, “)3. ’ u... - a- ~N,‘A‘.-. ' ' '-‘d soc:o.acouowc STATUS AND msomm muons AS mama H «mm: gusting msomug gag: 12-51 ” flush forth Dog?“ 09 M. ‘A. '- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY » Shailer Thomas 1960 SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS AS MEASURED BY CATTELL'S SIXTEEN PERSONALITY FACTOR TEST By SHAILER THOMAS AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Science and Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology 1960 Approved: ABSTRACT The problem of this thesis is to determine the relap tionship between socio-economic status and personality factors. The main hypothesis of this study is: There is a significant relationship between socio-economic status and personality factors. Robin Williams and Robert Merton pro- vide the theoretical framework on which hypotheses concern- ing specific personality factors and socio-economic status are based. The instruments used in this study are Raymond Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Test (16 PF Test) and four indices of socio-economic status (father's occupation, father's education, mother's education, and a modified short form of William H. Sewell's Sogio-Economig Status Scale). Cattell‘s 16 PF Test is one of the few personality tests that is based on actual behavior ratings, and is designed to describe the personality variation of normal pe0p1e. The four indices of socio-economic status are among the most commonly accepted in sociological research. A sample of 345 seventeen year old high school boys in Lenawee County, Michigan were measured on these instru- ments. Those boys who listed their father's occupation as "farm only“ were omitted from the analysis. Thus the sample includes only those individuals who come from families in which the prestige of the father's occupation may be mean- ingfully rated by the North-Hatt scale. The results of the study are based on zero order correlations obtained from the Michigan State Integral Computer. ,It was found that there are significant rela- tionships between socio-economic status scores and various factors in Cattell's 16 PF Test. On the basis of these re- sults it is possible to accept the main hypothesis of this study. It was found that these factors in Cattell's 16 PF Test were significantly correlated with socio-economic status: Factor A - Cyclothymia Culture Free Intelligence Test Factor C - Emotional Stability or Ego Strength Factor E - Dominance Factor G - Super Ego Strength Factor B - Adventurous Autonomic Resilence Factor>N - Sophistication Factor Q3- Will Control By using a personality test that is based on empiri- cal behavior ratings this study helps to fill a gap in the research in the area of socio-econonic status position and personality. Where other research has used tests designed to test clinical concepts, abnormal personalities, or vague and general surface traits this study uses a.measure of various aspects of the total personality that is concerned with the source traits in a.normal personality. SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND PERSONALITY FACTORS AS MEASURED BY CATTELL'S SIXTEEN PERSONALIIX FACTOR TEST By SHAILER THOMAS A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1960 Eli/35 ”~74“? ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The ideas that go into a thesis are seldom those of one person. It is difficult to trace the influence that many persons have had on the work in this study. Among these persons, however, there are several to whom I owe a special debt. The earliest and perhaps the greatest debt is owed to my parents who have given me the encouragement and support necessary for a college education. To the fine atmOSphere and the staff of the Sociology Department at Oberlin College I am grateful for opening the field of Sociology to me and offering the intellectual stimu- lation which has to a great extent led to my interest in human.behavior. To Dr. Archie 0. Keller I owe a debt for introducing me to the problems involved in stratification and person- ality, and for the most generous offering of his time, comments and inspiration.A Without his help this problem would not have been analyzed. I must also acknowledge the help of I. W. Miller in introducing me to the mysteries of MISTIC and data analysis, and his numerous helpful comments. Finally, to my wife Peg, I am indebted for her help and encouragement in all phases of the work. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I 0 THE PROBmI O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O IntrOdUCtione e e e e e e The PrOblem e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . Scope Of the StUdye e e e e e e e e e e e e Conclusion and Organization of the Thesis . II. THEORY AND HYPOTHESES . e e e e e e e . . . e Purpose of the Chapter. . . . . . . . . . . The Stratification Order. . . . . . . . . . The Individual in the Stratification Order. HypOtheSGSe e e e o e e e e e e e e e e e O Conclu81on. e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e III. SAMPLE, INSTRUMENTS, AND THE ANALYSIS OF DA TA 0 C O O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 41 gflOF‘ IOUrqvi *4 \flU1¢WNF‘ F4 samples e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e #1 Instr‘ments O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 43 SociO-economic status indices . . . . . . 43 Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Test 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O #5 Analysis Of Data. e e e e e e e e e e e e e 51 Iv. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 v. SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. 71 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................110 iii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction The character of stratification systems has some- times been limited to the more ”objective” differences among families in wealth and occupation: however, the sociological character of a stratification order is far more comprehensive than.the distribution of scarce values or a ranking Of Occupations. Since primary social inter- actions tend to be restricted to persons of the same eco- nomic or prestige position, social classes also form sub- cultures; friendships, informal groups, and marriages all reveal this pattern. Hence intimate social contacts do not involve direct contact with persons of dissimilar status positions. Such an isolation of social classes reduces opportunities find value consensus in the society as a whole,1 so that different social classes are characterized by differ- ent value orientations and norms. It is these differences in norms and orientations which may be expected to have a pro- found effect on personality; it is also these differences lRobin M. Williams, Modern American Society (New York: Alfred A. Enoff, 1955). p. 13 . 1 which permit us to consider social class as a subculture slightly varied from the larger culture. ‘ Variance in normative behavior has been substantiated by research on the various socialization practices of social classes. Research by Davill,2 Erickson,3 Littman,‘ and White5 show that there are significant differences in child train- ing practices between social classes. When we consider that personality may be formed in line with norms and value orienta- tions it becomes clear that class membership is animportant variable to be considered in studying personality. If the norms Of a culture are factors in determiningpersonality, them different norms of expected behavior which exist in various class subcultures should determine the different personality traits which will emerge. This study, therefore, is an attempt to pursue the different factors of personality and their differential occurrence in the stratification system. ' 2A. Davis, and R. J. Ravinghurst, ”Social Class and Color Differences in Child Rearing," American Sociological Review, 1946, 6, pp. 698-710. 314th c. Erickson, ”Social Status and Child-Rearing Practices,“ in Newcomb and Hartley (eds.) R ad s in % Psychology, (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 9 , p. . AR. A. Littman, R..A.C. Moore, and J. Prince-Jones, ”Social Class Differences and Child Rearing: A Third Cem- munity for Comparison with Chicago and Newton,” American Sociologicg Review, 22, 1957. 5Martha 3. White, ”Social 019.33, 0mm Rearing Practices and Child Behavior," gerioan gciglogical Revie , 22, 1957. The Problem: In 1952 Auld6 published an article reviewing the research.in.the area of status and personp ality, Using three criteria, he assessed the adequacy of twenty-four different studies and concluded that'middle class subjects do better on personality tests than do lower class subjects. In 1956 Sewell and Keller7 published an empirical study which supported the relationship between status and personality. If the development of personality is in line with cultural and sub-cultural nouns, it is logi- cal that different personality norms are passed on to persons in different interactionsl contexts. Ono's position in the stratification system is one of the more important factors which produces a differential interaction context. Certain common traits are possessed by individuals who share common experiences. Hence this factor Of social class position is one which cannot be ruled out as an influence on personality. ’ People in different status positions learn different ways of behavior. Social class limits and defines the learning en- vironment for children of different classes. Unfortunately, this aspect of social-psychology has never been fully explored. To date there exists no systematic 6Frank Auld, Jr., ”Influence of Social Class on Personality Test Responses,” W m, #9, 7w. H. Sewell, and A. O. Heller, "Social Status and Personality Adjustment of the Child,” Sociomet , 19, 1956, pp. 114-125. 4 analysis of the relationship between personality factors and social status positions. Many studies have been made linking such aspects of personality as intelligence, social adjustment, educational achievement, nervous tension, anx- iety, etc. to social status;8 but a comprehensive and system- atic relationship between personality factors and social status is lacking. Hence, the problem of this study is to 9 status and examine the relationship between socio-economic personality factors. The main hypothesis of this study is: there is a significant relationship between socio-economic status and personality factors. Significance of thg Study: The theoretical signifi- cance of this study is two fold, (a) to Sociology: the importance of this study lies in the re-establishment of the status-personality hypothesis, and the re-affirmation of the importance of one's position.in the stratification order as a factor which selects and determines the learning environment. This study will also indicate which variables Csttell's Sixteen Pezsonality Factoys Test are correlated with socio-economic status. (b) to Personality: this study 8Ibid.. pp. 114-125. 9The four indices of socio-economic status in this study are in the form of continue from high to low. The upper ends of these continua will be referred to as middle and upper class or high socio-economic status and the lower end will be referred to as the lower class or low socio- economic status. 5 will give a clear demonstration of, and further support for, the relationship between socio-economic status and personal- ity; it is a more thorough study of the exact nature of this relationship. Scope of Study: The scope of this study is limited to the relationship of sixteen personality factors to socio- economic status . This study is limited to the 345 seventeen year old boys attending high school in Lenawee County, Michigan, in the spring of 1957, whose fathers have non-farm occupations. A good cross-section of the stratification order is repre- sented. At the age of seventeen personality factors have crystalized to some extent since the boys are still under the influence of the family which socialized them, but they are also beginning to exert their independence. Since the theory presumably applies to all men, in that personality differences will vary with status differ- ences, this study is not theoretically restricted. However, the sample used is an American sample and Specific conclu- sions drawn may well apply only to American culture. If the results are interpreted in terms of high or low position in a stratification structure, the conclusions might well be applied on a cross cultural basis. Some further comments are made on this in the last chapter. W3 This chapter has presented the problem to be studied, the signifi- cance of the study, and the scope of the study. Chapter Two will present the theoretical orientation of the study and the hypotheses that are made concerning a relationship be- tween socio-economic status and Specific personality factors. The sample and instruments used, and the analysis of data make up Chapter Three, while Chapter Four states the results of this study. In Chapter Five some conclusions are drawn from this study and suggestions for further research are presented. CHAPTER II THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Egypose Of ghaptey: The purpose of this chapter is threefold: first, to set forth a general statement concern- ing the stratification order: second, to develop a theoreti- cal framework concerning the relationship between social class and certain psychological manifestations in the per- sonality in the stratification system; and third, to develop specific hypotheses linking the personality factors in Cattell's w PM My 3333 to sccio-economic position. The Stratification Order: Before attempting to link psychological consequences with.ondh social class position it is necessary to first set forth a view of the stratifica- tioncrder.1 Theoretically, all individuals in a society may be valued equally. Actually, no large or long lived group has maintained.equal evaluation since differential evaluation is universally found in large scale social systems.2 Since this 1Many of the ideas expressed here concerning the stratification system come from Robin Williams, Amerigag _ Society, (New YOrk: Alfred Knopf, 1956), ch. 5. 21bid., p. 76. research is not intended as an exploration of the stratifi- cation.order, social stratification will be considered as a ranking of individuals and groups on a scale of superiority- inferiority. Such a ranking is .possible only if there exists value consensus in a social system. Therefore, stratification is meaningful only within a specific social system, and cross cultural indices of stratification will be accurate only to the degree to which there is value con- sensus between the cultures. I Both Kahl and Barber in their books on social strati- fication mention several different criteria commonly used to indicate the social status position of families. Feur of these will be used in this study. One deriving from the economic production order of the society, is the occupational prestige status of the head of the household. Another pair deriving from the training system of the society, are the educational levels of each parent. A fourth, derived largely from the economic consumptive order of the society, is the~per- sons rating on a modification of the Sewell figgig:ggggggig §355g5,§g§lg (more will be said about these indices in Chapter Three). {These criteria are the objective external indices which point to an individuars position in the strati- fication order. The distribution of these criteria serve to place one in a position which carries with it certain privi- 1eges and restrictions. ‘Ve shall use the term social class to refer to that aggregate of individuals who occupy a similar position in the scale of prestige, and thus have a similar degree of access to cultural goals. By the ideals of American society, social position should be based on personal qualities and achievement. It is held that our society is one in which the individual is free to move to those positions in society which he has earned by his skills and achievement. Hence one's position is determined by what one does or can do as an individual. No great insight is necessary to see that such equality of movement does not, in fact, exist even though the ideals of American society subscribe to the concept of an open-class system. [It.would not be hard to demonstrate that inherited social position, "connectionsfi,and other factors irreletant to personal qualifications have helped to place persons at various levels in the stratification order.‘ To support the fact of stratification in the United States we may look at the distribution of scarce values. In 1950 forty-six percent of the families in the United States had an income of less than 04000, and.eleven percent had an income of 88000 or more.3 Such a distribution of income reflects itself in the high style of living of certain seg- ments of the population. The segment of the population with 30. 8. Office of Business Economics, Income Distri- bution ig‘thg United States (washington: 0.8. Government mug orno—‘e, 195.37“. p. A. 10 the higher income will have better conditions of living and more luxury items. Since most of the general population main source of income is the Job, it becomes apparent that the distribution of income reflects a comparative occupap tional structure. [Occupation and income therefore, are con- venient symbols of position in the social structure; they give an.indication of one's style of lifeé lis a result of the differential distribution of in, come, which carries with it differential access to cultural goals and hence differential status, there result differences in behavior patterns. Some of these such as living condi- tions and luxuries, have been.indicated above, others are found in studies of community participation, education, and criminal behavior.l Examples from these areas will serve to indicate the differences in behavior patterns. In.§§g§gg‘gity, Werner reports that the percentage of persons belonging to formal organizations increases as one moves from the lower- lower class to the upper-upper class. Axelrod, in a.study of social participation in the urban situation, reports the same general finding.4 [Participation in.voluntary organizap tions increases as one goes from low to high socio-economic status groups.f 4Morris Axelrod, 'Urban.Structure and Social Partici- pation,” in Hatt and Reiss (eds.) Cities and Society, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957’. P. 72’. 11 Despite the extensive public school system in the United States it is observed that there is an educational difference between social classes. For instance, the norms of the public schools are middle class norms; the teacher is most likely a middle class person. As a result, the lower class child, acting in accordance with his lower class norms, comes into conflict with the school situation. One ramification of this may well be an Increase in nervous tension.5 Certainly such a situation does not contribute to easy adjustment, and most likely this conflict which the lower class child faces is a prime factor in the fact that school leavers are mostly lower class children.6 It is after graduation from high school that the effects of social class position become plainly visible. Fer despite educa- tional loans and scholarships, it is still the middle and upper classes that can most easily afford a college educa- tion. For this and perhaps other reasons the educational system in the United States shows a middle-class bias. Finally, there are indications that the American system of law enforcement is biased against the lower class. Crime is looked upon as mainly a lower-class phenomaa. 5!. H. Sewell, and A. O. Heller, ”Factors in the Relationship between Social Status and the Personality Adjustment of the Child," American Sociological Review, 24, August 19599 Ppe 511-5200 6E. G. Youmans, ”The Educational Attainment and Future Plans of Kentucky Rural‘Youths,' Ken. Ag. Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Bulletin 664, January 1959. P. 29. 12 Offenses committed by the middle class persons are not as severely punished or as easily detected as those committed by lower class persons.7 A.middle class status thus gives some degree of protection from punishment and arrest. These examples point out that if the stratification system is approached by considering the distribution of privileges it can clearly be seen that marked differences between classes do, in fact, exist. Further examples such as mortality rates, health rates, ability to wield authority, could also be cited; but the above examples will suffice to illustrate that there are differences in privileges and be- havior patterns. Other social institutions such as clubs, restaurants, churches and informal gatherings are all charac- terized by a relatively homogenious class population. As stated in the Introduction to Chapter One, friendships, cliques, marriage patterns, and housing patterns all reflect a good deal of intrapclass interaction. It can also be demonstrated that there is a relative uniformity in attitudes8 in social classes and that there is a definite uniformity in the perception of the class structure.9 7!. Sutherland, and D. R. Cressy, Princi les‘gg Cr minolo , (New York: J. B. Lippincott 50., Etfi ed., 5 D c e 5’ ppe 11-14. 8P. F. Lazarsfield, B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet, ”Social Factors in voting,” in.Newcomb and Hartley (eds.) Readings in Social Psychology, (New York: Henry Holt and 00., 19 77: De 0 e 9A. Davis, B. Gardner, and M. Gardner, ”The Class 13 It is this last fact that is particularily interesting, for if perception of the social structure is dependent in part on class position, and there is uniformity in class perception, then it is more likely that there will be uniformities in reactions and psychological states. It is this uniformity of reaction to the social structure that underlies much of the theoretical orientation developed below. We have seen that in many cases there are great differences in the objective rewards which are obtainable by the various classes. It would not be an unfair generaliza- tion to state that the lower class population is at a dis- advantage when it comes to gaining cultural goals. This disadvantage may be expected to produce tension and anxiety in the individuals personality, and as a result, certain personality factors may be more prominent in the population of one class position than in another. Before we see what traits might be connected to class position let us examine three areas of tension or stress that may arise.10 The well developed communication system in the United States and theh'etsrogenity of its population leads to an awareness of one’s own standing in relation to those about System of the White Caste,” in Newcomb and Hartley, Ibid,, p. 467. " lollilliams, 92. cit.,rp. 125-128. 14 him. I Great publicity is given to consumption patterns. As a result, the individual is able to pin point his status in the social structure fairly well, and by comparing his position to that of his elders he is able to predict just how far he will be able to succeed in attaining the con- sumer goods symbolic of success, and how far he will be able to advance his position in the occupational world.‘ [Secondly, there is the ideal of equality of opporr tunity and the American dream of vertical mobility. Experi- ence will show that there is a good deal to be said for ascribed status in American Society. The ambitious lower class person often finds that he lacks certain behavior patterns necessary for advancement, and that he doesn't fit into the preference patterns of the class that he aspires to join.” 2m third area of tension is closely related to the other two, it consists of a tendency to establish high levels of aspiration throughout the stratification system.f/ There is a concentration of attention and effort on the success theme in American Society. This and the ideals of equality of opportunity and unlimited opportunities work to create a continuous upward pressure. [If one fails to achieve success he is not a model American. In the lower class situation not only do the individuals generally 99$ obtain success but in many cases they are restricted from even attempting to pursue the idealsj A blocking of mass ambitions would 15 not only imperil the stability of the social structure, but also, if maintained, would have severe effects on personal- ity. As it is there are compensations in our society to allow the ”excess steam" to filter out. Some mobility is possible, there is a high standard of living and comfort and in our culture there are growing legal and political rights which tend to be equalitarian. However, in American Society there appears to be a certain amount of tension and stress developing because of the lower class position in the social structure. The Individual in the Stratification Order: In attempting to develop a theoretical framework on which to base the specific hypothesis it is necessary to consider the characteristics of the position occupied in the social structure and to consider the research which.1inks certain personality variables to class position. According to Cattell, certain personality factors may be associated with one's position in the stratification order. An.indi- vidual who is in a lower class position is exposed to a disproportionate amount of conflict, restriction, and frustration when compared to a middle or upper class posi- tion. .A good deal of this type of environment may be ex- plained by the lack of access to cultural goals valued by the larger society. If we can see one social class as possessing more conflicts and restrictions, then that class should develop 16 certain personality traits in its members which will set them off from members of other classes. One way of phras- ing this theoretical framework is put forth by Merton,11 and by Meier and Bell.12 The generalization which is the thesis of the article by Meier and Bell is that ”anemia results when individuals lack access to means for the achievement of life goals“. The lack of opportunity or access results from the individuals position in the social structure. One of the main factors which acts to determine ones position in the social structure is class position, others include sex, age, and ethnicity. It can be seen that the lower class position is characterized by a lack of access to many of the goals and values held in respect by the norms of the larger society. Socio-economic status itself is a goal for most persons in American society. It also indicates a degree of influence over the resources needed to achieve other goals. [in individual in a low status position, lacking in such things as money, training, and education, has little opporttmity to improve his position. Hyman13 states this very clearly! 11R. I. Merton, S c Soci Structure, (Glencoe, Illinois: The ree Press, , c . , 5, 12D. L. Meir, and w. Bell, "Anomia and Differential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals," American Socio- 11051021: Review, 24, 1959. P. 189. 13H. H. Hyman, ”The Value System of Different 17 t i ”Opportunity in the society is differentiated: higher education or specialized training, which might provide access to a high position, must be bought with money - the very commodity which the lower classes lack.”l Due to early socialization practices, lower class persons also lack the knowledge of expected behavior in middle class situations. This may act to destroy the means of improvement of one's position. .As a consequence, a member of the lower class may find that the prescribed goals are impossible. The findings of Meir and Bell sup- port this conclusion. They report that the greater anomia scores associated with lower class position are a result of the individual perceiving himself as being at the bottom of the stratification.order and as lacking the necessary qualifications to attain his goals. Thus we may think of the lower class as being an unfavorable position which has consequences for the psychological structure of personality. As stated above, access to the achievement of goals is socially structured. The opportunities to obtain.particup lar statuses and the relative control over resources are important factors in considering the degree to which an individual may or may not achieve his goals. Access to cultural goals such as occupation, money, and education is differentially distributed throughout the social structure. Classes," in Bendix and Lipset (eds.). Class, Status, and Power, (Glencoe, Illindb: The Free Press, 1953). pp. :23- 112. 18 Other factors controlled, it is usually individuals in the middle and upper classes who are not only socialized to accept these goals, but who also have the opportunities to pursue them. The lower class on the other hand is socialized to accept these cultural goals, but lacks the opportunity to pursue them. The unsuccessful attempts to work toward these goals result in conflict, frustration, and a sense of personal disorganization or anemia. The lower class may be considered as having a lack of expressive facilities; i.e. the lower class does not prepare the individual in the means of. attaining cultural goals. Hence one result of unresolved conflicts brought on by one's position in the social structure is the forma- tion of certain psychological adaptive mechanisms, these can be measured by personality tests and by the observation of social phenomna. In other words, certain goals are pointed out as being desirable but the means to attain them are blocked because of one's class position, this may result in the formation of certain personality structures. This idea of a discrepancy between cultural goals and one's position in the social structure is also put forth by Robert Merton.14 His theoretical analysis points out not only that class strata a'e differentially subject to anemic, but also are differentially subject to types of responses to 14’43rmn, 22e fie, che 495e 19 it. Merton's analysis is based on three concepts: cul- tural structure, social structure, and anemia. Cultural structure is defined as an "organized set of normative values governing behavior which is common to members of a designated society or group."15 Social structure is ”that organized set of social relationships in which members of the society or group are variously implicated."l6 He then conceives of anomie as ”a breakdown in the cultural struc- .ture, occurring particularily when there is an acute dis- Junction between the cultural norms and goals and the socially structured capacities of members of the group to act in accord with them."17 He continues: ”On this view, the social structure strains the cultural values, making action in accord with them readily possible for those occupying cer- tain statuses within the society and difficult or impossible for others. The social structure acts as a barrier or an.ope3 door to the acting out of cultural mandates.”1 - Though Merton goes on to analyze anemia and its relation to deviant behavior, it is the object of this thesis to investigate the affect of one's status position in the social structure on personality. The discrepency between cultural goals and means to attain them which Merton describes may have a noticeable affect on persone ality factors. 151bid., p. 162. 15923. cit. 17 c. ci . 18Ib1d.. pp. 162-163. 20 So far in this theoretical discussion one main point has been stressed concerning the effects of stratifications, Robin Williams has pointed out that there areas of stress in the stratification order. Robert Merton has made this more explicit when he points out the existence of the discrepancy between cultural goals and socially structured opportunities. It has been maintained here that this discrepancy may affect personality factors. An additional point that has been in- plied in the above discussion now’needs to be developed. In Chapter One and in parts of this chapter it has been mentioned that different personality factors may be partially explained by different interaction contexts. For instance in the first Chapter it was mentioned that primary social interaction tends to be restricted to persons of the same socio-economic status position; more recently it was mentioned that‘the lower class lacks knowledge of the expected behavior in middle class situations, and the lower class does not prepare its members in the means of attaining cultural goals.{ It can be seen that success norms and the teaching of techniques necessary to fulfill them are transmitted most effectively by the middle class. The middle class also has more of a command over the facilities leading to achievement of cultural goals, thus providing more opportunity for the success of the middle class child. The lower class child comes into contact with these cussegs norms and facilities through.his contacts with middle 21 class persons; but he tends not to come into contact with norms leading to success through either his parents or other lower class persons. Hence the opportunities for learning these norms and facilities are greatly reduced for the lower class child. The middle class may be considered a dominant sub-cultural group which sets the goals both for itself and the lower class. The norms, facilities and tech- niques that lead to the attainment of the goals are also determined to a great extent by the middle class, but they are not provided for the lower class child. Therefore the goals, and.the norms, facilities, and techniques essential to goal attainment, are available to the middle class child, but only the goals are available to the lower class youth. In line with this point class position should affect personality factors in two ways: (1) by providing a learn- ing environment which restricts the lower class youth's chances of learning personality orientations that are neces- sary to achieving cultural goals (2) because the lower class youth's relatively unsuccessful attempts to achieve the success goals, which he experiences as punitive treatment, should result in several reaction formations such as schizothymia, anxiety, nervousness, etc. This is the theoretical foundation from which the hypotheses of this study are derived. 22 Hypotheses General Hypothesis: There is a significant rela- tionship between socio-economic status and personality factors. General Rationale: The theoretical orientation above is the basis for this hypothesis. The three main points that are put forth are: (1) there are certain areas of strain in the American stratification order that may affect personality factors, (2) there exists a discrepancy between cultural goals and socially structured means that may affect personality factors, (3) social class may be considered a sub-culture which is a learning environment. ”The middle class provides for its members cultural goals, and the norms, facilities, and techniques that are necessary for goal attainment; the lower class, on the other hand,provides only the goals.[ The unsuccessful attempts to attain the cultural goals are experienced as punitive treatment. Thus the lower class environment may be considered as restric- tive (tn the material that is transmitted) and punitive (in that attempts to follow cultural goals are unsuccessful). Thus to the extent that one's pursuit of cultural goals is blocked, and to the extent that one perceives himself as being frustrated in his attempts to attain cul- tural goals and perceives othenaas being in better situations 23 than himselflg then there will result adaptations to the 20 stratification order. Specific Hzpotheses:21 1. Factor A - Cyclothymia vs. Schizothymia. Hypothesis: There exists a significant relationship be- tween socio-economic status and cyclothymia. This factor loads: Good natured, easy going vs. spiteful, grasping, critical Ready to co-operate vs. obstructive Attentive to people vs. cool, aloof Soft hearted, kindly vs. hard Trustful vs. Suspicious Adaptable vs. rigid Warm hearted vs. cold Rationale: As stated above, an individual in a lower class position is exposed to a disproportionate amount of conflict, restriction and frustration. The lower class enfironment is more restrictive and punitive than the middle class environ- ment: there is less access to the cultural goals and attempts to 19A. Davis, B. Gardner, and M. Gardner, 22. git. 20It should be noted that a case is not being made to consider social class position as the sole cause of personality differences or personality formation; rather it is maintained that social class position must be COD! sidered.in.the study of Social Psychology. 21It is necessary to point out that Cattell's 16 PF test is designed to survey the total personality and not to indicate neurosis or psychosis. It can be seen that many of the titles of the sixteen factors could be construed to mean various forms of mental illness. However, Cattell considers that these titles mean something different than the similar names of mental disorders. These factors are the primary 24 obtain such goals are often hampered by one's lower status position in the social structure. These restrictive and often punitive factors act so forcefully that there is a tendency to withdraw from the situation: this character- istic is commonly known as schizophrenia. (Hollingshead and Hedlich'822 research on the rate of mental illness bears this out. They found the rate of schizophrenia in- creases as one goes down the class structure. This study is a good empirical statement of the theoretical background stated here. A restrictive and punitive environment appears to be one of the best explanations of the larger rate of psychoses in the lower class.) 2. Factor B - Intelligence vs. Mental Defect Hngthesis: There is a significant positive relationship between socio-economie status and intelligence. (Cattenfs Culture Free Intelligence Test will be used to measure intelligence in place of Factor B of the 16 PF Test. Since this is a full length intelligence test it is expected that it is a.more accurate assessment of the source traits known today. In the section concerned with hypotheses the following arrangement will be followed: the factor's letter index (i.e., A,C,F, etc.); the factor's name; the factor loadings (in order of diminishing mean loading; the list is out where the loadings approach.in- significance); and a short discussion of the relationship of the factor to position in the social structure. 22A. B. Hollingshead, and F. c. Redlich, ”Social Stratification and Psychiatric Disorder,” American Socio- M 3.93.121: 18: 1953e PP. 163-169. . 25 intelligence factor than the twelve items that make up Factor B of the 16 PF Test.) Rationale The rationale for this hypothesis is based on the third point in the theoretical orientation presented above. A lower socio-economic status position restricts the individual from learning certain techniques that would enable one to score highly on this test. Lower status individuals lack the means to learn symbolic skills neces- sary to score high on the Cullure Free Intelligence Test (CFIQ). 3. Factor C - Emotional Stability or Ego Strength vs. Dissatisfied Emotionality Hypgthesis: There exists a significant positive correla- tion between socio-economic status and emotional stability or ego strength. This factor loads: Emotionally mature vs. lacking in.trustration tolerance Emotionally stable vs. changeable calm, phlegmatic vs. showing general emotionality Realistic about life vs. evasive Absence of neurotic fatigue vs. neurotically fatigued Placid vs. worrying. Ratiggalu Ego strength, as defined by Cattell, is the capacity to express available energy along integrated, as opposed to impulsive,channels.23 In psychoanalytic theory 233. B. Cattell, Personalit and Motivati n: Structure and Measurement, (Yenkerseai:tfie Hudson: World Book 30., 1957), pp. 15$, 103, ff. 1 26 the ego stands between the Id and the super-ego and acts as an administrative agent governing the powers of these two forces while conducting all transactions with the outer world.2# Therefore, ego strength can be seen as the ability to avoid impulsive or overly moralistic behavior. Bronfen- brenner has pointed out25 that the middle class parent has higher expectations for the child than does the lower class parent. The middle class child is expected to assume re- sponsibility for himself and duties in.the home and to pro- 26 studied need achievement gress further’in school. )Douvan (n achievement) in relation to social status and found that the mean n achievement scores of middle class boys were con- sistent regardless of whether there was an abstract norm to follow or a material reward to strive for. Working class boys on the other hand had significantly lower n achieve- ment scores when a material reward was not present. It may be said that the middle class child, because of his position in the social structure, is in a learning environment that 2to. Hall and G. Lindsey, ”Psychoanalytic Theory and Its Application in the Social Sciences,” in Lindsey (ed.), The Handbook‘gl Social Ps cholo , (Cambridge, Massachusetts: ‘Iddison-Wesley Pub. 30., 01. I, l 54). 25U. Bronfenbrenner, ” Socialization and Social Class Through Time and Space,” in Maccaby, Newcomb, and Hartly (eds.), Reaglggs lg Social Ps cholo (third edition; New York: Henry Holt and 50., 195% e P. 400. 26E. Douvan, ”Social Status and Success Strivings,” in Atkinson (ed.) Motives ln'Fantasy, Action, and Society (New York: Van NOBtrand 00., 195 9 che 36e 27 facilitates the learning of techniques that are conducive to the attainment of cultural goals. Thus we may conclude from the above studies that middle class children learn to channel their energy along integrated lines to more abstract and long range goals) This is enhanced by the fact that ideals of society are more easily attained by middle class peOple;27 hence there is a greater degree of congruence be- tween what one ought to do and what one can do. Lower class people on the other hand do not fully learn this ability to channel energy along integrated lines and therefore should exhibit more impulsive behavior or, in Cattell's terms, dissatisfied emotionality. 4. Factor E - Dominance vs. Submission Hypgthesis: There exists a significant curvilinear rela- tionship between the personality factor Dominance and socio- economic status. This may be divided into three sub-hypothe- see: a. the relationship is curvilinear b. people high and low on SE8 are high on Domi- nance. People in the middle class are low on Dominance c. the relationship is significant This factor loads: Assertive, self-assured vs. submissive Independent minded vs. dependent Hard, stern vs. kindly, soft-hearted Solemn vs. expressive 27Hyman,‘22. cit. 28 Unconventional vs. conventional Tough vs. easily upset Attention getting vs. self-sufficient Rationah: As stated above, (see rationaib for factor 0) the middle class is characterized by deferred gratification and greater n achievement.28 Therefore the middle class is more ”norm conscious”; they are careful to evaluate behavior in terms of the expected behavior which is necessary to ob- tain cultural goals. Their behavior may be termed I'con- ventional”, or submissive. Lower class individuals, because of their inability to move toward goals may feel a sense of ”defeatism”; a sense that whether or not their behavior is in line with the norms does not matter. Hence they may be described as ”unconventional”, or more dominant. Upper class people on the other hand, because they are ”on top of the pile” realize that their behavior need not conform to the norms. ‘ If this is the case, then we may expect the upper and lower class to score high on dominance (or unconventional behavior) and the middle class to score low on dominance. Roughly then, a scattergram should reveal the following curve. Jemman‘r Sub in) since; I“ Le 5131's.! 28Douvan, 22. cit. 29 5. Factor F - Surgency vs. Desurgency Hypgthesis: There is a significant positive relationship between surgency and socio-economic status. This factor loads: Talkative vs. silent, introspective Cheerful vs. depressed Placid vs. anxious Frank, expressive vs. incommunicative, smug Quick and alert vs. languid, slow Rationale: One of the chief characteristics of a personality which has spent several years in such a restrictive situa- tion as described above, is a sense-cf desurgency. The individual is depressed, retiring, anxious, rigid and sus- picious. According to Cattell,29 ”the essence of normal desurgency is a sobering inhibition by experience of punishp ment or failure”. He reports that desurgency rises as school leavers encounter the difficulties of life, and that children ”of more well-to-do families are significantly more surgent."30 These findings suggest that: a. surgency is related to diffi- culties encountered in one's environment: and, b. these difficulties are to some extent dependent on the class posi- tion of the family. Therefore, since the lower class position is per- ceived as restrictive and punitive, we may expect desurgency 290attell, 22. oil” pp. 112-119. 3°Ibid. . pp. 112-119. 30 to be significantly more prevalent in the lower socio- economic groupings. 6. Factor G - Character or Super-Ego Strength vs. Lack of Internal Standards Hypgthesis: There is a significant positive correlation between character or super-ego strength and socio-economic status. This factor lgads: Persevering, determined vs. quitting, fickle Responsible vs. frivolous Emotionally mature vs. demanding, impatient Consistently ordered vs. relaxed, indolent Conscientious vs. undependable Attentive to people vs. obstructive Rationale: Sociologically speaking the super-ego may be con- sidered as the persons incorporation.of the ideal norms of behavior which are transmitted primarily by verbal and printed means, and secondly, by behavior. The super-ego represents the ideal, or what ought to be.31 Situations which conflict with these norms act to deteriorate the super- ego strength. If a lack of internal standards is associated with the lower status group, it would tend to support the theory that the lower class tends to encounter more resistance in obtaining the ideals of society. One explanation of the resistance might be that there are differences in learned behavior between classes. Higher classes have learned be- havior which corresponcb more accurately to the norms of ideal 310. Hall, and G. Lindzey, op. cit., pp. 153-155. 31 behavior; hence less conflict, and the super-ego is supported. The lower class on the other hand, internalizes the same cul- tural values as do the other classes, yet their means to ful- fill these values, or to reach their goals, are blocked: hence there is little support for a strong super-ego from the external world. This lack of support for the super-ego thus allows the internalized values to die out, so that lower class individuals may be eXpected to have significantly less internal standards. 7. Factor B - Adventurous Autonomic Resilience vs. Inherent, Withdrawn Schizothymia Hypothesis: There is a significant positive relationship between adventurous resirence and socio-econonic status. This factOr loads: Gregarious sociability vs. shyness, withdrawing tendency Adventurous bold vs. cautious, retiring Having marked interest in the opposite sex vs. slight interest in the opposite sex Frivolous vs. conscientious Strong, artistic or sentimental interests vs. lack of Abzggznt emotional response vs. coolness, aloofness Rational : It has been pointed out in the theoretical frame- work for some of the above hypotheses that a case may be made for considering the lower class position as one which is characterized by a disproportionate amount of conflict and frustration. If such is the case then we may expect the inherent, withdrawn schizothymia part of Factor E to be re- lated to lower class positions. Cattell gives some support 32 to this expectation when he observes that this factor is associated with the father of the child being in the lower income range.32 Cattell further describes the H - (or withdrawn schizothymia) person as one who has learned that human con- tacts are autonomically exhausting.33 It is pointed out by Cattell that the terms Parasympothetic Immunity vs. Threat Reactivity are perhaps more pointed terms which may be used to describe this trait.3£* In a social environment which restricts mobility and the attainment of other cultural goals, the individual finds his self-esteem threatened. After many unsuccessful attempts to advance oneself or to obtain culturally designated goals, the typical reaction is one of withdrawal from the situation. This may be termed either withdrawn schizothymia or threat reaction. {is stated above, the lack of expressive facilities in the lower class may also result in a psychological phenomena such as schizothymia. 8. Factor I - Emotional Sensitivity vs. Tough Maturity. Hngthesis: There exists no relationship between Factor I and socio-economic status. This factor loads: 320attell, 22. cit., p. 129. 33%., P. 130e 3411315... p. 130, 33 Demanding, impatient vs. emotionally mature Dependent, immature vs. independent minded Imaginative, introspective vs. set and smug Kindly, gentle vs. hard, cynical Aesthetically fastidious vs. lacking artistic feeling Frivolous vs. responsible Attention getting vs. self-sufficient Rational : Though it has been maintained that one's position in the social structure is an underlying variable in deter- mining personality factors, it can'by no means be maintained to contribute to all personality traits. If such were the case, and personalities were the result only of cultural or social phenomena, then the variations in personalities with- in a society would be greatly reduced. As it is, however, personality develOps not only as the result of exposure to cultural phenomena, but also as a result of personal experi- ences and biological differences.35 Factor I is a factor which cannot be theoretically connected to socio-economic status. This factor may partially be a result of a biologi- cal or heredity factor; for instance, emotional sensitivity may be related to certain neurological factors. ' Since Cattell points out that women score higher than men, and older people higher than younger ones,36 it may be 35See C. Klunkholn, H. Murray,m md D. Schneider, (eds. ) Personalit in.Nature Societyfi and Culture (New York: Enoff, l§555, ch. 2* for a further discussion on similarities and differences in personality as a result of biological, cul- tural, role, and individual factors. 35R. B. Cattell, D. Saunders, and G. Stice, Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1950). p. 9. 34 expected that within this sample composed of seventeen year old males this factor will not be related to socio-economic status. 9. Factor L - Paranoid Schizothymia vs. Trustful Altruism Hypothesis: There exists a significant negative correla- tion between paranoid schizothymia and socio-economic status. This factor loads: Prone to Jealousy vs. free of Jealous tendencies Placid, shy, bashful vs. composed Suspicious vs. trustful Dour vs. cheerful Rigid vs. adaptable Hard and unconcerned vs. concerned about other people Rational : If one's position in the social structure is detrimental to the attainment of cultural goals, and if successive attempts to reach cultural goals result in con- tinued frustration, then one's reaction to this type of situation may be one of a feeling of persecution; it is the lower class which is more apt to find its position detrhlanted to the attaining of cultural goals and hence show signs of paranoia. If, on the other hand, one is suc- cessful in attaining culturally valued goals (the middle and upper class), then one may have a more trustful and composed outlook on life. 10. Factor M - Hysteric Unconcern (or "Bohemianismffi vs. Practical Concernedness Hypothesis: There exists a significant negative correlation between hysteric unconcern and socio-economic status. 35 This factor loads: Unconventional, eccentric vs. conventional Sensitively imaginative vs. practical, logical Undependable vs. conscientious Placid exterior vs. easily concerned and expressive Occasional hysterical emotion vs. given to keeping head in emergencies Rgtionale: Research has shown the middle class person to be in one sense more concerned with his position in the social structure than the lower class person. Since the middle class is generally characterized as being oriented toward deferred gratification, it would appear that for the most part this factor of practical concernedness would be associated with the upper half of the social class structure rather than with the lower half. 11. Factor‘N - Sophistication vs. Rough Simplicity Hypgthesis: There is a significant positive relationship between sophistication and socio-economic status. This factor loads: Polished vs. clumsy, awkward Cool, aloof vs. attentive to people Fastidious vs. easily pleased Rationale: Since middle and upper class people have more access to facilities which would tend to develop sophistica- tion such as education, travel, and generally a wider variety of experience, it can be assumed that this part of the social class structure will score higher on the H+ or sephistication side of this factor than.will the lower class persons. 36 12. Factor 0 - Anxious Insecurity vs. Placid Self Confidence f Hypothesis: There is a significant negative correlation between anxious insecurity and socio-economic status. This factor loads: Anxious vs. placid Worrying vs. tough, calm Suspicious, brooding vs. given to simple action Rationale: As the theoreticaleramework points out a case may be made for considering the lower class position as re- stricting and frustrating. Repeated rebuffs when one attempts to follow culturally approved patterns may result in an anx- ious insecurity trait. This trait may not appear in those persons possessing the facilities and opportunities to successfully pursue cultural goals. 13. Factor Q1 - Radicalism vs. Conservatism Hypgthesis: There is no significant relationship between the personality trait Radicalism vs. Conservatism and socio- economie status. Rationale: This factor has previously appeared in attitude surveys rather than in personality tests. Since this factor does not seem to be one which can be related to personality and social structure this writer has not set forth a direc- tional hypothesis. It seems that this factor could. be re- lated to: (a) critical thinkingability, i.e., an open or closed mind, or, (b) a tolerence of inconveniences. In 37 either case there is no evident reason for expecting a correlation.between this personality factor and position in the stratification order. 14. Factor Q2 - Independent Self-Sufficiency vs. Lack of Resolution Hypothesis: There is a significant positive relationship between independent self-sufficiency and socio-economie status. Rationale: Davis and Havighurst37 point out that the middle class child is expected to assume responsibilities for duties about the home at an earlier age than the lower class child. While lower class children are not as subject to regulations and have more freedom of movement, they are expected to get a Job at an earlier age. Davis and Havighurst emphasize that the data in this area is still tentitive and often.con- flicting, and that childrearing practices, like other aspects .of American culture are not stable. However, this writer believes that it is safe to say that in the middle class many of the child training practices are concerned with the development of independence and achievement behavior. It is possible that the lower class child does not come into contact with.norms that demand this type of behavior. Some 37A. Davis, and R. J. Havighurst, ”Social Class and Color Differences in Child Rearing,” American Sociological Review, 6, 1946, pp. 698-710. . 38 support for these ideas is found in an article by Rosen; he says: ”From babyhood on much of the middle class child's affect is likely to be associated with achievement related behavior structured for him by the training practices and values of his parents. In the pre-school period the tendency for middle class parents to make early demands upon their children is reflected in such practices as early toilet training and the intense concern with cleanliness. As the child grows he is frequently urged and encour- agegBEo demonstrate his developing maturity [Additional support comes from Werner, he states39 that the lower class child is more dependent on his mother than the child of other classes. His demands tend to be immediately satisfied through his mother, and he enjoys more freedom from adult restraint. The middle class child on the other hand, is punished for aggression and immediate satisfaction of urges; he is encouraged to discharge energies in more constructive channels that lead to social achievement. Such training ideally leads to the development of individual responsibility and autonomy.40 Restraint, foresight, and the acceptance of superior and remote goals are some of the behavior patterns that are rewarded.‘ 383. C. Rosen, ”The Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho- cultural Dimension of Social Stratification,” in Atkinson (ed.),o 22. git,” ch. 35. 39L. W. warmer, American Life - Dream and Reailit (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1955). p. 85 and 175. hoIbige, Fe 1750 39 All of these factors seem to indicate that the middle class child should learn to be more self-sufficient than the lower class child. 15. Factor Q3 - Will Control and Character Stability Hypgthesis: There is a significant positive relationship between will control and socio-economic status. Rationale: The deferred gratification that characterizes the middle class necessitates the development of strong will control (see hypothesis 3). If there is, as Merton says, a discrepency between the cultural values and the opportunities existing in parts of the social structure for attaining these values, then it would seem that these individuals located in the parts of the social structure that have access to these values would possess more "character stability”. An inability to achieve goals may result in detrimental affects on character stability. If so, since the lower class is at a disadvantage in regards to socially structured opportunities, it can be expected that the middle and upper classes have a signifi- cantly greater degree of character stability. 16. Factor Q4,- Nervous Tension Hypothesis: There is a significant negative relationship between nervous tension.and socio-economic status. Rationale: Much research in the area of social structure and personality has shown the lower class child exhibits more anxiety and.nervous tension than the middle class #0 child.41 This may be the result of concern about one's status and of repeated failure to attain culturally valued goals and thus to conform to cultural ideals. Conclusion: Utilizing the work of Robin Williams, Robert Merton, and Raymond Cattell, a theoretical framework has been developed concerning the social class structure and its effects on personality factors. Briefly stated the theoretical orientation of this study is that: '(1) Social class may be considered as a sub-culture. If personality formation is in line with cultural norms we may than expect to find variations in personality factors linked with socio- economic‘status. (2) There are areas of stress that allow us to consider the lower status position in American society as detrimental to achievement of culturally approved goals. The environment is seen as restrictive, punitive, and frus- trating: this may have an effect on personality factors. In line with this theoretical development, specific hypotheses have been developed concerning the relationship between socio- economic status and the personality factors measured in Cattell's Sixteen Persogality Factorlgggg. Chapter Three will be concerned with the sample, the instruments used, and the analysis of data. 418cc N. H. Sewell and A. O. Haller, ”Factors in the Relationship between Social Status and the Personality Ad- Justment of the Child,” American Sociological Review, 4, 24, 1959; especially factors one and four. CHAPTER III SAMPLE, INSTRUMENTS, AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Sample: The data to be analyzed were collected in the spring and summer of 1957 under the direction of Dr. Archibald 0. Haller in Lenawee County, Michigan. Lenawee County is an urban county located in the fringe area of a large metropolitan center. It is a county rich in agri- culture and light industry. The geographic administrative and trade center is a city of about 20,000 people. A full range of the stratification order is found in the county. Several educational institutions of high level are located 1 The extensive develOpment of the in or near the county. county's communications systems and its proximity to Detroit insures a good knowledge of the urbanpindustrial world and also insures that the county is not an isolated community. These factors at first may not appear to be pertinent ones in the study of personality factors and social status but, as we have seen in the second Chapter, many personality ‘- 1The description of the county is taken from personal observation and from A. O. Haller, ”The Occupational Achieve- ment Process of Farm Reared Youth in Urban Industrial Socie- ties,” paper presented to the Fourth World Congress of Sociology, Milan, Italy, 1959. (To appear in Burg; Socio- 1 51). 41 42 traits may depend on one's awareness of his position in the social. structure and what this position means in terms of certain actions to be taken and opportunities that are available. Hence these factors of communication, education, proximity to a metropolitan center are mentioned for they insure the accessibility of knowledge required for awareness of one's position in the social structure. A sample of 433 seventeen year old boys is available for analysis: this represents 88 percent of the total popula- tion of seventeen year old boys in this country. Since it is impossible to accurately place the category ”farmer” on the Horth-Hatt occupations scale this group of 33 boys was dropped from the sample. After removing all subjects with incomplete data in the pertinent areas of analysis, a final sample of 355 subjects was obtained. These subjects who were not included in the analysis because of incomplete data probably do not bias the sample in such a way as to produce significant apparent relationships when in fact the relationships are not significant. In fact the bias may be in the opposite direction. Since lower status persons probably have a higher rate of absenteeism, and since they are known to drop out of school earlier than middle status persons, it is possible that this sample is slightly biased against the lower status persons. If such is the case, then any relationships found in the analysis ’\ W l‘\ 43 of this study might well be larger if the data were complete an all subjects, and if the sample accurately represented the stratification order. Instpppents: Soglp-Economic Stgtus Indices: Data on.socio- economic status were compiled.in the survey. The instru- ments used were a modified short form of Sewell's Soclp- Eggppmic Status Scale, father's occupation based on North- Hatt ratings,2 and.nother's and father's education. Kahl and Davis have done a study comparing different status indices. They factor analyzed nineteen status indices and found all of these indices to be highly correlated be- cause they all, in varying degrees, measure the same general thing. The first factor extracted from their analysis was the factor of education and occupation. The second factor proved to be that of the quality of the home and the resi- dential area. They conclude that: ”...socio-economic status is an accurate though clumsy term: there is a composite of social and economic attributes that tend to cluster together, and we can measure the composite fairly well. For many purposes, it is practi- cal to treat this composite as one dimension in the general factor. The best single index of it is an occupational scale."3 2Interpolations of the occupations done by A. 0. Haller. Leslie Silverman, and‘w. Roy Cook at the Univer- sity of Wisconsin. 3J. A. Kahl, and J. A. Davis, ”A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status,” Amerigan Sociological Review, 20, 1955, PP. 517-325. . 44 The indices used in this study measure both of the factors found by Kahl and Davis. Father's occupation and father's and mother's education correspond to the first factor extracted in the above study; Sewell's scale which contains items on house quality, home facilities, and com- munication facilities in the home, corresponds to the second factor extracted by Kahl and Davis. These indices may thus be considered as some of the more accurate indices in use in sociological research. It is maintained that since Sewell's scale is a multiple item index, and since it directly measures material possessions and indirectly may give an indication of value orientations, it is the most accurate index used in this study. Though consumption patterns bpend to a great extent on income, consumption behavior also reflects personal values. Two people with equal pay checks may use them for different pleasures, depending on their value orientations. 0n the basis of Kahl and Davis' study it may be expected that occupation and education are also useful indices. However, education, since it is not an easily perceived possession, is probably not used as often as these more visible indices in placing an individual in the social structure. Since education alone does not insure a high status position, it may not be as accurate as occupation or Sewell's Scale. 45 Appendix one, Table A presents the intercorrelation of the four indices used in this study. Table B contains similar information for a study in Jefferson County, Wiscon- sin, made during the period from 1948-1955. The differences that exist between these two tables are probably due to the differences in the instruments used (i.e., a different form of Sewell's Scale was used), the difference in samples, and the times at which the data were obtained. 0n the basis of Kahl and Davis' study and a casual review of studies dealing with socio-economic status vari- ables, it may be said that these indices are accurate in the measurement of socio-economic status and they are among the most traditionally used indices of socio-economic status. Cattell's Sixteen Pepsonplity Raptor Tesp: According to Cattell, the 16 PF Test is designed to give the maximum information in the shortest time about the most dimensions of personality. He notes that the test is not designed to measure specific neurotic conditions but attempts to cover the whole personality.4 I) The sixteen factors used are based on considerable research locating ”source traits”; that is, traits that affect much of the overt personality. Unlike most 4R. B. Cattell, D. R. Saunders, and G. Stice, Handbook for the Sixteen Personallt 1 Factor Questionnalre {Champaign, Illinois: institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1950), p. l. 46 personality tests developed in the last thirty years the 16 PF test is based on factor analytic research. Cattell says: ”The present questionnaire meets a long-stand- ing demand for a personality-measuring instru- ment properly validated with respect to the primary personality factors based on general psychological research. It is at present unique in (a) having every item of demon- strated saturation with respect to each of the factors which it sets out to measure and (b) the demonstration that each of the question- naire factors corresponds to primary personality factors found elsewhere, notable in ratings in real-life behavior situations, objectige tests, and clinical and social performances." been used and tested previously. The ”Q” traits Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, have so far been only identified in Questionnaire and interest-attitude responses. The questionnaire aims to leave out no important aspect of the total personality. Form B of the 16 PF Test was administered to the sample described above. The test consists of 187 questions which the subject answers "yes”, "in between”, or ”no”. The responses to the questions are scored and summed to yield a total score for each person on each of the personality factors. In the following table the equalivalence coefficients, (coefficients of reliability between form A.and form 3,) are lower than the consistency coefficients (split-half 5L9;..glp., p. l. #7 .aomma .wmdpmoa he a 4 use thHenomaom no opsmHmmnH ammoaHHHH swaeasmnov oaaeqsoaamo: honoeh pdaenomaom soovxam one not soonessm .ooasm .m use .saoosssm .m .n .Haossso .m .m «coasom pm. me. as. mm. me. me. mm. me. me. me. me. mm. es. we. oe. mm. so no we ea 0 a a A H m e a s o m s mmoaosa Am Qz<.< mSMOK zumzammv H02H44>HDGH ho mszmHOHhhHoo Amv mm. mm. Hm. om. mm. mm. m». mm. mm. m». mm. mm. mm. am. Oh. em. so no me He 0 z z a H m m a m o m 4 mmoeoam E AHHHAHmdaamm mudmlaHAmmv mBZHHOHhhHoo HozmamHmzoo Adv H qu heapapaenom demeanoam I H eeeomm. toned. nomad. tenema. eaeanponanom nzdhdnpdz..n> oonodaamom canonOpod macadgqmbud I m teema. H50. mmo. *twéa. .wMWaMpwmwmmwnwwWOQMMMW I a «mo. mmo. vmo. emo.I honownsnon .nb henowhsm I a *mnH. noo.I awe. comma. noannaansm .n> moamndaon I a eeemma. eenea. wmo. . Hmo.u heads Inoauoso oodmmaponnan .n> newnoppm owm no apaaaneen Heeoaooem I o *ttmwm. teapom. attmmm. . teaahm. .d.H monk ohspHSO ottmra. 0:0. moo. tawH. sdahnuouanom .n> eaahn¢0Hoho I 4 madam noaawosvm noaadozum noduomzooo novowh mmm n.HHosem m.nonpoz a.monvdh a.monawh III'.‘ .. ’i‘illl’Il £1- was 49m OHSOZD UHI mg who mMOHQzH.MDOh 924 amma moaodh NBHAdzommHm ZHHBNHm m.AAHHa honoao -Haoem “Hem pnoenoooena -mo mmo. who. mHo. snapsbhomnoo .m> andaeoauom IHd moo.I mmo.I mmo.I oonovdunoo uaom oaonam I .n> hpdhsomnnH unedxn< I o :53. eeeomfi. 2:68. afloaflaam nonom .u> scannedandsmom I 2 So. moo. 3o. eoonoofioonoo 332.2% .n>.nnoonooub Hooduopnhm I 2 moo. 000. #no. andohpa< Mohandas .nb saabnaONHAom Uaonuhdm I A 59 Emotional Stability (Factor 0) is significantly related to socio-economic status according to two indices used (mother's education and Sewell's Socio-Economic Status .§g§;2). The correlation of Factor C with father's education is in the predicted direction but fails to reach significance. A slight negative correlation with the North-Hatt occupational scale does not fall into the direction predicted by the hy- pothesis. This correlation (r = -.021) is so small that for all practical purposes it may be considered to indicate no relationship between Factor 0 and father's occupation. It will be recalled that it was hypothesized that Factor E, Dominance vs. Submissiveness, would be in a curvi- linear relationship with socio-economic status. An examina- tion of the scattergram produced by the Tabulation.0ffice re- veals that the correlations are linear rather than.curvilinear: therefore, we may reject parts A and B of the hypothesis. However, since Factor E correlates significantly with father's occupation and.the Sewell Sopio-Economic Status'§p§;g (signifi- cant at the .01 and .001 level respectively) as a post factum interpretation we may say that there is a significant relation- ship between Dominance and socio-economic status. The index of father's education shows a relationship which is in the same direction but which is not significant. Mother's educa- tion as an index yields practically a zero correlation with Factor E. Despite the fact that the theoretical argument for Desurgency (Factor F, Surgency vs. Desurgency) being 60 associated with lower status groups is very strong, this study yields very low correlations between Factor F and socio-economic status; Sewell's scale is the only index which approaches signi- ficance. Therefore, this thypothesis must be rejected. Cattell, in his writing, is characteristic of desurgency and says that the evidence indicates that exposure to punishment and depriva- tion, or a readiness to take on remote goals in respect to which failure is more likely than with short range goals.1 These items seem to be characteristic of the lower class situation, and an inability to achieve long range goals. One explanation of the failure to establish a significant relation with lower class status may be suggested: the sample used is that of high school students, hence it is possible that these subjects have not yet encountered the full effects of their environment. This explanation is backed by Cattell who says that school leavers exhibit a steep trend to desurgency as they encounter difficulties of life.2 On the other hand, it may be found that the lower class does not actually internalize the long range cultural goals as heavily as has been maintained here; if such is 1R. B. Cattell, Perspnality and.Motivapion Sprugture and Measurement (YOnkers-on-the-Hudson: World Book Co.. 7.5-5.7), Pa 1170 21bid., p. 117. 61 the case then there would be less failure and hence less desurgency than suspected. It has been maintatned that Super-Ego Strength (Factor G) is higher in those positions in the social struc- ture in which there is congruence between ideal forms of behavior and reality. The correlation of socio-economic status indices with Super-Ego Strength are in the predicted direction; the correlations with father's occupation and the Sewell scale are both significant at the .01 level. These results allow us to accept the hypothesis that there is a significant positive relationship between Super-Ego Strength and socio-economic status. In.line with the theoretical orientation of this thesis it was predicted that individuals in a restrictive and punitive environment would, after repeated rebuffs, attempt to withdraw from the situation: this would be mani- fested in a greater degree of the factor called ”inherent withdrawn schizothymia”. The correlation of Factor H with the socio-economic status indices confirm the hypothesis that there is a significant positive relationship between this factor and socio-econbmic status. All four status indices show correlation significant at the .01 or .001 level. Thus the hypothesis may be accepted. No relationship was predicted between Factor I (Emotional Sensitivity vs. Tough.Maturity) and socio-economic status. While Table Two indicates that one of the correlations 62 reach an acceptable level of significance, it is interest- ing to note that all four indices indicate an inverse or minus correlation with Factor I. Though at the onset no grounds could be seen for formulating a directional hy- pothesis, there is one post facto interpretation which may account(for the possible negative relationship. An examina- tion of the loadings that Cattell lists for this factor reveals that the I minus person, or one characterized by Tough.Maturity, would seem to be quite self reliant, cour- ageous, and shrewd. It can be seen that these are some of the characteristics valued by society as those needed in order to advance oneself. If these are the characteristics a ”successful” person must possess in order to achieve entrance to the higher position in the class structure then it should be expected that the ”tough mature" person occupies higher status than the ”emotionally sensitive”. Or at least it may be expected that the characteristics of the I' person are to be found in those individuals who are upwardly mobile. Perhaps this sample unwittingly includes a good many mobile families. Cattell states that the emotionally sensitive person is likely to come from homes ggfilln the lowest eco- nomic groups; and astudyofgroups at the extremes of the I factor reveal that the individuals at the emotionally sensi- tive end of the continium contain a higher preportion of persons from families comfortably well-off for two or three generations. The tough mature individuals are scientists 63 and businessmen who have "come up the hard way”.3 Though these latter conclusions are based on a non-stastical study of only twenty persons, (ten at each extreme) it is possible that the post facto interpretation may prove correct. If so, we should then eXpect to find the I“ individuals are upwardly mobile, or at least have not been settled in a higher status class for several generations. It is not possible to accept the hypothesis that Factor L (Paranoid Schizothymia vs. Trustful Altrusion) has a significant negative correlation with socio-economic status. Since a case can be made for considering the lower positions in the class structure as being detrimental to the attainment of cultural goals it was possible that the lower class might reveal a greater degree of paranoid schizothymia than members of higher classes. The results do not bear this out. Turning to Factor M, it is seen that though the correlations are not only‘pgp in the direction predicted, but none have reached the level of significance. The hy- pothesis was made that there is a significant negative correlation between Hysteric Uhconcern and socio-economic status. Since the results are not significant and not in the predicted direction, this hypothesis must be rejected. 31bid.. pp. 134-135. 64 At this time no post factum interpretation appears to explain this result. Factor N, Sophistication vs. Rough Simplicity, is the third personality factor which is significantly related to all four socio-economic status indices at the .01 level or .001 level. The rationale for hypothesizing a positive relationship between.Sophisticaticn and socio-economic status was that the middle and upper classes have access to more facilities which tend to develop sophistication. It may also develop that the middle and upper class are more aware of, or concerned about, their position and hence put on the characteristic of being more aloof and cool in order to maintain.their superior position. It is not being main- tained that this concern is a form of anxiety, for status anxiety is negatively correlated with socio-economic status (other data from this study reveal an r = ~.25 between socio- economic status and status anxiety significant at the .001 level). It was hypothesized that the factor of Anxious In- security (Factor 0) would yield a.negative correlation with socio-economic status. The results show that though the correlations are in the predicted direction, none of them reach the .05 level of significance. These correlations at least indicate that the lower class is more anxious than the middle or upper class; it is possible that this trait does not reach an acceptable level of significance because of 65 its generality. If there were some specific attitudes being measured (i.e., status anxiety) rather than the personality factor of Anxious Insecurity, then the correla- tion might increase. It will be recalled that the factors labled Q1. Q2. Q3, and Q4, are factors derived from attitude and cpinion questionnaires. Because behavioral correlates are not available for these four factors the correlations of these variables with other factors will be reported to assist in the interpretation of the findings. The hypothesis for the first of these factors stated that there would be no significant relationship between factor Q1 (Radicalism vs. Conservatism) and socio-economic status. Table Two shows that all four indices indicate a positive direction, however, only Sewell's scale shows a significant correlation: it is significant at the .01 level. This re- sult shows then that the higher status classes tend to be more radical; a glance at the area of attitude and public opinion polls shows that this is contradictory to all ex- pectations. Surveys have generally shown that the upper class has been more conservative in their attitudes toward social, economic, and political issues. The fact that all four indices are consistent in their direction, and the fact that the results are contrary to expectations, if one was predicting on the basis of previous studies, would seem to indicate that this factor is mislabled and perhaps 66 doesn't measure radicalism or conservatism. Cattell says that this factor is associated with critical thinking ability, independent thought, discussion of serious problems of life, preference of intellectual activities, self analysis, ana- lytically.minded.4 This factor is also low in priests, nurses,and semi-skilled workers; it is high in executives, directors, researchers, and the professions.5 It is con- ceivable that this factor could be better labled ”Critical Thinking.Ability"; a correlation of -.026 reveals however, that this factor is not related to intelligence. There are some grounds however, for labeling this as an ”independence” factor, with additional connotations of withdrawal symptoms. It is correlated with Emotional Sensi- tivity (I), Paranoid Schizothymia (L), Hysteric Unconcern (M), and Nervous Tension (Q4). The r's: .116, .144, .132, .146 respectively.6 The correlations of Factor Q2 all show the predicted direction but only cnedthese, the correlation with Sewell's scale, is significant at the .001 level. It is interesting to note that this self-sufficiency factor correlates .122 with Factor G, or Super-ego Strength. Theoretically it should also correlate with Ego Strength (Factor C) since 41bid., p. 209. 5Loc. cit., p. 209. 6See Appendix III for the intercorrelations of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test in the sample used in this study. 67 self-sufficiency should represent an ability to channel energies into constructive channels, and an ability to dissolve or control conflicting desires. A correlation of .026, however, shows that there is little correlation between the two. Likewise, Will Control or Character Stability (Factor Q3) could be expected to correlate with self-suf- ficiency; since Q2 and Q3 have an inter-correlation of only .057, it appears that the two are distinct factors. It will be recalled that a significantpositive relationship was hypothesized between socio-economic status and Factor Q3. Table One reveals that all of the correlations are in the predicted direction (though the correlation between father's education and Factor Q3 is for all practical pur- poses zero) and that the correlations with mother's educa- tion and Sewell's scale reach significance at the .05 and .001 level respectively. Appendix Three shows this factor is related to Intelligence (CFIQ Test), Ego-Strength (Factor C), Super-Ego Strength (Factor G), Autonomic Resilence (Factor B) and Sophistication (Factor N). The r's ...,141, .324, .300, .354, and .140 respectively. This factor of Will Control is negatively correlated with Emotional Sensi- tivity (I), Anxious Insecurity (0) and Nervous Tension (Q4). These r's = -.111, -.276, and -.328. The factor ef‘Will Control then seems to overlap slightly with Ego-Strength, and Autonomic Resilence in f. ‘e ‘0 68 particular. It is hypothesized that these factors measure the adjusted personality of the middle class child. The hypothesis for Factor Q4 (Nervous Tension) stated that there is a significant negative relationship between Nervous Tension and socio-economic status. The results of this study tend to support this hypothesis and show con- sistency with previous research. Except for the index of father's education, the indices show negative correlations with the factor, Nervous Tension. One of these indices show a correlation which is significant at the .01 level. This is mother's education. In view of conclusions of previous research, it would be expected that the correlations of Nervous Tension with socio-economic status would be larger: the reason advanced for the low correlation with this factor (and the other three ”Q" factors) is that these are items obtained from questionnaire data and not from behavior rat- ings as the other factors are. Note that Nervous Tension has relatively high correla- tions with Surgency (F), Emotional Sensitivity (I), Paranoid Schizothymia (L), Hysteric Unconcern (M), and Anxious In- security (0). The r's = .304, .234, .269, .245, and .447 respec- tively. Relatively large negative correlations are found between Nervous Tension and Ego-Strength, (C), Autonomic Resilence (H) and‘Will Control (Q3). These r's = -.37l, -.158, -.328 respectively. This would seem to indicate II 69 a syndrome of factors in the area of Nervous Tension and Anxious Insecurity. The results of this study show that high status position tends to be associated with the following person- ality factors: Factor A - Cyclothylia Culture Free IQ Test - Intelligence Factor C - Emotional Stability or Ego Strength Factor E - Dominance Factor G - Super-Ego Strength Factor H - Adventurous Autonomic Resilience Factoer - Sophistication Factor Q3- Will Control The following factors, on the basis of this study are not related to socio-economic status: Factor F - Surgency vs. Desurgency Factor I - Emotional Sensitivity vs. Tough Maturity Factor L - Paranoid Schizothymia vs. Trustful Altruism Factor M - Hysteric Unconcern vs. Practical Concernedness Factor 0 - Anxious Insecurity vs. Placid Self-Confidence Factor Q1- Radicalism vs. Conservatism Factor Q2- Independent Self-Sufficiency vs. Lack of Resolution Factor Qgp Nervous Tension A comparison of these two groups of personality factors reveals that those who occupy high socio-economic status posi- tions are apt to be characterized by more clyclothymia, intelligence, resilience, and those factors that indicate a large degree of control over impulsive behavior. The lower status positions seem to be characterized by personality factors that indicate a tendency to withdraw from the situa- tion, and a lack of internal standards. It is maintained that these differences in personality factors are in part 70 a result of the lack of the opportunity in the lower status positions to learn the appropriate behavior and techniques that are necessary to the attainment of cultural goals (see Chapter Two). 0n the basis of these results it is possible to accept the main hypothesis of this study: There is a signi- ficant relationship between socio-economic status and person- ality factors. Conclusion: The results of this study have been presented in this chapter. From an examination of the zero order correlations presented in Table Two it appears that there are significant relationships between various person- ality factors and socio-economic status. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH §E£g§se of the Chapter: The purpose of this chapter is to summarize this study, to evaluate its results, and to suggest directions for further research. Summary: An analysis of a sample of 345 seventeen year old male high school seniors reveals that there are significant relationships between specific personality factors and socio-economic status, Cattell's Sixteen Person- pgépy Factor'gggp and four indices of socio-economic status (father's occupation, mother's and father's education and Sewell's Socio-Ecgnomic Statu8‘§2§l§) were correlated. The results show that these personality factors were correlated with socio-economic status: Factor A - Clyclothymia Culture Free Intelligence Test WC—Enotional Stability. or Ego Strength Factor E - Dominance Factor G - Super-Ego Strength Factor H Adventurous Autonomic Resilence Factor N Sophistication Factor Q3- Will Control From these results, it is clear that it is possible to accept the main hypothesis of this study: There is a significant relationship between socio-economic status and personality factors. 71 72 It is haped that this study will be a step toward filling in a gap in two aspects of the study of the effects of social structure on personality. First, up to this point, has been the failure of research to establish a relationship between various aspects of thelpgpp; personality and socio- economic status. It is true that much research has been done which has established the relationship between one or two surface traits and socio-economic status, or between a general area of personality, such as adjustment, and socio- economic status. But to the knowledge of this writer, there does not exist any research which attempts to link factors in the‘pgpg; personality to socio-economic status. In short, this research has tested an underlying assumption of other research in this area, and it has established that there is such a relationship between the total personality and socio- economic status. Secondly, this research has helped to introduce into sociological research, a test of personality based on a solid empirical analysis of behavior; this test is designed to test the 39391, normal personality. It does not have the fallacies of testing the clinical ”abnormal” personality or of testing unproven concepts. Cattell's 16 PF Test can certainly be considered to be one of the best personality tests yet devised; it is maintained that if the study of social structure and personality is to continue profitably, a test such as this one needs to be utilized. 73 Though the previous chapter showed that several personality factors were significantly associated with socio-economic status, it will be noted that the actual size of the correlations was ”small". The largest correla- tion is approximately .30; a correlation of this size ex- plains only nine percent of the variance of this item. This is in line with the statement made earlier in the thesis, that it is not claimed that socio-economic status is the sole determinant of personality factors. Rather, socio-economic status is seen as one of many determinants of personality factors. Other factors that enter in are biological, family, and individual experiences. If further research should indicate that the lower status environment is restrictive and punitive as has been indicated in Chapter Two, then the questions may arise as to why the relationship between personality factors and socio-economic status is not larger; and secondly, what prohibits severe, overt class conflicts. Elsewhere in the world violent class struggles have led to civil wars. How does the United States possess stability of the stratifica- tion order and develop immunity to class conflicts? Though in Chapter Two some areas of strain in the stratification order were pointed out they will briefly be mentioned again here. It was stated that there are in- equalities in wealth and related objective advantages, and an awareness of these inequalities. There is the clash 74 between the principles of achieved status and freedom of opportunity and the status gained by birth or group member- ship. A third area of strain is seen in the tendency to establish high levels of aspiration at all status levels. Thus there is a continuous upward pressure in the American Society. Obviously, if these areas of strain were inflex- ible a severe blocking of mass ambitions would tend to up- set the system. It appears then that there are certain com- pensations which help to stabilize the existing stratifica- tion order. ‘Williams lists ten compensations that serve to stabilize the stratification order. This list is not in- tended to be exhaustive:1 l. The high level of real income and the relatively wide distribution of a ”comfort" level of living. 2. The actual incidence of upward mobility and the attendant hope of ”getting ahead". 3. The existence of a large middle-income, middle- prestige aggregate. 4. Widespread legal and political rights, nominally equalitarian. 5. The accessibility of public facilities and ser- vices. 6. The prevalence of equalitarian symbols and be- havior patterns. 7. Interstratum heterogeneity in culture. 8. Mutual insulation of prestige classes. 9. Participation in common organizations and activities. 10. Persistence of a complex body of belien and values that lends legitmacy to thegaing system. 1Robin Williams, American Society (New York: Aflred A. Knopf, 1956), pp. 128-129. n“ (.-. 75 Some additional factors may also be listed. If a person identifies with the middle class then perhaps he will not feel the effects of a detrimental position in the stratification order as much as an individual who identifies with his actual lower status group. Secondly, not all per- sons in a lower status group will perceive their position as being equally restrictive. Some individuals will have had some success in bettering their position in the stratifica- tion order, others may not perceive it as being a closed order. These items of identification, perception and success would theoretically help to relieve the lower status positions of a large amount the restrictions and punitive effects found in them. Limitations of the Study: Turning to the Specific sample used in this study there are several limitations which seem to indicate that if they were controlled, the relationship found between socio-economic status and person- ality factors might increase. First of all, this is a school boy sample. The individuals in this sample have spent the majority of their lives either in the home or in the school. It is not until this sample leaves the more or less protective environment of the school and home and meets some of the difficulties of life that a full awareness of the position they occupy develOps. Once the sample experi- ences the full effects of their position in the stratifica- tion order it will be expected that the relationship between 76 the perconality factors tested above and socio-economic status will increase. This theoretical explanation is supported by Cattell; he says that desurgency (Factor F) increases in school leavers as they encounter the diffi- culties of life. It is maintained by this writer that other personality factors will also be affected by a change in social environment,particularily one such as leaving school to assume reaponsibilities in the society. Secondly, this sample may be biased in favor of middle and upper class persons. It has been pointed out that school leavers are mostly lower class children.2 There- fore, in the school sample it is possible that the lower class is not represented in the same prOportion as found in the general population of the United States. It is then con- ceivable that if the lower class was accurately represented the relationships found between personality factors and socio-economic status might be larger. Thirdly, Warner points out3 that the class system in the Mid-west is not as well developed or as stable as the class system found in the older regions of the East and South. Therefore, the question arises as to whether or not 2Arnold Green, Sociology (New York: McGraw Hill, 1952), ch. 22. 3Lloyd Warner, American Life-Dream and Regiity (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago’ Press, 1953), p. 55. 77 a person in the more recently settled regions of the United States perceives his position in the stratification order as well or as strongly as the individual in the older regions of the country. A fourth limitation of this study is a methodological one. It was intimated above that perception and identifica- tion of persons in the stratification order may serve as an intervening variable. This study contains no instruments designed to tap either perception of the stratification order or identification with one part of the order. If an instrument was used that measured one's perception of the stratification order, and how a position in it effected the opportunities available to achieve designated goals, or if an instrument measuring identification with a position in the stratification order were used, it is conceivable that certain personality traits might vary with variations in perception and identification. Though the limitations of this study which have been pointed out above prevent it from being the "perfect” study, they do not destroy the validity of the study. If these limitations were corrected, then it would be expected that the relationship between personality factors and socio- economic status would increase. For, despite these limita- tions, it has been shown that significant relationships do exist between personality factors and socio-economic status. 78 Spggestions for Further Research: Implied in the discussion above are found various suggestions for further research. These may be summarized as: l. A replication of this study needs to be made using anaiult sample, or at least a sample which has been out of the protective environment of the home and school for some time. Once a person is on his own he may have a fuller awareness of the meaning of his position in the stratifica- tion order, and he will have been SXposed to more of these effects which may result in a stronger relationship between personality factors and socio-economic status. Related to this suggestion is the need to use an adult sample in order to see if the relationships found in this study will increase or decrease. It is hypothesized that if an adult sample is used the relationships found in this study will increase. The rationale is that adults having been independent of a protective environment for some time will have a more accur- ate realization of their position in the stratification order and its significance for them. A replication of this study on the same subjects, now that they have been out of high school for three years, would be a good test of these hy- potheses. By using an adult sample it would also be possible to avoid a bias against the lower class which may be implicit in the samples of school children. 79 2. An additional area of research implied above is a study to determine if, first of all, the stratification order of the older sections of the country are significantly different from the more recently settled sections; and secondly, to determine if there is more consciousness of the position occupied in the stratification order in the older and ”more developed” (in terms of class) sections of the country. 3. There needs to be deveIOped an instrument to measure class or status identification. Neal.Gross has taken a step in this direction by using three types of questions in an attempt to evaluate class identification. As was mentioned above, it may be found that the factor of identification has an effect on personality factors. The lower status person who strongly identifies with the middle class may not feel the effects of his actual lower status position as much as an individual whose status posi- tion and identification converge or synchronize. 4. Related to the problem of identification is the problem of perception of status position and opportunities to pursue cultural goals. If one perceives that his posi- tion is not hindering or obstructing the achievement of cultural goals than there may not be the same relationship of personality factors to socio-economic status as has been demonstrated here. It is hypothesized, that the perception 80 that socio-economic status does not hinder the achievement of life goals, will lower the relationship found between socio-economic status and personality factors. Hence an instrument to measure perception of position and opportuni- ties needs to be developed. Aside from these suggestions for further research several other aspects of the problem come to mind which would lead to further research in this area. In the dis- cussion of the relationship between socio-economic status and Factor I, it was mentioned that this factor could be associated with upward mobility. It is conceivable that a study of mobile persons would reveal a different profile of personality factors; also a comparison of upward and downward mobile persons might reveal significant differences between these two groups. It will be recalled that in Chapter One the writer speculated that though the study is concerned with an Ameri- can sample, if the results are interpreted in terms of high or low position in a stratification order then the conclur sions might be applied on a cross cultural'basis. A study using the same instruments on a cross cultural basis is necessary to determine the accuracy of this generalization. There are, however, two necesSary qualifications to be made concerning this generalization. The first concerns the dis- crepancy between goals and means. The relationship found 81 here between socio-economic status and personality may exist only where there is a discrepancy between the cultural goals and the socially structured means available to attain these goals. It is conceivable, particularly in a caste system, that cultural goals are not equally diffused to all levels of the stratification order. The second concerns the type of society groups. It is conceivable that a difference in the types of goals that characterize a society, particularly a difference between what I shall call "normative oriented” and ”achievement oriented” goals, may have an effect on the personality traits prevalent in a group. If a society is characterized by discrepancies be- tween cultural goals and socially structured means then it is hypothesized that the same general relationship between status position and personality factors will be found. However, in a caste system, for instance, goals may per- tain to Specific castes and not to the entire society. That is to say, each caste may have goals which are unique to it, and members of that caste may not be able to or required to achieve the goals of other castes. If goals are relative to caste position and are not held to be desirable of everyone in the system, then the position occupied in the stratification order may not have the same effects on personality as a society that holds its goals desirable for achievement by everyone. Therefore if one 82 set of cultural goals is not equally diffused to all levels of the stratification order it may have an effect on research done in this area. Secondly, the types of goals that are indicated as being desirable in a society may affect the types of person- ality responses in the society and the degree of discrepancy between the goals and the socially structured means. If the goals pointed out as desirable are "normative goals” (such as rules of behavior, and responsibilities, etc.) and not ”achievement goals" (such as goals of success, and mobility, etc.) then there may not be a discrepancy between the goals and the means. In such a case, position in the stratification order may not effect personality factors. ‘Thus this distinc- tion between.”normative" and ”achievement” goals is a neces- sary consideration in research in the area of socio-economic status and personality. It is more likely that it is the "achievement” goals that contribute to certain types of personality factors being associated with status position. Therefore, it is probably necessary that the goals of the society being studied are ”achievement” oriented if the same hypotheses and theoretical framework that are used in this study are to be used in a cross cultural study. In retro- Spect then it may be said that the American culture contains a great deal of emphasis on ”achievement” goals; it is the inability to conform to or achieve these goals because of '0 83 one's position in the stratification order that appears to influence personality factors. ”Normative” goals, on the other hand, would not effect personality factors the same way because they are concerned with rules of behavior; conformity to this type of goal is not as likely to be as effected by status posi- tion as is conformity to ”achievement” goals. Hence the relationship that is found in this study between socio- economic status and personality factors may not be found in a society characterized by ”normative” goals. Since there is no class difference in the ability to realize "normative goals” there should be no personality consequences stemming from them that coincide in the class status. "Achievement" goals, however, have limits as to how many of the population may obtain them; and.as stated above there are certain techniques and means of obtaining goals that are not available to all social strata. Those that succeed are not the majority of the papulation. This inability to obtain "achievement” goals only affect person- ality factors, and since one's success is often socially structured these personality factors may be associated with position in the social structure. Conclusion: \This study has shown the existence of significant relationships between personality factors and socio-economic status. Further research in this area is needed before we are able to generalize these findings; 84 some suggestions concerning the direction that this research could take are made above. Suggestions for research con- cerning some of the specific personality factors are indi- cated in Chapter Four. In the final chapter some qualifica- tions in the theoretical orientation used in this research are suggested; it may be necessary to consider these qualifi- cations if this theoretical orientation is to be used for other studies, It is hoped that this study has contributed to socio- logy by filling one of the gaps in sociological research and by introducing into sociology a personality test that may be appropriate for research in the area of social structure and personality. Q‘ APPENDIX 86 APPENDIX CONTENTS APPENDIX PAGE I. II. III. VI. V. VI. VII. The Intercorrelations of Four Socio- Economic Status Indices in Lewawee County, Michigan and in Jefferson County, Wisconsin 87 Program K-SM for MISTIC (card input, yields means standard deviation, variance-co- variance)................. 88 The Intercorrelations of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . . . 91 The Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . 92 The Culture Free Intelligence Test . . . . 100 A Modified Short Form of Sewell's Socio- Economic Status Scale. 0 e e e e e e e e e 108 Means and Standard Deviations of the Four Socio-Economic Status Indices Used in this Study. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 109 ...... r