative correlation between dogmatism and happiness (α=0.05).
Conclusion: Dogmatism is one of the factors that have a negative effect on wellbeing. Religious dogmatism is the
most dangerous factor against wellbeing. Dogmatic individuals have an inflexible cognitive system that emerges as a
stable personality trait and decreases their adjustment with environment. Affective well-being and cognitive wellbeing
are affected by individual adjustment. Therefore, in dogmatic individuals with low adjustment, the decrease of affec-
tive well-being and cognitive wellbeing is inevitable. This process will result in decrease of happiness and increase of
aggression.

Keywords: Subjective wellbeing, Happiness, Dogmatism

Introduction
Happiness is the fundamental factor in mental use several terms for happiness: eudemonia and
health. Achieving happiness was the earliest virtues life, wellbeing, utopia, pleasant, high level
wishes of human being. Happiness points out to of positive emotions, life satisfaction and so on.
short-term effects and feelings and long-term Since appearance of positive psychology, happi-
well-being (1). In one point, happiness (regarded ness is studied as a major subject in scientific stu-
as subjective wellbeing in this article) is called as a dies (2). The term "happiness" has many defini-
heritable mood. In another point, happiness is tions. Each definition refers to a specific theory.
seen as emotion and others see the happiness as Generally, all definitions divided into 4 catego-
cognitive evaluation. Therefore, it seems as a ries: emotional-affective, cognitive, attitude and
complex and controversial content. It includes combined (3). The most common definition pre-
positive emotions like; life satisfaction, optimism, sented by Veenhoven; general judgment of a per-
sense of humor, forgiveness, tipsiness and so on. son about his/her quality of life as a whole (4).
Philosophers and scientists describe several cha- Although there is no common construction for
racteristics as critical criteria of pleasant life. They wellbeing, the similar basis can be traced in dif-

326 Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir

 Malmir et al.: Dogmatism and Happiness

ferent cultures. Wellbeing consists of two factors: Dogma is a Greek word that means individual
cognitive factors (life satisfaction) and emotional believe or idea. Individuals with open mind in
factors (hedonic level) (5). acceptance of new ideas are without dogmatism
The important thing about wellbeing is its under- and individuals with close mind present as dog-
lying factors. Which factors do increase happi- matism (12). An important theory about dogmat-
ness or subjective well-being? Positive psycholo- ism was that dogmatism pointed to a cognitive
gy's researchers study various aspects of happi- network (13). Based on that, dogmatism can be
ness and describe several indicating factors for attended in two levels.
happiness. A group of researchers believe that “The first level, the isolation between and within
happiness results from genetic and heredity fac- belief and disbelief systems, is characterized by
tors (6), another group believe that happiness little differentiation within the disbelief system,
results from earning high income (success in isolation of parts within and between belief and
economic and job) (5), others believe that being disbelief systems, and high rejection of disbelief
able to live leads to happiness. Happiness is not system. The second level that of the subordina-
the result of one or two factors; it is a combina- tion of the peripheral beliefs to the central region
tion of factors in a special way leading to happi- of beliefs is characterized by the dependence-
ness (5). submission in an authoritarian way of the peri-
As a whole, indicating factors of happiness are pheral parts of beliefs to what constitutes the
divided into two groups: endogenic factors (ge- central beliefs.”(12)
netic and biologic, cognitive, personality and eth- In dogmatic person, the change in central region
ical factors) and exogenic factors (behavioral, so- of beliefs affects the peripheral beliefs. In return,
cial, cultural, demographic, life event, geographic, peripheral beliefs have no effect on central region
political and economic factors) (2, 5). of beliefs (14).
Initial studies of wellbeing and happiness were In this theory, dogmatism had three definitions:
focused more on exogenic (environmental) fac- 1. A relatively closed cognitive system from
tors. Exogenic factors like; health, income, mar- beliefs and unbelief toward the reality,
riage, life events and so on, explain a little part of 2. Organizing a fundamental belief about
happiness. Studies conclude that since happiness absolute power,
is stable in time and after a major life event, it 3. Providing a framework of dogmatism
returns to base situation, happiness has a great forms towards everything (15).
significant correlation with endogenic factors like; In current societies, there are various forms of
personality traits (7,8). dogmatism that it is a challenge for the world.
A personality trait considered in relation with Dogmatism was developed mainly in following
subjective wellbeing is the dogmatism. Dogmat- forms: political, racial, ethnic, religious, and so
ism is a cognitive construction altered to a perso- on. Dogmatism as a personality trait decreases
nality trait. Dogmatism has a significant negative the accommodation and it has negative effects on
influence on wellbeing. There is a negative rela- wellbeing. Therefore, the current study aimed to
tion between dogmatism and wellbeing (9). evaluate the relationship between dogmatism and
Dogmatism is defined as avoidance from accept- wellbeing experimentally.
ing others' beliefs, ideas and behaviors. Dogmatic
individuals have many problems in understanding Materials and Methods
new ideas. They cannot accept reasonable ideas
instead of their incorrect ideas. They do not coo- This study was an applicable research and data
perate with others with different ideas. They pre- were analyzed by correlation procedure.
fer to work with people like themselves. This Population of study includes all people (30-50 yr)
group committed to their ideas without consider- that come from Tehran, Iran, in 2015. Among all,
ing other possibilities (10, 11).

Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir 327

 Iran J Public Health, Vol. 46, No.3, Mar 2017, pp.326-332

180 people with mean age 48 yr selected as an in Ethical issues were attended for both selecting
access sample. sample and performing the research. Demo-
graphic characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics of sample

Group Subgroup Number Percent

Sex Male 74 41
Female 106 59
Age 30-40 98 54
41-50 82 46
Education Under-diploma 64 35
Diploma 48 27
Bachelor of art 31 17
Master of art 28 16
Ph.D. 9 5

For obtaining the data and assessing the va- was suitable and reliability of the scale is obtained
riables, the following tools are used: about 0.71.
Data were analyzed by descriptive and referral
 Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI) (7) statistics (Pearson correlation coefficient). Analy-
The OHI comprises 29 items, each involving the sis of data was performed by SPSS-21 (Chicago,
selection of one of four points (Likert scale) that IL, USA).
are different for each item. The highest score on
this scale is 87, which shows the highest point of Results
happiness. Normal and mean range score on this
scale is 40 to 42. Reliability of the OHI is 0.91 Obtained data categorized in order and by using
and internal correlation of items is about 0.04 to descriptive mathematics, mean and standard dev-
0.67. In addition, reliability of the test in Iran by iation is assessed for each variable. Mean and
test-retest is 0.79. standard deviation of subjects in dogmatism
 Rokeach dogmatism Scale (34.76, 11.75) and in happiness are (47.26, 15.22),
The 66 items form of Rokeach dogmatism scale respectively.
was used. It is a valid and reliable scale. Reliability For assessing the relation between dogmatism
of the scale was assessed by test- retest method level as an independent variable, with a depen-
(0.69) (16). It is localized by researchers in Iran. dent variable in research, Subjective well-being,
Based on the expert's report, validity of the scale the Pearson correlation coefficient is used (Table
2).

Table 2: Correlation coefficient between dogmatism & Subjective wellbeing

Variable Dogmatism Happiness

Dogmatism Pearson correlation 1 -0.644**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 180 180
Happiness Pearson correlation -0.644** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000
N 180 180
**: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

328 Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir

 Malmir et al.: Dogmatism and Happiness

Discussion to identity in psychology refers to the works of

Erikson (1968). He explained in his book as
Dogmatism has negative effects on wellbeing. "Identity: Youth and Crisis” identity is a critical
High levels of dogmatism lead to low level of challenge for each person (20).
happiness. Findings are in line with other studies Puberty is named in Erikson's theory as “identity
(17, 18). Dogmatism has negative relationship vs. role confusion". Identity means essentially,
with sense of humor (19). how a person sees her/himself in relation to
This relationship can be explained by her/his world. It is a sense of self or individuality
presentation of forming dogmatic thinking. One in the context of life and what lies ahead. Erikson
of the critical periods of life is the adolescence. In believed that social groups have a clear role in
this stage of life, an adolescence encounter with forming identity (22). Membership of extremist
identification challenge. Theoretically, different groups and projection with these groups is the
forms of identity (individual, social, ethnical, ra- base of forming dogmatic thinking.
cial) develop in this period (20). Totally, identity Another theory that designated to identity is that
pointed to awareness of a person about adolescence faces with four-identity status:
her/himself as an independent, unique and a per- achievement identity, moratorium identity, forec-
son with special place in society (21). Attention losure identity, diffusion identity (Table 3).

Table 3: Kinds of identity (23)

Position regarding Identity status

career and ideology
Identity Identity Identity Identity
Achievement Moratorium Foreclosure Diffusion
Crisis Passed crisis In crisis Crisis absent Crisis present or
Commitment Present Present but vague Present absent
Absent

Each status results from a special combination of encounter a problem, they will experience frustra-
"commitment" and "crisis" (24). tion, and then they will avoid this problem (27,
Adolescences with foreclosure identity and diffu- 28). Inflexible thinking has negative effects on
sion identity have more problems in adaptation adaptation through two ways:
with environment. Dogmatism will be developed 1. Dogmatic people are unable to accept
in families with rigorous thinking; they are all un- and understand opposite ideas. Violence
der control of parents. A person with foreclosure is the predictive behavior when they en-
identity is more intended to dogmatism and in- counter with challengeable events.
flexibility (25). Therefore, these children develop 2. For inflexible forms of thinking, dogmat-
their cognitive networks based on their families' ic individuals are unable to find different
forces and insist on acquisition rules. solutions in challengeable events. In
Maladjustment and inability to accommodate another hand, they do not have creative
with peripheral environment resulted from close and divergent thinking. Therefore, they
mind and inflexibility against life events (25). have clear problems in adaptation with
Dogmatic person is unable to modify his cogni- environment (26).
tion with new and challengeable events. They do There are two dimensions for wellbeing: affective
not have an alternative solution for solving prob- wellbeing, cognitive wellbeing (29, 30). According
lems. They change most of problems based on to two dimensions of subjective well-being,
limited acquired rules (26). Therefore, when they affective wellbeing, and cognitive wellbeing, the

Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir 329

 Iran J Public Health, Vol. 46, No.3, Mar 2017, pp.326-332

role of adaptation on each dimension should be have significant effects on goals, family, and job)
considered. Affective well-being includes emo- have measurable and constant effects on cogni-
tions and temperaments (negative and positive). tive wellbeing (34). Life events have more con-
Emotional theories suppose that negative emo- stant effects on cognitive wellbeing than affective
tions stimulate avoidance tendencies and positive wellbeing. For example, negative events affect
emotions stimulate exposure tendencies. In con- both cognitive well-being and effective well-
trast, temperaments are more affected by beha- being, but the rate of effects on cognitive wellbe-
vior (31). ing is significant (31).
Therefore, emotions and temperaments are a Since dogmatism decreases adaptation, dogmatic
constant and accessible control system toward and close-minded people are not able to solve
reaching goals. This system may be activated by challenges, and they are not able to return to bal-
some internal factors, but it would be back to the ance position, then their cognitive well-being and
basic condition since it should be adopted by effective well-being is in danger (30). This danger
long-term changes (31, 32). Then, adaptation is is more in cognitive wellbeing than affective
an important function for affective well-being wellbeing. Happiness will be significantly de-
and adaptation is a necessary factor for balance creased when cognitive wellbeing is decreased.
of all system (33). So, inability of dogmatic people in adaptation
Changes in cognitive wellbeing may be fewer acts with peripheral environment has negative effects
automatically. Cognitive wellbeing reflects self- on satisfaction and, therefore, it decreases the
evaluation about life. Major life events (if they well-being or happiness (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Impact of dogmatism on happiness

Dogmatism in social level has some conse- tant factor for increasing immorality and bullying
quences that it has negative effect on wellbeing. and results in social problems like poverty, gap,
Dogmatism, especially religious dogmatism, crime and destruction of natural resources. These
associated with authoritarian, mythopoeia and social problems lead to decrease of wellbeing.
individualism (35). Authoritarianism is an impor- Conclusion

330 Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir

 Malmir et al.: Dogmatism and Happiness

of three theories. University of North Dame

Dogmatism has various subtypes: religious, rac- Publication, USA.
ism, ethnic dogmatism. Although membership of https://www.coursehero.com/file/11712186
a group increases social happiness, racism, and /Veenhoven-paper/
ethnic dogmatism decrease happiness. In addi- 4. Veenhoven R. (2009). Concept of happiness.
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap
tion, spiritual tendencies increase happiness, but _quer/introtext_measures2.pdf
religious dogmatism decreases happiness. 5. Farhud DD, Malmir M, Khanahmadi M (2014).
While there are various thoughts, ideas and Happiness and health: the biological factors.
believes in our world, dogmatism of any form Iran J Public Health, 43(11): 1468-1477.
(especially religious dogmatism) results from fo- 6. Rotenberg VS (2013). Genes of happiness and
reclosure identity and it decreases the individual wellbeing in the context of search activity
adaptation with environment. Since they cannot concept. Act Nerv Super, 55(1-2): 1-14.
accept the opposite attitudes and ideas, then they 7. Diener ED, Oishi S, Lucas RE (2003). Personali-
show maladjustment and violent behaviors. In ty, Culture, and Subjective wellbeing: Emo-
addition, because of inability in creative thinking tional and Cognitive Evaluations of Life. An-
and in providing alternative solutions, they are nu Rev Psychol, 54: 403–425.
8. Malmir M, Seifnaraghi M, Farhud DD, Afrooz
missing ability of adjustment. While the critical GA, Khanahmadi M (2015). mothers happi-
factor for reaching happiness is adaptation with ness with cognitive executive functions and
environment. Finally, inability of dogmatic facial emotional recognition hn school child-
people in adaptation with peripheral environment ren with down syndrome. Iran J Public Health,
has negative effects on well-being or happiness. 44(5): 646-653.
9. White R. (2006). Problems for dogmatism. Philo-
Ethical Consideration sophical Studies, 131: 525-557.
10. MAS Tarbiya Department (2012). Narrow-
Ethical issues (Including plagiarism, informed mindedness and intolerance.
http://www.muslimamericansociety.org/blog
consent, misconduct, data fabrication and/or fal- /100-reflections-on-the-egyptian-uprising-a-
sification, double publication and/or submission, lighthouse-episode/
redundancy, etc.) have been completely observed 11. Whatley A. The relation between dogmatism and
by the authors. neuroticism in supervisors of sheltered work-
shops and changes in the self-concept of
Acknowledgements handicapped employers [PhD thesis]. Texas
University. USA; 1971.
This research was supported by Iranian Academy 12. Brown A (2012). Dogmatism. Encyclopedia of the
of Medical Sciences. We are thankful to our col- Science of Learning, 1031-1032.
13. Swink N. Dogmatism & moral conviction in in-
leagues who provided expertise that greatly as- dividuals: injustice for all [PhD thesis]. Wichi-
sisted the research. The authors declare that there ta State University. USA; 2012.
is no conflict of interest. 14. Saroglou V (2002). Beyond dogmatism: the need
for closure as related to religion. Mental Health,
References Religion & Culture, 5(2): 183-194.
15. Rokeach M (1954). The nature and meaning of
1. Diener ED, Tov W (2007). Subjective well-being dogmatism. Psychol Rev, 61(3): 194-204.
& peace. J Social Issues, 63: 421-440. 16. Salvatore V, Zagona SV, Zurcher LA (1965).
2. Malmir M, Khanahmadi M, Farhud DD. (2014). Notes on the reliability & validity of the dog-
Are happier people more ethical? Ethics in matism scale. Psychological Report, 16: 1234-
Science and Technology, 9(2): 1-8. (In Persian) 1236.
3. Veenhoven R (2006). How do we assess how 17. Dixon PN, Willingham WK, Chandler CK,
happy we are? Tenets, implication & tenability McDougal K (1986). Relating social interest

Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir 331

 Iran J Public Health, Vol. 46, No.3, Mar 2017, pp.326-332

and dogmatism to happi ness and sense of 27. Meyers W (2000). Nonviolence & its violent conse-
humor. Individual Psychology: Journal of Adlerian quences. 3rded. The Cooperative Publication
Theory, Research & Practice, 42(3): 421. Society, New York.
18. Samaie M, Sepahmansour M. (2015). The rela- 28. UNESCO (2009). Combating intolerance, exclusion
tionship between dogmatism and emotional and violence. UNESCO Publication, Geneva.
intelligence with psychological wellbeing. In- 29. Clark AE, Diener ED, Georgellis Y, Lucas RE
ternational Journal of Fundamental Psychology and (2006). Legs and leads in life satisfaction: a
Social Sciences (IJFPSS), 5(1): 7-11. test of the baseline hypothesis, IZA: (2526).
19. Saroglou V, Jaspard JM. (2001). Does religion 30. Diener ED, Lucas RE, Scollon CN (2006).
affects humor creation? An experimental Beyond the hedonic treadmill: revising the
study. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 4(1): adaptation theory of wellbeing. Am Psychol,
33-46. 61(4): 305-314.
20. French SE, Seidman E, Allen L, Aber JL (2006). 31. Luhmann ML, Hofman W, Eid M, Lucas RE
The development of ethnic identity during (2012). Subjective wellbeing and adaptation to
adolescence. Dev Psychol, 42(1): 1-10. life events: a Meta-analysis on differences be-
21. Howard JA (2000). Social psychology of identi- tween cognitive and affective wellbeing. J Pers
ties. Annu Rev Social, 26: 367-393. Soc Psychol, 102(3): 592-615.
22. Schultz DP, Schultz SE. (2008). Theories of person- 32. Kim-Prieto C, Diener E, Tamir M, Scollon C,
ality. 9thed. Wadsworth, Belmont. Diener M (2005). Integrating the divers defi-
23. Marcia JE (1966). Development and validation nitions of happiness: a time – sequential
of ego identity. J Pers Soc Psychol, 3(5): 551-558. framework of subjective wellbeing. J Happiness
24. Goth K, Foelsch P, Muller SS, Birkholzer M, Studies, 6(3): 261-300.
Jung E, Pick O, Schmeck K. (2012). Assess- 33. Cummins RA (2010). Subjective wellbeing, ho-
ment of identity development and identity meostatically protected mood and depression:
diffusion in adolescence: theorical basis and a synthesis. J Happiness Studies, 11(1): 1-17.
psychometric properties of the self-report 34. Wilson TD, Gilbert DT (2008). Explaining away:
questionnaire AIDA. Child Adolesc Psychiatry a model of affective adaptation. Perspect Psychol
Ment Health, 6(1):27. Sci, 3(5): 370-386.
25. Louw DA, Van Ede DM, Louw AE (2007). 35. Duck RJ, Hunsberger B (1999). Religious orien-
Human development. 2nded. ABC press, Cape tation & prejudice: the role of religious pro-
Town. scription, right – wing authoritarianism and
26. Goldsmith RE (1984). Personality characteristics social desirability. Inter J Psychol Religion, 9(3):
associated adaption & innovation. J Psychol In- 157-179.
terdiscip & Appl, 117 (2):159-165.

332 Available at: http://ijph.tums.ac.ir