III I JIJWIHJHIIJH f I NM! ”NM :ammscmari VQEHNTARY iNYERfifiTIQN W311i FOREIQN NATEQNMLS OVERSEAS 1316535 for €419 595393 of B. A. IXQECHEGAN S‘s-'ATE ‘UNWERSITY EM 3123“? i‘hS charmer {)4 k? THESI- MSU LIBRARIES -:_—-. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wil] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. 6127797 PREDICTING VOLUNTARY INTERACTION WITH FOREIGN NATIONALS OVERSEAS By Elisabeth Schattner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment.of the-requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS Department of Communication 196“ Cepyright Elisabeth Schattner 1961+ TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page 1 RESEARCH PROBLEM I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 SOCial Significance I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I POssible Predictors of Foreign Interaction . . . . . . HypOtheses e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e (00)?“ 2 RESEARCH DBSIGNI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 Background of Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Operationalization of Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 FINDINGS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21 u IMPLICATIONS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 5 sumary I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 5 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I no LIST OF TABLES TABLES Page I Distribution of Respondents' Dogmatism Scores . . . . . 13 II Distribution of Respondents' Analogy Scores . . . . . . 13 III Distribution of Respondents' Exposure to U.S. Sub- Cultures Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 IV Volunteer Status Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 V Twenty-Category Culture Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 VI Distribution of Respondents' Voluntary Interaction scores I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18 VII Distribution of Respondents' Enjoyment of Tour Scores . 19 VIII Personal Characteristics of Sample Airmen . . . . . . . 22 IX Average (Mean) Interaction Scores for High and Low -' Dogmatics, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures . . . . . 23 X Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low Dogmatics, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures . . . . . 2H XI Average (Mean) Analogy Scores for Dogmatism Groups. . . 2S XII Average (Mean) Interaction Scores for High and Low ' Analogy Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures. . . 26 XIII Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low Analogy Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures. 28 XIV Relationship of Dogmatism and Volunteer Status. . . . . 29 XV Average (Mean) Interaction Scores for High and Low Dogmatics, by V01unteer’ Status. e o o e e e e e e e e e 30 XVI Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low Dogmatics, by Volunteer Statuses. . . . . . . . . . 31 XVII Average (Mean) Interaction Score for High and Low Exposure Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures . . 33 ii LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page VIII Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low Exposure Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures . 3n XIX Average (Mean) Interaction Scores for High and Low Analogy Groups, by Volunteer Status . .‘3 . . . . . . . . 38 iii LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. Dogmatism Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”1 B. Figures Analogy Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 C. Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “3 iv CHAPTER 1 RESEARCH PROBLEM Social Significance: .At the present time there is a need to establish criteria for selecting men for positions in foreign cultures. rThis need is especial- ly crucial for government agencies.‘ Recently, for example,ithe Air Force established a board for‘the purpose of selecting "bluewribbon" officers for duty in Viet Nam a an area currently sensive and important to our foreign policy. The research problem here is to develop a method of predicting whether or not an individual will*interact voluntarily in foreign cultures. This is an attemptmto identify.some characteristic within . an individual that affects his ability and tendencies to interact voluntarily; If a variable can be found that does affect a person's abilityeto interact with local nationals overseas, it can be used as ~ a-selection criterion in assigning-men’toroverseas positions. If government‘agencies are to function efficiently in foreign areas, an ability tO‘"get along" and communicate through the cultural barriers is a desirable talent.‘ An efficient worldawide system of military facilities depends to a degree on the cooperation of“foreign ’nations and the local nationals that are in°direct or indirect°contact vwith these facilities. Military personnel and civil service employees entrusted with the establishment, maintenance, and operation'of bases in foreign'countries must gain local c00peration to ensure efficiency and security. Coopera- tion cannot be elicited from the.local'nationals, however, when individuals representing the United States cannot communicate effec- 'tively. The assignment of key personnel who feel foreigners are all substandard "natives," or“who believe anyone in their command who speaks more than five words of the local language has "gone native" rand iS"a security risk,'are not only going to fail to communicate and gain needed local cooperation; but also will be detrimental to United "States'policyvan ‘goals. Such individuals can be responsible for establishing in the'local population an-antagonism, hostility, and suspicion of all Americans and.American ideas. A way to identify or ‘reduce'the risks of the assignment of such personnel is needed. 'Americans abroad are'oftentthe only living examples~of America the local ..nationals will ever'come'in*contact with. ‘Becauseof the current foreign policy and of our security systems, military bases are set up in widely differing cultural areas and under widely differing degrees ofrprodwestern attitudes. Thus, in some areas it would be desirable to be ablevto~identify personnel who are not only voccupationally~well-qualified, but who are also culturally well quali- fied; that is, who would have-a better than‘chance probability of being able to interactwsatisfactorily with local nationals. Airmen would be desirable in sensitive areas, who could break through wavering suspicions of local nationals and, by personal inter- actiontand effective communication,'gain a firm, positive support and 'understanding fromwthe population for American policies. v However, in seeking a predictor of foreign interaction, sever- - a1 limitations were believed necessary if identification of personnel is to be on a practical basis. Whatever method for identifying personnel was selected, it should be one that untrained personnel could administer and score. It would also have to be a method that does not require a great degree of delving into personal histories of individuals, such as psychological ‘background. Finally, if at all possible, some degree of information would be already available on personnel records as_currently maintained. Another factor that must be taken into consideration in this research problem is how different from the United StateS'culture the various cultures are where UsS. personnel are assigned. For the more a culture differs from the 0.8. culture, the more barriers there are to overcome to reach understanding and effective communication. 'Possible Predictors of Foreign Interaction: There is a theory, developed by Milton Rokeachl, on a person‘s social personality that points'tO‘one possible area for investigation to see if-it affects an individual‘s ability to operate in foreign cultures. Rokeach’s theory concerns how a person believes. He identifies two basic ways of believing - the high dogmatic and the low dogmatic. 1Milton Rokeach, The 22cm and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960). The more high dogmatic a person is, the more "...he evaluates others according to their agreement-or disagreement with his own (belief) system," and the "...more difficult...it is to disciiminate between and separately evaluate a belief and the person holding the belief."1 The low dogmatic is less apt to use beliefs held in common as a basis‘for evaluating others. and values others more as positive, _ regardless of their belief systems. The high dogmatic, then, tends to avoid peOple who hold beliefs he does not agree with; and tends also to reject them. The low dogmatic does not use others' beliefs as a primary evaluation criterion as to whether he will associate with them. ' A foreign culture and its inhabitants represent a system of beliefs different from ours. What a foreigner believes in will, in general, represent our disbeliefs. Therefore, if a high dogmatic is placed in a foreign culture, he would be predicted to avoid the local peOple - because they believe differently from him. It would seem that he would ”avoid interaction with foreign nationals even more as the culture 'became more different from ours, and consequently, the disbeliefs more different from his beliefs. The result of his rejection should be ‘ less interaction with the lecal people and less over-all satisfaction and enjoyment of his tour. 1Rokeach, p. 56. On the other hand, the low dogmatics should be more able to accept pe0ple holding different beliefs, and should experience more interaction with the local nationals and'more enjoyment with their ' foreign tour than the high dogmatics. To determine whether a person tends toward high or low dogmatism, 1' It should be understood that Rokeach develOped a no-item test. -the high and low dogmatics are extreme.scorers on a continuum. Rokeach has usually dealt with only the extreme dogmatics; however, in this study, the sample is split at the median.2 ‘Analogy Rokeach also states that past eXperience can index whether a system is psychologically new to a person, and found that the newness of a situation can significantly affect the performance of an individ- ual. A person who has had past experience in an area similar to a new eXperience will in the new system he is placed in find it is not psychologically a "new" system. "He can readily integrate the 'new' ‘ beliefs with similar beliefs he has previously encountered."3 In order to use past experience fully, however, it is necessary r to be able to relate the new situation to the similar past experience. Dogmatism tests measure an ability to perform relating tasks to a lRokeech, pp. 72-80. 2Point at which half the subjects score above and half the sufiTficts score below. 3Rokeach. p. 216. degree. However, to get a more direct measurement of the ability of an individual to relate, an analogy test was used. It is predicted the low dogmatic will be better able to relate as he does not reject“categorically information falling within his disbelief system. Also,'the'low'dogmatic.should'be better able to relate by virtue of past experience in integrating new beliefs and information.. The.high dogmatic tendsTtO'isolate disbelief systems when he cannot reject them, and is assumed, therefore, to have little ‘past experience in relating. The Figure Analogies Test, developed by the Aptitude Project at the University of Southern California and adapted from a United States Air Force test of the same name, was used. The use of a test involving symbols and figures avoided the problem of measuring verbal 'ability that results from using a verbal analogy test. Symbols more accurately test the individual's ability to relate regardless of his educational background. A person with high analogy ability should be better able to relate beliefs and customs infa foreign culture to beliefs-and customs of his own culture that fulfill similar functions. If an individual could ' not perform the relating task, he would probably reject the situation "b “interacting less or not at all. ‘Thus, an ability to relate might he‘seen as a predictor of interaction. Volunteer Status Volunteer status is another factor that may affect how well a per- son performs in the foreign culture. Whether an individual volunteering for an overseas assignment gets his first choice, other choice, or none of his choices, should produce in him.different reactions to the foreign culture. Also, a different reaction would be expected of an airman assigned overseas in a nonavolunteer'status. The volunteer status of each airman and his rating on the dogma- tism scale should both affect the individual's degree of voluntary interaction. The high dogmatic, forced into a foreign assignment he did not choose, would seem unlikely to expend any voluntary energy on interaction with the nationals because they would represent dis- belief systems, and the assignment would come to represent a disbelief. The low dogmatic volunteer, however, might show a lesser decrease in voluntary interaction when he does not get his choice of assignment. This would be because he would be better able to accept the situation he is in, to integrate his status, and to adjust to the situation. As a result, then, the low dogmatic would be more likely to enjoy his tour than the high.dogmatic, even if he goes as a non-volunteer. The volunteer who gets his first choice would be most likely to produce the highest amount of voluntary interaction. The low dogmatic volunteer, getting his first choice, would then be seen as the optimum performer in voluntary interaction with foreign nationals. As to volunteering for overseas, if high dogmatics reject those ' persons whose beliefs differ from theirs, it would be likely that most volunteers would tend towards low dogmatism. The low dogmatics would seem to be more willing to expose themselves to social systems where values may be comprised of many elements existing in their disbelief systems. Cultures The degree of difference between (1) the culture in which troops are stationed, and (2) the American culture, was also taken into consideration. Some areas, especially some of the major cities of the world, are quite westernized. 'In these areas, differences between the beliefs of the local culture and the United States culture would not be as great, or as apparent, as in non-western areas such as Viet Name or Turkey.” Differences in the reaction of individuals who are high or low dogmatics, or high or low in analogy skill, should show up to a greater degree the more different a culture is.’ A scale of "cultural similarity with the United States" for all countries where the sample airmen were assigned was develOped. The method used to develop the scale was to submit to professors ofwthe anthropology department at Michigan State University a list of all areas where airmen of‘the sample were stationed. Each anthrOpolo- gist was requested to judge those areas he felt most competent in. A form was provided with ten categories in it, number from 1 to 10. With "0" taken as representing the United States culture, each anthropologist was requested to place the countries he judged in one of the ten categories. Category 10 was for the country or countries most extremely different from the 0.3. culture. Pour members of the anthropology *department rated the countries. Exposure to U.S. Subcultures The diversity of exposure to various United States subcultures during a person's childhood was another potential area where a predictor of voluntary interaction with foreign nationals overseas might be found. This would be a measurement of the experience that a person has had in adapting to not only different living conditions, but also to different belief systems. A person who had spent his childhood on a farm would have less exposure to different belief systems than a person who had lived not only on a farm,but also in towns or large cities. Those individuals who have a greater diversity of exposure to differ- ent U.S. subcultures should interact with foreign nationals to a greater degree than those persons with less exposure to U.S. subcultures. Also, as a result of greater childhood experiences in adaptation to different living conditions and a more diverse range of belief systems, those persons with more exposure to US subcultures should experience more enjoyment with their overseas tour. Hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: High dogmatics will voluntarily interact.less.with foreign nationals than low dogmatics - but how different the two dogmatism groups are in the amount of voluntary interaction will increase as the discrepancy in norms between the U.S. and the foreign culture in which they are stationed increases. Hypothesis 2: High dogmatics will express less general enjoyment with their overseas tour than will low dogmatics - but how different the two dogmatism groups are in amount of enjoyment expressed will increase as the discrepancy in norms between the U.S. culture and the foreign culture in which they are stationed increases. Hypothesis 3: Low dogmatics will be higher in analogy ability than high dogmatics. Hypothesis u: Individuals with high analogy ability will interact more with foreign nationals than those with low analogy-ability - but how different the two analogy groups are in amount of voluntary interaction will increase as the discrepancy in norms between the U.S. and the foreign culture in which they are stationed increases. Hypothesis 5: Individuals with high analogy ability will eXpress more enjoyment with their tour overseas, than will those with low analogy ability 6 but how different the two analogy groups are in expressing enjoyment of their overseas tour will increase as the discrepancy in norms between the 0.8. culture and the foreign culture in which they are serving increases. Hypothesis 6: Low dogmatics will be more likely to volunteer for an over- seas assignment than will high dogmatics. lO Hypothesis 7: High dogmatics will interact less than low dogmatics, and the difference will be greater when they do not volunteer than when they do.‘ Hypothesis 8: High'dogmatics will express less enjoyment of their overseas 'tour than low dogmatics, and the difference will be greater when 'they do not volunteer than when the do. Hypothesis 9: Those individuals who have had a greater diversity of expo- sure to differenttsubbcultures, will interact to a greater degree in dissimilar cultures than those who had had less *exposure; in similar cultures, the differences will be less than in dissimilar cultures. Hypothesis 10; Those individuals who.had had.greater exposure to diverse sub- cultures will experience more enjoyment with.their overseas -tour than those lacking exposure; the differences between the two will be higher in dissimilar cultures than in similar _ cultures a ll CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH DESIGN Background of Study The subjects of this study were Air Force enlisted personnel presently stationed in the United States, but who had returned from overseas in'the last year. There were two reasonS'for‘this:' First, as a member of the United States Air Force, the author wanted the research to be useful to, and in the interests of, the Air Force. With many Air Force personnel stationed around the world, the Air Force can utilize the findings. Second, it was impractical economically to travel to overseas areas and attempt to personally identify individuals who were inter- acting well with foreign nationals and those who were not. ‘Therefore, a sample of Air Force personnel who had returned from overseas "-assignments within a year of the testing date were used.‘ Selfridge Air Force Base, Mt Clemens, Michigan, was selected as it was the nearest full—size Air Force installation to the university. Operationalizationvof.Variables: The variables listed in the hypotheses in Chapter 1 will be defined and operationalized in this section. Dogmatism: The standard, HO-item, Dogmatism Scale, as presented in Rokeach's Open and Closed Mind,l was used. A person highly dogmatic could score 1Sample of test in Appendix A. 12 as high as 2901 the lowest possible score is zero. “The resulting distribution of dogmatism scores is in Table I. TABLE I Distribution of Respondents' Dogmatism Scores Score % Respondents 50-69 ' 2% 70-89 13 90-109 28 110-129 30 130-199 19 150-169 6 170-183 2 100% N=100 Median = 113.5 Analogy: The Figure Analogy Testl was administered to the subjects and the following distribution resulted. TABLE II Distribution of Respondent's Analogy Scores EEEEEEI ‘ % Respondents 00-09 2% 10-19 7 20-29 16 30-39 17 ”0-99 12 50-59 16 60-69 12 70-79 13 80-89 5 100% N=100 Median = ”5.6 l . Figure Analogies -RPR 09A, See Appendix B. 13 Exposure to Sub-Cultures: The variety of places the subjects had lived in, visited, and foreign influences they had been exposed to, were measured in nine questions.1 The first four questions dealt primarily with how many times they had moved, and how many types of-areas-they hadtlived in as - children between the ages of 6 and 16.‘ This age span was-selected as memories were expected to be too dim before 6 to be of any effect; and 16 was used to get pre-service exposure~only;' Two sample questions are: 1. Between the ages of 6 and 16, how many towns did you live in? . 2. Between the ages of 6 and 16, how many states did you ~ visit? The other five questions attempted to measure any influences from foreign cultures through parents or friends, and also any knowledge of foreign languages. The following two questions are samples: 1. ‘Were any of your parents foreign born? Score a. Only mother. 2 b. _Only father. 2 c. -_-Both father and mother. 3 d. "'ho parent, but at least one grandparent. l e. :::Neither parents, nor grandparents. 0 2. Can you speak a foreign language? a. No. 0 b. -__A few phrases l c. —f‘airly well 2 - d. -_TAlmost, or as good as, a native speaker 3 I --.- 1The nine questions comprising this scale are questions l through 9 of the questionnaire shown in Appendix Co 19 The total score of an individual for these nine questions was used as an.indication of the diversity of exposure to subcultures in the _United States. The resulting distribution of scores is shown in Table.III. TABLE III Distribution of Respondents' Exposure to U.S. Sub-Cultures Scores fl Score 8 Respondents o-u at 5-9 2“ 10-1“ 25 15-19 21 20-2“ 13 25-29 7 30-3H -- 35-39 1 m NI1OO Median I 13.9 Volunteer Statue: Volunteer status was established through one question on the subject's status at the time his overseas orders were received for his last tour overseas. I. What was your volunteer status on your last tour?l Ce b. Ce Did not volunteer. olunteered and didn't get any of my choices. -Volunteered and got my 3d.choice. 'd. Volunteered and.got my 2d choice. .0 — olunteered and got my 1st choice. - Three volunteer statuses were established through this question: ~the volunteer who got his first choice, the volunteer who did not get his first choice, and the non-volunteer who did not or could not volunteers This Tfibl. IV e distribution of volunteers and non-volunteers is in 1This is question 26 of the questionnaire shown in Appendix C. ABLE IV Volunteer Status Distribution Description % Pesnondents Volunteer and got first choice. 22% Volunteer and got other choice or none of choices. " 29 (Got 2d choice - 8% got 3d choice - 2%, and none of choices- 19%). LL) Non-Volunteers ” '1; O of Culture Scale: The ratings of countries where the sample airmen were stationed were obtained'from four professors of the M.S.Uo anthrOpology depart- ment. After the ratings had been obtained with countries placed in one of ten categories, the judgments of the four professors were averaged. A 20-point"scale was derived from the averaged ratings. For example, France was rated once in category four and twice in category five.' On the 20-point scale this would mean France was in category seven once and in category nine twice. France was, therefore, placed in category eight. A similar operation was carried out for each country where judges disagreed on the rating. The results are in Table‘V° The scale was then split as closely to the median as possible. Categories l.to 12 were designated as cultures relatively similar to the United States, and categories 13 to 20 as cultures relative discrep- -ant from the United States culture. 16 TABLE V Twenty-Category Culture Scale Number Countries % Reapondents l Anchorage, Fairbanks 3% 2 Kodiak (subject's questionnaire dropped) - 3 Honolulu, Ottawa, Newfoundland, Saskatoon u u London 14 5 Labrador 2 6 Holland 1 7 Germany 11 8 France, Iceland 8 9 Naples l 10 Madrid 2 ll Azores 1 12 Greece, Sondestrom 5 13 Tokyo, Guam 10 1a Samsun 3 15 Okinawa, Izmir, Manila 12 16 Seoul, Saigon, Tripoli, Misawa, Fukuoka 16 17 Thule 4 18 Taiwan 1 19 Long Xuyen (Viet Nam) l 20 Da Nang (Viet Nam) 1 I663. N=100 Median = 12.4 Voluntary Interaction: Voluntary interaction refers to all social contact made by airmen with local nationals that was not required as a part of official duties. In other words, the airman made contact with the local nationals on his own initiative'and was able to maintain it to some degree. Questions 10 through 18 of the questionnaire were of interaction. 1 For example: designed to measure the degree lQuestionnaire shown in Appendix C 17 2. How often did you visit the homes of foreign personnel? Score 18 a. Never. 0 b. Once during tour. 1 c. About once a year. 2 d. Several times a year. 3 e. At least once a month. u The total score for each subject on the nine questions was his vol- untary interaction score. The distribution of voluntary interactions scores is in Table VI. TABLE VI Distribution of Respondents' Voluntary Interaction Scores Scores % Respondents 1-5 12 6-10 11 11-15 9 16-20 15 21-25 19 26-30 19 31-35 13 36-37 2 100% N=100, Median = 21.? Enjoyment of Tour Overseas: Questions 19 through 22 of the questionnaire were designed to measure how much enjoyment the individual received from his last over- '.~seas tour. This was to be a measurement of how satisfying the tour was. - A sample question is: 1. How much did you enjoy WORKING with foreign nationals on the job? Score a. Terrible. 0 b. Didn't like it. 1 c. Disliked it slightly. 3 - d. Liked it slightly. 8 "e. Liked it fairly well. 5 f. Liked it very much. Possible scores for the four questions covered a range of 0 to 20. The resulting distribution is shown in Table VII. TABLE VII Distribution of Respondents' Enjoyment of Tour Scores Scores % Respondents 0-2 u 3-5 3 6-8 M 9-11 8 12-1” 16 15-17 23 18-20 H2 ‘ m N=100, Median = 16.2 Data Collection: Originally, it was intended to include officer and enlisted personnel _in the sample. However, a survey of records at Selfridge AFB indicated only approximatelywten officers qualifying for the study. Therefore, the study was limited to enlisted personnel where a sufficiently large number ‘was available." All enlisted personnel who had returned from overseas duty after '*January 1, 1963 were considered eligible for testing. A screening of the personnel records produced approximately 200 qualified airmen. A testing date and times were set up for four groups of 90 personnel. fSelection of the 160 personnel was accomplished by the use.of a table of °'random.numbers.; The forty remaining men were listed as alternates for any- one unable to attend testing. The alternates were randomly placed in a priority order. 19 ' Actual testing was conducted at the base education testing center. Of the 160 men asked to report, 115 arrived for testing; and of these, 100 completed the questionnaires completely and correctly. The sample size, therefore, is 100 enlisted Air Force men of-ranks from Airman Third Classto Chief Master Sergeant. _' The Dogmatism Test, two time sections of the Figures Analogy Test ‘(5 minutes each section), and the questionnaire consisting of thirty- ,three questions, were administered. The testing sessions lasted approx- imately one hour. Respondents were told that all answers were to be anonymous and they were not.to write their names anywhere on the tests. -However, each test was numbered and the subjects were asked to sign in. As they signed in, they were given the next test in the testing pile. Each man signed in Opposite a.number.and each man was given a test copy with the same number on it. In this manner each respondent was identified. Anonymity was felt necessaryato get any-existing negative reactions. 20 CHAPTER 3? fi FINDINGS ‘Description of Sample:' Almost all the subjects were male airmen. Four out of five of the airmen were caucasian. Seven of every ten men in the sample had a high school education, with approximately two out of ten having less than a high school education. The Spread of religions represented was broad with Baptist and Catholic representing the religions of six of every ten airmen. The most predominant grades represented were Airman Second Class, Airman First Class, and Staff Sergeant. The exact distributions of per- .sonal characteristics are shown in Table VIII. Tests of Hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: High dogmatics will voluntarily interact less with foreign nation- als than low dogmatics, but how different the two dogmatism groups are in the amount of voluntary interaction will increase as the discrepancy in.norms between the U.S. and the foreign culture in which they are serving increases. The individuals above and below the dogmatism median were compared on amount of voluntary interaction. The dogmatism median was 113.5r-therefore, ' all those scoring less than 113.5 were classified as low dogmatics, and those who had higher scores were classified as high dogmatics. If the r'hypothesis is true; interaction score means should be higher for the low “dogmatics than for high dogmatics,.and the difference in means for high and low dogmatics in discrepant cultures should be greater than the dif- ference in means in the similar cultures. 21 TABLE’VIII Personal Characteristics of Sample Airmen % Respondents Sex: Male 98% Female 2 Race: White (approximate) 82% Other 18 Service: Reenlistees (approximate) 70% Education: Less than high school 23% High school or equivalency test (GED) 7O “Tw0“year3“or less of college or colleged (GED) 5 More than two years of college 2 Religion: « ' Baptist 29% Catholic 27 General Protestant 2H Methodist l2 ’Lutheran 6 None Listed 2 Rank: ' Chief Master Sergeant 1% Master Sergeant. . u Technical Sergeant 9 Staff Sergeant 27 Airman First Class. 31 Airman'Second021ass . 2S Airman Third Class 3 N = 100 The mean interaction scores for high and low dogmatics, by culture, show that low dogmatics have a higher mean interaction score in both similar and discrepant cultures, and the difference is greater in dis- -’crepant cultures. However, the differences are not statistically 22 significant. That is, the observed pattern of means was as predicted, but the differences were small enough to be reasonably attributed to sampling error. Therefore, one must conclude that low dogmatics do not interact*to a greater degree in foreign cultures, whether.the culture is similar or discrepant from the U.S. culture, than do high dogmatics. TABLE IX Average (Mean)"lnteraction Scores for High and Low Dogmatics, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures - Low Dogmatics High Dogmatics Culture Similar 21.7 20.9 Culture Discrepant 19.3 17.5 Sample Size Culture Similar 28 24 Culture Discrepant 23 25 Anova Summary: Source of Variation SS df 1 MS F F95 Between High and Low Dog 1.7130 1 1.7130 .uaua 3.95 Btwn Sim 5 Dis Cult 8.5330 1 8.5330 2.9128 3.95 Interaction .2261 l .2261 .0639 3.95 Error 96 3.5365 Hypothesis 2: High dogmatics will express less general enjoyment with their overseas tour than will low dogmatics, but how different the '-two dogmatism groups are in amount of enjoyment expressed will_ rincrease'aS'theJdiscrepancy in norms between the U.S. culture. and the foreign culture in which they are stationed increases. Tc"test"this*hypothesis, the dogmatism scale, enjoyment of tour score, and culture-of-countries rank were used. Dogmatism and culture were split at the medians again. If dogmatism 23 affects the enjoyment of the tour overseas, the average enjoyment score * of the low‘dogmatics*should be higher than the score of the highdogmatics. The differences between:enjoyment means of the highaand low dogmatics in discrepant-cultures should;also be greater than.those in similar cultures. The low dogmatics:show.a higher mean enjoyment score in both similar ' and discrepant cultures. -The.differences between means is greater.in the - discrepant culturesc‘ However,'none of the differences are statistically significant;' This means“that dogmatism does.not.affect degree of enjoyment of-overseas tours; anduenltural differences do not affect the degree of "enjoyment.= ' ‘ ‘“ n... TABEE X .« .. Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour SCOPES‘fOP High and Low Dog- matics, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures Low Dogmatics 'High Dogmatics "Culture Similar‘ * ' ‘ “ ‘16.0 15.6 -Cultnre.Discrepant _ 15.0 - 13.8 Sample Size . -<-.. '.Cnlture Similar 26 2a Culture Discrepant 25 25' Anova Summary: Source of Variation SS df MS F F95 Between High and'Low Dog .6508 l .6508 .65 3.95 Btwn Sim 8 Dis Cult 2.0498 1 2.0998 2.09 3.95 Interaction .15u7 1 .15u7 .15 3.95 Error 96 1.00ul .;.H¥P9th°sis 3= Low dogmatics will be higher.in analogy ability than high dogmatics. 2H If low dogmatics are higher in analogy ability than high dogmatics, then a negative correlation should appear between dogmatism and analogy. However, as is clear in Table XI, the relationship between dogmatism and analogy is not linear. Instead of persons in the lowest fourth on dog- matism showing the highest analogy scores, the medium-low group does. This means that the very low dogmatics do score higher on analogy tests than high dogmatics, but the intermediate low dogmatic tends to score higher~on-analogy than any of the other three dogmatism groups. To de- termine the extent of the relationship, Eta, an index of a curvilinear relationship was computed. The Eta was .28, which is significantly greater than zero.1 fi'fAB LE x1 Average (MeaniAnalogy Scores for Dogmatism Groups Low Low Dog Low Medium Dog High Medium Dog High High Dog Scoring Scoring Scoring Scoring 51 - 98 99 - 113 119 - 13% 13% - 183 _u8.3 su.u u3.u 38.2 Hypothesis n: Individuals with high analogy ability will interact more with foreign nationals.than.those with low analogy ability; but how different the two analogy groups are in amount of voluntary interaction will increase as the discrepancy in norms between the U.S. and the foreign culture in which they are stationed increases. “ To test this hypothesis the Figures Analogy Test, interaction scores, and culture-of-countries ranking were used. 1Statistical significance was determined by a single randomized an- alysis of variance. Between SS=3uOO.53; Within ss=uo,uos.31; df= 3, 96; F=3.71; significant at the .05 level. 25 The scores on the analogy test were split at the median. Those subjects fall below the median (u6 or less) were classified as the low analogy group, and those above the median (H7 or more) were classified as the high analogy group. If the ability-to relate things affects voluntary interaction, then the average interaction score of the high analogy group should be sig- nificantly higher than the mean interaction score of the low analogy group: the difference between the means of the high and low analogy group.should be greater in the discrepant culture than in the similar culture. The mean interaction scores for high and low analogy groups show the high analogy group with a higher mean interaction score in both similar and discrepant cultures. The differences in the means between high and low analogy groups are statistically significant. This means that individuals who score in the high analogy group voluntarily inter- act to a greater degree than those in the low group. TABLE XII Average (Mean) Interaction Scores for High and Low Analogy _Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures Low Analogy High Analogy 'Culture Similar 20.5 22.5 Culture Discrepant lu.9 2u.6 Sample Size Culture Similar 30 22 Culture Discrepant 21 28 Anova Summary: Source of Variation SS df MS F F.95 : Btwn Hi 8 Lo Analogy 33.39u5 1 33.3945 9.05 3.95 i Btwn Sim 8 Disc Cults 3.30u6 1 3.30MB -- 3.95 Interaction 13.9253 1 13.9253 3.77 3.95 Error . 96 3.689u The pattern of the analogy differences for the two cultural groups is not significant statistically. This means that culture does not sig- nificantly affect the degree of interaction reported by high or low an- alogy persons.' Hypothesis 5: Individuals with high analogy ability will eXpress more enjoyment with their overseas tour than will those with low analogy ability; but how different the two analogy groups are in expressing enjoy- ment with their tour will increase as the discrepancy in norms be- tweenfithefv.$thulture and the foreign culture in which they are stationed increases. To test this hypothesis the Figures Analogy Test, enjoyment scores, and culture-of-countries ranking were used. Analogy scores were split at the median as described for Hypothesis 9. If the ability to relate affects enjoyment of the overseas tour, the average enjoyment-score of the high analogy group should be higher than the enjoyment scores of the low analogy group. The differences between the means of the high and low analogy groups should also be greater in the discrepant cultures than in similar cultures. The high analogy groups show a higher average enjoyment score than the low analogy group. However, the differences are not statistically significant.‘ This means that the ability to relate does not affect the degree of enjoyment with the overseas tour. 27 -— ABLE XIII Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low Analogy Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures Low Analogy High Analogy Culture Similar 12.9 15.u 'Culture Discrepant 13.8 V lu.6 Sample Size: Culture Similar 30 22 Culture Discrepant 20 28 Anova Summary: Sources of Variation SS df MS F F.95 Btwn Hi 8 Lo Analogy 2.8816 1 2.8816 1.20 3.95 Btwn Sim g DISC CUltS 00018 1 00018 -- 3095 Interaction .7927 1 .7927 —- 3.95 Error 96 2.3967 Hypothesis 6: Low dogmatics will be more likely to volunteer for an overseas assign- ment than will high dogmatics. The dogmatism scores and volunteer statuses were compared. The re- sults of this study show that there is no significant difference between ‘the volunteer statuses of high and low dogmatics.t Neither the high HOP low dogmatic, then, is more likely to volunteer for overseas duty. 'The differences among means were not significant when analysis of 'variance was used. F = .59, df = 2, 97. 28 TABLE XIV Relationship of Dogmatism and Volunteer Status » Average (Mean)' Sample "Dogmatism Score Size Volunteer-First Choice 117.0 22 Volunteer Other 117.8 29 Non-Volunteer 110.9 #9 N'z'i'b‘c')’ Hypothesis 7: High dogmatics will interact less than low dogmatics, and the difference will be greater when they do not volunteer than when they do. To test this hypothesis, the three volunteer statuses (volunteer and first choice, volunteer and other or none of choices, and non-volunteer), the interaction scores, and dogmatism scores were used. If dogmatism and volunteer status affect interaction, then the vol- unteer who got his first choice should have a higher mean interaction score than the volunteer who got other choices or none of his choices; and in turn, both volunteer statuses should have higher mean interaction scores than nondvolunteers. The volunteers who got their first choice received higher interaction scores than volunteers who did not get their first choice and non-volunu teers. Volunteers who did not get their first choice-received higher mean interaction scores than non-volunteers in the high dogmatic group, but not in the low dogmatic group. The differences in mean interaction scores between the three volunteer- status groups are statistically significant. This means that volunteer status does significantly affect the degree of interaction performed by 29 an individual in a foreign culture. The pattern of these differences was not significantly different for the twO'dogmatism groups. Thus, dogmatism does not affect how vol- ~.unteer statUS'influences the amount of voluntary interaction in a foreign ' culture. First choice volunteer status is the only "enhancer" of inter- action. Volunteer other status is only slightly better than the non- - volunteer status. TABLE XV Average (Mean) Interaction Scores for High and Low Dogmatics, by Volunteer Statuses. “Volunteer Volunteer Non- First Choice Other Volunteer High Dogmatics " 27.1 17.2 ”16.2 Low” Dogmaticsr 29.8 17.9 20.7 Sample Size: --_ High Dogmatics 12 16 21 Low “Dogmatics 10 13 28 Anova Summary: Source of Variation SS df MS F F99 Btwn Volunteer Statuses 87.8693 2 43.u3u6 7.60 7.00 Btwn Hi 5 Lo Dogmatism .9903 1 .9903 -- Interaction 12.1349 2 6.1227 1.-- Error - 9n 5.7938 . Hypothesis 8: High dogmatics will express less enjoyment of their overseas tour than low dogmatics; the difference will be greater when they do not volunteer"than when they do. To test this hypothesis the Dogmatism Test, enjoyment of tour scores, .and volunteer statuses were used. 30 If dogmatism and volunteer status do affect enjoyment of tour scores, the low dogmatics should evidence higher mean enjoyment scores, and all scores should tend to lower when the volunteer does not get his first choice and when in the non—volunteer status. The volunteers who got their first choice received higher enjoyment of tour scores than volunteers who did not get their first choice and non- volunteers. Volunteers who did not get their first choice received lower mean enjoyment scores than non-volunteers. The high dogmatic group showed a greater difference than the low dogmatic group. The differences in mean enjoyment scores between the three volunteer- status groups are statistically significant. This means that volunteer status does significantly affect the individual's degree of enjoyment in the overseas tour. WW Average (Mean) Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low - Dogmatics by Volunteer Statuses Volunteer Volunteer Non- First Choice Other Volunteer High Dogmatics 17.6 12.3 19.9 Low Dogmatics 18.5 19.6 19.7 Sample Size: High Dogmatism 12 16 21 Low Dogmatism 10 13 28 Anova Summary: Source of Variation: SS df MS F F-95 Btwn Volunteer Statuses 22.1u2u 2 11.0712 6.95 3.95 Btwn Hi 8 Lo Dogmatism 1.5291 1 1.5291 .9- Interaction 1.6605 2 .8302 .5- Error 9n 1.5922 31 The pattern of these differences was not significantly different for the two dogmatism groups. Thus, dogmatism does not affect how volunteer status influences the amount of enjoyment in the overseas tour. The first choice volunteer is the only "enhancer" of enjoyment in the tour. Hypothesis 9: Those individuals who have had a greater diversity of exposure to different subcultures in the United States will interact vol- untarily to a greater degree in dissimilar cultures overseas than those who have had less exposure; in similar cultures overseas . '_ the differences will be less significant. "--”. To test this hypothesis, scores received on exposure to US subcul- tures, interaction score, and the culture-of-countries ranking, were used. If the diversity of exposure to different subcultures during child— hood affects the degree of voluntary interaction, those individuals above the median in US-subculture exposure should have a higher mean interaction scores. The differences in mean interaction scores between the high and low "exposure to U.S. subcultures" groups should be greater in the dis- crepant culture. The results show that individuals in the high exposure group had higher mean interaction scores than the.low exposure group. The differences in the mean interaction scores between the two exposure groups was not *greater in the discrepant.cu1tures. However, none of the differences in mean interaction scores for the four groupS'were statistically significant. This meanS'that diversity of exposure to different U.S. subcultures in childhood does not affect the degree of interaction with foreign nationals. 32 TABLE XVII Average (Mean) Interaction Score for High and Low Exposure Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures High Exposure Low Exposure Similar Culture 23.9 19.1 Discrepant Culture 19.8 17.3 Sample Size: Similar Culture 26 25 Discrepant Culture 23 26 Tnova Summary: Source of Variation SS df MS F F-95 Between Hi 8 Lo Exposure 11.6980 1 11.6980 3.19 3.95 Btwn Sim 8 Disc Cult 7.1036 1 7.1036 1.91 Interaction .8088 l - Error 96 3.7207 __....._, —-‘- ——‘.—_-.— m .p— F‘— —-—r——fi— Hypothesis 10: Those individuals who have had greater exposure to diverse sub- cultures will experience more enjoyment with.their overseas tour than those lacking exposure; differences between the two groups will be higher in dissimilar cultures. To test this hypothesis the exposure group was split in the same manner as for Hypothesis 9. Enjoyment of tour scores-and culture of countries ranking were also used. If the degree of exposure to diverse subcultures affects enjoyment of the overseas tour, the high eXposure group should have a higher mean enjoyment score than the low exposure group. Also, the differences be- tween the meat enjoyment scores of the two groups should be greater in dissimilar cultures. ‘ The results show that the mean enjoyment score of the high exposure group it higher‘in both the similar and discrepant cultures. The differ- ences in means, however, are not statistically significant. This means 33 that diversity of exposure to subcultures during childhood does not affect the degree of enjoyment with the overseas tour. TABLE XVIII (Mean)-Average-Enjoyment of Tour Scores for High and Low Exposure Groups, by Similar and Discrepant Cultures High Exposure Low Exposure, Culture Similar 16.0 15.7 Culture Discrepant 19.9 19.2 Sample Size: Culture Similar 25 26 Culture Discrepant 29 25 Anovah Summary Source of Variation SS df MS F F95 Btwn Hi 8 Lo Exposure .2898 1 .2898 3.95 Btwn Sim 8 Disc Culture 1.7061 1 1.7061 - Interaction .0701 1 .0701 - Error 96 .9759 39 CHAPTER 9 IMPLICATIONS Summary: The primary interests in this project were to predict how much Ameri- can military personnel would interact with foreign nations in overseas areas, and to predict how much persons enjoyed their overseas tour. Four variables were investigated as possible predictors of interaction and enjoyment. These were dogmatism, analogy ability, volunteer status, and variety of exposure to United States subcultures. Dogmatism did not predict either the degree of interaction of a person while overseas, or the degree of his enjoyment with the overseas tour. The variety of exposure to United States subcultures also did not predict either how much he enjoyed his overseas tour of the degree of his interaction with foreign nationals. Analogy ability, however, was found to predict interaction, but not enjoyment. It seemed to predict interaction better if the person was in a foreign culture that was very different from the United States culture ‘than in a culture similar to the United States culture. However, this dif- ferential predictiveness was not significant. Evidently the ability to re- late ideas or concepts is helpful in relating and Operating within foreign cultures. Volunteer status predicted both interaction and enjoyment of the over— seas tour. It predicted equally well among both the high and low dog- -matics. "If a person gets his first choice for overseas duty, he voluntarily interacts more with persons in the foreign culture. Airmen who volunteered 35 for overseas duty, but who did not get their first choice in assignment, did not differ much from the nonwvolunteers in their amount of overseas interaction. The distinction between volunteer status is only signifi~ cant, then, between the first-choice volunteer and other volunteers or nonnvolunteers. The relationship between dogmatism and analogy ability was checked. Rather than the linear correlation predicted between the two variables, a curvilinear relationship was found. While the lowest quartile of dog» matism groups had higher analogy scores than the high dogmatism groups (above the median), the mediumalow dogmatism group had higher analogy scores than the extremely low dogmatism group. The relationship between dogmatism and volunteer status was also checked and no significant relationship was found between dogmatism and volunteer status. Discussion: Dogmatism may have failed to show significant interaction differences because the high dogmatic°s response to authority was not taken into ac- count. Rokeach's research shows that the high dogmatic tends to comply with the wishes of his authority references. The majority of (70%) the airmen ‘tested were volunteer reenlistees. Therefore, it can be assumed with some degree of confidence that the high dogmatics would see the Air Force policies and commands as coming from accepted authority figures. As the AF policy is to promote interaction with foreign nationals, "the high dogmatic probably accepts the policv as an isolated concept with which he must comply. However, since it is his policy to avoid disbelief systems, it might be that there is a qualitative difference in the inter- action he engages in from the interaction that the low dogmatic engages in. The high dogmatic may tend to ”preach at” the nationals he comes in contact with and may tread blindly where low dogmatics fear to go. In other words, investigation of the type of people and the quality of the interaction of the high and low dogmatics may differ. In any cul— ture, whether American or foreign, opportunists may contact anyone with influence and, to gain a liking, obligingly agree with and praise their contact. It is possible that this is the type of contact the high dog~ matic has in most of his interaction with foreign nationals. He can then comply with his authority figures and still avoid any direct or too blatant confrontation with individuals who espouse his disbelief systems. Further research will have to be conducted to find out if such an 'important qualitative difference does exist between the dogmatic groups. Also, further*research should split the dogmatism groups into four groups, as was done for Hypothesis 3 above, to discover whether curvilinear re- lationships exist when working with dogmatism groups. As both analogy and volunteer status indicated significant predict- iveness, the two variables were combined to determine if there was any interaction. As reported in Table XIX, only volunteer status was signifi« cant. Looking at the findings of hypotheses 9 and 5, the interaction be- tween the differences in analogy scores and cultures approached significance (3.77 with F.95 at 3.95). Note that the findings for Hypothesis 5 show that while high analogy scorers interacted only slightly better in similar cultures, there was a large difference in interaction for high and low 3’7 analogy scorers in discrepant cultures. ‘7“.715 « - ‘Ai (Mean) Average Interaction Scores for High and Low Analogy Groups, by Volunteer Statuses Volunteer Volunteer None First Choice Other Volunteer High Analogy 26.7 15.6 21.9 Low Analogy 25,9 18.2 15.2 Sample Size: High Analogy 11 11 26 Low Analogy ll 18 23 Anova Summary Variation Source: 88 df MS F Fqs Volun Statuses 99.95 2 97.22 8.38 3:95 Hi 8 Low Analogy 5.01 l 5.01 - 3995 Interaction 21.79 2 10.87 1.93 Error 99 5.63 It seems possible that the similarity or discrepancy of cultures to the U.S. culture, not taken into account in this analysis, may have re- duced the effect of analogy on interaction with foreigners. With a larger sample, cultural similarity could also be taken into account, and might in- dicate a significant analogy effect for some persons. Further research is required before analogy as a predictive variable for foreign interaction can be generalized to all enlisted personnel and Air Force officers. One current advantage of analogy skill as a pre« dictor of overseas interaction for the Air Force is that the analogy test is currently an AF test. Thus, it would involve little expense, only ten 38 minutes in time to administer, and does not require the use of trained personnel to administer it. Volunteer status may work as a predictcr because it involves the element of commitment. In other words, once the airman indicates the assignment he most wishes to have, he has voluntarily selected an area he feels best able to function in. Receiving that particular assignment then, commits him to react positively. When he does not receive the first-choice assignment, there is somewhat less commitment itvolved and he performs less well. ‘ One advantage of using volunteer status as a predictor is that this information is available in all airman records. The implications of the findings on volunteer status are that, for special assignments such as MAAG or to "sensitive" areas, the airmen selected should be volunteers for the specific assignment. If a ready volunteer, who is qualified, cannot be found, then there is a possibility that "selling" him the assignment so he will volunteer for it might help. However, further research would have to determine whether the individual who volunteered on his own initiative and the individual who was "sold" on the assignment interacted as well as each other, APPENDICES 9O APPENDIX A DOGMATISM TEST Lg] PART; be following is a study of what the general public thinks and feels about a mnber of important social and personal questions. The best answer to each statunent below is your PERSONAL OPINION. We have tried to cover my different and opposing points of view: you may find yourself agreeim strongly'with some or the statements, disag-eeing Just as strongly with others. and perhaps uncertain about others: whether you agree or disagree with arm statuent. you can be sure that new people feel the same as you do. Hark eachstatement inthelettmarginaccording to howmuchyouagree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write +1. +2. +3. or -1. -2. -3. depending on how you feel in each case. *1 IMAM -l IDISLGREEALITTIE +2 110.0l1'HIWBOLI -2 IDISAGREEONTHEWEIB +3 IWMHWH -3 Inmmm ‘I. he United States and hassia have Just about nothing in cannon. 2. The highest form of governnent is a democracy and the highest form of dauocracy is a goverment run by those who are most intelligent. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. .._.._... 3- 9. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintame with ideas he believes in than with ideas he omnfie Han on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. ———-— 5. 6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place. Most people Just don't give a 'damn' for others. .._.._.... 7. 8. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve w personal problems. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the mtmo 10. more is so much to be done and so little time to do it in. 11. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion. I Just can't stop. 12. In a discussion. I often find it necessary to repeat melt several times to make sure I am being understood. In a heated discussion. I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are “Me .._.._... 13. +++ 1 2 3 11... l 5. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 . 22e 23. 21b. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. IAGREEALITTLE -1 IDISAGREEALITI'IE I AGIEE ON THE WHOLE -2 I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE I AGREE VERY HUGH -3 I DISAGREE MY HUGH Itisbettertobe-adeadherothantobealivecoward. mile I don't like to admit this even to melf, w secret ambition is to become a great man. like Einstein. or Beethoven, or Stakespeare. i‘hemainthing inlife is forapersontowanttodo something important. If given the chance. I would do something of great benefit to the “The In the history of mankind. there have probably been Just a mum of really great thinkers. , There are a number of people I have come to hate because of the things they stand for. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really 133“» It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. Of all the different philosophies which east in this world there is probably only one which is correct. A person who gets enthusiastic about too new causes is likely to be a pretty l'wistm-washy" sort of person. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion. we must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do. In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own happiness. 'ihe worst crime a person could comit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's own camp than by those in the opposing camp. A group which tolerates too much differences of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. There are two ldnis of people in this worlds.- those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. +1 ILGREEALITTIE -1 IDISAGREELIITTIE +2 IAGREEONTHEWBOIB -2 IDISAGREEONTHEWHOIE '09 I AGREE YER! MUCH -3 I DISAGREE vm sacs m blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit __ 31 . _ 32- __ 33- .... 3“- __ 35- .... 36. .._.._... 37. .._.. 38. .._.._ 39- he 's wrong. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beyond com—Ema Host of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted It is often desirable to reserve Judgment about what 's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects. Inthelongrunthebestwaytolive istopickfrienisand associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. Ifananistoaccomplishhismissioninlife. itissmetimes necessary to gamble 'all or nothing at all." Unfortunately, a good may people with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what is going on. that people Just don't know what's good for then. M of Section One. Turn the page and continue with the questionnaire. APPENDIX B FIGURES ANALOGY TEST n2 FIGURE ANALOGIES r- RPR04A NAME . . TESTING (Print) NUMBER Last First Middle GROUP DATE - In this test your task will be to select a figure that bears the same relation to the third figure as the second figure bears to the first. For example: x z A B ’c 'D "E DEB] , ‘ E You are to find which one of the five figures at the right has the same relation to Z as Y has to X. Figure X is a circle and figure Y is a circle divided into 4 equal parts. Figure Z is a square so the figure which you are_looking for is a square divided into four equal parts. Of the five choices, figure A is the only one which is divided into four equal parts. The space under A would be blackened on your answer sheet. Now look at the second example: ' ' - ' ' " X Y‘ Z L__l El. (5 $ ’5 -. b A' B_..'C‘ 'D-’ E Figure X is a square; figure Y is a similar square. but the solid lines have been changed to dotted lines and the quarter in the upper right has been blackened. The relationship of Y to X is: " Change the solid outline to a dotted one and blacken the upper right quarter of the figure." D is the correct answer for it is related to Z the same way Y is related to X. The space under D would be marked on your answer sheet. The remaining items are of similar type. You are to find a figure which is re- lated to Z‘the same way Y is related to X and blacken the Appropriate Space 'on the answer sheet. This test consists of two parts each containing 15 items. You will have 5 minutes for each part. Are there any questions 7 Reproduced with permission from a test devel d b th Aptit at the University of Southern California. ape y rune “deg Pro act without permission from the same source. Not to be her rep reduced STOP HERE. WAIT FOR_FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS. (Adapted by permission from an Air Force Test of the same name.) This test was prepared under U. 8. Government Contract N60nr-23810. APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRE 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. PART III Between.the ages of 6 and 16, did you: Is! 23.0.. a. ever live on a farm? b. ever live in.a small town (less than 10,000 population)? c. ever lige in a small city (between 10,000 and 100,000 popula- tion d. ever live in a large city (gver 100,000 population)? Between the ages of 6 and 16, how'many towns did you.1ivo in? (nr towns) Between the ages of 6 and 16, how many STATES did you live in? (nr states) Between the ages of 6 and 16, how many OTHER states had you.visitg§? (nr states) ‘Were any of your parents foreign born? a. Only'mother. be Only father. c. Both father and mother. d. No parent, but at least one grandparent. e. Neither parents or grandparents. Between the ages of 6 and 16, how many of your fairly 9M friends were foreign born} a. None. b. Only one friend or neighbor. o. A few friends or neighbors. d. Many friends or neighbors. e. All friends and neighbors. Did your parents speak a foreign language around your home? a. Only English was spoken. b. More English than foreign language. e. About equal amounts English and foreign language. d. More of foreign language than English. e. Spoke only a foreign language at home. Can.you speak a foreign language? is NO. b. A few phrases. 0e Fairly "9110 d. Almost. or as good as, a native speaker. Gan.you ”get along" speaking more than one foreign language? ‘e :38 b. No 10. 11. 12. 13. 1a. 15. 16. 17. How much time did you spend with foreign nationals during your last tour overseas? ae Nonee h. Only on the job. c. Some time off duty, but most of the time with Americans. d. About equal time with nationals and Americans when off duty. e. More time with nationals than with Americans, when gff duty. How often did you go off base to town (do not count time Q own home. if you lived on the ecommy)? a. Never. be Once during toure c. Once or twice a year. d. About every'two months. e. About once or twice a month. 1'. At least once a week. How many personal friends did you make with foreign personnel? 8. “Ghee b. One or two casual friends. c. Many casual friends. (1. One close friend - some casual frienis. e. Two or more close friends - some casual friends. How often did you invite foreign personnel to visit your home? 8. Never. b. Once during tour. c. About once a year. d. Several times a year. c. ' At least once a month. How often did you visit the homes of foreign personnel? a. Never. b. Once during tour. c. About once a year. d. Several times a year. e. At least once a month. How often did you attend social events 29. base with foreign personnel? a. Never. be Once during toure c. About once a year. d. Several times a year. e. At least once a month. How often did you attend social events fl base with foreign nationals? a. Never. be Once during tour. c. About once a year. 6.. Several times a year. e. At least once a month. How often did you work with social groups that had at least some foreign nationals as manners? ae NOV”. b. Once during tour. c. About once a year. d. Several times a year. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. How mamr foreign families did you make frimds with? ae Nonee b. One family. Ce TWO familieSe d. Three families. e. More than three families. How much did you enjoy WORKING with foreign nationals on the Job? ae Terriblee be Didn't like ite c. Disliked it slightly. d. Liked slightly. e. Liked it fairly.well. f. Liked it very much. How much did you enjoy your contact with local shopkeepers overseas? 3e Terrible. b. Didn’t like it. c. Disliked it slightly. (1. Liked slightly. e. Liked it fairly well. 1‘. Liked it very much. How much did you enjoy informal off duty contact with foreign nationals? a. Terrible. b. Didn't like it. c. Disliked it slightly. e. Liked it fairly well. f. Liked it very much. If you had to give an over-all estimate of your last tour overseas. what would it be? ‘ ae Terriblee be Didn't like ite c. Disliked it slightly. d. Liked slightly. e. Liked it fairly well. 1‘. Liked it very much. I What did the nationals at work seen to think of Americans...did they think Americans were: a. Terrible. b. Didn't like Americans. c. Disliked them slightly. d. Liked them slightly. 9. Liked Americans fairly well. 1'. _____Lide them very mUChe What did the nationals you met socially scan to think of Americans...did they think Americans were: a. Terrible. b. Didn't like Americans. c. Disliked them slightly. (1. Liked then slightly. e. Liked them fairly well. l 25. 26. 27. 23. 29. 33. a In general, what did the local people see: to think of Americans? Did they think Americans were: a. Terrible. b. Didn't like Americans. Ce DiSlikd them Slightlye d. __Liked them slightly. e. __,_1.iked them fairly well. I. '___Liked them very much. What was your volunteer status on your last tour? 9.. Did not volunteer. b. Volunteered and didn't get an of u choices. c. ’ Volunteered and got my 3d choice. d. Volunteered and got m 2d choice. e. Volunteered and got my lst choice. If you were not a volunteer overseas when assigned. why? (Pick best answer) a. I was a volunteer. b. I couldn't volunteer then. but wanted to. c. I didn't want overseas duty. d. Had never been overseas, but preferred stateside tour. A e. Had family problems that were not eligible for AF deferment. How mamr foreign nationals were there. approadmately in your duty section? (write in) Where did you live overseas? a. On the economy the whole time. b. On the economy part time. o. On the tnse full time. 5' How 0 were you when you went overseas this last tour? Did you have any relatives living in the country where you were stationed this last overseas tour that you knew? Yes No were there any restrictions - official. unofficial. or political - concerning your contact with foreign nationals? If so, what were they? ~' _A_._ How many tours have you had overseas. including this last tour? gage &‘ Countgz - nr 93' I! (last tour) 31!. Are there am cements you wish to make about your last overseas tour that you don't think shared up on the questionnaires you Just completed? Please turn in test. i All “'eeeeeeeeegeeeeeeeeeee‘5