REUGIOSETY, SELF-CONCEPTlON. AND SOCIAL SYSTEM COMMITMENT AMONG H’EGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Thesis For the Degtoe of M. A. MICHEGAN STATE UNIVERSHY Lawrence Eémunzi Sneden H 1963 if; LIBRARY Michigan State University ‘ L, f ,’. l I. RELIGIOSITY, SELF—CONCEPTION, AND SOCIAL SYSTEM COMMITMENT AMONG HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS By Lawrence Edmund Sneden II A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS College of Social Science Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology 1963 '~ ‘4'." 1R." ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Carl Couch, my chairman, for the kind assistance he provided throughout the develOpment of this thesis. Thanks also to Drs. Stewart and Kumata for their suggestions and assist- ance. An especial note of thanks goes to Dr. Fred Waisanen who first inspired this thesis, whose framework provided my theoretical anchor, and whose work along with Dr. Loomis, provided the data for my analyses. Further thanks go to not only Dr. Waisanen, but to Dr. Herbert Blumer, for encouraging me to pursue a career in social psychology. Thanks be to all those others who have played a part in my intellectual development--my teachers, confidants, the authors of the works I have read, iall those who have encouraged me to apply reason in my attempts to understand human relations. Finally, a debt of thanks is due my parents and friends, all of whom showed extraordinary forebearance in tolerating the pedantry that I invariably evince incessantly when engaged in any new intellectual pursuit. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . V11 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 History of Symbolic Interactionism . . 1 Empirical Research in Symbolic Inter- actionism. . . . . . . . . . 5 II. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Theoretical Background. . . . . 13 The Social Setting . . . . . . . 16 The Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . 21 III. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . 26 The Sample and Field Methods . . . . 26 Indicators and Methodological Techniques . . . . . . . 31 The Design of Analysis . . . . . . 40 IV. RELIGIOSITY, SELF- CONCEPTION, AND SOCIAL 1 SYSTEM COMMITMENT. . . . . . . 43 i Religiosity: TST and Closed-Form . . 43 Religiosity: Its Social Correlates. . 47 Religiosity and Social System . Commitment . . . . 49 I The Self and the Social System: The School as a Social System . . . . 54 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . 64 The TST and the Social Correlates of Religiosity . . . . 64 The Self— Social System Schema. . . . 65 Position and Self— Social System Evaluation . . . . . . . 72 iii Chapter Page Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 75 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 iv Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Age Distribution of Sample Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . National Descent Distribution of Sample Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Religious Preference of the Sample POpulation . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Father's Occupation of the Sample Population . . . . . . . . . Association Between the Two Measures of Religiosity: The Levels on TST and the Closed-Form Questions . . . . . . . . . Association Between the Two Measures of Religiosity: The Saliency on the TST and the Level on the Closed-Form. . . . Association Between Religiosity and Others' Influence . . . . . . . . . . . Association Between the Perception of the School as a Religious Agent and the Evaluation of the School (With the Level of Religiosity Held Constant) Association Between the Perception of the School as a Religious Agent and the Desire for Self-Change (With the Level of Religiosity Held Constant) . . . . Association Between the Evaluation of the School and One‘s Perception of One's Position within the School. . . . Association Between One's Satisfaction With His Position and His Evaluation of the School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V Page 28 29 29 3O 45 47 48 51 53 55 57 Table l2. l3. 14. 15. Association Between One's Perception of His Position and His Self- Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Association Between Self-Conception and the Evaluation of the School on the Dimension "Good-Bad" . . . . . . . Association Between Self-Conception and the Evaluation of the School on the Dimension "Important-Unimportant". Association Between Self-Conception and the Evaluation of the School on the Dimension "Necessary—Unnecessary". vi Page 59 6O 61 62 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Conditions Related to Perceived Discrepancies Between Self System and Social System . . . . . . . . . . l4 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION History of Symbolic Interactionism The contributions of George Herbert Mead to social psychology, although they have really only begun to be recognized since the posthumous publication of much of his work, have been enormous. In recent years many social psychologists have come to recognize the importance of symbolic interactionism as a fruitful perspective which to view the phenomena of their field.1 Central to symbolic interactionist theory is the con— ception of the self.2 It is seen as a social emergent: that is, it is the result of interaction with others. An individual constructs his behavior according to the self indications he makes, and the kinds of self indications he makes are the result of his learning of the expectations of others in the interaction situation. The self, then, is a reflexive concept: it necessi— tates not only an awareness of one's "individual" feelings, 1Anselm Strauss (ed.), The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1956), pp. iv-xvi. 2Manford Kuhn and Thomas S. McPartland, "An Empirical Investigation of Self-Attitudes," ASR, 19 (1954), p. 68. l but an awareness of the expectations of others. Insofar as the members of a group act toward and with reference to one another, they take each others' perspectives toward their own actions and thus interpret and assess that activity in communal terms. Individuals' reSponses to the expecta- tions of others through the "taking the role of the other" allow for c00perative group endeavor. This description of the ways in which human beings actually act toward one another point to some significant underlying factors in one of the most important integers of social organization-- social control, or the maintenance of order.3 COOperation is not, however, Just a physical matter; more important, it is a symbolic one: group membership is a symbolic interrelationship, and the symbols which arise during the life of the group are, in turn, internalized by the members and affect their individual acts. Human meaning, then, arises through and during cooperative group action. In his discussions of the ways in which individuals "take the role of the other" and participate in a "symbolic conversation of gestures,” Mead attended to many basic ques- tions concerning the nature of thought. He noted, for example, that a "conversation of gestures" might take place solely within a single individual and need not necessarily be between the individual and others (except insofar as he 3Strauss, op. cit., pp. ix-xvi. had internalized others and their expectations within his self). Human thought, felt Mead, involves the pointing-out of meanings to one's self and thus requires a self—conscious actor-~one who can delay overt action until he has surveyed all of the pertinent meanings and consequences of the prOposed lines of action that he may pursue. The generalized other, society's representative in the individual, allows the individual to organize his behavior in the absense of others and still be cognizant of others' expectations. It is, therefore, closely linked both to self- control and social control. The "I," the impulsive side of behavior in Mead's schema, is controlled and limited by the "me," the societal side of the person; that is, the "me" Judges the behavior of the "I," perhaps immediately afterward, after a long time, or many times afterward. The "I" introduces novelty and creativeness; it is a source of social change. The "me," on the other hand, represents society's steadying effect, the pressure toward continuity and stability.4 The individual, then, is capable of taking himself as an object: this allows him to Judge his behavior. This makes it possible for the "me" to censor the "I." Thus it is not only the reflexive nature of social interaction that gives rise to social control and order, but it is the reflexive nature of the self that affords the acquisition and “Ibid. implementation of the expectations of others that are acquired within the interaction situation.5 Mead's insights have not often been put to empirical tests in research situations. Strauss and others feel that Mead did not, in fact, offer us testable hypotheses, but, rather, an abstract frame of reference which, if taken seriously and consistently, would force questions and sug- gest potentially fruitful lines of research that no other 6 The fact competing point of view forces or even suggests. remains, however, that very little empirical research has been done that is directly connected with the symbolic interactionist perSpective. The study of the self, the central concept of the Median schema, for example, has only recently begun.7 One reason for the notable lack of study about the self as Mead saw it is to be found in the fact that there has traditionally been no real consensus regarding the class of phenomena to which the self ought to be Operation- ally ordered. The self has been seen not only as "an image, a conception, a concept, a feeling, an internalization, a 5George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959); Strauss, 0p. cit. 6Strauss, op. cit., p. xvi. 7Kuhn and McPartland, op. cit., p. 68. self looking at itself,” but--most commonly, and perhaps most ambiguously-- "the self."8 Empirical Research in Symbolic Interactionism Kuhn and McPartland hold (as an assumption) that human behavior is organized and directed; they suppose, further, that behavior is ordered by rational awareness of the atti- tudes one has toward himself and others. It is crucial, then, if they are correct, to be able to measure these self— attitudes. Their article, "An Empirical Investigation of Self-Attitudes,” represents a pioneer effort in the attempt to measure self-attitudes. They suggest that the TST, or Twenty Statements Test, was better for collecting general self—attitudes than pre— viously used devices, such as the test that required respon- dents to make role preference, avoidance, expectations, models, or the like. In the latter device, the self state- ments given were too specific: general self—attitudes had to be inferred, rather tenuously, from them. The TST, on the other hand, aimed directly at attitudes. It yielded virtually all of the items which a rough analysis of long autobiographies by corresponding individuals did, for 9 example. 8Ibid. 9Ibid., pp. 68-70. McPartland and Cumming's study of self—conception, social class, and mental illness, found that there are sig- nificant differences in the kinds of self-conceptions generally found among the members of different social classes, and that these self-conceptions are consonant with probable differences in social experience. They found also that there are demonstrable regularities between self—conception and characteristic modes of conduct in the psychiatric ward. Finally, the differences in self-conception by social class were found to be of a degree and kind which correspond to the differences in behavioral pathology in the various classes which have been observed by other investigators. Tentatively, then, the self—conception seems to provide a link which relates social class to behavioral pathology.lo In a study of the relationship between self-attitudes and agreement with immediate others, Couch found that females, when evaluating themselves, tend to agree more with their estimate of their partner's evaluation than males. Individ- uals with high or medium locus scores were in less agreement with others' evaluations than were those with low locus scores, and those who identified themselves saliently with their families or religious groups also scored lower.ll 10Thomas S. McPartland and John H. Cumming, "Self— Concepté)Social Class, and Mental Illness," Human Organization, 17 (195 . pp. 24-29. llCarl Couch, "Self Attitudes in Agreement With Immedi- afie Others,” American Journal of Sociology, 64 (1958), pp. 2 —29. These kinds of commitments apparently preclude, to some degree, "taking the role of the other" in different situa- tions. Miyamoto and Dornbusch's study on the develOpment of the self-conception reinforces some of the fundamental ideas underlying the symbolic interactionist theory of self-conception, and, further, suggests possibilities of further study within the symbolic interactionist framework. They found that the attitude of others is indeed related to self—conception, but that the actor's percpetion of these attitudes is even more closely related; both findings, how- ever, are consonant with the general theoretical orientation. Kuhn, in further exploration of the potentialities of the TST, found, as did Couch,l3 that females more frequently identified themselves by sex than did males; female sex identification was also more salient. Other findings in- cluded the following: 1. That social anchorage increased with age; that within the age bracket represented by the research groups, sex references increased with age. 2. An over-all content analysis of reSponses from students in four professional schools and from members of one professional group indicated marked differences in social anchorage, reference to ideology, identity in terms of intention or ambition, and the amount and nature of self-evaluation. l2S. Frank Miyamoto and Sanford M. Dornbush, "A Test of the Symbolic Interactionist Hypothesis of Self Conception," American Journal of Sociology, 61 (1956), 400-403. l3Couch, op. cit., 496. 3. Occupational identity increased with years of pro— fessional training, and, within one professional school-—nursing--locus scores increased with years of training. In testing some of the basic notions of the orientational theory of Dewey, Cooley, and Mead, Kuhn found, for example, that such things as Cooley's "self—feeling” were indeed "tapped" by the TST; Cooley felt that the ends of this scale were "pride" and "mortification," and, in this study, Kuhn found that 15 to 30 per cent of the reSponses made were clearly self-evaluational and that many others had similar but implicit evaluations. Finally, in ” . . . general the reSponses were in the direction expected if one argues from the role requirements to the relevant categorical identifications."14 Kuhn seems, therefore, insofar as it is ever epistemologically possible, to have given some sort of validity to the symbolic inter- actionist approach when it has been Operationalized. Stryker was concerned with testing the adjustive conse— quences of knowledge of others. He found that there can be no easy contention, supposedly implicit in symbolic inter- actionist theory, that knowledge of others affords adaptation; such knowledge, he found, is often maladjustive. Although he does not disagree with Mead's contention that one must "take the role of the other" if he is to be able to gain awareness of the other and adapt to his expectations, he does 14Kuhn and McPartland, op. cit., p. 55. hold that the accurate "taking of the role" is not always satisfactory and that it may be unpleasant and unsatisfying. Although he emphasized that the lack of knowledge is not necessarily adaptive, he leaves the reader with the impres— sion that he has implied that it often may be. The problem to his mind is, at any rate, to discover when knowledge of others is adaptive and when it is not.15 What Stryker seems to have neglected is that it is not knowledge of others p§p_§e_that affords cooperation and order, but of others expectations of oneself and one's behavior. Further, what Mead actually contended is that not only is it necessary for human beings to have knowledge of one another's expectations, but that these expectations must have a certain complementarity: that is, one is not "taking the role of the other" until he then feels and acts as the other would have him. It has long been known, in addition, that "self-conceptions are not a direct reflection of definitions furnished by others . . ."16 Furthermore, what Stryker has attributed as a flaw in Meadian theory was actually recognized by Mead: This socialized individualism is pursued further by Mead. Insofar as each individual participates in identical groups in different ways, it follows that no 15Sheldon Stryker, "Role-T king Accuracy and Judgment," Sociometry, 20 (1957), 286-296. 16c. J. Couch, "Family Role Specialization and Self- Attitudes in Children," Sociological Quarterly, 3 (1962), pp. 120-121. lO man's "me's" are identical with any other man‘s. This gives ample leeway for an emphasis upon individuality within worlds of common symbolization.l7 and We all belong to small cliques, and we may remain simply inside of them. The "organized other" present in ourselves is then a community of small diameter. . . The criminal as such is the individual who lives in a very small group, and then makes depredations upon the larger community of which he is not a member. He is taking the prOperty that belongs to others, but he himself does not belong to the community that 8 recognizes and preserves the rights of prOperty.1 The criminal is aware of others and their expectations, but he does not really feel them a part of himself; if he did, he would not do what he does. He does not feel that the norms of the larger society are apprOpriate for him, even though he is aware that they exist. Therefore, Mead has shown clearly an instance where knowledge of the other does not produce order. The thief produces disorder and unhappi- ness in the larger social system by stealing and violating established modes of conduct; the larger social system dis— rupts the thief's style of life by apprehending and chastis- ing him. The crucial factor, then, is not Just knowledge of others, but the complementarity of expectations that one has with others. This complementarity of expectations pro— vices for a consesually agreed upon interaction pattern that is perceived as mutually advantageous to all of the parties l7Strauss, op. cit., pp. xiv-xv. 18Mead, op. cit., p. 265. 11 involved. Mead was aware of many unquestionably inharmonious situations in which knowledge of others was present: A man from one clan kills a man from another. Immedi- ately there arises within the injured clan a man who is determined to revenge the death by killing someone from the other clan, and the next of kin sets out to kill the Slayer. When he accomplishes this, he sets up at once the need of vengeance on the part of the first group. Agains, the next of kin goes out to slay in his turn. And this process goes on pntil, we will say, the clans are nearly exterminated. 9 A difference in what is valued (beyond one's own group over another) and respected, then, even if the other's feelings are known, will lead to some kind of conflict. For social order and cooperation to be extant, some kind of basic agreement concerning the appropriate goals and norms (atti- tudes and values) must be made, for otherwise one is not "taking the role of the other"; he is, more accurately, only intellectually aware of the other perspective. For social order, interaction must have a "double contingency" based upon consensually held symbols of what is valued and consid- ered prOper; roles, then, possess true complementarity.2O It is consistent with symbolic interactionist theory to conclude that conflict of some sort will always be the result when two or more individuals or groups hold variant views of anything and possess an awareness of that variance?l If an individual's beliefs are at odds with the beliefs of 19Strauss, op. cit., p. 25. 20Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951). 21Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962). 12 others in the system logically, his degree of commitment to the social system may be measured by comparing his desire to change himself with his desire to retain his self intact. Merton and the balance theorists have come to deal with this problem, the former classifying the logical relation- ships between certain kinds of individual adjustments and certain kinds of social system arrangements, and the latter describing the ways in which dissonance is eliminated.22 Both have been involved, in addition,in research efforts aimed at discovering the ”laws" that underly these phenomena. 22Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957); Festinger, op. cit. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM The Theoretical Background of the Problem Utilizing not only a logical extrapolation of Merton's conceptual model but the findings of several of the balance theorists, F. B. Waisanen has attempted to further analyze the interrelationships between self-conceptions and social system arrangements. His classification of the various kinds of adjustments to the social system through the deline- ation of the arrangement and kind of cognitive states in the individual and the normative conditions within the social system has afforded us a rich source of theoretical positions that might be used in research situations. Waisanen's schema attempts to explain "the part in terms of the whole," in Median terms. His framework repre- sents an attempt to organize our thinking concerning the ways in which the self and social system articulate to pro- duce stability and change. Through the observation of the self systems of those within the social system yi§7§733§_the norms and goals of the system, we can see those elements of the organization of the self that will tend toward the 13 l4 .om .n .Ammmav am .hahouhm:a_awoawoaoaoom eqowcmno cam «coaumcoaa< .hpaadnmpme .cosmmawz .m .ma A=.op mundane: cook on has mammnuconma on» .mommo oz» when» :Hv zwofi and: pounce on» m.pm53= .owano hoa>m£op mocdaoohn papa: mo meson .mpaaandxmamsa mesmEpmSnom uhm>oop =.wsoHn ow HH_H= ssossnsnosAmsassnasonnaotsaoov uso>oa pcm>oaopha ohm Amy a < u .H u + Emaamsuam .HH> pcm>mHmHAH ma < + + u u mpHEAOCGOUIMAuHD .H> psm>oaohna ma m u u + + Emapwohpom .> _. ........................................... m ............ .._ \\\\“I-V i-v I+V A+V aetasmaaaa _ AH + H. + + GOHHHmDmm .HHH + + + + coapw>ocsH .HH moswsomsoo + + + + Seashomcoo .H Amocmv Amcmmzv meow AmoUSQpraoonom ou pmpmaom mcoapaocoosu.a opswam 15 production of behavior that will maintain or disrupt the ongoing organization of the social system. Waisanen has suggested that a social system may be seen as a system of selves.23 It is necessary, then, if the maintenance of a social system is to be achieved, for the general aims of the individual self—attitudes of the members of the system to be congruent with the norms and goals of the system. Likewise, those whose self-attitudes are "at odds" with those of the social system must make some sort of adaptation in terms of their gaining a new referent, adjusting to the system's demands, or somehow reordering the cognitive mapping.24 Those whose self-attitudes were in harmony with the norms and goals of the system could be expected to evaluate themselves according to the significant symbols of the social system to which they are committed. Those whose self-attitudes are ”at odds" with the norms and goals of a system and who are sensitive to the difference will be more likely than the "conformists" in the previous sentence to evidence conflict. The conflict may product a desire for self-change or a low evaluation of or low commitment to the social system. A 23F. B. Waisanen, "Stability, Alienation, and Change," Sociological Quarterly, 34 (1963), p. 21. 2“Ibid., pp. 22-24. _ _.._,_. . .._______..__.~__... .w.__._ 16 With Waisanen's perspective in mind, we will be con- cerned, in this study, with measuring the association of various kinds and levels of social system commitment with various kinds and levels of self-attitudes toward social. systems. Our interest will be not only in measuring the association between these two kinds of commitments, but in terms of the kinds of ”results" the interrelationships will product--the desire for self—change, the evaluations of self and social system, and the norms and goals that one subscribes to in evaluating oneself. The aim of this study is to ascertain the social psy- chological effects of congruence and various kinds of incon— gruence between self and social systems, especially as related to religiosity among students who are members of the social system of the high school. We are also inter- ested in discerning the association between the religious self—attitudes given on the TST and those given on the open- ended questions. Further, we are interested in the social correlates of various levels of religiosity. The Social Setting In order to organize our thinking about these faCtors, it is necessary, of course, to possess some awareness of the sociocultural patterns found in our society concerning the institutions of religion and education; our cognizance of these kinds of factors will help us to order our thought when attempting to make specific predictions about the outcomes 17 of situations of incogruence between self and system. That is, our knowledge of the nature of these institutions will give us a sense not only of the significant symbols involved in the institutions, but of the relative "weight" they hold, not only intrainstitutionally, but inter-institutionally. Williams' description of American religious institu- tions will help us summarize the information that is available concerning their importance in our society: The principle of separation of church and state is dominant; there is no established church. . . . Large numbers of diverse religious groupings coexist--ecclesia, denominations, sects, and many forms of cults, em- bodying various beliefs. . . . There are pervasive tendencies to emphasize the perfectability of man and the possibility of human progress. . . . There has been a comparatively far-reaching secularization of beliefs. . Religious bodies tend strongly toward local or congregational autonomy. . . . Since there is no estab- lished church, religious organizations must depend for financial support upon formally voluntary contributions. An extensive overt commercialism has thus emerged-~for example, businesslike advertising, provision of what were formerly secular services and activities, and formally organized fund-raising activities. . . . Worldly success is widely and overtly approved. . . . Religious bodies tend generally to remain markedly aloof from those specific political struggles not impinging immedi- ately upon their particular interests. . . organized religion in the contemporary United States takes a conforming or conserving attitude toward the main features of the social order. . . . Modern American religion égclines toward a remarkable perfectionism and Optimism. 2 Further, religion is characterized as being active in secular affairs . . . at a very low temperature . . . religious observances have been losing their supernatural or other-worldly character . . . the main result of modern secularization of organized 25Robin M. Williams, Jr., American Society (New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, Inc., 1952), pp. 315-317 18 religion is the destruction of the belief in a transcen- dental being, which removes both the supernatural sanctions from our ethical system and a central value focus for the established beliefs. . . . The resolute self confidence and Optimism so often noted in American history . . . were apparently in other portions of the culture and in the objective Siguation of a wealthy, strong, and expanding society.2 Finally, and most important, ". . . American religious insti- tutions are extraordinarily segregated from other institu— tional structures."27 In America, religion is quite secular, a means to more important social goals, relatively powerless in political and economic affairs, strictly separated from the state (and, by implication, separated from positions of authority in public institutions such as schools), a pillar that helps maintain the status quo, and, in addition to possessing highly heterogeneous integers within its own institutional structure, extraordinarily separated from the other institu- tional structures of the society. All this notwithstanding, ". . . organized religious groups are generally concerned over the presumed secularizing influences of public education and strive . . . to promote ”28 or supply religious instruction. There seems to be no question concerning the fact that our secular institutions 26Ibid., pp. 326-329. 271bid., p. 339. 281bid., p. 337. 19 have an element of religion in them and that it is, there- fore, meaningful to investigate self—attitudes and social system commitment in terms of this element as a part--even if a conflictful one-—of the larger social system of the school. McArthur, in his study of the personalities of public and private school boys, and Becker and Greer, in their study of the fate of idealism in medical school, have ex- plored the ways in which the educational system acts as an agent of continuing socialization.29 C. Wayne Gordon has pointed out that there has been an increasing theoretical concern in sociology with treating the school as a social system, a perspective which is utilized (within Waisanen's schema) in this study.30 American emphasis upon success, achievement, and the belief in pragmatism as a means to the attainment of success have led to a great faith in education; it is seen, gener- ally, by many in our society as a magic panacea, the prime 29Oharles McArthur, "Personalities of Public and Private School Boys,” in Seymour M. Lipset and Neil J. Smelser, Sociology: The Progress of a Decade (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 287-292; Howard S. Becker and Blanche Greer, "The Fate of Idealism in Medécal School," in Lipset and Smelser, op. cit., pp. 292—29 . 300. Wayne Gordon, "The School as a Social System," cited in Joseph Gittler (ed.), Review of Sociology: Analysis of a Decade (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957), pp. 500-501. 2O agent of progress, and our greatest asset.31 Besides its practical functions, the educational system seems to possess many religious ones: the inculcation of societal values and beliefs; the attainment of enlightenment, scientifically (the new religion of the secular age in America); and provision for the attainment of all-important societal goals such as upward mobility.32 Educational institutions in America have placed great stress upon the practical usefulness of a formal education, competitive success, conformity to group standards, and patriotic values and beliefs; the school is, then a social system; it has a set of norms and goals of its own, and its legitimation is strongly sanctioned by the society at large. Even though religion may be on the wane in our society, it is our general prOposition that, although its effect will not be an intense one, the preception of the school as pursuing religious or moral ends (with the level of religio- sity held constant) will be associated with both the evalua— tion of the school and the desire for self-change upon the part of the students. If, on the other hand, the school is as important as our sociological background information would have us believe, then, within the situational setting with which we are dealing, there ought to be a strong association between the evaluation of the school and the self-conception, mirroring 32Williams, Op. cit., pp. 273—274. 21 the influence of the social system of the school in ordering the self-conceptions Of the students. Further, the students would, if this prOposition holds true, evaluate themselves in terms of the position that they attain within the school. The greater the degree to which the individual per- ceives his having attained prestige within the social system, then, the higher will be his evaluation of the system; that is, the system will be more important to him because it rein— forces his self-esteem. We also expect that students will evaluate the system more highly if they are satisfied with the position that they have attained than if they are not satisfied with it. The Hypotheses Our first hypothesis is, then: 1. High religiosity in self with religious or moral functions perceived in the school should produce a higher evaluation of the school than in those cases where there is high religiosity but religious or moral functions are not perceived in the school. Logically, the first group mentioned in the hypothesis are at one with the school system as they see it; the other group, on the other hand, is interacting in a social system that apparently is either not fulfilling all of the ends that they feel it ought to or may even be contravening them, so they will feel less in concord with the school system. Our measure of adjustment in this instance is "satisfaction with the school system." It may be, for instance, that, although many of those who are religious do actually wish that the school 22 would pursue religious or moral ends, they value the school system more and so will not be dissatisfied with the school as much as with themselves, as in foil 4 of Figure l. Consistent with our suppositions about the relative strength of religious beliefs of those who are high on religiosity, our second hypothesis is: 2. The higher the religiosity in self with per- ceived religious or moral functions in the school, the lower will be the desire for self-change. Religion as a "system of beliefs about the nature of the force(s) ultimately shaping man's density, and the preo- tices associated therewith, shared by the members of a gpppp"33 encompasses a great share of the basic values found in a society. It is primarily the adults of a society who are charged with the socialization of children, and much of the most basic socialization goes on in the family.34 Further, religion is, as a fundamental repository of these basic values, also primarily the province of adults concern- ing its teaching. Those who have been found to be high in religiosity have been found to place a high value on 33Gehard Lenski, The Religious Factor (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1963), p. 331. 34Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales, Family, Social- ization, and Interaction Process (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1955); Frederick Elkin, The Child and Society (New York: Random House, 1961). 23 parental authority also.35 Further, the teaching of tradi- tional religious dicta may be classed generally with the rubric of "tradition-directed" patterns, whereas the neglect of religion and other ”set" value orientations in favor of "adjustment" may be classed with ”other-directed" patterns. In the former, parental authority and religiosity were con- commitantly important, and in the latter, religiosity is of less importance in the covert organization of behavior36 and the peer group, rather than parents and other adults, ascends to greater levels of significance in the "determin- ation" of behavior.37 Our third hypothesis, therefore, is: 3. The higher the religiosity, the less the influ- ence of peers and the greater the influence of the parents. If the school system is as important to its members as the sociological literature claims, the evaluations of self made by members of the school system should be related to their evaluations of the system. 4. The higher the evaluation of the school, the higher the evaluation of self. If this is so, the students should, then, evaluate themselves in terms of the prestige--power and authority, for example--that they possess within the social system of 35T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Person- ality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950). 36Glenn M. Vernon and Robert L. Stewart, "Is America Religiosity Real?," The Humanist, 19 (1959), pp. 14—16. 37David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950), pp. 14-16. 24 the school; logically, this measure will be a function of where they perceive themselves in terms of the social organization (in Firth's sense) of the school. That is, the more securely anchored he sees himself, the higher he will evaluate himself.38 Our measure of anchorage in the social system is the position (status—role) in which the students perceive themselves concerning the activities of the school. 5. The nearer the center one places oneself, the higher will be his evaluation of himself. If, then, he sees himself as occupying a position near the center, he will be more likely to evaluate the system highly because of the great significance it has in the maintenance of his self-esteem. Therefore, 6. The nearer the center one places oneself, the higher will be his evaluation of the school. The evaluation of a social system is not merely in terms of one's position in the system: human beings eval- uate social systems also in terms of the difficulties, in- consistencies, and diSparities they perceive them as having.39 Therefore, the disparity between one's perceived position and one's level of aspiration is probably associ- ated with one's evaluation of the school. 380. Wayne Gordon, The Social System of the High School (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957); Charles P. Loomis, Social Systems: Essays in Their Persistence and Change (New York: D. VanNostrand Company, Inc., 1960); Parsons, op. cit.; Charles P. Loomis, Modern Social Theories (New York: D. Van- Nostrand Company, Inc., 1961). 39Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1960)} 25 7. The more satisfied one is with his position in the school, the higher will be his evaluation of the school.' Vernon and Stewart found a striking difference in the level of religiosity found on the TST and that found on closed-form questions. Using the TST as a means to the measuring the type of religiosity that is actually signifi- cant in the organization of one's behavior, they found that Americans tend to eSpouse religiosity, but to not "possess" it in that it provides a guideline for their day-to-day 40 It is, rather, a "front."LLl conduct. All this notwithstanding, we feel that there will be a correlation between the relative religiosity found on the two measures. 8. The higher the religiosity on the closed-form questions, the higher and more salient the measure of religiosity on the TST. 40Vernon and Stewart, Op. cit., pp. 14-16. ulErving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Every- day Life (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1959), Pp- 95-30. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The Sample and Field MethOds The sample for this study consists of 284 high school students of all three classes who represented the entire student body of a high school during the academic year of 1961-1962. The town from which the sample was taken is a rural, non-farm community in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan with a pOpulation of less than a thousand. Employment in the area has traditionally been primarily with the mining industries. It is to be emphasized that the questionnaire and the entire study itself from which this thesis was gleaned are considerably greater in scope than the issues to which we have attempted to attend here; in connection with other concerns of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Michi- gan State University and Drs. Waisanen and Loomis, most of the instrument involved was not directly concerned with the factors being studied in this thesis. For this reason and reasons of brevity and organization, the questionnaire has 42 not been reproduced ip_toto in this thesis. 42Information concerning its more complete structure may be obtained from the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 26 27 significant portions related to the study at hand have been indicated so as to further explicate the "Operational" nature of the testing of the hypotheses. The acquisition of the sample was effected by a member of the staff of the Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology at Michigan State University; Dr. F. B. Waisanen, in May, 1962, travelled to the community to be studied and, through his legitimation as a research sociologist from Michigan State University (previously established with the adminis- tration through correspondence), gained access to the student body. The questionnaire was administered during the course of a regular class period in which such an endeavor might be considered most apprOpriate (social studies, for example), the questionnaire taking less than an hour to complete. All the students present at the school during the day the ques- tionnaire was administered were given a COpy to fill out. Dr. Waisanen estimated that about 10 per cent Of the student body did not receive the questionnaire, but that those who did not receive it were randomly distributed with respect to the variables we are concerned with, the percentage Of absence being due to an illness that was rather wideSpread throughout the school at the time. There was active COOperation on the part of the admin- istration and the student body; nearly all of the students filled out the Questionnaire completely. No one failed to 28 answer some of the questions; under five per cent failed to answer a majority of the questions. For the section of the study with which this thesis is concerned, under three per cent failed to answer a majority of the questions. Data were unavailable to the present author concerning the number of students in each of the high school classes; the sample included the following number in the various age groups, though, and from that one may glean some knowledge of the relative dispersion of the sample. TABLE 1 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE POPULATION Years of Age Number of Students 13 1 14 36 15 73 16 72 17 59 18 29 19 3 20 1 21 1 No answer 9 N=284 Tables 2, 3, and 4 give us an indication of the diSpersion of the student body according to national descent, religious preference, and father's occupation, respectively. 29 TABLE 2 . NATIONAL DESCENT DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE POPULATION Number of Students National Descent 4 Canadian 1 Danish 6 English 107 Finnish 42 French 19 German 11 Irish;Scotch 24 Norwegian 22 Swedish 17 Miscellaneous (Polish, Italian, Austrian, etc.) 6 American Indian 33 No Answer N=284 TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION Number of Students Religious Preference 23 Protestant (unspecified) 120 Lutheran l7 Methodist 10 Baptist 2 Church of God 97 Catholic 2 EpiscOpal 2 Apostolic; Seventh Day Adventist 11 Other; No Answer N=284 30 TABLE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF FATHER'S OCCUPATION OF THE SAMPLE POPULATION m Number of Students Father's Occupation 39 PrOprieters, Managers, and Officials 9 Clerical, Sales, and Kindred Workers 38 Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers 10 Farm Owners and Managers 6 Protective Service Workers 33 Operatives and Kindred Workers 90 Service Workers 3 Non-farm Laborers 37 No Answer; Other; Unemployed; Retired; etc. N=284 A more complete explication of the content of the occupational categories may be found in the appendix. The data-gathering instrument for the larger study was an eighteen- page questionnaire consisting of approximately 80 questions, many with sub parts. About 10 per cent of the questions in the questionnaire are pertinent to this study. Following the administration of the questionnaire, the coding of the data began; this was effected by the graduate research assistants of Drs. Waisanen and Loomis in conjunction with the larger project. The coding was done by those familiar with the general background of the study but sufficiently unaware of the eventual probable outcomes (such as this thesis) 31 as to not bias the coding. All of the questionnaires were coded, and the data punched into IBM cards; Special decks of salient data were made up for this thesis and other research problems that could be fruitfully approached through an analysis of the data. Indicators and Methodological Techniques The questions from the study that we used as Opera- tional indicators of the concepts that we were studying included: 1. Religiosity (closed-form question) How often do you attend church? once per two weeks occasionally, seldom, once per week or oftener E i once per month once per three weeks or never How important to you are your religious beliefs? E very important E i not very important somewhat important not important at all When you have decisions to make in your everyday life, do you ask yourself what God would want you to do? ; often E ; seldom sometimes never Do you believe that God answers prayers? ( ) Yes ( ) No How often do you pray? g Often (almost every day) 2 i seldom occasionally (a few times a week never 32 Following Lenski's lead,43 these five questions were chosen because Of the degree to which, in the eyes of those who organized the study, they represented consensually held symbolic representations of actions or self-attitudes that denote religiosity. 2. Religiosity (TST) There are ten numbered blanks on the page below. Please write ten answers to the simple question, "Who am I?" in the blanks. Just give five different answers to this question. Answer as if you were giving the answers to yourself, not to somebody else. Write the answers in the order that they occur to you. Don't worry about logic of "importance." 1. _ r \ooo-xlmmtwm [—1 O Some of the statements you have made about yourself above may be more important than others. Consider each state- ment you made about yourself, and then score each state- ment (by lacing the appropriate number in front of each statement . Use the following scoring system. 43Lenski, op. cit., pp. 382-388. 33 1. Place the number "14 in front of each statement that is very important to you. 2. Place the number "2” in front of each statement that is somewhat important to you. 3. Place the number "3” before each statement that is not very important to you. Please do this for each statement you have made about yourself above. The TST, as developed by Kuhn, represents a means to the acquisition of a list of the most salient self—attitudes an individual has. Kuhn and McPartland noted that almost all of the consensual statements a reSpondent would make on the TST would be given before the subconsensual statements. Since our primary interest in this study is with consensual statements, the number of responses was limited to ten. A modified version of the TST was used in the following indi- cator, the purpose being to gain the respondent's attitudes not toward himself, but toward the social system of the high school. 3. Perception of the school as possessing religious or moral functions. "What is the purpose of this high school? What does it contribute to most students? In other words, what good comes to most students from being a student here?" OkOCDNlmU'I-F—‘UOIUI—l H 34 The TST, as it was used in the previous question is a somewhat recent develOpment, but it seems no less legitimate to ask respondents what they feel about a particular area, institution, social system, or the like than to ask them what they feel about themselves. Couched in essentially the same terms and framework, it should produce salient attitudes toward the school. We are seeking the reSpondent's defini— tions of an object. 4. Evaluation of the school. Below are a number of questions. Each question consists of a word or a group of words, and a seven-Space scale with an adjective at each end. For each question, place a check mark ( ) on each scale. Place the check mark in in the best shows how you feel about the thing you are rating. Here is an example: WORK Good : Bad 3 2 l O -l -2 —3 If you feel that WORK is highly good, you would place a check mark in the space marked "3"; if quite good, at "2"; if slightly good, at "1"; if neither good nor bad, or if you think the adjectives do not apply to the word in question, place your check mark at "0'; if slightly bad, at "-1"; and so on. Be sure to put a mark somewhere on each scale, but do not put more than one mark on any one‘scale. Work as rapidly as you can and feel free to put down a check mark which represents your first impres- sion. I GENERALLY REGARD THIS SCHOOL Good : : : : : : : Bad Important : : : : : : : Unimportant Necessary : : : : : : : Unnecessary 35 The measurement of the intensity with which attitudes are felt has long been a problem for social psychology. Guttman and others have noted the importance of having a neutral position on scales, so that reSpondents may have some sense of perspective in defining where they stand on a measure. Equally, it is important to polarize the ends of a scale so that it is clear what the scale is measuring; otherwise the reSpondent will not only be unable to make a meaningful decision, but the interpretation of that decision will be difficult, if not impossible. That is, the researcher must use natural (good—bad) or constructed (important-unim- portant) Opposites; in the former, two meanings are naturally supposed to be in Opposition; in the latter, the researcher takes a concept and "constructs" its Opposite by adding an "un" to its beginning. 4 In attempting to measure the attitudes toward something, the researcher ought to be certain that he is measuring the significant feeling toward that thing. It would not be nearly as meaningful, for example, to measure the attitudes toward the school that respondents have on the dimension "sane-insame" as it would be to measure the attitudes on the dimension "important-unimportant,” for nearly everyone would consider schools "sane,” but there may be some difference among students' evaluation of the school with respect to importance. Whether or not the above example is apt, it is clear that one must be aware of the significant symbols 36 involved if his measure of the attitudes toward something are to be meaningful. 5. Self-evaluation. "I generally see mysel ” Good : ': ': ": 'i': " : 4": Bad Strong : : : : : : : Weak Active : : ': i : ii: ": 8": Passive In all semantic differentials, the researcher must be aware of the significant symbols that will differentiate the sample pOpulation along the dimensions that one is seeking to "tap." In indicator four, the commitment to the social system generally is measured by "tapping" the students' attitudes toward it concerning its essential significance and value; the measures in indicator five, likewise, are constructed to "tap" those self-attitudes that are of eSpecial significance. In an achievement oriented society such as ours, such measures as "strong-weak" and "active- passive" are significant indicators of self-evlauation; the "good-bad” dimension seems to encompass a greater scope, ,entailing one's evaluation to the norms as well as to the goals. 6. Desire for self-change. Check the category which comes closest to your feeling about yourself. I don't like myself the way I am; I'd like to change completely. 37 There are some things about myself I'd like to change, but not completely. _—- I'd like to stay very much the same; there is very little about myself that I would change. The desire to change oneself or remain the same repre- sents a dimension of the self that is relatively easily measured because of the reflexive nature of self-evaluations. The only difficulty for the researcher concerning this self- attitude is in getting the reSpondent to answer his actual feelings, but since the answers given on the questionnaire were to be anonymous and there is not a great deal of anxiety in our society concerning the desire for self—change in our society, one need only, in "tapping" this attitude, make a rather straightforward request for a description of one's feelings. 7. Perception of one's position within the social system. Suppose the circle below represents the activities that go on here at school. How far out from the center of things are you. Place a check (p) where you think you are. “"x ‘\:-V.-_~_>'_ .’ 5". It is assumed in this question that one's being "in the middle of things” will be an accurate measure of his perception of the degree of immersion he veels viS—é-vis the activities of the system. 8. 38 Position aspirations. Now in the circle below, place a check ( VH/where you would like to be. This question asks ”where one would like to be," or his level of aspiration with reSpect to the activities of the school. 9. Determination of significant others' relative influence. Let's say that you had always wanted to belong to a particular club in school, and then finally you were asked to join. But then you found out that your parents didn't approve of the group. Do you think you would: definitely join anyway probably join probably not join definitely not join What if your parents approved, but the teacher you liked most disapproved of the group. Would you: definitely join anyway probably join probably not join definitely not join But what if your parents and teachers approved of the group, but by joining the club you would break with your closest friend, who wasn't asked to join. Would you? definitely join anyway probably join probably not join definitely not join 39 By phrasing a decision—making situation in familiar terms, we have, in the three questions, attempted to gain some measure of the relative influence of the three groups upon the students generally. A religiosity score was obtained by classifying the students according to the score that they obtained on the closed—form questions measuring religiosity. Those who answered all of the five questions by checking the first .foil (the highest level of religiosity) were classified as "very high." Those who placed themselves in the first foil on four of the Questions and second on the other were classified as "high." Those who placéd themselves in the last or next to last foil on three or more questions were ranked as "low"; those who scored last or next to last on one or two measures were "relatively low." The remainder were "moderate." There are 46 "very high," 50 "high," 109 "moderate," 62 ”relatively low," and 17 "low." Religiosity on the TST was seen in terms of the number and salience of references to religion that were made. Like- wise, perception of religious or moral functions in the school were seen in terms of references to the school as a religious or moral agent. Examples of statements that were classified as denoting religiosity on the TST might be: "I am a Christian."; "I am a Catholic."; "I am a religious person."; or "I am a person who believes in God." Examples of the perception of the school as a religious or moral agent 40 might be: ”We learn to behave morally and properly."; or "The school helps us to beGood Christians." The question concerned with the desire for self-change was dictotomized into two categories because the first two foils measured the desire to change and the last the desire to remain the same. Although the first foil measured the desire to change completely, most individuals fell into the second category--There are some things about myself "I'd like to change, but not completely"-—and it still represents a desire to change oneself, whereas the last foil——"I'd like to stay very much the same; there is very little about myself that I would change"--clearly denotes a lack of the desire for self—change. Satisfaction with one's position within the school was seen as the following: those who evidenced a disparity of two or more places between where they perceived themselves and where they would like to be were classified as dissatis- fied; the remainder were placed in the satisfied category. Further explication of the variables will be made as the analysis requires. 41 The Design of Analysis This study will utilize "survey design analysis"u4 and "multi-variate analysis."45 Multi-variate analysis, as de- fined by Lazarsfeld, refers to " . . . the study and inter- pretation of complex interrelationships among a multiplicity of characteristics."46 Survey analysis is usually post factum and as such can never, theoretically, equal the proof that a controlled experiment can. The logical fallacy underlying the post factum explanation rests in the fact that there is avail- able a variety of crude hypotheses, each with some measure of confirmation but designed to account for quite contradictory sets of affairs. The method of post factum explanation does not lend itself to nullifiabfility, if only because it is so completely flexible. Our findings will be reported in terms Of one of the traditional measures of statistical significance used in survey analysis——the chi square (X2). A chi square repre- sents the likelihood that an association between two uuPaul F. Lazarsfeld and Patricia Kendall, "Problems of Survey Analysis,” in Robert K. Merton and Paul F. Lazars— feld (eds.), Continuities in Social Research: Studies in The SOOpe and Method of “The American Soldier“ (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1950), pp. 133—196. 45Hans Ziesel, Say It With Figures (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957), pp. 131—134. “5Pau1 F. Lazarsfeld, "Introduction: Multivariate Analysis," in Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (eds.), The Language of Social Research: A Reader in the Methodology 6? Social ResearchIIGIencoe: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 111- 112. 47Merton, Op. cit., pp. 93-94. 42 variables (with, perhaps, several variables being held con- stant) could have been due to chance. As with all survey research analysis, one must be constantly alert to possible contamination through the effects of the "ecological ”48 A X2 of .05 was arbitrarily selected as the fallacy. level of significance at which our hypotheses would be con- sidered confirmed. Other kinds of methodological considerations might be those concerned with the levels of awareness the various kinds of questions measure. Another issue might be the kind of "prescriptions" that the individual filling out the questionnaire "reads into” the questions; another factor might be the openness with which the respondents reply to the TST or answer closed- or Open—form questions. It might be argued that individuals differ in self-awareness and that taboo subjects limit the‘kinds of answers that one is likely to get—-on the TST, for example; in terms of the potential absolute limits of the TST, these two criticisms cast aSper- sions upon the reliability and validity of the instrument, respectively. “8W. S. Robinson, "Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals,” in Lipset and Smelser, op. cit., pp. 145-151. CHAPTER IV RELIGIOSITY, SELF-CONCEPTION, AND SOCIAL SYSTEM COMMITMENT Religiosity: TST and Closed-Form Our primary aim in this study was to discern the validity and adequacy of F. B. Waisanen's theoretical schema to explain the relationships between certain kinds of self- social system arrangements. In so doing, we sought to ascertain the predictive worth of his schema in terms of specific relationships with which we were interested. For example, we were interested in the relationship between, on one hand, certain levels of religiosity and perceptions of the school as a religious or moral agent and, on the other hand, the evaluation Of the school system. Taking some of his prOpositions for granted, we sought to test some of the logical extrapolations of his theory with respect to more general sociological theory, These general aism are, then, logically interconnected; it is our goal here to consider the relationship between the two measures of religiosity and the social correlates of religion first, so as to not interfere with the consistency of our interrelated hypotheses. 43 44 It was necessary to dichotomize the TST religiosity scores because most of the respondents did not mention religiosity at all, and those who did, nearly always made only one reference to it. Of the 46 who ranked very "high" on the closed-form measure of religiosity, 26 made religious self-statements on the TST. or the 50 "high," 15 made religious self—statements; of the 109 "moderate," only 26 made such statements. Only 5 of the 62 "relatively low" and 1 of the 17 ”low" made religious self—statements. The "loW‘and the ”relatively low” categories are often collapsed as are the two "high" categories sometimes, in order to make statistically meaningful associations possible. The "low" category (N=17) is often too small to make the measurement of association possible, especially when it (the category) is broken up further. Only .5% of the total number of self— statements made by the entire pOpulation were religious, pointing to a relatively low level of "inner" religiosity. The results in Table 5, then, Show that the first part of Hypothesis 8 is strongly confirmed (p.4fi—.001). We found that the relative levels of religiosity on the two measures are positively related; the likelihood of the association between the two being due to chance was very small. That is, the higher the students ranked on the closed-form measure, the higher they tended to rank on the TST. That a significantly higher number (211) do not make any reference to religion on the TST at all than can be 45 TABLE 5.--Association Between the Two Measures of Religiosity: The Levels on TST and the Closed-Form Questions Religiosity in Self (TST) High Low Very High 26 2O Religiosity High 15 35 in Self (Closed—form) Moderate 26 83 Low 6 73 x2 = 37.12, N=284 p. < .001 considered moderately or highly religious on the closed-form measure, however, does tend to confirm Vernon and Stewart's contentions; . . in our society today it is expected that individuals will be religious, and that religion is defined as being good and desirable. Thus, in order to maintain one's standing it is important to indicate, when necessary, a favorable attitude toward religion, or at least no Opposition to it. In other words, a favorable attitude toward religion might be one requisite of being a good American, while actually being religious is not. In our society, it may beugufficient to be for religion, without being religious. 49Vernon and Stewart, op. cit., p. 16. 46 In terms of our data, with the frequency and salience Of religious references on the TST being considered a measure of "inner" religiosity or "being religious" and the closed- form denoting attitudes favoring religion or "being in favor of religion," their findings are upheld by ours. To make another test of the association between level of religiosity on the closed—form and the TST, our attention was directed only to those who made a religious self-state- ment on the TST. An association between saliency on the TST and the level of religiosity on the closed-form was computed. The small number of respondents who actually made references to religion on the TST made it necessary to dichotomize the levels of religiosity on both the TST and the closed-form measure. The number of religious self— statements made by both the "low" and "relatively low" was so small (7 altogether) that it was necessary to combine these with the ”moderate" group. The "very high" and the "high" were also collapsed for the same reasons. It was decided to rank any score in the first four lines of the ten on the TST as "high" in saliency, and the ” We chose 4 as the breaking point because remainder as ”low. 5 and 6 seemed to be middle—range choices, whereas the first four clearly represent ”high" choices relative to the remainder. Our hypothesis is again statistically confirmed, but a considerably lower level of confidence than we had in the 47 first test of the hypothesis; saliency of religiosity on the TST and level of religiosity on the closed-form measure are positively associated, however, as Table 6 indicates. TABLE 6.--Association Between the Two Measures of Religiosity: The Saliency on the TST and the Level on the Closed-Form Saliency of Reli iosity in Self (TST High .. Low Level of High 27 14 Religiosity in Self Low l4 l8 (Closed-Form) X2 = 4-3: p. .05 N = 73 The small number of respondents who made religious self-statements on the TST necessitated the use of the closed-form measure of religiosity to allow us to test for meaningful statistical associations between religiosity and other variables. Religiosity: Its Social Correlates Table 7 shows the association between the influence of others and the level Of religiosity. The influence of peers seems almost uniformly high in all three groups; only 35% of all those who reSponded felt that they would thwart the will 48 of their peers in the decision-making situation put to them. On the other hand, only 25% felt that they would follow the advice of their teachers. The influence of the parents was consistent with our hypothesis, and our expectations were strongly confirmed (p. <:.001). As can be seen by a perusal of the questions asked,50 the reSponses were easily dichoto- mized into two categories that reflected the relative influ- ence of the groups. Our hypothesis is partially confirmed in that there is a strong association (p..<,.001) between the level of religiosity and the influence of parents. The same students who indicate a "low” level of religiosity not only show relatively less concern for their parents as referents, but for the other two groups, however. TABLE 7.-—Association Between Religiosity and Others' Influence Others' Influence Peers Teachers Parents High Low High Low High Low :2 H High 72 23 High 27 69 High 80 16 >2 .1.) HCH 8'33 Moderate 75 30 Mod. 22 65 Mod. 65 39 Hm .3." 3; Low 56 23 Low 17 62 Low 43 36 (I: x2 = not x2 = not x2 = 18.62, significant significant p.‘<-.0001 N=279. N=279 N-279 50Consult the section on indicators in Chapter III for a c0py of the questions used. 49 Religiosity and Social System Commitment One of the Specific hypotheses used to test the validity of F. B. Waisanen's theoretical schema was concerned with religiosity and commitment to the social system of the school. We hypothesized that, of those Of higher religiosity, those who perceived the school as pursuing religious or moral ends would evaluate the school higher (evidence more commitment toward it). In order to be able to make a meaningful statistical analysis of the data with which we are concerned in this hypothesis, it was necessary, because of the smallness of the various categories involved, to dichotomize the variables to be associated. Unlike the other instances, it was nec- essary here to collapse the "moderate” level of religiosity into the two other levels. The measure of the perception of the school as a religious or moral agent was acquired by categorizing the responses to the query concerned with the purpose of the school; there were so few who perceived the school as a religious or moral agent that only one reference to the school in this context was enough to put one in the category of perceiving the school as a religious or moral agent. The small number (71) who perceived the school in "reference” terms of these goals made the dividing line at or "lack of reference" an easy--and necessary--one. Since most of the respondents rank the school very highly on the semantic differential measures "good-bad," SO ”necessary-unnecessary" (over "important-unimportant," and 80% of the reSpondents rank the school in the first four foils on all three measures), the satisfaction on all three measures is divided between the second and third foil on all of the tests. This gave us some sense of the relative position of the reSpondents with respect to their evalua- tions of the school. Our specific hypothesis is confirmed on all three measures of the reSpondents' evaluations of the school (p.A.Ol, .02, .02, respectively). For those of "low" religiosity, the hypothesis does not hold. The latter findings may show that a greater commitment to the social system generally overshadows the effects of their perception of the school as pursuing religious or moral ends. According to Waisanen's schema, those who are strongly comitted to a social system but whose own attitudes and values are in conflict with the system will attempt to alter their self structure.51 Our second hypothesis represents an attempt to measure the degree to which this is true with respect to high school students of a high level Of religio- sity but who do not perceive the school as pursuing religious or moral ends. Those of high religiosity who perceive the school as pursuring religious or moral ends should have less desire for self-change because of their self-attitudes will 51See Figure 1. 51 ON N Z on u 2 me u z scooaeacwan unmoamaswam pom u Nx unmoumaswam no: u mx no: u mx 6 em a mm s mm oz HA mm ma om ma mm new mamnmmooscb hammmmooz pampAOQEHQD ucmppoqu com 6000 :mH u z :wH n z zma u 2 .8. V .6 .8. v .d .8. V .d o: m I mx mm m I mx we S u mx o:.., moa me HoH em mm oz m . mm a :m m mm mos hammmoomcCD haemmoomz pampAOQEHQD pumpnoQEH com 0000 Hoonom on» no soapmsam>m Ascssncoo oaom ssauoamaaom so Hosea one crazy Hoonom on» mo compSSHm>m on» cam psow< mSOHwHHOm .6 mm Hoocom on» go 20Hpmoonom on» coozpom COHpmaoomm , 4303C a 8 23 Yes 105 32 19 6 0H4: a) Clot-i 5343 No 32 4 27 26 43p: c. Oct 2 2 2‘0 X = not significant X = 4.86 N 54 The Self and The Social System: The School as a Social System Our last four hypotheses deal with anchorage within the social system of the high school and evaluations of self and system. Our efforts in this area have been concerned primarily with uncovering the empirical relationships between the self and the social system of the high school in an attempt to evaluate the logical extrapolations of Waisanen's schema in terms of its relationship with and relevance to sociological and social psychological theory generally. In this section, our aim is merely to present the results ob- tained from our analyses of the data; the interpretation is aprOpos of the final chapter. TablelO shows that there is a strong association between the evaluation of the school on the dimensions "im- portant—unimportant” and "necessary-unnecessary" and one's perception of one's position within the school. There is, however, no statistically significant association between the evaluation of the school on the "good-bad” dimension and the perception of one's position within the school. The evaluation of the school was dichotomized so as to make our analysis statistically meaningful; "good" represents the first three foils, "bad,” the last four; "important," the first two foils, "unimportant,” the remainder. "Necessary" represents the first two foils, "unnecessary," the remainder. The perception of one's position is represented, in all of the tables, as follows: ”center" represents the two inner 55 TABLE 10.-—Association Between the Evaluation of the School and One's Perception of One's Evaluation of the School Position within the School Good Bad Important Unimportant Necessary Unnecessary One's Perception of One's Position Center Middle Outer 46 105 .31 10 21 11 X2 = 1.91 (not Significant) N = 224 Center Middle Outer 48 92 22 8 26 18 X2 = 35.59. p. < .001 N = 214 Center Middle Outer 42 90 16 12 4O 20 56 areas, the inner circle and the ring immediately contiguous to it; the "middle" represents the next two rings; "outer" represents the last ring and the area outside the circle. The "N” for many associations is less than the total number for the sample; this is due both to the necessary "breaking up” for the establishment of the categories set down in the hypotheses and to the fact that some of the respondents did not answer some of the relevant questions. TablelJ.indicateS a statistically significant associ- ation between one's satisfaction with the position he per- ceives himself as having within the school and his evaluation of the school on the dimension (of evaluation of the school) "good~bad," but not on the dimensions of "important-unimportant" and ”necessary-unnecessary." Our original hypotheses were that evaluation of the school would be, on all three dimensions, associated with both perceived position in the school and the disparity between perceived position and desired position. Both of our hypotheses were partially confirmed. We found that the "important-unimportant" and ”necessary-unnecessary" measures of evaluation were associated with one's perception, whereas the "good-bad" measure was associated with satisfaction with position. This suggests that these measures denote different kinds of evaluation. Tablelééshows that there is a strong association between the position in which one perceives oneself within TABLE ll.--Association Between One's Satisfaction With His Position and His Evaluation of the School Satisfaction With Position Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Evaluation of the School Good Bad 89 56 43 46 x2 — 5.45, p.21 .02 N = 233 Important Unimportant 127 17 66 13 X2 = not Significant N = 223 Necessary Unnecessary 126 15 71 9 X2 = not significant N — 221 58 the school and his self—evaluation on all three measures. These findings lend support to our general prOposition that the school system (and the positions within it) is a Signifi— cant factor in ordering students' self—evaluation. In the measurement of self-evaluation, "very good" represents the first foil; "good," the next two; and "bad," the last four. A logical extrapolation of general interactional theory and our assumptions concerning the nature of the school system would be that students who evaluated the social system of the school highly would evaluate themselves highly. That is, the achievement prescriptions of the school system would be of a type that would afford the students' being able to attain the system's general measures of worth and, therefore, their being able to evaluate themselves highly. Those who evaluate both self and system rather low might do so because participation in a system which is lowly evaluated leads to low self-evaluation; or it may be that their rejection of the system is only ostensibly so, and that they have done so because of their failure to attain its prescriptions. Tablesl3, l4, and 15 all indicate strong associations between self-evaluation and the evaluation of the social system on all nine possible combinations of the three measures of each type of evaluation. High evaluation of system is associated with high evaluation of self; low evaluation of the social system is associated with the low evaluation of Self-Evaluation 59 TABLE l2.--Association Between One's Perception of His Position and His Self-Evaluation One's Perception Of One's Position Center Middle Outer Very Good 27 49 9 Good 23 62 14 Bad 9 17 15 x2 = 15.88, p.-< .005 N = 225 Center Middle Outer Very Strong 26 4O 8 Strong 24 56 13 Weak 19 31 17 x2 = 12.54, p. <1 .02 N = 224 Center Middle Outer Very Active 36 54 12 Active 15 53 11 Passive 7 18 16 x2 = 22.63, 60 TABLE 13.--Association Between Self-Conception and the Evaluation of the School on the Dimension "Good-Bad" Self-Conception Very Good Good Bad Very Good 41 24 7 Good 23 69 22 Bad 20 ll 16 2 X = 39.51. p. <1 .001 N = 233 Very Strong Strong Weak Evaluation of the School Very Good 31 31 10 Good 23 58 33 Bad 19 10 18 x2 = 36.22, p. <: .001 N = 233 Very Active *Active Passive Very Good 36 25 7 Good 42 50 22 Bad 14 10 14 x2 = 13.98, p.<:..01 N = 220 Evaluation of the School 61 TABLE l4.——Association Between Self-Conception and the Evaluation of the School on the Dimension "Important-Unimportant" Self-Conception Very Good Good Bad Very Important 49 54 15 Important 22 58 16 Unimportant 14 6 13 x2 = 23.40, p..< .001 N = 247 Very Strong Strong Weak Very Important 42 58 16 Important 20 34 27 Unimportant 9 5 21 x2 = 32.31, p. <~ .001 N = 232 Very Active Active Passive Very Important 108 10 2 Unimportant 52 40 25 x2 = 53.42, p.