VOTER PREFERENCE m A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTlON AS A FUNCTION OF PERSONAL VALUES Thesis for the Degree of MA. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LEM MELTZER 1971 .'~ "ifiPWQ; ll HI Hull “H 3 12'3'121““'¥”EW“ 'EW " Michigan Stave University ABSTRACT VOTER CHOICE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS A FUNCTION OF PERSONAL VALUES BY Leila Meltzer This study examined the value systems of a group of voters who cast ballots for Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon in the 1968 pres- idential election and with these voters' perceptions of the value systems of the two candidates. The two hypothesis tested were: 1) that people vote for political candidates whose value systems they assume are most like their own and 2) that voters are able to estimate accurately value systems of political candidates. Values and value systems were the personality concepts used here to study'voter preference. To measure value systems, a polit- ical value survey (based on Rokeach's Value Scale) was developed from the content analysis of recent political Speeches. The content analysis of these Speeches resulted in the selection of 18 values deemed to be politically relevant at the time of the 1968 presidential election. These 18 values composed the political value survey. To test the first hypothesis - that peeple vote for political candidates whose value systems they assume are most like their own - the subjects (all of whom.had voted for either Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon) rank ordered the 18 values three times, Leila Meltzer once reflecting their own value systems, once as they felt Hubert Humphrey would fill it out and once as they felt Richard Nixon would fill it out. The value systems of the voters were then compared, using rank-order correlation, with their perceptions of the value systems of their chosen and unchosen candidates. It was found that the subjects voted for the candidates whose value systems they had perceived was more like their own. The first hypothesis was confirmed. To test the second hypothesis - that voters are able to estimate accurately value systems of political candidates - the voters' perceptions of the candidates were compared with value systems of the two candidates which were developed by the author and which were assumed to represent the "actual" value systems of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. In order to develop these "experimenter-deduced" value systems for the two candidates, content analysis was used for a second time in the study. Rep- resentative works of each man were content analyzed using the 18 Political Values. The results of this content analysis were used to develop the two candidates' value systems. The implications of the correlations derived from this phase of the study were ambiguous. Some, but not all correlations were in the expected direction. The results were explained by the dissatisfaction felt by many of the voters for the choices open to them and by the problems of estimating candidates' value systems using the content analysis method. The second hypothesis was neither confirmed nor denied. The results of the study were discussed in relation to Rokeach's work on the topic and to his two-value model of politics. Approve dMqKQ Date c 7r 7 VOTER PREFERENCE IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AS A FUNCTION OF PERSONAL'VALUES BY Ieila Meltzer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of NMSTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1971 To My Mother and Sister 11 ACKNOWIEDGMENTS I'd like to thank Dr. Raymond Cochrane for the time and effort he gave in helping to complete the study. Many thanks are due to my mother for the help, suggestions and moral support she gave me while the work was in progress. I'd like to thank her, also, for the superb jdb she did of typing the manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. Introduction....................................l II. Method..........................................8 III. Result8........................................l6 IV. DiSCUSSionooooooo.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo31 LiSt Of TableSOOOOOOOO0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0v Referencesooooo00.000000000000000...oooo000.000.000.938 AppendiX.A: The QUBStionnaireoooooo00.00.000.000.0.039 Appendix B: The Content Analysis USed to Determine the Politically'Relevant Values in the Study.....................’+1+ iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 10 MEthOd 0f cmtaCt and ReSponSe Rateooooooooooooooooolh 2. Summary of ReSponses by Subjects to Items on the Questionnaire.........................l7 3. Groups medians and Ranks - Humphrey and Nixon Voters om valms.I0.0.0....0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.19 h. Groups Medians and Ranks - Humphrey and Nixon Voters Perception of the Value SyStem Of Humphrey...u...o..................22 5. Group Medians and Banks - Humphrey and Nixon Voters Perception of the Value syStem 0f Nixon0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.00.025 6. Experimenter-Deduced Value Systems of Hubert Humphrey'and Richard Nixon..................27 7. Results of Rank-Order Correlations Performed between the Value Systems of the Voters and the Value Systems of the Candidates............29 8. Ranks for‘Voters Own Values and Estimated Rank-Orderings of the Value Systems of Hmmmy and NumOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0000000000000036 B1. Results of the Content Analysis of Lyndon Jdlnson's Acceptance smechOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.000.0h7 B2. Results of the Content Analysis of Barry Goldwater'8.Acceptance Speech......................h9 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study examined the value systems of a group of voters who cast ballots for either Hubert Humphrey or Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential election and with these voters' perceptions of the value systems of the two candidates. The two hypotheses tested were: 1) that people vote for political candidates whose value systems they assume are most like their own and 2) that voters are able to estimate accurately value systems of political candidates. Measuring‘Values. Values and value systems were the personal- ity concepts used here to study voter preference. Rokeach (1968) defined a value as a “type of belief centrally located within one's total belief system, about how one ought or ought not to behave, or about some end-state of existence, worth or not worth attaining.” Values, for Rokeach, are not associated with any particular attitude or situation, but are the abstract ideals which a person holds about modes of conduct and termdnal goals or end-states of existence. Rokeach views the value as more basic than the attitude and often underlying it. To measure values, Rokeach devised the Value Scale. The Value Scale is composed of two lists of values, one of 18 terminal and the other of 18 instrumental values. These values (and Rokeach's 1 definitions of them) are: Terminal Values l. 2. 3. 1+. 10. ll. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. A Comfortable Life (a prosperous life) An Exciting Life (a stimulating, active life) A Sense of Accomplishment (lasting contribution) A World at Peace (free of war and conflict) A World of Beauty (beauty of nature and the arts) Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) Family Security (taking care of loved ones) Freedom (independence, free choice) Happiness (contentedness) Inner Harmony (freedom from inner conflict) Mature Love (sexual and Spiritual intimacy) National Security (protection from attack) Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life) Salvation (saved, eternal life) Self-ReSpect (self-esteem) Social Recoglition (reSpect, admiration) True Friendship (close companionship) Wisdom (a mature understanding of life) Instrumental Values l. Ambitious (hard -working, aspiring) Broadminded (open-minded) Capable (competent, effective) Cheerful (lighthearted , Joyful) Clean (neat, tidy) ""‘1 6. Courageous (standing up for your beliefs) 7. Forgiving (willing to pardon others) 8. Helpful (working for the welfare of others) 9. Honest (sincere, truthful) 10. Imaginative (daring, creative) 11. Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient) 12. Intellectual (intelligent, reflective) l3. Logical (consistent, rational) 1h. Loving (affectionate, tender) 15. Obedient (dutiful, reSpectful) l6. Polite (courteous, well-mannered) l7. ReSponsible (dependable, reliable) 18. Self-Controlled (restrained, self-disciplined) The subject is asked to rank order the values in the two lists in the order of importance to him, the subject. The terminal value most important to him is given the rank of one, the second 2 and so on to the value he considers least important or 18. The same is done for the instrumental values. Rokeach's Study 93 the 1968 Presidential Campaign. The study most closely related to the present one is Rokeach' s study of the supporters of the various candidates for the Presidency of the United States in 1968 (Rokeaeh, 1971). In April, 1968, the Value Scale was administered to a sample of Moo Americans over the age of 21. The subjects were asked which of the following candidates they preferred: Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, and George Wallace. Rokeach found that Democrats (including Johnson, Kennedy, and McCarthy supporters) ranked A World at Peace first which was sig- nificantly higher than Republican and Wallace supporters who ranked it second. As for the value, National Security, Johnson supporters ranked this value higher than any other group, putting it 8th. McCarthy supporters ranked National Security lowest of any group at 13, while Kennedy supporters put it at 12. Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace supporters fell between these other groups on the ranking of this value. All groups ranked Freedom third. The groups, however, did differ to quite an extent in their ranking of Equality. Kennedy, Johnson, and McCarthy supporters valued it among the top six values, Nixon and Reagan supporters among the middle six and Wallace suppor- ters among the last third. Reagan supporters ranked it lowest of all the Republican groups. Rokeach concluded that of the 36 values, the rankings for Equality delineated the seven groups along a liberal- conservative dimension, Democratic supporters being the most liberal, Wallace supporters most conservative and Republicans falling in be- tween these two groups . Kennedy and Wallace supporters valued A Comfortable Life higher than did the other groups. This Rokeach explained was due to the high incidence of poor minority group members supporting Kennedy and poor whites supporting Wallace. Wallace, Reagan, and Nixon suppor- ters ranked Salvation relatively high while Kennedy, McCarthy and Johnson people valued it less. Rockefeller supporters valued it least, ranking it 13th. As for the Democrats, Johnson supporters valued it most and McCarthy supporters least. "Iv-I McCarthy supporters ranked Clean, Obedient, and Polite lowest of the instrumental values. Kennedy, Johnson, and‘Wallace people valued Clean and Obedient highly, the Republicans lower, and McCarthy people lowest . Rokeach pointed out that deepite the differences, the groups were remarkably alike and suggests that the appeal the candidates had resulted from the image cash projected in regard to the afore- mentioned values. Other Related Studies. The attempt to understand the influence of personality characteristics on voter preference resulted in a number of studies on authoritarianism. These studies usually took the following format: The subject was given some form of the F Scale or Rokeach!s Dogmatism.Scale. He was also asked which candi- date running for a particular office he preferred, The results usually indicated that those with higher scores on the F Scale or the more dogmatic preferred conservative candidates while those with lower scores on the F Scale or the less dogmatic preferred the more moderate or liberal candidates. In this vein, Milton (1950) found that those who preferred presidential hopefuls MacArthur and Taft were more authoritarian than those who preferred Stevenson, Eisenhower, Kefauver or Russell. Wrightsmsn et a1 (1960), concentrating on the 1960 presidential election found that those supporting Stevenson or Humphrey were the 1. For a comprehensive review of the political psychology literature, the reader is referred to Greenstein, Fred I. Personality and Politics. Chicago: Markham, 1969. least authoritarian, those supporting Faubus or Johnson most authoritarian with supporters of Kennedy, Rockefeller, Nixon and Symdngton falling between the other two groups. Goldberg and Stark (1965) found that during the 196A election, those backing Goldwater were more authoritarian than those backing Johnson. Higgins and Kuhlman (1965) found those scoring higher on the F scale preferred Goldwater over Johnson. These studies of political behavior leave many questions unanswered. For example, why do people cross party lines and vote for candidates of a party other than their own? How can a Republican (Liberal) like John Lindsay be elected Mayor of New York City where the majority of voters are registered Democrats? Recently, party ideology has become ambiguous. The variation of ideology within the two major parties is immense and knowing an individual's party provides little information about his ideolo- gical views on political matters. leventhal et a1 (196h) examining the relationship between.F Scale scores and candidate preference made some attempt to resolve these problems. Just before the 1960 presidential election, they found students at Yale university with high scores on the F Scale preferred the republican party and Nixon while students in the study with lower F Scale scores preferred the Democrats and Kennedy. They found, also, in another study reported in the same article that when ideology was taken into account, high scorers voted for the liberal candidate regardless of party label. In other words, it was the liberal or conservative values involved which were salient and de- termined the students' preference for a particular candidate. The first hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between values and voter preference. It is expected that people will vote for those candidates whose value systems they believe are most like their own. The second hypothesis deals with the information the voter has about the candidate. Candidates are supposedly being ”packaged" now for mass consumption. One recent best seller, the Selling 9; the President, 1968 by Joseph MCGinniss dealt with the packaging of Richard Nixon, with the image created for him by those expert in the use of the mass communications media. This research project is not concerned with the "image" per se a candidate projects, but rather with the candidate's value system, how'he relates this in- formation to the voting public, and the voters' perceptions of his value system. It is expected that the voters do have information about the value systems of the candidates, and that their assump- tions about the candidates are, at least to some extent, an accurate reflection of what each candidate stands for, or in this case, of the candidate's value system. CHAPTER II METHOD The Selection 9: Political Values. The political value survey used in this study was developed from the content analysis of recent political Speeches. Originally, several recent political Speeches including the acceptance Speeches at the nominating conventions made by presidential candidates Nixon and Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson and Goldwater in 196A were analyzed using Rokeach's list of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values. If a value was clearly advocated as having a positive valence for the author of the Speech, one point was allotted for that value. If more than one value was advocated in a sentence, each value was allotted one point. If a negative attitude was expressed towards a value, then one point was sub- tracted from.the score for that value for each sentence in which the negative attitude was expressed. The final score for each value was the sum of all the points or the number of sentences in which the politician expressed a negative attitude towards the value. It became apparent that several of the 36 values making up Rokeach's Value Scale were irrelevant as far as these political speeches were concerned. That is, in the Speeches examined, they were mentioned either not at all or very infrequently. Those of the terminal values which fell into this category were An Exciting l. .A more detailed account of this phase of the study is presented in.Appendix B. Life, A Sense of Accomplishment, A World of Beauty, Family Security, Happiness, Inner Harmony, Mature Love, Pleasure, Salvation, Self- ReSpect, Social Recognition, True Friendship, and Wisdom. Several instrumental values also fell into this category. They were Capable, Cheerful, Clean, Courageous, Forgiving, Helpful, Intellec- tual, Logical, Loving, Obedient, Polite, and Self-Controlled. These values, then, were left out of the final list of values used for this study. Several other values, however, not included in Rokeach's Value Scale - Justice, Law and Order, Patriotism, Personal Security, Strong leadership, and Unity - did appear frequently enough in the speeches examined to be included in a revised list of Political Values relevant to the United States in the 1960's and 1970's. Instrumental and terminal values were incorporated into one list. All values were listed as nouns. The final list of values with their definitions used in the study were: A Comfortable Life (a prosperous life) Ambition (hard-working, aspiring) A World at Peace (free of war and conflict) Broadmindedne ss ( open-mindedness ) Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) Freedom (independence) Honesty (sincerity, truthfulness) Imagination (daring, creativity) Independence (self -re liant , self-suffic ient) Justice (equal and fair treatment under the law) 10 Law and Order (effective law enforcement) National Security (protection from foreign attack) Patriotism (love of country) Personal Security (freedom from fear and want) Progress (forward-looking, willing to change) Responsibility (dependability) Leadership (strong, firm leadership for the country) Unity (consensus of opinion) This was the first use of content analysis. Content analysis was used, also, to arrive at estimations of the value systems of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. Estimated Value Systems of Humphrey and Nixon. In order to obtain estimates of the value systems of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon, representative works of each man were content an- alyzed using the Political Values. The method of content analysis used in the previous phase of the study to arrive at the Political Values was used here. The author performed this content analysis alone. To obtain the most accurate estimates possible of the political value systems of the two candidates, it was necessary to choose Speeches and writings which accurately reflected their views. It could be argued that ghost writers may'have produced some (or all) of these Speeches for the candidates, but even if this were the case, it is the candidates themselves who are reSponsible for the ideas expressed in the Speeches and it is assumed that they correctly rep- resent the ideology each man wishes to project to the voters. l. The author received help from Dr. Raymond CoChrane in completing the first content analysis. See Appendix B for details. 11 The acceptance Speeches made by each candidate at the nominating conventions of their respective parties for the Presidency of the United States satisfied the above-mentioned criteria. These Speeches were the first Opportunity Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Nixon had to appear before a mass television audience as the official candidate of a major party for the Presidency in 1968. Presumably, each man would have carefully prepared his Speech to make a strong impression on the American public and to begin to present his views on the impor- tant domestic and foreign issues. These Speeches, however, were not of sufficient length or depth to estimate accurately the political value systems of either Humphrey or Nixon. The Speeches dealt with a wide range of topics and were very general. They were, in effect, campaign Speeches and contained much "electionsering" rhetoric and, therefore, did not deal substantially with the issues. Other works were chosen to supplement these Speeches. _Th_e' gaps; is Mankind (Humphrey, 1961;) is one of several books written by the Democratic candidate and contains a comprehensive statement of his political philosophy. The entire book (approxi- mately h0,000 words) was content analyzed. This together with the acceptance Speech was used to estimate Humphrey‘s value system. Estimating the political value system of the Republican candi- date was more difficult. He has written one book, Six Crises (Nixon, 196A). Though reading the book would acquaint the reader 'with many of Richard Nixon's views, its main purpose is narrative, a description of six crises in the life of Mr. Nixon. It is not comparable to The Cause i§_Mankind as a statement of political philOSOphy. Also, because it is a description of events in Richard l2 Nixon's life and is "incident-centered", the book does not lend itself well to a content analysis of the kind done here. However, since it does contain many of Nixon's ideas and it is his only book, two sections of approximately 5,000 words each were chosen at random and content analyzed. The one place where a comprehensive statement of Richard Nixon's views on a wide range of subjects can be found and which were Spoken by him are his comments during the television debates he had with John.Kennedy during the 1960 presidential election. Despite the fact that these remarks were made over ten years ago, they remain the best statement of his views on various t0pics. All of his remarks during the four debates were analyzed. Nixon's political.value system, then, was derived from.the content analysis of his Speech at the nominating convention in 1968, two selections from Six Crises, and his half of the Nixon-Kennedy debates . Subjects and Data Collection. The subjects used in the study were drawn randomly from among those people in Lansing, Michigan who had voted in the 1968 presidential election. Subjects were contacted initially by phone or by letter. Those contacted by phone were picked at random from the phone book. Those contacted by letter were drawn at random from all those who were on record in the City Clerk's Office as having voted in that election. All subjects, regardless of the method of contact, were told that this was a research project being conducted under the auSpices of the Department of Psychology of Michigan State University and that it was an attempt to study the relationship between personal values and voter preference. Immediately after the first contact 13 was made, a c0py of the form was sent to the subject with a cover letter and a stamped, addressed envelope. The subjects were asked to fill out the Political Value Survey three times - once reflecting their own value systems, once as they felt Hubert Humphrey would fill it out and once as they felt Richard Nixon would fill it out. A capy of the complete questionnaire is included in.Appendix A. To test the first hypothesis - that people will vote for the candidate whose value system they perceive as most like themselves - the value systems of the voters were compared with their perceptions of the value systems of their chosen and unchosen candidates. To test the second hypothesis, the voters' perceptions of the candi- dates were compared with the "experimenter-deduced" or estimated value systems of the candidates. To summarize, the data collected included: 1. the value systems of Humphrey and Nixon voters. 2. the perceived value systems of Humphrey and Nixon by the two sets of voters. 3. the "experimenter-derived" value systems of Humphrey'and Nixon as estimated by'a content analysis of selected speeches and writing of the two candidates. The potential subjects were told their resPonses would be strictly anonymous and confidential. It was felt this was necessary because of the desire felt by some subjects to keep their choices secret. Revealing the identify of the reSpondents would have re- duced the reSponse rate and eliminated from the sample some of those subjects who were concerned with keeping their voting records confid- ential. Because of the anonymity of the reSponses, however, there 1% was no way of knowing who returned the questionnaire and who did not. Though this created prdblems in the analysis of the data, strict anonymity was maintained in order to perform the study at all. Eighty-three subjects returned a completed questionnaire. Of these, h3 had voted for Nixon and ho for Humphrey. A summary and response rate and method of contact is contained in Table l. The response rate was approximately 30 Percent whether the initial contact was by phone or by letter. Though the potential subjects contacted originally were drawn at random for either the phone book or from among those who had voted in the 1968 presidential election, the sample used in the final analysis did not represent a random sample of those in Lansing who did vote in that election. Table 1 Method of Contact and ReSponse Rate Initial Contact ReSponse Rate Usable Nonusable Totals Phone 185 62 7 69 Letter 85 21 3 2h Totals 83 10 93 (Final N = 83) 15 Statistical Analysis. The Median Test for K Independent Groups was used to compare the differences in the rankings of individual values in the various sets of value systems. Rank-order correlations were computed between the following pairs of value systems: ll. 12. 13. Humphrey voters own and Nixon voters own. Humphrey voters own and their perception of Humphrey. Humphrey voters own and their perception of Nixon. Nixon voters own and their perception of Humphrey. Nixon voters own and their perception of Nixon. Humphrey voters own and Hmnphrey's experimenter-derived. Humphrey voters own and Nixon's experimenter-derived. Nixon voters own and Humphrey's experimenter-derived. Nixon voters own and Nixon's experimenter-derived. Humphrey voters perception of Humphrey and Humphrey's experimenter -derived . Humphrey voters perception of Nixon and Nixon's experimenter-derived . Nixon voters perception of Nixon and Nixon's experimenter-derived . Nixon voters perception of Humphrey and Humphrey's experimenter-derived . LQ- CHAPTER III RESULTS A breakdown of the 83 subjects according to the reSponses they gave to the questions on the questionnaire is presented in Table 2. These include candidate choice, reason for voting for the candidate, sex, age, marital status, occupation, religion, political party identification, and amount of financial support given to parties or candidates. 0n the whole, the two groups of voters were remarkably alike. The two groups were just about evenly divided between men and women. Most were married and had occupations which would put them into the lower middle or middle class. Except for only four subjects, all had, at least, graduated from.high school, and more than half of the Humphrey voters and almost half of the Nixon voters had graduated from college. As for political party affiliation, 28 of the Humphrey voters identified themselves as Democrats or Independent leaning toward the Democrats, while 26 of the Nixon voters identified themselves as Republican or Independent leaning toward the Republicans. MoSt of the subjects do not contribute money to political parties or candidates, and only two of the subjects replied they do so more often than sometimes . Value Systems 93 the Voters. The rank-orderings of the value systems of Humphrey and Nixon voters are presented in Table 3. Equality is the one value which significantly differentiates (p g .009) the two sets of voters. Humphrey voters ranked it 16 r 1 l u I v I v 1 x I ' V . a r 17 Table 2 Summary of ReSponses by Subjects to Items on the Questionnaire Humphrey Voters Nixon Voters N I 50 N : 53 I voted for the candidate because I a) vote always for the candidate of 2 1 that party b) admire the man and what he 15 25 stands for c) consider him the lesser of 23 17 two evils Sex Female 22 22 Male 18 21 Age 21-3h 15 12 35-h9 18 15 50- 7 16 Married 3% 3% Single 6 9 Occupation Lower or working class 7 5 Lower middle or middle class 28 30 Professional or upper class 5 7 Other - 1 Religion Catholic 5 5 Jewish 2 l Protestant 26 3h Other 7 3 Education Completed 8th grade 2 2 Graduated high school 1h 22 Graduated college 2h 19 Political Party Identification Democrat 7 - Republican 1 1h Independent (leaning towards Democrat) 21 2 Independent (leaning towards Republican) 2 12 Independent (having no party preference) 9 15 Table 2 (cont'd.) Contribute money to political campaigns Never Sometimes Often Always l8 Humphrey Voters 27 l3 Nixon Voters 28 13 Table 3 Group Medians and Ranks - Humphrey and Nixon Voters Own Values A Comfortable Life Ambition A World at Peace Broadmindedness Equality Freedom Honesty Imagination Independence Justice Law and Order National Security Patriotism Personal Security .Progress ReSponsibility ho Med Rnk 13.50 13.50 5.50 9.83 3.00 5.50 h.93 12.70 7.10 5000 9.50 12.00 10.50 9-17 10.50 10.17 Humphrey'Voters N: 16 17 15 1h 13 10 Nixon Voters “3 Med Rnk 16.00 11.88 8.25 9.13 7.20 h.92 3.00 1h.33 8.67 5.80 8.38 12.58 8.20 11.60 10.80 9.00 18 1h 11 16 15 13 12 10 Median Test x2: Pa 3-66h 0.055 0.5hh 0.h61 1.h91 0.222 0.106 0.7h5 6.722 0.009 0.27h 0.601 2.659 0.102 1.h91 0.222 0.325 0.569 0.027 1.000 0.013 1.000 0.001 1.000 0.096 0.757 3.013 0.082 0.027 1.000 0.00h 1.000 20 Table 3 (cont'd.) Humphrey'Voters med Rnk Strong Leadership 10 .25 11 Unity 16.07 18 Nixon Voters Med Rnk 8.00 lh.80 17 Median Test. X2: P: 1.h50 0.228 0.003 1.000 21 first and Nixon voters ranked it nth. Other values which served somewhat to differentiate the two groups (p :sa25) were: A Comfortable Life - Humphrey voters ranked this value 16th while Nixon voters ranked it 18th;.A World at Peace - Humphrey-voters put it 5th and Nixon voters 7th; Honesty - Humphrey voters ranked it 2nd and.Nixon voters first: Imagination - Humphrey voters placed this value 15th and Nixon voters 16th; Personal Security - Humphrey voters ranked it 7th and Nixon voters 13th; and Strong Leadership - Humphrey voters put it 11th while Nixon voters put it 5th. Estimated Rank-Orderings g£_the Candidates' Value Systems by the Voters. The estimated rank-orderings of Humphrey‘s value system by the two groups of voters are presented in Table h. There were no significant differences in the way Humphrey and Nixon voters viewed this candidate. Those values which the two groups of voters did estimate Humphrey would rank differently (p 52.25) were: A Comfortable Life - Humphrey voters estimated he would rank this value 17th and Nixon voters estimated he would rank it 9th; Personal Security - Humphrey voters thought he would rank it 13th and Nixon voters thought he would rank it 12th; Responsibility - Humphrey voters estimated he would place this value 12th and Nixon voters thought he would place it 17th; and Unity - Humphrey voters thought Humphrey would put this value in 6th place while Nixon voters thought he would put it in lhth place. o . a z t . ... . .. . ( .1. . u I 1‘ .\ s a .. l .1 It. . r1 r a . . . — . r :1 4 . ,u . . \ 0 1 . y 0|; 1 . x ., . . \ F- o . O ._ .. I. . r. I . .- o . . . a. O I I t \ l. A n .. .u 1 a i . .i . r .. .. I n s . . .1. r . 'i 4 1 s \ e . i. I n n , . . u .l . I. . v I I n \. . a I (.5 n I. V r l r. ,- (In 1; v . 5.. \ — k .«a\ 22 Table h Group Medians and Ranks - Humphrey and Nixon Voters Perception of the Value System of Humphrey Humphrey Voters Nixon Voters Median Test n: to #3 x2- P- med Rnk Med Rnk A Comfortable Life 1h.83 9.33 1.391 0.238 17 9 Ambition 12.70 10.25 0.563 0.h53 1h 13 A'World at Peace 6.25 5.00 0.527 0.h68 3 1 Broadmindedness 10.50 12.13 0.709 0.h00 11 16 Equality 11.70 6.00 1.021 0.312 2 3 Freedom 7.75 9.67 0.985 0.321 7 10 Honesty 7.00 10.1h 0.027 0.871 5 11 Imagination 15.10 1h.38 0.021 1.000 18 18 Independence 13.50 11.63 0.955 0.329 15 15 Justice h.50 S.h2 0.3h6 0.557 1 2 Law and Order 8.50 8.25 0.010 0.922 9 7 National Security 7.21 6 6.75 h 0.007 1.000 Patriotism 8.33 8 6.88 0.527 0.h68 5 Personal Security 12.50 10.25 1.950 0.162 13 12 Progress 9.50 9.00 0.096 0.757 10 8 Responsibility 11.25 13.13 1.h91 0.222 12 17 23 Table h (cont.d) Humphrey Voters Nixon Voters Median Test Med Rnk Med Rnk x2: P'-’ Strong Leadership 6.50 8.00 1.021 0.312 n 6 Unity 13.90 11.33 1.97h 0.160 16 1h 2h There is a large difference in the way Humphrey and Nixon voters viewed Nixon's political value system. These rankings are to be found in Table 5. Humphrey voters perceived Nixon as ranking Equality, Honesty and Justice significantly lower (p £5.05) than Nixon voters perceived him as ranking these values. Humphrey voters thought Nixon would rank these three values 17th, 15th, and 13th reSpectively, while Nixon voters thought he would rank them 8th, 7th, and 3rd respectively. Humphrey voters estimated Nixon would rank A Comfortable Life, Ambition, National Security, Personal Security, and Unity significantly higher ( P €5.05) than Nixon voters estimated he would rank them. Experimenter-Estimated Value Systems of the Candidates. The value systems of the two candidates as they were reflected in their Speeches and writings are indicated in Table 6. Both Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Nixon ranked Equality and Freedom very high. Mr. Humphrey ranked Equality first and Freedom 3rd. Mr. Nixon reversed this ranking, putting Freedom first and Equality 3rd. Both candidates ranked A World at Peace 2nd. National Security came out lhth on Mr. Humphrey's list of values, somewhat lower than Mr. Nixon's ranking which put it 8th. Law and Order was more important for Nixon who ranked it 6th than it was for Humphrey who ranked it 9th. Both candidates ranked this value higher than JUstice, Humphrey putting it 10th and Nixon 12th. Patriotism and Progress were ranked equally high by Nixon at h.5, while Humphrey ranked Progress very high at h and Patriotism lower at 7. Unity and Personal Security were ranked about the same by both men, 15 and 11.5 reSpectively'by Table 5 Group Medians and Ranks - Humphrey and Nixon Voters Perception of the Value System of Nixon N: A Comfortable Life Ambition A World at Peace Broadmindedness Equality Freedom Honesty Imagination Independence Justice Law and Order National Security Patriotism Personal Security Progress ReSponsibility Humphrey Voters Nixon Voters ho h3 Med Rnk Med Rnk 6.50 15.71 h 18 6.00 9.75 3 10 8.00 6.33 8 5 1h.30 12.25 16 1h 1h.50 9.00 17 8 10.50 9.75 12 11 13.50 7.33 15 7 15.10 1h.80 18 17 10.50 11.67 11 13 11.50 5.20 13 3 h.10 5.19 2 2 h.07 6.00 1 h 7.30 7.00 6 6 9.50 12.88 9 15 11.75 10.88 1h 12 10.50 9.00 10 9 Median Test X2= 13.330 6.h51 3-385 3.hu7 7-h33 0.010 10.0h1 0.00h 1-595 11.500 0.156 h.763 0.017 b.50h 0.289 0.909 P: 0.000 0.011 0.065 0.063 0.006 0.922 0.001 1.000 0.206 0.001 0.693 0.028 1.000 0.033 0.591 0.3h1 26 Table 5 (cont'd.) Humphrey Voters Med Rnk Strong Leadership 6.50 5 Unity 7.50 7 Nixon Voters Med Rnk 3.38 1 13.88 16 Median Test X2= P= 3.uu7 0.063 5.h32 0.019 Table 6 27 Experimenter—Deduced *Value Systems of Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon E122 A Comfortable Life Ambition A World at Peace Broadmindedness Equality Freedom Honesty Imagination Independence Justice Law and Order National Security Patriotism Personal Security Progress Responsibility Strong Leadership Unity Humphrey Frequency Rank 13 5 . 5 9 8 23 2 13 5.5 31 1 22 3 1 18 6 11.5 2 17 . 5 7 10 8 9 5 1h 12 7 6 11.5 15 1+ 2 17 . 5 3 16 h 15 Nixon Frequency 11 1h 11+ Rank 18 17 12 6 8 L5 12 L5 8 10 11+.5 *Based on content analysis of selected writings of Humphrey and Nixon. 28 Humphrey and lh.5 and 12 by Nixon reSpectively. Broadmindedness was much more important for Humphrey who ranked it at 5.5 than it was for Nixon who ranked it at lh.5. Independence and ReSponsibility Shared last place on Mr. Humphrey's list, While Independence came out 17th and Imagination 18th on Mr. Nixon's list. Results of the Rank-Order Correlations. The results of the rank- order correlations performed on the data are found in Table 7. The correlation between Humphrey voters' own value systems and Nixon voters' own value system is .8h, indicating that both groups were much alike in this reSpect. The correlation between the voters' own values and their esti- mate of the value system of the chosen candidate was higher than that for the unchosen candidate for both groups. The correlation between Humphrey voters own values and their perception of Humphrey was .68, between their own values and their perception of Nixon, it was .39. The correlation between the value systems of these who voted for Nixon and their estimate of his political value system was .63, between their own values and their estimate of Humphrey's value system, it was .hh. The correlation between Humphrey voters' perception of Humphrey and his value system as it was estimated from his Speeches and writings was .18. This was only a little higher than the correla- tion between their perception of Nixon and Nixon's experimenter- estimated value system which was .lh. AS for Nixon voters, the correlation between their perception of Nixon and his experimenter- estimated value system was .25. The correlation between their perception of Humphrey and his value system was .39. According to 29 Table 7 Results of Rank-Order Correlations Performed between.the Value Systems of the Voters and the Value Systems of the Candidates Humphrey Voters Nixon Voters The correlation between the voters .68 .hh own values and their perception of Humphrey. The correlation between the voters .39 .63 own values and their perception of Nixon. The correlation between the voters .09 .03 own values and Humphrey's experimenter- deduced values. The correlation between the voters .3h .h2 own values and Nixon's experimenter- deduced values. The correlation between the voters .18 .39 perception of Humphrey and Humphrey's experimenter-deduced values. The correlation between the voters .1h .25 perception of Nixon and Nixon's experimenter-deduced values. 30 these figures, both groups were better able to estimate Humphrey's than.Nixon's value system. Nixon voters were more accurate in their estimations of the value systems of both candidates than were the Humphrey'voters. The ranks for the voters' own values and the experimenter- derived ranks for Humphrey's and Nixon's values are presented in Table 8. The correlation between Humphrey voters own value systems and the experimenter-estimated value system of this candidate was .09, and the correlation between their own values and the experi- menter-estimated rank-ordering of Nixon's value system was .3h, a finding which was the reverse of what had been expected. The correla- tion between Nixon voters own values and Nixon's experimenter- estimated value system was .h2, between their own values and Humphrey's experimenter-estimated value system, the correlation was .03, Which was in the expected direction. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis I was confirmed. Both groups of voters chose the candidate whose value system they perceived as most like their own. rHie correlation between Humphrey voterS' own values and their perception of Humphrey's rank-ordering of the val- ues was .68, compared to only .39 for their perception of Nixon's value system. For Nixon voters, the correlation between their own values and their perception of Nixon was .63, compared with a correlation of .M-l- between their own values and their perception of Humphrey. Examining the reasons the subjects checked for voting for a candidate, it can be seen that more than half of the Humphrey voters and almost half of the Nixon voters chose their candidate because he was the lesser of two evils. (See Table 2.) Presum- ably, these voters were dissatisfied with the choices available to them. Under these circumstances, they chose the lesser of two evils or the candidate whom they perceived was relatively more like themselves than the unchosen candidate. If the voters had been more satisfied with the choices Open to them, i. e. , if they had perceived one or the other of the candidates as more like themselves in their ranking of these values than the ones from whom they had been forced to choose, the correlations would probably have been higher. One of the most noticeable differences between the two 31 32 groups of voters was the way in which they perceived Nixon. Nixon voters thougit of him as more liberal than did Humphrey voters. Whereas Nixon voters thought he would rank Equality 8th, Humphrey voters thought he would rank it 17th. Though both groups thought he would rank Law and Order very high in 2nd place, Nixon voters thought he would, also, rank Justice quite high in 3rd place, while Humphrey voters thought he would put this value in 13th place. This has implications for the supposed swing to the right the country is taking politically. According to these results, this may not be so. For Nixon voters did not view Nixon as being as conservative as the more liberal voters viewed him. More liberally-oriented voters may have been thinking of Nixon as more conservative than he actually was, or if their perception of Nixon was accurate, it is still true that the Nixon voters themselves did not view him as being very conservative. According to Rokeach's two-value model of politics, political orientation can be described in terms of the relative rankings given to the values Equality and Freedom by an individual or group. (Rokeach, 1968). Socialists, Rokeach maintains, would place a h1g1 value on Equality and Freedom, while Fascists would place a low value on these two values. Communists should place a high value on Equality and a low value on Freedom. Capitalists should place just the Opposite value on Equality and Freedom. One can use this schema to compare those holding different political orientations along a liberal-conservative dimension. In the United States for example, those valuing Equality highly would be more liberal than 33 those who valued it less. This sample differed in their rankings of several values from Rokeach's 1968 sample. This was a more liberal sample as evidenced by the high value they placed on Equality. The Nixon voters in this study ranked Equality much higher in hth p1ace than did the Nixon supporters in Rokeach's sample who ranked it 12th. These Humphrey voters were more concerned with Equality than were the supporters of any of the seven candidates in Rokeach's study. .A World at Peace was more important for that sample than the present one. The supporters of all the candidates in that study ranked it first or second in comparison with these Humphrey and Nixon voters who ranked it 5th and 7th reSpectively. However, caution should be exercised in comparing the results of these two studies, for they differed in several significant ways. The samples were completely different. Rokeach's was a national sample drawn at random, while the one used here was drawn from one city in the Midwest. In the present study, though the Subjects contacted originally were chosen at random from.among those who had voted in the 1968 presidential election, the response rate was approximately 30 per cent. The final sample then was not a random sample of Lansing voters. The instruments used in both studies were different. Rokeach used the 36-value Value Scale with two lists, one of 18 instrumene tal and the other of 18 terminal values. In this study, a single list of values judged to be politically'relevant was used. Terminal and instrumental values were included in the same list. The two studies, also, were done at different times. Rokeach's 3h study was conducted before the election and the nominating con- ventions when all the candidates were, theoretically, still in the running. This study was conducted after the election and after the people had actually voted for a candidate. This study then contained voters who may have originally been supporters of Humphrey or Nixon or of one of the candidates eliminated at the conventions or voters who did not take much interest in the elec- tion at all. Many supporters of the eliminated candidates may not have voted at all. Hence, there is probably a wide Spectrum of voters among those who finally voted for either Humphrey or Nixon. This is evidenced further by the fact that many of the subjects declared they were dissatisfied with their final choice. (See Table 2). Since both studies were run at different times, different items may have been in the news. For example, before the election, the war in Vietnam was a very salient issue and may'have accounted for the high rankings Rokeach found for A World at Peace. After the election, though the war as a national issue had not diminished in importance, it did not have the emotional tinge surrounding it that was present during the campaign. There was more of a wait-and-see attitude towards Nixon's efforts to wind down the war. Hypothesis II: The implications of the correlations derived from the content analysis are more ambiguous than those discussed in relation to the first hypothesis. Both Humphrey and Nixon voters own value systems were more highly correlated with Nixon's experimenterededuced value system than with Humphrey's. The ranks of the voters own values and the experimenter-deduced rankings of the 35 value systems of Humphrey and Nixon are presented in Table 8. The correlation between Nixon voters own values and Nixon's content-analysis derived value system was .h2; the correlation between their own values and Humphrey's derived value System was .03. This finding was in the expected direction. Nixon voters were, in actuality, more Similar to Nixon and,‘hence, voted for him. Humphrey voters, however, were also more like Nixon. The correlation between the voters own values and Nixon's derived value system..3h, whereas the correlation between their own values and Humphrey's derived value system was only .09. The actual voting behavior can.be explained by the Humphrey voters' perception of the two candidates. They perceived themselves as more like Humphrey'and voted for him. The satisfaction index in Table 2 indicates that Humphrey voters were less satisfied than Nixon voters. A lesser proportion of'those who voted for Humphrey did so because they admired him than did those who voted for Nixon. More voted for Humphrey because he was the lesser of two evils than voted for Nixon for that reason. This would help account for the low correlations between Humphrey voters own values and Humphrey's experimenter-deduced value system. This discrepancy may also be due to problems of the content analysis itself. Older Speeches and writings were used to engender sufficient frequencies for the values in order to develop meaning- ful value systems for the two candidates. However, using older works may have masked some of the values which were particularly salient in this election. For these reasons, the second hypothesis, that voters can 36 Table 8 Ranks for Voters' Own Values and Estimated Rank-Orderings of Value Systems of Humphrey and Nixon Own Values of Voters Estimation of Candidates Humphrey Nixon Humphrey Nixon A Comfortable Life 16 18 5.5 8 Ambition 17 1h 8 16 A World at Peace 5 7 2 2 Broadmindedness 9 11 5.5 111.5 Equality 1 h l 3 Freedom h 2 3 l Honesty 2 1 18 12 Imagination 15 16 11.5 18 Independence 6 9 17.5 17 Justice 3 3 10 12 law and Order 8 8 9 6 National Security 1h 15 11} 8 Patriotism l2 6 7 l+.5 Personal Security 7 13 11.5 12 Progress 13 12 ’4 h.5 Re Spons ib ility 10 10 17 . 5 8 Strong leadership 11 5 16 10 Unity 18 17 15 1’4 . 5 37 accurately estimate value systems of political candidates, cannot be confirmed or denied with much confidence. The voters do have some knowledge of the candidates' positions. However, the resulting correlations were not very high, a fact which may be due to prdblems with the content analysis or to the fact that the voters did not have much information about the candi- dates. ‘What is clear, from this study, however, is that voters do vote for those candidates whose value systems they perceive as most like their own. 38 REFERENCES Goldberg, D. A. and Stark, M. J. Johnson or Goldwater: Some personality and attitude correlations of political choice. Psychological Reports, 1965, 17, pp. 627-631. Greenstein, Fred I. Personality and Politics. (Chicago: Markham, 1969). Higgins, J. and Kuhlman, D. M. Authoritarianism and candidate preference: I. Psychological Reports, 1965 , 16, pp. 603-601).. Ieventhal, H., Jacobs, R. L., and Kudirka, N. Z. Authoritarianism, ideology and political candidate choice. Journal o_f; Abnormal and Social Psychology, 196k, 69, pp. 539-5h9. McGinniss, Joe. The Selling of the President. (New York: Trident Press, 1969). Milton, 0. Presidential choice and performance on a scale of authoritarianism. American Psychologist, 1952, 7, pp. 597-598. Rokeach, Milton. Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968). Wrightsman, L. S., Radloff, R. W., Horton, D. L., and Macherhoff, M. Authoritarian attitudes and presidential voting preferences. Psychological Reports, 1961, 8, pp. h3-h6. 39 APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE 1. 10. ho In the last election I voted for Hubert Humphrey Richard Nixon I voted for him.because (check most appropriate) a. I vote always for the candidate of that party. b. I admire the man and what he stands for. c. I considered him the lesser of 2 evils. Sex Age Married Yes No Occupation Spouse's occupation (if married) Religion The highest grade in school I completed was a. 8th grade l_, ___ b. graduated high school c. graduated college I consider myself a(n) Democrat Republican Independent (leaning towards Democrat) Independent (leaning towards Republican) Independent (having no particular party preference) I contribute money to political campaigns (circle most appropriate) Never Sometimes Often Always Note: All answers are completely anonymous and confidential. 1+3 Below is the same list of 18 values. This time I would like you to arrange them as you think Mr. Nixon might have arranged them if he were asked. This means that I would like you to say which of the values you think are most important in his political ideology. Even if you are uncertain please make a guess. (There are no right or wrong answers as I do not know what the value systems of the candidates were). _____A.C0MF0RTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life) ____AMBITION (hard-working, aspiring) _____A'WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) _____BROADMINDEDNESS (open-mindedness) _____EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) _____FREEDOM (independence, free choice) _____HONESTY (sincerity, truthfuless) __IMAG1NATION (daring, creativity) _____INDEPENDENCE (self-reliant, self-sufficient) ._____JUSTICE (equal and fair treatment under the law) _____1AW AND ORDER (effective law enforcement) _____NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from foreign attack) _____PATRICTISM (love of country) ‘____;PERSONAI.SECURITY (freedom from fear and want) _____PROGRESS (forward-looking, willing to change) _____RESPONSIBILITY (dependability) _____LEADERSHIP (strong, firm.leadership for the country) UNITY (consensus of opinion) 11h APPENDIX B THE CONTENT ANALYSIS USED TO DETERMINE THE POLITICALLY RELEVANT VALUES IN THE STUDY 115 In order to arrive at the 18 values used in this study, recent political speeches were content analyzed. Two people, Dr. Raymond Cochrane and I, the author, did these analyses. A11 Speeches were worked on by both of us, usually working separately and then comparing our results. we were not interested at that time in determining a definitive ranking for the values for any'political figure, but in arriving at a list of values, which were relevant to the political atmoSphere of the 1960's through the present. we started with Rokeach's Value Scale of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values. Those values which were mentioned either not at all or very infrequently by all the candidates together were dropped from.the list. Among those values not in Rokeach's Value Scale considered for inclusion at one time or another, but dropped were dedication, power, education, challenge, democratic, reSpect for tradition, hard working, religious, loyalty and stability. Two of the first Speeches analyzed were Lyndon Johnson's and Barry Goldwater's acceptance Speeches at the 196% political conven- tions. Table Bl presents the results of the content analysis of Lyndon Johnson's acceptance Speech and Table B2 presents the results of the content analysis of Barry Goldwater's Speech. At this point instrumental and terminal values were separated. later the decision was made to combine instrumental and terminal values into one list since this would be easier for subjects to handle and would take them less time to complete. The values used in the study were these mentioned most often in all or most of the speeches. 1+6 The final list was chosen by both judges using this technique. However, personal judgment, also, was employed. Some values appeared to be over-represented because of the high value or frequent mention made of them by one candidate or in one Speech. Freedom is one such example, having been mentioned numerable times by Barry Goldwater. National Security was not mentioned as frequently as some of the other values. However, the decision was made to include it Since it was thought that this was a salient value at the time of the study. The final list included: A Comfortable Life Ambition A.Wor1d at Peace Broadmindedness Equality Freedom Honesty Imagination Independence Justice Law and Order National Security Patriotism Personal Security Progress ReSponsibility Strong Leadership Unity In Table B1 Results of the Content Analysis of Lyndon Johnson's Acceptance Speech Terminal Value Frequency* .A Comfortable Life 11 An Exciting Life 0 A Sense of Accomplishment 2 A World at Peace 6 A'World of Beauty 3 Equality 15 Family Security 5 Freedom 8 Happiness h Inner Harmony 0 Mature Love 0 National Security 5 Pleasure 1 Salvation 0 Self-ReSpect 1 Social Recognition 0 True Friendship 0 Wisdom 2 *Number of sentences in which the candidate expressed a positive attitude towards the value. Table Bl (cont'd.) Instrumental Value Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite ReSponsible Self-Controlled Frequency 1...: U.) 0 \D O 13 OO-JO‘x 10 49 Table B2 Results of the Content Analysis of Barry Goldwater's Acceptance Speech* Terminal Value Frequency A Comfortable Life 2 An Exciting Life 0 A Sense of Accomplishment l A World at Peace 10 A World of Beauty 0 Equality 5 Family Security 0 Freedom 31 Happiness 0 Inner Harmony 1 Justice 2 Mature Love 0 National Security 2 Personal Security 3 Pleasure 0 Salvation 0 Self-ReSpect 0 Social Recognition 0 True Friendship 0 Unity 5 Wisdom 2 *Several values were added in this content analysis. \Illlfii‘lll‘l'lill'l 50 Table B2 (cont'd.) Instrumental Value Frequency Ambitious 6 Broadminded 2 Capable l Cheerful 0 Clean 0 Courageous 3 Forgiving 0 Helpful 3 Honest 9 Imaginative h Independent h Intellectual 0 Logical O Loving O Obedient O Patriotic 2 Polite 0 Progressive l Responsible 3 Self-Controlled 0 HICHICQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES l111+ll~l11l111111“l 31293102460981