AN ANALYSIS OF SOME FACTORS RELEVANT TO ‘ INTEREST m. AND THE Ammo»: - REJECTION 0F.— ‘ TRANSCENDENTAL Msamomv com-SE ' , STUDENTS . * ' Thesis far the Dame 0? M. A. . mews/m 37m WNERSETY SUNDAY ADEFEMB SONNKE 1975 ' llllHlllIlIIHIIIIIHIIHIlllllllllll”llllllllHlllHlLlllHfl 3 1293 10492 062 an“! W State MSU LlBRARlES ”- RETURNING MATERIALS: P1ace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped be1ow. To Yetunde. Tayo and Timi \TJ GUKQ Nam: Copyright Sunday Adefemi Sonaike AN ANALYSIS OF SOME FACTORS RELEVANT TO INTEREST IN, AND THE ADOPTION-REJECTION OF, TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION BY COLLEGE STUDENTS By Sunday Adefemi Sonaike A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University éfiw‘v/ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1975 ABSTRACT or some FACTORS A IS AND THE ADIPTION- F‘J ETTION OF, , up U LEVANT TO INTERLCST IN, fiNS GENDr‘TAL MEDITATION {:3 F1 By Sunday Adefemi Sonaike This thesis centred upon two questions not usually addressed in contempOrary studies of innovation diffusion: * Are‘there systematic differences between persons who demonstrate interest in adopting an innovation and other persons who show no ‘such interest? * Are there systematic differences between interested persons who go on to adopt an innovation and interested persons who end up rejecting the innovation? The innovation used in this study was transcendental meditation(TM), the eXperiencial aspect of the Science of Creative Intellicence(SCI). Jinety;six students of Michigan State University took part in the study. To answer the first question, students who attended a set of intro- ductory lectures on TM in October and November, 1974, were compared on 15 variables with students who were aware of TM but have never attended an introductory lecture, nor had dealings with the TM organi— zation in any other we y. Attending an introductory lecture then, was taken as a demonstration of interest, an act that implied taking a further step from mere awareness to seeking more information on the utility of adopting transcendental meditation. This sample was referred to as co.i ng from the population of potential adopters of transcenden- tal meditation. or (C "5 The second quesuion involved only this sample of potential adoc' - So that is, students who attended the TM introductory lectures in Octotcr and Novem.er, 197%, and who consented to participate in this study. Of this group, some actually adOpted Tm while others rejected it. These two final groups were also compared on the same variables as before. *3 1he measure or indicator of adootion was the payment of a Specified course fee; non—payment of this fee was taken as a decision not to adopt TM. For this part of the study, the analysis employed nonparametric tests with two independent samples, equivalent to the parametric F—test in one-way analysis of variance. Further in—depth analysis of the data was carried out with several single—sample tests using the SPSS "Fastabs" computer program. This provided a breakdown of adOpters-nonadOpters, and interest-nointerest groups on the variables which included measures of reliogisity and dogmatism, period and channel of first knowledge of transcendental meditation, reasons for interest in TM, and demogra- phic data. Each b-eakdown included a chi-s_uare test of significance of the score—distribution. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My gratitude goes to Prof.Bill Herzog without whom this project may never have been successfully executed. I also thank Professors Lawrence Sarbaugh, Jack Bain, and Alfred Opubor for general proce- dural and statistical advice which they gave me at critical times. In addition, I should eXpress my appreciation to my wife, Yetunde, for being strong and understanding in the face of overwhelming rodds. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS IntrOduCtion OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O ..... .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 1 Chapter One: Innovations and Social Systems ............ Stages In The Innovation-Decision Process: Literature ............................. Application to TM ...................... Stages in TM adoption .................. Nonadopters and Disadopters ............ Idea-specific versus object- Specific innovations .............. 1 Social Systems and Innovation Behavior: The social system theme ................ 12 \OQQUI U'\ 0 Social systems ...... ...... ............. 12 Systems effect ............... .......... 1h Personality-related Variables . ..... ............ 15 TM as an Instrument for Social Change ......... 15 Chapter Two: History of Transcendental Medita- tion In America ............... 16 Background ...... ..... ......................... 16 Meditation . ........... ..... ....... ..... ..... .. 17 Initiation ...... .............................. 18 The Appeal . ....... . .......... . . ... ... 19 Chapter Three: Methodology ... ...... . ..... ............. 20 Samples: Sampling: The problem of randomi- zing potential adopters ............... 20 Solution: simple random sampling ...... 21 Procedure. ......... OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. 22 Principal variables .....-...... .............. . 23 Measurement Scales ............. ............... 26 Nonparametric Tests .......... ................. 27 Problem of Unequal n's ............... ......... 28 Hypotheses ............ ..... ................... 29 Guiding propositions .......................... 31 Chapter Four: Analysis of Data and Discussion A , OfResults OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32 'Analysis: Tests of Hypotheses ...................... 32 Fastab runs: Interest group versus ‘ No-Interest group ............ 36 Proof of appropriateness of No-Interest group selection ............ 39 Further breakdown of the No-Inte- rest group ....................... #0 Fastab runs:Ad0pters vs NonadOpters ...... 42 Further breakdown of adopters group ...... #6 Further breakdown of nonadOpters ......... #7 An Important Question .................... 50 Important correlations ...... ..... ..... ... 52 Summary of Results ..... ........................ 5h Discussion ....... ....... . ......... ............. 55 Appendix. vi Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table LIST OF TABLES 1: Mann.Whitney U test comparing the Interest group and the No-Interest group on eight varaibles ............ 2: Mann;Whitney U test comparing Adapters and Nonadopters on 10 variables 3(a): 3(b): 3(0): 3(d): #(a): #(b): #(c): #(d): 5(a): 5(b): 5(0): Fastab run: Interest by Expectation ......... Fastab run: Interest by Opinion of TM ....... Fastab rn: Religiosity by Interest ........ Fastab run:Attitude to God by Interest ...... Fastab: Adaption by EXpectation ..... Fastab: Adoption by Attitude to God ....... FaSta-b: Adoption bYAge OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Fastab: Age by Adoption ......... .. Major correlations: No-Interest group ...... .Major correlations: Adapters ..... Major correlations: Nonadopters .. .vii 32 3# 36 36 36 36 #2 #2 #2 #2 52 53 53 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1 : Comparison of three adoption.paradigms ........ viii INTRODUCTION The Innovativeness Continuum The usual differentiation of the adopters of an innovation follows’ the classification scheme standardizedby Rogers, which partitions the continuum of innovativeness into five broad categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Rogers,1969, p29#). This classification scheme describes an adOpter in terms of his social system. It assesses his innovativeness, defined as the degree to which he is relatively earlier (or later) in adOpting the new idea than the other members of his social system. That the description of individual adopters is made within a sociolo- gical, rather than a psychological, framework should surprise no one, considering the pattern of develOpment of innovation diffusion research. Rogers notes that the oldest diffusion tradition was anthrOpology and involved research centred on the connections between culture and social change (Rogers with Shoemaker,1971,p #8). These earlieSt anthropological concerns greatly influenced several " sociological approaches to diffusion studies that followed them from about the late 1920's.* The latest comers to the diffusion research traditions such as extension education,medical sociology, marketing, and communication, while focu- ssing on different aspects of the diffusion phenomenon, have, not surpri~ singly inherited the social or group paradigm of their ancestors. * Kroeber,1937, is charac+e_istic of the early anthropological tradition. Of the early sociologists and rural sociologists, we can mention Power (1937, 1939), McVOy(19#O), and Ryan and Gross(19#3) to name a few. ..1- INTRODUCTION Jal The Innovativeness Continuum . ;n , . 3.. The usual differentiation of the adopters Of an va— the classification scheme standardized by r continuum of innovativeness into five broad eating?" _- ”Hes early adopters, early majoritb’: late-majority f . ‘3‘“. P29#). This classification scheme describes an; “3‘ ’ social system. It assesses his innovativengégf" Sfik “‘ which he is relatively earlier (or later) n- the other members of his social systgflj- 3 ‘" >ds. That the description of individual 3M; ‘V ‘t‘ 3 the gical, rather than a psychological: ' * i , \‘\‘*‘ ")cial considering the pattern of development” - ‘ ME; - adopt Rogers notes that the oldest diffusm gazes a s-.. 8 involved research centred on the WV ‘2 r35“- ‘5 -. betweer change (Rogers with Shoemaker.1971‘- " .. ‘ meal , i, it concerns greatly influenced; _ -. -3: l“‘=\ of a diffusion studies that fall 3 ' 3.: g - ‘3 p , are The latest comers to the ("Pal-"S“ -.- ~33; ea - H stions education,medical soc' :1“- ‘- \ innova- ssing on differen - 3-2: 2—3 M i L illy singly ‘ Jcipal I: é‘;~:‘§x 3“. on. In x. m ‘f ‘V—‘ ple does {D The overall implication of this fact is that the adopter categoriza- tion that has emerged is meaningful only when adoption is considered ocial system and across time. Although the me cases are individual units (e.g. in O immediate unit of analysis in 3 marketing, rural sociology and communication), adOption by the individual is still defined in relation to the total length of time the innovation in question has been in a social system, what we can, for convenience, refer to as the DIFFUSION HISTORY (or just "history") of that innova- tion. Thus we usually speak of A being an "earlier" or "later" adopter than B, which suggests a difference in the points in an innovation's history, at which A and B adOpted it. While this adopter category provides an adequate framework within which history-related questions could be addressed, it is of minimal' use in examining questions on the other dimension of adopter differen- tiation, that of differences between adopters at the gang time periods. Of even more importance to this study, it does not directly confront the obvious question of why, at any point in time, some people in the social system, while being aware of an innovation, make no move to either adopt or reject it. What diffusion researchers have done is to get at this question in an indirect fashion by concluding that the differences between adopters at different points in time answers the question. However, it is obvious that not all innovations are adopted by all the members of a social group: in fact, many innovations , throughout their history, are adOpted only by a small proportion of the population. Thus the questions relating to probable differences between adopters/rejectors of an innova- tion and persons who show no interest in the innovation, is not fully nswered by differences along the innovativeness continuum. A principal rn of this thesis is to directly seek answers to this question. In , we will be asking the simple question: to what type of peOple does 0" .3. 0 "d *1 O (+ (D -flC innovation appeal, and why? The dichotomy of "persons interested in" adopting an innovation and persons with no such interests, may suggest that all of the former group end up adopting the innovation. Actually, this is not so and the classi- cal explication of the adoption process regards the decision to adept or reject an innovation as an independent act that follows interest in the 'innovation. Because "decision" could go in either direction, change agents have always endeavored to play a part in the series of aetions through which a potential adopter ultimately resolves to adopt an innovation or reject it. One common way by which this is done is by guiding potential adopters through a number of preéadOption activities that may, or may not, include‘ small-scale trial of'the new idea, with the objective of making their first-impressions of the innovation as favorable as possible. However, when the adoption of an innovation is preceded by such introductory activities, a new problem may arise in that at any stage during the "trying—out" period, a potential adopter may reject the innova~ tion, clearly to the discomfort of the change agent. As its second main objective, this study takes an in—depth look at this aspect of the adoption-rejection phenomenon, henceforth referred to as the INNOVATION- % DECISION PROCESS. * This follows the tradition of Rogers with Shoemaker(1971), The innova- .tion-decision process is defined as "the mental process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation to a decision to adopt or reject (it)". The innovation—decision process is synonymous with the "adoption process", a more popularly used term, and one which was in fact employed by Rogers in a previous publication(Rogers,1962b). His rejection of the term in this case is based on the argument that ”adOption process" too strongly suggests that all potential adopters finally adopt new ideas, rather than adept OR reject. My opinion, slightly different from this, is that the term may be interpreted as implying that the diffu— sion phenomenon is relevant only to the adeption of innovation, not to hoth their adOption and rejection. Either way, the term "adoption proces " ...—-u—H—‘n— may not adequately portray the true situation. The problem now goes beyond probing the general appeal of transcenden- tal meditation; our goal is to find out why TM appeals more to certain potential adOpters(who then go on to adopt), than to others. We are W sking, as Barnett did, for "which individuals in a given group are more likely than others to accept a particular novelty?"* That TM has some measure of general appeal for all potential adopters goes without saying; the transition from mere knowledge of its existence to physical search for further information clearly denotes the presence of such an appeal. What systematic differences , then, can be associated With potential adOpters cf TM who go on to adopt(adopters), and potential adopters who do not(rejectors)?** V The first chapter of this thesis explores the broad areas relevant to the study, namely the innovation—decision process, and the concept of social change, and relate both to acceptance and rejection of transcen- dental meditation. The second chapter lays out historical information on transcendental meditation and its introduction into the American society. Stages in the adoption of TM are also explained. In the third chapter, the methodology for the study is outlined in detail and the hypotheses or expectations of the study presented. The final chapter contains the findings of the study, discussion of their implica- tions, and a summary and conclusions. * H.G.Barnett: Innovation:The Basis of Cultural Change. McGraw Hill, 1953. p 378 ** The terms "adOpters” and "rejectors" of innovation apply here in the sense that Barnett(1953) used "acceptors" and "rejectors" (Ch.1#). Their meaning go beyond the simple decision to try or not to try a new idea, to the more committing decision to use, or not to use, the innovation on a permanent basis. ~ («I/w (,5/ ,., 1.. An equally wide variety of terms have been used to describe these stages .among them, attention,exposure, information, initial knowledge, acceptance, desire, application, Conviction, decision, deliberation, and persuasion. The traditional view of the adoption process recognized five-stages to the process: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adeption.* Now well-known is the four-stage AIDA "formula“ in marketing: awareness,_inte— rest, desire, action (Zaltman,1964). More recently, Rogers, and others, in the field of communication, develOped a modified, four—stage model of the adoption process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, and confirmation, all referred to as FUNCTIONS in the innovation-decision process(Rogers with Shoemaker,1971,p 103). There are nevertheless, important similari- ties between these'three interpretations of the adoption-rejection process: RURAL SOCIOLOGY ADVERTISING COMMUNICATION Awareness .l; Awareness ' > Knowledge Interest _; Interest ' ;.Persuasion Evaluation . [Desire:] Trial § . Adeption I Action > Decision [Confirmation] FIG 1: Comparison of Three AdOption Paradigms by Emery and Oeser(1958). Following the trdition of Ryan and Gross(19u3), Wilkening(1953), and Rahim(1961a) utilized four stages. Beal and others (1957) and also Copp and others(1958), prOposed five stages, while Lavidge and Steiner(1961) put forward six stages. Even an eight-stage model was postulated by Singh and Pareek(1968). * The postulation of the "traditional view" is attributed to The North Central Rural Sociology Sub-Committee for the study ofdiffusion of farm practices, United States of America, 1955. The arrows indicate stages that may be considered similar under the three views of the adopti on rejection process. Awareness is comparable to knowledge. The a.ekening o: interst and the creation of desire are stages closely-related to persuasion. "Action" embraces evaluation, trial and adoption, and also describes the final decision to accept or reject, under 'RogerS' classification scheme. The addition of the confirmation function to the RogerS' model merely demonstrates a new tendency to extend research interest in the adoption-rejection process beyond acceptanceof an innovation. H . . ; .2 . . . . . he confirmation function emphaSises the distiction between the immediate sand the long—term success of an innovation. It involves the seeking of sin orcement for the decision already taken, and as a result of which an W pedopter finally resolves to settle in nto the use of the innovation, or reverse Iiis previous decision to adopt. Recent studies have determined that the innovation- decision stag ges laid (nit above often do not occur in the specified order, and some of them are sskipped by some adopters(See Beal and Rogers,1960; Rahim,1961a). However, ‘it is clear that a minimum of two stages can be differentiated in the axiODtion process: an awareness or knowledge stage, at which a potential ENiOpteF first learns about, or is introduced to, the innovation, and a ciecision stage, at which he decides to adopt or reject the innovation. 'The awareness stage will always occur before the decision stage, although 'the difference in time between the two stages may vary from only a few 3 Ho :5 utes(as in the case of a highly persuasive salesman), to many days, (Jr even many years. however, it is clearly more realistic to consider 'the innovation-decision process under at least three stages: awareness, iroterest and decision, since we don't always act on every new idea that ave are aware of. Interest may arise as re a su ult of a totally personal ea or through the engineering of external forces(e.g. sale gimmi— c} s). Decision may or may not be preceded by persuasion, evalua ti n . any order. rtance to this study is the question: what determines the leap from awareness to interest on the one hand, and-from interest U +o decision on the other? Can we isolate at least a few of the varia— “...—d- bles that accompany this leap? In seeking answers to these questions, we will compare a sample of students interested in TM twith a sample of sttdents with no such interest. In the second stage of the analysis, we will also examine possible differences between adopters and rejec- tors, both of whom had earlier demonstrated intereSt in TM by atten— ding the introductory lectures. Stages in TM adoption - : Officially, the decision to adopt (or reject) TM should come only after the following set of activities: an introductory lecture, a ‘preparatcry lecture and a personal interview.* The two lectures are public. Persons still interested in TM after the preparatory lecture arrange personal interviews with a "change agent", usually a teacher in transcendental meditation. \ For this study, the persuasion stage will be represented by the series of actions through which a potential adopter forms a favorable or unfavorable attitude to transcental meditation(TM). Primary among these are his pre-decision information-seeking behavior. This will usually take the form of discussion of TF1 with friends or neighbors etc, and may begin either before or after attendance of the introduc- tory lecture, but certainly after initial knowledge of TM. Decision of course, should come only after persuasion(or lack of it). * The TM organ nization eXpects every potential adepter to go through the lectures and have an interview but there is no evidence that some fervent adopters do not skip one or more of these stage Clear ly, so lorCr as the decision mad '8 favorable, such an action 2 2 1 v) v -- would not he frovned upon by the or gani ation. however, we realise that people may seek information on an-inno aticn even after adaptinw or rejecting it, and such activities are usually * - o "imed at acc'iring reinforcement for the decision taken. In addi cf ion, it is not always easy to tell the point at which persuasion activities end and decision is made. To get around this problem, we are taking as a specific "measure" of decision to adopt TM, the payment of a "course fee", after the personal interview, and without which a potential adopter is not guided through the actual training in transcendental meditation. Failure to pay this fee then, will constitute a decision to reject TM, at least for the moment. Non-ad0pters and Disadopters "Disadoption"describes a discontinuance, that is a decision to EEEEE. the use of an innovation after previously adepting it. It usually occurs as a "confirmation" function of the innovation-decision process as conceptualized by Rogers with Shoemaker(1971). DisadOption necessarily occurs afteg adoption, and perhaps as a result of post-adOption infor» mation unfavorable to the innovation. \ I This study focusses on the decision to accept or reject transcedental meditation, a decision that comes after the persuasion stage, and that does not extend into the confirmation stage. Rejection, in our sense, refers to non-adoption, that is a decision net to adopt, rather than a deciSion to terminate adaption. * Ehrlich and others(1957), for instance, feund that buyers of new cars sought information, after the purchase, supportive of the model they bought. Other evidence in this regards is provided by Mason(1962b,1963, 1964), and by Francis and Rogers(1962). Td?&—SU€C“€lT versus Object-bpeCiiic Innovations D We accept yogers and Shoemaker's definition of an innovation as "an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual". Newness does not stop with mere knowledge of the existence of an innova— tion. A practice continues to be new to an individual until he changes from his neutral position and either becomes involved in the practice or develOps a negative attitude to it. Just as every idea has to be an innovation at some point in time, .so every innovation must start as an idea. Furthermore, involvement in pan innovation must be preceeded by an awareness of "the idea" of the innovation, the awareness or knowledge stage. This then is the IDEA component which is essential to all innovations.- However, innovations differ in the extent to which they emphasise the idea component. For example, with ideologies, religion and rumors, acceptance of the idea is the ultimate goal. By contrast, many innova- tions ”sell" the idea only as a means of paving the way for the main "ware", usually more physical than mental. These innovations have physical referents; their idea component is accompanied by an OBJECT component whose acceptance is the ultimate goal. Most of the innovations considered in Rogers and Shoemaker(1971) are of the latter type. Agricultural diffusion ultimately demands that the adopter purchase%, borrow or rent, modern farming equipment, and/or hybridized seeds etc etc. health officials not only ask that their clients keep their environments ,lean but may also demand that they dig deep, eXpensive wells, boil their water, and wear neat clothing. Ad0p~ .. D ..- .- ~.,« .- < ~ - -: a . » -.1w - -\ uv ‘I'd ‘ ' . -:. ‘ \- 2on oi these innorations involve not only QCCGJLJUCB of the i eas but L} I ‘Q 1' N- - r x. g - ’ ‘f‘ y‘ ‘.‘ also extra LKCQL es. .' '.'\ 0 _ .L‘ . _ . . "1:. 1'1 1 re re.- - ‘ ~ r. ~ n ~ 4- , w. .' ,. - . .- _ when It nnoxauioo has only an ld91 component or emanasises the idea A " 'T" ."\V‘..' ‘ 4‘ .' "1C“; :53." f‘ "‘- ‘ -I ‘ ‘t J- ' -L. . . ° v0~T~~3nv Jouunhefa'ly more thdn he physical compo.e no, lbs adopt1on I,” r“. ... , . g" - 7‘ ix q 1' tag : .1 1 1 1 #3 ‘p -L .L -. «no no he purvically ooservaole to the e tent of innovations With '..- '3 ...? 4. ... 1 - ' r ong 1;,sice1~ r:;erents. Rogers an Shoemaker lescribe the n of Q. c+ I—Ju O in fig 1tions with onli idea components as essentially symbolic decision. .rast, innovations that have and emphasise the object components call for action adOp tion(p. 21). The descriptions "symbolic" and "action" seem to us to be inadequate because they do more than distin gtiish "idea-only" innovations from inno- vations with both idea and object components; they also suggest that the latte are more active, more lasting and generally better innovations than the former. Of course this is not the case. Religions and ideolo- gies are no less important innovations than farm tractors and hybrid The critical difference clearly, is in the extent to which each' d ea—component or the object component, and this should be the 1ev to difierentiating then. Rather than symbolic—action innova- tions we suggest idea—Specific versus obiect Specific innovations, Al. where the vormer is reserved for innovations with only idea components or emphasizing the idea components, and the latter for innovations with also physical referents which are the centre of attention. It is not totally clear into which of the two categories transcenden- tal meditation fits. It will w 9.) ppe r to qualify for description as idea- 91 pacific innovation since it has no object referent. However, institu- tional conditions imposed on the wption of TM require adOpters to pay a cou1se fee of considerable amountsCsee footnote, pa geIS ). Additional expenses of this the are thical of object~8p ec ific innovations. Never— arly on the idea, we still think e >ecific- subject to the extra cost restraint ’;'f l. Social Svstems and Innovation Behavior The Social System Theme: The "social system"theme 1s central to the diffusion of innovations. Rocers with Shoemaker(1971) named the crucial elements in the diffusion :3 process as: the communication of an innovation through certain channels, {- over time, and among members of a soc1al system. A lot has been written on the role of each of these five elements in the diffusion of new ideas. For our purpose however, we will concentrate on the effects of the social system on innovation behavior and the corresponding aspect of the extent to which an innovation may represent an instrument for social change. Although Optional decisions concern the acceptance or rejection of an innovation by individuals, the overall success or failure of an innova- tion typically is assessed in terms of the social system. Recent studies of "systems effects” indicate that an individual's innovation behavior can be explained partly by psychological and personality variables, and partly by the nature of his social system.** Let us look at each of t,“ r)“ D (J) (D sets of influences on the individual adopter. Social Systems: Social systems come in all shades and sizes but can broadly be described at two levels: one, as a concrete, interactive unit, (e.g. a family, a local church congregation, a football team): two, as a k more abstract, loosely defined unit(e.g. a tribe, The Catholic Church, * 0th er and more elaborate conceptual frameworks of the diffusion process, also employing the social system the me, have been used. Katz and thers (1963), or instance, listed seven elements: the acceptance over time, of some Specific iLem, by some adepting unit, linked to Specific cth-e ls of cornuu-cation, to ma social structure, and to a given system of values or culture. The Rogers' frameworic disregards the first element and collapses the others into a five—element definition. ‘ * See, icons others, Van den Ban(1QoO), Davis and others(1961) and ”081r{10*4), {D a ration, an agricultural e"t3ns on service etc). What then constitut the common elements of such diverse human groupings? ach elements: the presence of certain norms, statuS~roles, power and power structure, ‘21- social rank, sanctions, fa01lit1es,and territoriallty. These features are neatly combine d by Rorgers and Shoemaker(1971) in their conceptuali- L vation of a social system as ”a collectivity of units which are func- tionally clifferentiated and engaged in joint problem- solving with res- pect to a common goal." (p.28) . The common goals or ends of a social system may be explicit or impli- cit(compare a bank with a nation). In some cases, the,objectives of the system may be limited to maintaining the association between members or protecting the status quo. Whether the units are individuals or~ collectivities, each unit in a social sytem can be functionally differen- tiated from the other units. Statuses are assigned to the units-or achieved by them. Each status carries an expectation or role, based upon which the £325 of the holder is determined. Activities within the system are limited by norms, the guiding standards prescribing what is socially acceptable or unacceptable, and which are reinforced by sanctions. Facilities are the means applied by the system to attain its goals. These include physical facilities such as land, prOperty, mechanical equipment, and human facilities such as technology, knowledge and skills. While common territory may characte rise a social system, it is not essential to its definition. Concrete so ial systems tend to share common territory but the more abstract 1223311) pt. ké social units may or may not have common{1ndaries. * Charles P. Loomis and J. Allen Bee gle Rural Sociology: The Strategy of Ch3ng Prentic e—Hall, 1957. Chaote. Systems Effect 11 lationship bet-eer social systems and-innovation behavio 01 (D The r th.e individual now becomes easy to see. At one level, we can say, in the words of Rogers an d Shoemaier(197l), that "the social system constitutes a set of boundaries within which innovations diffuse"(p.29) But even . more pertinent is thelatent influence of social norms, hierachy and roles on the decision of the individual to adopt or reject an innovation. Clearly, the more rigid the norms of a social system are, the less tole- rant will be that system towards acknowledging ideas and behaviors different from the established ones.* Furthermore, the more an indivi- dual adheres to the norms of his society, the less likely he is to accept a new idea or new behavior as a substitute for the one, or ones, approved by his society. Rogers and Shoemaker Summarize this argument in one generalization: "The social structure acts to impede or facilitate the rate of diffusion and adoption of new ideas" (p.29). This study does not directly assess or compare systems effects in the manner of the typical investigation in that-area.** However, a major part of the study concerns the pattern of interpersonal influences on persons interested in TM, compared to persons who have not exhibited such interests. * It is typical to associate rigid norms with "traditional" systems and relatively flexible norms with "modern" systems (see, e.g. Van den Ban, 1960, 1963a; Qadir, 1966; Eibler,1905). This distinction is however of no significant interest to this study. ** for .SLacce Eibler(1965), Campbell and Ho (1 (See 3r3n(1 M533) . “Vls(‘qo<) and Rooers with Svennin ng i k(19 c0), Van den 195 9) Psychological and personality variables that have been eXplored in diffusion studies h've included education, cosmopoliteness, mass media eXposure, attitudes, and size of farm of ado_ters along the innovative- ness continuum. For this study, personality-related variables considered relevant are educational level, sex, age, predisposition, dogmatism, religious attitude, and attitUde to the concept of God. The rationale for the choice of these variables are presented in the chapter on methodology. TM As An Instrument For Social Change Social change is defined as the process by which alterations occur in the structure and function of a social system. The structure of a social system is the sum of the individual and group statuses which compose it. he dynamic element within this structure of statuses are the roles, or *3 S 0) t of behaviors.expected of-the units within the system. When a unit a O O] cept a pattern of behavior outside of this prescribed set, the impact thi H) 0' s deviant behavior sets into motion disturbing waves that may" reach far into the fabric of the system. Hence revolutions and wars, inventions, and the simple act of acceptance of birth control devices by a family- all.have potentials for bringing about social change (Loomis and Beagle _ The practice of transcendental meditation reportedly results in changes, for some persons drastic, in the habits and life styles of its practi- t tioners. In this sense, the acceptance of transcendental medita ion may indirectly affect the social system. This effect will become more and more obvious if, and as, transcendental meditation becomes common usage h cf- (0 among students, or in larger context of the American society. I [.8 MA I CHAPTER TWO "T"mC“V C? "°\“"C3N3s ITAL MEDTTdTlON IN AMERICA Background It is impossible to divorce transcendental meditation from its founder, ”aharishi Mahesh Yogi. It was Maharishi, a Hindu monk, who in the second half of the 1960's, and in the course of a prolonged mission to "bring transcendental meditation to the entire world", first introduced this eXperiencial aSpect of the Science of Creative Intelligence(SCI) into the United States of America.* He eventually decided to concentrate his efforts on the United States because "Americans are creative and Open to new things". His hunch paid off. In less than six years, an estimated total of 175,000 people in America had taken up transcendental meditation? By all standards, the American experience of TM is the most remarkable and most worthy of examination. The Science of Creative Intelligence is an appealing\blend of oriental Spl iritualism an) western paganism, a situationthat is perhaps explained in part by the back {ground of its chief proponent. Maharishi's earliest training was as a physicist. He graduated from Allahabad University in his native India as a physics major, then studied aSpects of the ancient Vedic tradition of India for many years, under a Spiritual teacher named Brahmananda Saraswati Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, known in the TM move- ment simply as GURU DEV, a parallel of "Divine Teacher". \ * The "Science of Creative Intelli ge nce" is the term used by Maharishi to describe his study of meditation. No do oubt, its criSp, scientific under— tone had an appeal for his audience in EurOpe and Americ , and this may have influenced his choice of the +P“m-F?TF808 with a little help from some .‘merican Iriends. m‘ .. w "- ' , . .. . 1, “ ' 4. - z‘ a guess ate 1y/2 figures. It was recxoned then that an aleragc 0. 10,000 I ... 4. N ‘0 , P .L f" o . ‘ o ”‘3 . a -L :1 ‘v -o ‘ V ‘ ’L‘ new mdflltiuflra were initiated lNLO TM in the Use every.montn. Uaharishi's sc1ent1f1c training cleariv stood him well 1n adapt 1n: e International Hedi- ' 1 ¢ 1 rd ,4. 7 ...J H D . 1 S ‘J ,4 3 v Q C"! O O O -3 :3 O 'J C“. U] 0 t“ (D 8‘0 LL (D '1 J1 O “43 C+ :3“ eticn Society the TM organization in the United States of America, are quick to point out that TM is "practical and scientifi ally verifiable". Evidence from research on the physiological and psyc holog iCal consequen— ces pile up daily.*§ So far, all the evidence are favorable to TM. Rese- arch and interview reports of the "benefits" of TM range from "reduction of stress", through "enhancement of my mental and physical capabilities", to "improvement of academic grades" and "reduction of drug usage". Trans- cendental meditation seems to attract all classes of people: youngand old, college students and college professors, businessmen and housewives. Meditation: The actual meditation is a twice-daily affair during which the meditator sits in a comfortable, upright position, with his eyes Ml sed, and lets his mind dwell on a "mantra" for about 20 minutes. The mantra is a divine chant that is assigned to the individual meditator by new» a trained teacher or initiator. * This statement is credited to Janet Hoffman, co-ordinator of TM acti- vities in New York city. It is contained in the article: "Thousands Finding Meditation Eases Stress" carried in The New York Times, December 11,1972. ** The most recent and complete report of these findings.are contained in a pamphlet entitled: Fundamentals of Progress: Scientific Research Findings on Transcendental Meditation. It‘is published by the Maharishi International University, 197%. The administration centre of the _university is at 1015 Gayley Av., Los Angeles, Cal.90024 (December,1974). mpossible (and improper) to be more explicit on the "mantra" or he other rituals of transcendental meditation because of the crecy that sorrounds the teaching of transcendental meditation. 8 of the movemer t claim that the secrecy is necessary to guide improper teaching of TM by "unauthrrized persons". H) t-4 LD (4- 'r-" t has been shown in the working of the mantra and the medi— L) tie is known for sure. Meditators however agree, and -earch appear to confirm, that the technique brings about V The effect of TM has been described as "the fourth (L (D (l) 173 "5 C; U) r!- 9} :5 Q F} (D .1 H m ,1) c t O :5 state tf consciousness", fourth that is to Meeting, dreaming and deep sleep. However, unlike the other states, transcendental meditation is reputed to bring about deep relay ation, comparaole to deep sleep, while the meditator remains "psychologically alert", that is, in a wakeful state and aware of whatever is going on around him. A I Initiation: The procedures for initiation into transcendental meditation in the United State of America and elsewhere are fairly standardized. They begin with two public lectures, Specifically referred to as an introductory lecture and a preparatory lecture. At the introductory lecture, potential adopters are formally introduced to the physical and mental gains they may eXpec t from TM. Information material are handed out. These usually include "Fundamentals of Progress", the organization's pamphlet reporting scienti- fic research findings on transcendental meditation. The audience is firmly told that TM is "not an ideology, nor a drugless high", and that it is compatible with any and all religious beliefs. At the preparatory lecture, more details on the nature of TM are given and Specific questions, usually on possible side effects of meditation, are answered. After these lectures, persons who are still interested arrange, on an individual basis, interview with an instructor in TM. Problems unique to the individual are discussed and demographic data collected, based on which the.appropriate mantra is determined. * Among the best known research in this area are those by Dr .R. Keith We.llace, “HJSlOlO7le and Dr.Heroert Benson, cardiologist and associate profess or a.t Harvard neiical School. Se e, for example, tiallace and Benson(1972): "The pflysiologj of meditati on", Scientific Ameri can, Vol.226. No.2. pp BA—QO, Feb .1972. Also Wa.llace, Benson and .'ilson(1971): "A wakeful nvno11,aoolic pd\"‘o cg ical state", American Journal of Dcv:iolor*v, Vol.22 , No.3, ”9 ~799, Se ot 1971. Both refer noes and many ozners are contained in "Vurdnme111s of Trogress", earlier mentioned. Beyond this point, each person decides whether or not he would like to go through the actual learning of tranSCLndental meditation techniques. I O O O O h * if he wishes to take instruction, he is required to pay a SpeCified iee. The T” movanent is incorporated in California as a non-profit educational . o o o o o c A ~§l§a o 1 . organization and its officials say all its income goxoack into the train- . A . ‘ ' . a . . ** ing 0: instructors and for the general running 01 the organization, The Apoeal: What, one may ask, is the appeal of transcendental medi— *ion? A number of answers have been put forward to eXplain the TM pheno- 3 U . e . . . . . . menon. On is that the timing, to put it Simply, 18 right. Transcendental 4 meditation has come at a time when interest in Eastern and Oriental mysti- cism has reached an all-time high-in America, particularly among the youth. In the Science of Creative Intelligence, Maharishi presented Pastern culture and mysticism in a form compatible with western values and life styles. Furthermore, by contrast to the other spiritual discipli- 4nes, TM is much more accessible, easier to learn, and meditators claim that its effects or results are obvious almost from the first meditation. The goal of Maharishi is to take transcendental meditation to all parts of the world, a project now seriously handled by the World Plan Executive Council (of TM) in Los Angeles, California. Maharishi sees no end to'the, good that TM Can do on a global basis: world peace through drastic reduc- tion in stress and war, renewed vigor and health for all mankind, eradi- cation of poverty from the face of the earth, to mention a few. His follo- wers, like all faithful disciples, have no doubt that this global dream would some day be realized. * In 1972, the cost of taking the course was $75 for adults,$#5 for college students, and $35 for high school students. These fees have gone up consi— derably and the cost at the moment (Dec.197h) is $125 for adults,$65 for* college students and $55 for high school students. Other categories of initiates are also accepted. These are persons aged 10-1u($35), and fami~ lies(husband, wife and children under 15) all starting on the same day ($200).'The course fee is paid in one instalment. were 2,400 ** At late 1972 figures, qualified teachers of TM in the USA - with nearly #00 chapters of the Student International Meditation Society active on USA campuses. ' CHAPTER THREE Samples from two pOpulations were used. The first is from the popula— tion of ”potential adOpters" of transcendental meditation. These are students from Michigan State University who have demonstrated interest i 'TM by attending the introductory lectures held on campus in October an November, 1974 by the Students International Meditation Society(SIMS). The second sample is from the pOpulation of students uninterested in' transcendental meditation. These students (also from Michigan State Uni- versity) have shown no interest in TM by attending an introductory lecture nor had any dealings with the SIMS in any other way. Sampling: The Problem of Randomizing Potential Adopters: The ideal sampling procedure would be to take the pepulation of potential adopters of TM in Michigan State University and randomly select from this pOpula_ tion, the Subjects for this study. However, the process by which member- ship of SIMS is acquired makes this procedure impossible. At irregular times, SIMS runs introductory lectures "for anyone intere- sted in taking the course in transcendental meditation". No conditions .3 are made as to how ct H. O '3 are Set and the lectures are public. No projec- many persons will attend each lecture and a SIMS official said attendance has ranged from "one person to over #0". In view of this, it is impossi— ile to carry out, within the pOpulatiou of potential adopte-s, random ('1 1 .' . C‘ ~- .~ . - -. 'L‘ i rt r - seieCCion o- suorects in the usual manner. C 1‘ C {L (U ’5 ' '1" U} .eff Tully, is an instructor in TM and was a q a 'c f‘ ' C ,fi‘ . .-.. C >‘ ’- . . V . .-. u SO;":tll:)V‘v: S213?“ “-1.? 9‘1/1L10en k)"1-1pl [T‘i’f‘g clamp—1.63, not .Lndl‘fldlm)'jls’ are units of randomisation for this stage of the study.* In a strict sense, pulat on of potential adopters relevant to this study is that of POTENTIAL ADOPTERS AM) POIEMTILL RFJECTORS OF TRANSCFMDENTAL MEDITATION IN MICHIGAN STATE ”‘1”“RSI IN OCTOBER AN -TEM.E?, 1974. The exhaust number of samples from this pepulation is the number-of introductory lectures run by SI“S during the period. From this list of 11 lectures, a simple random sampling was carried out to select four introductory lectures. The sampling procedure was literally drawing blindfolded from a hat. Persons who attend the lectures and were willing to participate, constituted this prOportion of the subjects for the study. To select the sample for the "No Interest" group, a systematic samp- ling of students was made using the On-Campus Students Directory, which is the only current studenté directory issued in Fall term. The students 30 drawn were contacted on the phone and as ked if they had attended a SIMS introductory lecture or had dealings with SIMS in any other way. tudents who said "Yes" to either or both questions(7 out of £2 contacted U) in two waves of sampling), were drOpped from the sample. Of the remaining, _ o- * The distinction made here between "random selection of subjects" and "simple random sampling" is important. With random selection of subjects, individual members of a known pOpulation are selected in such a manner that each member has an equal chance as any other of being selected into the sample or samples. Such a procedure is described for instance , by a lottery draw, or by the act of drawing names or numbers, blindfolded, .from a hat. With random sampling samples rather than individuals, are the iocus, and each possible sample is regarded as having an equal chance of air g selects With simple random sampling, sample units selected at each 01 aw are not replaced. In effect, simple random sampling is "random selec- tion" but of samples rather than persons. If this procedure is coupled with random selection within the sample the effect is still the same as direct random selection from the pOpulation. By asliing for' volu nteers' at the introduc ory lectures randomly seleci;ed, I am relying on a "natural" oroces s of random select ion witnin samples. For more information on this see P.oser and Kalton, Surver met: ocial Tn‘e'tvtation. Basic Books, 2nd «r3“L3“ Ed. 1972, Chs 4,5. 0 J L Pv 5-) 3:: those who consented to participate in the study(32 out of 35 ), had quest- . . , ‘ , ‘ _ ,., , .1.+ 1. , ,- a .t ionharre sent to them.ane "return rate" was better than expected: 27 out of 32 (over 80, After each lecture, potential adopters who consented to participate in the study (about a third of total attendance) were given questionnaires to com nplete. Because the greater proportion of these potential adopters were not eXpe cted to go further than the introduétory lectUre, the resear- cher ke pt in touch with the SIMS for names of other students who attended the four introductory lectures, had shown a desire to go beyond these 0 I O * O lectures, but who were not in the first wave of subjects. This procedure ()4 ' 1‘ 1.3 " s.) DU. ~14 v to bring about-two comparable groups of po mt ntial adepters ... inte erested persons who did not go beyond the introductory lectures(rejec- tors),a nd interested persongkwho actually went on to adopt(adOpters). Since the "No Interest" group was picked from the on-campus directory, comparison of this group with the "Interest" group will be made using only the proportion of potential adopters(who attended TM lectures) who indi- cate that they live on campus. Although the official expectation (naturally) is that "everyone who attends the introductory lecture will prtctice transcend3ntal meditation", 1 T” teacher told me, o;ff- tre record, that less than a quart er of the neLsons moo or tend the in ntroduc tory lectures actually go bey end this Stage of initial interest. o o n J A -‘ A 1 fl 1 ‘ rt: 14 PV )\1 \ F! 1. ' fl. ,- __. V 1. ,L .’ ..i 1r; L, __', .‘_.' .3 This study is in;e restod in exploring some variables that are presumed interest in, and the acceptance or rejection of, transcenden- ici Some of these variables are intuitively obvious: e.g. ag e sex, and educational level, all of which are demographic. Other social and personality—related variacles that call for our attention are dogma— tism, atti+ ude tovards religion and t wards the concept of God, and inter- personal influences. We shall examine the relevance of each of these variables. Age; The evidence on the relationship of age to innovativeness is incon- clusive(see Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971, p.185). However, the "generation gap" and the attendant problems resulting from differences in perceptions between persons of different ages should not be ignored in a study of innovation diffusion. Like all innovations, T? as I have erg ed, has a potential for triggering social chinge; this may represent an added appeal for the "young generation". Sex: Sex has for long been a controversial variable in persuasion es earch. As With age, empirical evidence on persuasibility attribute le rj' to sex differences is inconsistent. However, the customary, man-on-the— treet belief is that women are more persuasible than men. Since the O) persuasion st is of prime importance in the innovation-decision pro- cess, it isdtseful, and certainly not harmful, to include sex as a variable in this study. Education: Diffusion research has paid much attention to differences in educational levels of "ea lier adopters" in contrast to "later adep- ters” (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971, p.186). Relatively less atte.tion has been given to differences in educational levels of adepters and gectors of innovations at the same pOint in time. 3 Pr~ H discosition: This is a term which I am using to describe interest ..L in transcendental meditation arising from a general tendenCJ 50 be inte— rested in all :orms of meditation. A predis osed person, in this sense, would have practi‘ed at least one other form of meditation in the past, C‘ and must hold some opinion, favorable or otherwise, of the experience. "'4 {e is also likely to be interested in TE for strictly Spiritual reasons than for material or semiSpiritual considerations. Religious Attitude: cheer the attacks on the TM movement has been that it has a religious undertone and is providing haven for persons With shaky (organized) religious beliefs. This study will test for systematic differences in religious attitude between persons to whom TM appeaf5and those to whom it does not, and also between adopters and rejectors of TM. Attitude to God: All religions are rooted in a belief in God. However, in today's world, the reverse- that all beliefs in God have a base in some religion~ no longer holds. People now distinguish religious belief from "organized religion", and "deism" describes a belief in God without 6+ J 0.) O orreSponding belief in God's control over man-the basis oi organized ligion. It will be interesting to see how well (or how poorly) the religious attitudes of subjects correlate with their attitudes to the concept of God. Dogmatism: The dogmatic personality, according to Rokeach, is "exce- ssively concerned with need flfig power and status" (Rokeach, 1960,p 69). On one dimension, we see him confusing the communicator of a message with the communication, that is, reacting to messages more as a result of his rt (D 'D 1"“: {—J 'ngs for the source of information than he substance of the informa- tion. On another dimension, the dogmatic person may be "rigid-conserve- tiVe", tending to hOid strongly to a set of beliefs and giving little - ‘ , h n - U : F" - -‘ 1' 4" . —. ' ». I. ~ 4- . 4- : - I r‘" (”ACME .{Of‘ {1433! 1.53.3213. inn‘Ba'o‘Q'S COHCGDtJfllleQtLOTI 0.1 21'} uhOFiuflTiEIIJQI-“t ‘ ’- ,-, ‘p’ I ,' - - o .. ‘ ‘L' . . '. - _'\ 1 fr ' >‘e -. 1'! . a . 4-1‘ » . 4- o‘ . . . ~ . h ,L *1.“ .‘Z‘:la)%n. 'lC L-l TJAtTf‘GI’l-‘a 1.0515 '01 co;-,,zr.ati_-.v.. :11) unoriurarlamsm 1.8 a K03." COACQU-u in differentiating between ”Open" and "closed" belief systems, and the r;‘ dogmatic or authorita ian person is said to have a relatively closed Dogma and dogmatism have for long been associated with religious orthodoxy. Today, it is defined in terms not only of the church, but of all systems of belief that demand total, unflinching support. The propo- nents of transcendental meditation insist that it is non—religious, and non_ideological. Nevertheless, TM has deveIOped around an authority figure, Haharishi, and its practice, for some people, has led to "a new way of life". For these reasons, some attention will be paid to possible dogma- tic influences :: interest in, and the adOption-rejection of transcenden- tal meditation. Interpersonal Influences: Interpersonal influences represent one latent- .but powerful way by which social systems ensure adherence to their norms. o differing extent, we all endeavor to remain in the good graces of *3 those whose relationships we value, e.g. family members and close friends. Consciously or otherwise, we listen to their Opinions and seek their approval for important decisions we wish to take or have taken. This study willexamine interpersonal influences in the decision to explore TM and the ultimate decision to accept or reject it. Other variables used in the study are: Expectation from TM (material versus spiritual gainS) Opinion of TM Discussion of TM with others(nominal) Number of persons discussed TM with(ordinal) Assessment of TM introductory lecture Fraternity ties spos‘tion and interpersonal influences were scored as the 'te of four responses each to simple and direct questions. Although untested, the measurement scales must have more than average reliability because many of the responses were dichotomies. The composite score was the average of the scores for the relevant responses. '1 ous attitude and attitude to uod were taken from J. relig- } tested measurement scales. Only the itens measuring the dimensions_of interest to the study were used. The measure of religious attitude was from the "Religious attitude and philosophy of life scale" Shaw and Wright, p.348). Focus was on the two dimensions of "religious orthodoxy" U C) and "religious philosophy". For the measurement of attitude to the concept of God, items from Form A of the "Religionism Scale" were use (Shaw and wright, p.331). Items chosen measured the dimension of attitude to God. For the authoritarian measure, the short-form dogmatism scale of Trodahl and Powell, was used. The 15-item condensation of Rokeach's original scale has a reliability coefficient(cross-validation) of .73. (Trodahl and Powell, 1965). Other variables involved single questions with nominal or ordinal measurements. Nonparametric Tests L‘ In analysing thesedata, we have shown a preference for nonparametric statistical tests over their parametric counterparts for the following reasons: 1. Nonparametric tests are "distribution-free". They make no assump- tions about the parameters of the population from which the research sample is drawn. They do not assume for example, that the scores under analysis come from a population with a normal distribution. The only assumptions made in using nonparametric statistics are that the observations are independent and that the variable has under- lying continuity. Probability statements from most nonparametric statistical tests are exact probabilities regardless of the shape of the population distribution from which the random sample was drawn. Nonparametric tests are thus highly suited to analysis of field study data where no empirical evidence of the population parameters exist and where lack of control and problems of sampling might lead to violation of some of the assumptions underlying parametric tests. 2. Nonparametric tests can be applied to "rank" scores from ordinal variables and even to variables differentiated only by signs. No parametric technique applies to such data. Siegel recommends non- parametric statistical tests as the only apprOpriate tests for 6 analysis of data on nominal or ordinal scales (Siegel, 1956, p.30). 3.’ Nonparametric statistical tests are especially useful with small samples. When sample sizes are as small as n=6, and unless the r exact nature of the population distribution is known, there is no alternative to a nonparametric test. When samples are large, the power of the nonparametric test is increased even more. a. Most nonparametric tests are easy to compute even by hand. With the increasing availability of computer programs for nonparametric tests (e.g. those in version 5.8 SPSS), they have become still easier to use. -27- Problem of Unequal n's Host statistical tests comparing two or more independent samples require the same number of observations for each of the samples compared. This requirement is imposed in both parametric and nonparametric tests. With "laboratory" experiments_where the researcher determines the number of Ss in each of his conditions, it is easy to fulfill this requirement for equal n's. However, in this study as in all field studies, that level of control on number of observations per treatment group or sample is not possible.. ’ I have already mentioned the problems that were encountered in sampling adopters and nonadopters randomly and how they were resolved. Neverthe- less, the final proportion of adOpters to nonadopters still turned out to be 11 to 12 (33 adopters, 36 nonadOpters). The problem then was how to fulfil the requirement for equal n's in comparing the samples._T To resolve this problem, we used a procedure suggested by Edwards.for ceping with random loss of subjects in factorial designs (Edwards, 1950, p.216). The procedure simply is to take the smallest (or smaller) sample as the "baseline" and randomly discard observations from the larger. samples until they are brought to the same size as the smallest one. This can be accomplished with a table of random numbers.-Alternatively, 3 it can be done with the "lottery" method we used in randomly selecting introductory lectures. We used the latter method for consistency and also because the sample was small and easy to cope with. The same procedure was employed to select 27 Interested persons, from a list of 42 adopters and nonadOpters residing on campus, for comparison with the 27 Nointerest students. The "random rejection" was carried out separately for on-campus adopters(17) and nonadopters(25). This was to ensure that the differences in prOportion of adopters to nonadopters is reflected in the composition of the Interest group of 27. -28f H8: Positivity of attitude to the concept of God 77 r -L‘ "V hypotheses \ F The overriding hy otheses of this study are as follows: '65 .The median of the No;Interest gropp is significantly less than the median of the Interest group for the Variables: Expectation from TM H2: Opinion of TM Discussion of TM with others . H“: No. of persons discussed TM with H5: Interpersonal_Influences H6: Dogmatism The median of the No-Interest group is significantly greater than the median of the Interest group for the variables. H : Religiosity The median of Nohafipter’s. is Slgnxfzc‘antly: less than the median of ighadopters for the variables: H9: Expectation from TM 10‘. Opinion of TM 11: Discussion of TM with others H - No. of persons discussed TM with -29- H13: Interpersonal influences ”14‘ Assessment of TM introductory lecture H15: Dogmatism. The median of Nonadopters is significantly greater than the median of AdoEters for the variables: H16: Religiosity H17: Positivity of attitude to the concept of God These hypotheses involve one-tailed tests (nonparametric) with two independent samples. The Mann—Whitney U test will be employed to test these hypotheses. In each case, the null hypothesis is that the two samples beingcompared(Interest-No-Interest, Adopters-NonadOpters) are from pepulations with the same median. hence from the same distribution. The null hypothesis of no difference in median will be rejected only for.significance at .05 level and lower. ‘ -30- Guiding Propositions taos" runs will be made to reveal the distribution of scores on m the variables. Guiding prOpositions rather than strict hypotheses will govern the interpretation of this aspect of the analysis. * Greater proportion of adapters: * _heard of TM in the last two years * _heard of TM through interpersonal media(e.g. friends . and family members) *--asked SIM for information on TM * —had practiced at least one other form of meditation 0 * Greater proportion of freshmen and sophomores adopted than rejected TM; 31‘ Greater pr0portion of freshmen and sophomores than other classes adOpted TM; * Greater prOportion of female than male adopted TM; 1:: Greater propotion of the students under 21 years old adopted TM than rejected it; * reater proportion of the students under 21 than students over 21 Gadopted TM. * Greater prOportion of Interest Group members eXpect spiritual benefits from TM than expect nonspiritual benefits; * Greater preportion of Interest group members hold favorable opinion of TM than hold hold indifferent and unfavorable TM Opinion; * Greater prOprtion of female than male in the No-interest group discussed TM. . -31- CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF DATA AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ANALYSIS Tests of Hypotheses TABLE 1 Mann-Whitney U test comparing the Interest Group and the No-interest Group_on 8 variables Rank Sum No-interest Interest Significance Group Group U (n=27) (n=27) level Expectation * from TM 596 889 218 .0052 Opinion of TM 499 986 121 .ooo’” Discussed TM 675 810 297 .173 No.0f persons discussed TM . with 685 801 307 .280 Interpersonal influences 663 823 285 .135 Dogmatism 729 756 351 .738 . . . 4% Relig1051ty 998 537 159 .000 Attitude to God 891 594' 216 .003* ‘* Significant at .05 level -32- The null hypothesis is rejected for H1 (Expectation), H2 (Opinion), H7 (Religiosity) and‘H8 (Attitude to God). Not only are the two groups significantly different (at .05 level) on these variables but the directions of difference hypothesized are supported. Students who have attended.a TM introductory lecture(whether or not they ultimately adapted TM) eXpected significantly more spiritual benefits from invOlvement in transcendental meditation, than students who have demonstrated no such interest in TM; the former also hold significantly more favorable opin— ion of transcendental.meditation. By contrast, students who have shown no interest in TM are significantly more religious and hold more-positive attitude to the concept of God. , i 1 Although the difference in the extent to which interested students and non-interested students discussed TM with others is not significant at .05 level, the expected direction of difference is borne out. There is absolutely no difference between the two groups on their measures of dogmatism. -33- TABLE 2 Mann—Whitney U test comparing Adopters and Nonadopters on 10 variables Rank Sum Nonad0pters Adopters U Significance (n=27) (n=27) level Expectation '* .' s from TM 912 1300 _ 351 .0054 Opinion of TM - 1072 1138 512 .395 Discussed TM 1056 1155 495 .382 No.0f persons discussed TM with . 1044 1167 483 .385 Interpersonal influences 1062 1149 501 . .513 Assessment of TM introductory lecture 1085 , 1127 524 .730 Dogmatism 1089 1121. 528 '.767 Religiosity A 1185 ' 1026 465 .240 Attitude to God 1244 968 407 .042* Age 962 ' 1249 401 .041” * Significant at the .05 level The null hypothesis of "no difference" is rejected for the variables Expectation, Attitude to God, and Age. The directions of the one-tail tests are supported for the hypotheses on the first two variables(H and . w 9 H17) but not for Age(H18). -34- Students who adopt TM show significantly greater spiritual expecta-_ tions than material expectations. The converse holds for students who fail to adopt TM after attending the lectures. Adapters and.nonadopters differ in the extent of their religiosity but not significantly so. In contrast, the two groups are significantly different in the positivity of their attitude to God. Nevertheless the direction of difference in religiosity is consistent with the hypothesis and with the direction of difference in attitude to God. The Kendall correlation of religiosity and attitude to God for adopters and nonadop- ters combined is .64, which is just above the .50 mark but positive and significant at the .001 level. The result of the test on age differences between ad0pters and nonadop- ters poses an interesting problem. While the null hypothesis should be rejected, the actual direction of difference makes it impossible for us to accept our research hypothesis. The rank sum on age for adapters is higher than that for nonad0pters. This is the opposite of the direction stipulated by Hypothesis 18. Therefore, while we reject the null hypo- thesis, we cannot accept the research hypothesis that nonadopters have greater median in age than adopters. Nevertheless, we will like to take note of the significance of the difference in age between adopters and nonadopters and comment on it during later breakdown of the data, There is no support for the hypotheses that adopters and nonadopters differ significantly on the variables Opinion of TM(H10), Discussed TM (H11), No.0f Persons discussed TM with(H12), Interpersonal influences(H13) Assessment of lecture(H14), Dogmatism(H15), and Religiosity(H16). For these variables, we cannot reject the null hypothesis. Hewever, the direc- tion of difference on dogmatism should be noted as indicatite of Slightly greater dogmatism measures for adepters. -35- Fastab Runs: Interest Group versus No—Interest Group TABLE 3(b) TABLE 3(a) Fastab run:Interest by TMOpinig: Fastab run: Interest by Expeptation . Unfav. Indiffe- Pay Non- Moderate High spiritual spirit. spirit. orable rent .- No-Interest\ 7- 2 ' No—Interest 1 18 8 (n=27). ; (67%) (26%) (7%) (“'27) (3%) (67%) (30%) Interest 7 16 4 Interest 0 1 26 (n=27) (26%) (59%) (15%) _ (“‘27) (4%) (96%) . . Chi-square=25.7 with 2 df Raw ch1-square=9.03 With 2 df . . _ . _ Significance=.011; Kendall r=.369 Signif.—.OOO, Kendall r—.68 TABLE 3(c) TABLE 3(d) ‘ . . . Fastab Run: Attitude to God by Fastab Run. Relig1031ty by Interest Interest Religiosity Positivity No-Int. Interest of attitude ( Low 2 _ 3 to GOd No-Int Interest n=5 a r (140/0) (60/9) LOW O 0 Moderate 9 24 (n=O) ' (tr-=33) . 0.. . (27%) (736) Moderate 8 19 High' 16 0 (n=27) "(30%) (70% (TY-‘16) (100%) High 19 8 (“227) (70%) (30%) Raw chi—square=23.02 with 2 df Sign1f.=.000: Kendall r= -'548 Chi-square(corrected)=7.41 with 1 d Signif.=.0065; Kendall r= —.408 Fastab runs were made for the four variables that were significant in the two-sample test of differences between the Interest and Non—Inte— rest groups. Expectation from TM: Seventy-four percent (20 out of 27) of the students who attended the TM lectures(thereby demonstrating their interest) indi— ted that they eXpected_spirtual benefits from practicing TM. Only 26% of this group(7 out of 27) gave non—spiritual benefits as their reasons for __36 -37- interest in TM: In contrast, 67% Of the NO-Interest group(18 Of 27) reported non—spiritual or material benefits as reasons that would warranirtheir interest in TM, and only 33% (9 of 27) gave spiritual gains as reasons that would justify such interest. Pre—coded responses ‘ in the non-spiritual category included: "to help my financial situation and/or business", "to keep me occupied", "to satisfy my curiosity", while reSponses in the spiritual category included: "help me know more about God? and "help me find inner peace". Thesefindings support" the prOposition that the greater proportion of the interest group eXpect spiritual rather than material benefits from TM. Opinion Of TM: Sixty-seven percent of the N041nterest.group(18 of 27) were indifferent to transcendental meditation. Thirty-percent (‘8 of 27) expressed favorable Opinion of TM while one of the 27 gave an unfavora- ble Opinion Of TM. By comparison, all but one of the 27 students in the‘ Interest group(96%) expressed favorable opinion of TM. One was indiffe— rent to TM and none gave an unfavorable Opinion of TM. This also supports the proposition that the greater proportion Of persons interested in TM will express favorable opinion Of the practice. Religiosity: All 16 persons who scored high on the religiosity mea- sure were in the Nos—Interest group. Seventy-three percent of those with moderate religiosity scores(24 Of 33) and 60% Of those with low reli- giosity scores(3 of 5) were‘in the Interest group as compared with 27% (moderate) and 40%(low) for those in the NO-Interest group. A greater proportion Of the students who had shown no interest in TM had higher religiosity scores in comparison to students who had shown such an 7 interest. -38- Positivity of attitude to God: Seventy percent of $5 with moderately positive attitude to God scores(19 of 27), and only 30% with highly positive God-attitude(8 of 27) were in the Interest group. For the NO-Interest group, the situation is reversed: 70% have high positive scores and 30% have moderately positive scores. Fastab runs were also made to understand the score distribution for a number Of other variables. Time of first Knowledge of TM: Fifty-seven percent Of the Interest group(15 of 27) heard of TM only within the last two years. Half as many(7) first heard of TM two to four years ago, and 15%(4 Of 27), heard» more than four years ago. 0f the NO-Interest group, 48%(13 of 27) first heard Of TM between 2 and 4 years ago, 19%(5 of 27) heard more than four years ago,and 33%(9 Of 27), first heard Of TM in the last two years, This indicates that more students with expressed interest in TM heard of the practice more recently than their counterparts with no interst in TM. v This finding aroused our curiosity as to possible influence of age differences between members of the Interest and NO-Interest groups. Seventy percent of the Interest group(19 of 27) and 82% of the No-Inte— rest group(22 of 27) were under 21. Fifteen percent Of each group(4 of 27) were between 21 and 23, while 15%(Interest) and 4%(NO-Interest). were 23 and older. These differences in age were not significant at the .05 level (chi-square significance=.364). Furthermore, the Kendall corre- lation of Age and Interest is only .144. It appears that the difference in time Of first knowledge of TM between the Interest and the No-Interest groups is merely random. It is not significant at the .05 level(chi-square significance: .183). -39- rmore, if the proportion of students who heard Of TM during the '9 6 th (D L‘- last four years is combined in each group, there is little difference between the remaining proprtion who first heard of TM more than four years ago (18% for No-Interest, 15% for Interest). Medium Of First Knowledge Of TM: About half the proportion of both ' groups (14 of 27), first heard of TM through the mass media. However, twice as many Of the Interest group as the No-Interest group(11 to 6), first heard of TM from interpersonal, face—to-face sources(family, close friends and neighbors). The mass media sources were print(newspaper, magazines, pamphlets, books etc), and electronic(radio, television, telephone etc). Discussion of TM: About 50% of each of the Interest and NO-Interest groups did not discuss TM with anyOne. However, twice as many persons in the Interest group as in the NO—Interest group (18 to 9) discussed M with at least one person. Eleven persons in the Interest group(40%), and 9 in the NO-Interest group(33%) discussed TM with two or more persons. PrOOfLOf4Appr0priateness.of N0;Interest.Ggoup Selectiop: The breakdown Of the Interest and No-Interest groups on Educational level(Class) and Age provided good proof of the appropriateness and randomness of the procedure used in selecting the NO-Interest group for comparison with the Interest group. There is no significant difference between the two groups in Age and Education-which is to be eXpected since both samples were from the same educational institution. The chiusquare test Of the difference in Age was significant at .364 level while that for Education was significant at .544 level. Further breakdown of the NO-Interest Group The sample comprised 12 male and 15 female students. Twenty-two of these were under 21 years of age, four were between 21 and 22, and one was 23 and above. The educational level of the Ss corresponded closely with their age: 22 were freshmen or SOphomore, three were junior or senior, and the remaining two were graduate students. There is no significant difference between male and female NO-Interest students, proportion-wise, in their scOres on dogmatism. religiosity, and positivity of attitude to God. About 75% in each category had modera— te dogmatism score(significance:.78). ROughly half of the high religio— sity scores went to each sex(significance: .26), while 53% of the males (10 of 190 and-47% of the females(9 of 19) had high attitude-to-God‘ scores(significance: .37). In line with expectation (see propositions), greater prOportion Of female than male(62% to 38%) in the No-Interest group had discussed TM with someone. In addition, Of the 8 who discussed TM with two or more persons who were close friends or relatives, 5 were female. In the NO-Interest group as a whole, three(out of 27) discussed TM with two or more close friends or relatives who were TM meditators. Four had discussed TM with close friends or relatives who were not TM meditators Eleven of the 18 persons who saw only non—spiritual benefits from interest in TM had talked to no one about TM. Surprisingly, neither Of the two persons who felt high spiritual benefits accrue from involvement in TM had discussed the practice with anyone. However, six of the seven 83 who saw moderate spiritual gains from TM had discussed TM with at least one person. -40- I I i l l l l i -41- Thirteen of 18 persons with views of non—spiritual benefits from TM were indifferent to the practice while four expressed favorable Opinion Of TM. Of the seven who saw moderate Spiritual gains from TM, four held favorable opinion of the practice and three were indifferent to it. Of some importance, the two persons who saw high spiritual expectation from involvement in TM still eXpressed neutral, indifferent opinion of the practice. Fastab Runs: Adapters versus Nonadopters TABLE 4(a) Fastab: Adaption by ExPectation Non- '..Moderate. High. spiritual spirit. spirit. Nonadopters 13 18 2 ( =33) (39%) (55%) (6%) Adapters 5 19 9 (n=33) (15%) (58%) (27%) * Chiesquare:8.04 with 2 df. Signif.= .018 Kendall r: .33 TABLE 4(b) Fastab: Adoption by Attitude to God Negative Moderate High Positive Positive, NonadOpters O 12 21 ("‘33) (36%) (64%) Adapters 1 1 . 19 13 (“‘33) (3%) (58%) (39%) * Chi-squarez4.46 with 2 df. Signif.= .10? Kendall r: .25 TABLE 4(c) Fastab: Adoption by Age w? Under 21 21-22 23 1 above U?fi:§6§1 Napadapters 22 7 4 n=33 21-22 (67%) (21%) (12%) (n=17) Adapters 14 10 9 (n=33) (42%) (30%) (27%) 23& apgve n: ’* Chi—square: 4.23 with 2 df. Signif.= .12 .Kendall r: .241 ' TABLE 4(d) Nonadppt. Adapters 22 14 (61%) (39%) 7 10 (41%) (59%) 4 ' 9 (31%) (69%) ( Fastab: Age by Adoption -42.. IExpectatiOn from TM: More than twice as many nonadopters as adopters (13 to 5) indicated that they were interested in TM for nonspiritual reasons. By contrast, 27% Of the adapters(9 of 33) and only 6% of the nonadopters(2 Of 33) had high spiritual expectations Of TM. About half the proportion in each group had moderate spiritual expectations. Positivity Of Attitude to God: SiXtyefour percent of the nonadopters (21 of 33) had high positive scores on the attitude to God scale, com- pared to 39% (13 of 33) Of the adapters. None of the nonadOpters had a negative score while one of the adopters did. However, 58% adopters - (19 Of 33) compared to 36% NonadOpters(12 Of 33), had moderate positive SCOPBS. 5gp; The greater prOportion in each group is of students under 21 years of age, while the smallest proportion are over 22. (see Table 4(c) ). This tallies with the educational level distribution of the Interest group most Of whom were freshmen and sophomores (see page 40). . However, of all the students under 21, 61% (22 of 36) did not adopt TM while 39% (14 Of 36) adapted it (Table 4(d) ). By contrast, 69% Of the students over 22 (9 of 13) adapted TM while 31% (4 of 13) did not. Thus while about twice as many students under 21 rejected TM than adopted it, More than twice as many students Over 22 adapted TM than rejected it. Fastab runs were made for a number other major variables. Time and Medium: Sixty-seven percent(22 of 33) adopters heard of TM in the last two years as against 61%(19 Of 32) of the nonadopters. Forty- two percent of the adapters(14 of 33) heard of TM through interpersonal, face-ta-face medium, as compared with 52% (17 of 33) of the nonadopters. Forty-six percent adopters (15)‘and 42% nonadopters(14) first heard of TM through the mass media(radio,television, print) Use of official sources(SIMS): Only six adopters(18%) and 8 nonadOpters ;. (24%) indicated that they had ever contacted SIMS, the official organ of TM in Lansing, to ask for information on transcendental meditation. Practice of other meditation forms: Contrary to expectation, only two persons out of the total sample of 66 adaptersand nonadopters(3%) had practiced any other kind of meditation. Both persons had favorable opinion of their experience with the other meditation forms but Only one I adopted TM. The'measure' Of "predisposition" which was a coMposite of t ‘ l scores on past meditation and expectation from TM showed that 63% of the l I adapters(ZO of 33) as against 52% of the nonadopters(17 of 33) were moderately predisposed to TM. In addition, 42% nonadopters as compared with 31% adopters had no noticeable predisposition to TM. Discussion of TM: Fifty-one of the 66 adapters and nonadopters(77%) had discussed TM with at least one person. Fifty-three percent of these (27 of 51) adapted TM.-Fifty-eight percent of the adapters(19 of 33) versus 49% nonadopters(16 of 33) talked to two or more persons on TM. Close-ta twice as many adopters as nonadOpters(15 to 9) discussed TM with persons who were relatives or close friends. Also, about twice as many adapters as nonadOpters(11 to 6) discussed TM with two or more persons who were already practicing transcendental meditation. On the whole, 24 Of the 66 adapters and nonadopters(36%) discussed TM with relatives or friends, and 39 (60%) had discussed TM with at.1east one person who was aTM Meditator. i Interpersonal Influences: On the interpersonal influence measure, which is a composite of the scores on the four variables that have to do with Idiscussion of TM, 67% of the adapters(22 of 33) had high scores as compa- red with 60% of the nonadOpters(ZO of 33). Fifteen percent adapters as against 12% nonadopters(4) had maderate interpersonal influence scores while 18% adapters(6 of 33) versus 27% nonadopters(9 of 33) had no noticeable'interpersonal influence'. Thus adopters appear to have a 'slightly higher measure of interpersonal influence than nonadopters. Opinion of TM and Assessment of Lecture: Interestingly, not one of the 66 adapters and nonadopters expressed an unfavorable Opinion of TM. This . seems consistent with the reasoning that attendance of a TM introductory lecture was indicative of at least a partial interest in transcendental. meditation. Thirty-one adapters(94%) and 29 nonadopters(88%) were favora- ble to the practice Of TM while the remaining were indifferent. V Twenty—five Of the33 adopters(76%) as against 23 of the nonadopters (70%) assessed the introductory lecturesthat they attended as'convincing! .Twelve percent adapters and 6% nonadopters evaluated the lectures as 'unconvincing: while 12% adapters and 24% nonadopters were indifferent. Religiasity: Although 61% of both adapters and nonadopters(zo of 33) scored low on the religiosity measure, a greater prOportion of nonadop- ters than adopters(33% to 24%) had high religiosity scores. Nonadopters seem to be more religious than adopters but not significantly so. Further Breakdown of Adapters Group The 33 adopters consisted of 20 males(61%) and 15 females(39%). 0f the 33, fourteen(42%) were under 21, 10(30%) were between 21 and 22, and 9(27%) were 23 and older. None of the adopters younger than 23 had heard of TM before 4 years ago. Eighteen of the 24 adapters in this age group(75%) heard of TM for the first time, during the last two years. _ Of the 22 in all age groups who heard of TM in the last two years, eight(36%) heard of the practice through the mass media(radio, television etc), while 11 or 50% heard of TM from friends, relatives or neighbors. Twenty-seven of the adopters(82%) had talked to someone about TM before attending the introductory lectures. Of these, 17 were males, mare than half of whom had first heard of TM from friends, relatives or neigh- bars. About the same proportion Of the females who discussed TM(10) had also first heard of the practice in face-tO-face situations. None of the adapters who eXpressed neutral opinion of TM had heard of the practice in face-to-face circumstances. By contrast, over half of the 31 adopters who held favorable Opinion of TM had first heard of TM in face-to-face situations. Ninety-four percent of the males(16 Of17) and 90% of the females (9 of 10) who discussed TM with someone, also held a favorable Opinion ‘ of TM. Eighty percent of the males who discussed TM had such dicussion with persons who were TM meditators, as compared with 60% of the females. Over 80% of each sex expressed interest in TM for moderate to high spiritual reasons. Twenty-six Of the 28 adopters(84%) who expected moderate or high spiritual benefits from TM also held favorable opinion Of TM. -46- ‘-47- There was high correspondence between Opinion of TM held by adopters and.their assessment of the introductory lectures that they attended.‘ Twenty-three of the 31 adopters who had favorable Opinion of TM(74%) also assessed the lectures as convincing. Thirteen percent(4 of 31) were neutral or indifferent, and the same proportion assessed the lectures as unconvincing. About 75% of each sex had moderate dogmatism scores. None of the females had a low score on either the religiosity or the attitude to God scales. However, 25% of the males(5 of 20) had low religiosity scores and five percent of the males(i of 20) also had a low attitude to God score . Further Breakdown of the NonadOpters Group The 33 nonadopters consisted of 21 males(64%) and 12 females(36%). Twenty-one of the 23 (66%) were under 21, seven(22% were 21-22, while four(12%) were 23 or older. The largest proportion of the nonadopters under 23(61%) heard of TM in the last two years while half of the over-23's heard of TM for the first time more than four years ago. Sixty-three percent of the nonadopters who heard of TM in the last two years(12 of 19) did so through friends, relatives or neighbors. Only half of this proportion first heard of TM through the mass media. In contrast, 67% Of the nonadopters who first heard of TM more than four years ago(4 of 6), heard through the mass media(radio, television, books, newSpapers etc) and half this proportion heard from friends; relatives or neighbors. These figures, interestingly, agreed closely with those for the adopters: 63% of the adopters who heard of TM only in the last - two years(14 of 22) did so in face-tO-face situations, while 67% of the adopters who had known of TM for four or more years heard of TM through the mass media. It would appear that the most cannon channels involved in the prapagation of TM had shifted from mass befOre the 70's, to the more interpersonal media in recent years. Seventy-two percent of the nonadopters(24 of 33) had discussed TM . prior to attending the introductory lectures. Fifteen Of these(63%) had discussed TM with two or more persons. Six of these 15(40%) had discussed TM with two or more persons who were TM meditators. Eighty-eight percent of the nonadopters who heard of TM in face- to- face situations(15 of 17) and all 14 who heard of TM first via the mass media, held favorable Opinion of TM. This distribution is significant on a chi-square test at .0003. All nine female and 13 of 15 male- nonadOpters who discussed TM also held a favorable Opinion of the practice. Twelve of the 21 male nonadop- ters(57%)were interested in TM for moderate to high spiritual reasons compared to 8 of the 12 female nonadopters(67%). . Ninety-two percent of the nonadopters who expressed no substantial ,Spiritual interest in TM(12 of 13) nevertheless still held a favorable Opinion of the practice. Over 70% of the nonadopters who held favorable opinién of TM(21 of 29)assessed the introductory.lectures as convincing, 20%(6 of 29) were indifferent and 7%(2 of 29) evaluated the lectures as 'unconvincing. _About 85% of each sex had moderate dogmatism scores and 9% scored high on the dogmatism scale. Fifty-eight percent of the female nonadOp- ters(7 of 12) and 19% of the males(4 of 21) had high religiosity scores *while 76% of the males(16 of 21) and 33% of the females(4_of 12)_also had moderate religiosity scores. In addition, 75% of the females(9 of12) and 57% of the males(12 of 21) had high attitude to God scores. Dogma- tism and religiosity appear to discriminate between adapters and non- adopters but not significantly so. Important No-Interest Group (n-ZZ) TIME= Time of first know- ' ledge of TM MEDIUM= Medium of first knowledge of TM SEX= Sex of respondents AGE: Age of reapondents TMOPIN= Opinion of TM ADOPTN= Whether adOpted p or rejected TM WHYTM = Expectation from TM ASSESS= Assessment of TM lectures TABLEA5(a) Correlations Key to Variable Labels MajOr Correlations: No-Interest Group RELIGN= TALKTM= MANY = CLOSE= TMMED= Religiosity Positivity of attitude to God Dogmatism Education level (class) whether or not respondent discu- ssed TM with some- one How many persons respondents.discu- ssed TM with How close a rela- tionship responder had with persons discussed TM with wa*many of MANY are TM meditators Corre- lwithl . .- Variable lation Corr. Corr. . of Corre- of Variable Variable lation Variable WhyTM Sex .33 . Many Relign God .78* Time God Dogma .31 TalkTM TalkTM Many .91* Many Many Close .84* Educ Close TMOPIN .50* TalkTM TMOPIN Dogma -.39 TMmed. Relign Dogma .38 . Close TalkTM Close .77* *- -50- TMmed, .51* age TMmed “037 .5#*. TMOpin '.37 Age- .77* TMOpin .#1*. TMOpin .#1* TMmed .39 Correlation of .50 and above. All correlations are Kendall nonparametric. -51- Adopters (n=33) TABLE 5(b) Major correlations: Adapters Corr. . Corr. of‘ with Corre- of ' with Corre- ‘Variablel 'yariable lation Variablel [Variable lation 'Medium 'Assess -.uz . Dogma Close -.40 Pfiedium _» TMmed .36 TalkTM Many .72* Age Educ .57* w . TalkTM Close .54* ' TMOpin ' God -.31 TalkTM TMmed .50* .Assess- . God -.31. ' Many Close ..58* Relign God .69* Many TMmed .54* God. Dogma -.31 Close TMmed ' .35 * Correlations of .50 and above. All correlations are Kendall nonparametric. . Nonadopters (n=33) . TABLE 5(a) Major correlations: Nonadopters Corr. ‘ . Corr. of. with‘ Corre- of. with| . ..Corre- Variable lVariablelat1on Var1able Variable _lation Time TMmed -.#2 Dogma » TMmed -.38 Medium .TalkTM .33 TalkTM Many .79* Sex Relign .33 TalkTM Close .56* Sex ' Educ -.32 TalkTM ' TMmed' .63* Age Relign -.33 Many » Close .58* WhyTM g Close .31 Many‘ TMmed .63* Assess God . -.48 I Close TMmed .52* Relign Educ «.35 .* Correlations of .50 and above. All correlations are Kendall nonparametric. -53.. Open—Ended Questions. 0.3 (No-Interest Group questionnaire): "Why have you never attended a TM lecture(introductory lecture on TM held on campus and in town?" Responses: -- Never knew of any —- No distinct interest —- No interest -- Couldn't make the scheduled times -- No time -- Didn't feel it was worth the money -- Never heard where lectures held -- There was never one held when I had free time -- Didn't know that much about it ;- Not curious enough -- No time: never really thought much about it -- TM is merely a false form of release from everyday problems and responsibility (John 1h:6) -- Lack of time and money kept me away DISCUSSION Adopters and nonadOpters differed most in their expectations from TM. More of the adapters than the nonadopters'expressed interest in TM for Spiritual rather than non-Spiritual(material) reasons (Mann-Whitney U test significant at .005). Both groups held favo- rable Opinion of TM and felt that the introductory lectures which they attended were convincing. About equal number of adOpters as nonadopters had discissed TM with at least one person prior to atten— ding the introductory lectures. However, twice as many adopters compared to nonadopters had such discussion with persons who were relatives or close friends, rather than mere acquaintances. The impact of.mass and interpersonal media in disseminating infor- mation on TM was comparable for both adopters and nonadOpters: about half of each group first heard of TM via radio, television, print etc(mass media), while the other half first heard of TM in face-to-_ face encounters, mainly with friends and relatives(interpersonal media). However, stronger interpersonal influences on adopters are indicated at the persuasion-decision stages: twice as many adOpters. as nonadopters discussed TM with close friends and relatives mgrg than 70% of whom were already practicing transcendental meditation. Thus while both mass and interpersonal media were active in disse- minating initial information on TM (knowledge stage), the interper- sonal channels appear to have played a more important role at the -53- -54- persuasion and decision stages. This finding is consistent with the literature on the diffusion of innovations (see Rogers and Shoemaker, p.382, generalization 8-1). The comparison Of the Interest and No-Interest groups showed that the two groups were statistically most different in their opinion of transcendental meditation and on the religiosity measures (Mann- Whitney U test significant at .00 for both variables). While 18 of the 27 subjects in the No—Interest group were indifferent to TM, all but one of the 27 subjects in the Interest group held favorable Opinion of the practice.AJl.16 subjects who had high scores on the religiosity measure were in the No-Interest group, while all the 27 members of the Interest group had low or moderate religiOsity scores. Thus the subjects in the Interest group were systematically more favo-j rable to TM but showed less preference for conventional religions. The Interest and NO-Interest groups also differed significantly in their expectation from TM and their attitude to God, with the Interest group showing greater preference for TM for spiritual rather than nonspiritual reasons but less willing to accept conventional precepts on God.' As in the comparison of adopters and nonadopters, both mass and interpersonal media played important part in first knowledge of TM reported by both the Interest and No—Interest groups. However, twice as many of the subjects in the Interest group as compared with the No-Interest group had discussed transcendental meditation (TM) with one or more persons. The findings of this study raise several important questions.- First, considering the similarity of TM Opinion and assessment of introductory lectures by both adopters and nonadopters, how can we eXplain the difference in ultimate decision by the two groups? In an attempt to answer this question, we decided to contact again a cross-section of the nonadOpters. We encountered some prob- lem in this regard. Many of the subjects had changed residence since November and only a few had left forwarding addresses. We finally located eight nonadopters contacted in a random order from the list of nonadOpters. Six of the eight indicated they could not "afford" the $65 course fee needed for initiation into TM. Three of these added that taking up TM was "not worth the money" asked for, but said they might be willing to pay "a maximum Of 20 to 30 dollars" for initiation. Five of the eight were still favorable to TM while three were neutral. Only one had talked to someone about TM after the lectures. Could it be that the adOpters had more money to spend than the nonadopters? Alternatively,.was the financial question merely hiding some other factor, for example, differences in depth of initial interest in TM? The second line of reasoning was particularly intriguing to us because in the statement "TM is not worth the money", "worth" could be interpreted in terms Of how much "gain" or benefit a subject expected from taking up TM. If this reasoning is correct, the "worth" perceived in taking up TM should be closely related to the depth Of interest in TM indicated before final decision to adOpt or reject was made. To clarify this issue, we re-examined adopters and nonadOp— ters on the depth of their interest in TM. -56- A substantially greater prOportion of the students who had indica- ted high spiritual interest in TM adopted TM than rejected it(83% compa- red to 18%). By contrast, a substantially greater prOportion of those who had expressed no noticeable spiritual interest in TM rejected rather than adopted TM(72% compared to 28%). It will appear that what we have here is not a case Of adOpters having more money to spend but Of adOp- ters having MORE WILLINGNESS than nonadOpters to Spend money on TM to the tune required. This alternative explanation makes more sense to us. Second, the traditional notions of religion and of GOd seem to appeal less to most Of the subjects with spiritual interest in transcendental meditation. Does interest in TM reflect a search_by the colleg; students concerned for a substitute to present definitions of organized religion and the pOpularly held concepts of God? We are inclined to give an.affirmative answer to this question. We note that some of the subjects in the NO—interest category indicated that they are not interested in TM precisely because they were satisfied‘ with their present religions. In response to the question:"Why have you never attended a TM lecture?", one subject even directly affirmed that TM was "a false religion" and cited the Bible as his authority. Conver- Sely, subjects who were highly interested in TM for spiritual rather than nonSpiritual reasons at the same time felt less willing tqfiizggi .tional religious cOncepts. It seems to us that all the subjects were eXpreSSing a need for Spiritual satisfaction but seeking fulfilment in different ways: for adopters and nonadopters, in TM, for the No-intere- st group, in the more conventional religious practices. -57- This is not to say that the gglg reason for meditation by students is lack of interest in conventional religions. Certainly, an adopter of TM who finds his or her eXpectations from TM fulfilled is likely to settle into TM as a good and useful practice in itself. Nevertheless, it seems to us that a rejection, or perhaps a questioning, of organi- zed religious practices coupled with a Search for alternative media for spiritual fulfillment, may play an important part in these subjects' initial interest in transcendental meditation, as perhaps, in other forms of meditation. ' A third interesting issue arising from the findings that we will like to discuss concern the use Of official TM sources. Only 14 of the 66 adopters and nonadopters indicated that they had ever contacted SIMS, the Official TM organization in Lansing, to ask for information on transcendental meditation. Thus about 80% of the subjects got involved in TM following "passive" informatiOn from SIMS rather than- through their own active effort. This suggestsa greater demand on SIMS to "take TM to the people". This finding is compatible with the role Of the change agent as defined by Rogers and Shoemaker, which includes creating in clients awareness of the need for change while pointing out the suitability of his suggested solution (p.229). -58- We will also like to give some thought to the methodology used in this study with particular attention tO the randomness Of the samples and the generalizability of the findings. Most diffusion studies use descriptive statistics in analysing their data. We are aware of the apprOpriateness of descriptive statistics for field studies but we have consciously applied both inferential and desc- riptive statistics in analysing these data to demonstrate the utility of the former in non-laboratory research. This then raises the question Of a possible violation of the randomness aesumption made in using inferential statistics. In a strict statistical sense, the randomness of our adopters and nonadopters groups can be questioned. In choosing these groups, we have relied on what we shall call "natural", rather than "mani- pulative" procedures. While this is unconventional, we nevertheless feel that the effect Of sampling bias, if at all present, is very minimal. Our rationale for making this claim is as follows: lectures oanM are given from fall term through spring term. While the size of attendance may differ, we see no reason to believe that students 'attending a set of lectures during any one term could differ: non- randomly from those in any other terms wtth regards to our main variables, such as Opinion Of TM, expectation from TM, dogmatism, religiosity and interpersonal influences. Also, the choice of the specific lectures from which the subjects were "picked" was randomly made, and only students who volunteered were used in the study. In addition, we feel that the size Of our samples gives us an adequate measure of confidence in the data. -59- Two aspects of generalizability arising from this deserves comments. First, generalizabilty to student population; second, generalizability to non-student population. Our third sample, that Of the No-Interest grou, was picked from the students' directory using a procedure described by Moser and Kalton(1972) as "quasi- random sampling" in that the name list in the students' directory, although systematic, was ordered alphabetically, a dimension of no relevance to our study. Quasi—random Sampling usually produces a more even spread of in the sample over the population list than does total random sampling. We thus feel that our samples are not biased 'and our findings are generalizable to the student population in Michigan State University. Confidence in generalizing the findings to college students.in the United States of America in general, can of course, come only through support from replications of this study elsewhere. The question of generalizability to non-student populations poses a more fUndamental problem, more SO because few diffusion studies have been done with student pOpulations. For one thing, most students live in dormitories and therefore have greater proba- bility of interacting with others, than non-students. It is possible that this increase in likelihood of interaction may be partly responsible for the strong interpersonal influences Observed in this study, and by inference, for the opinion of TM held by the subjects. For another thing, willingness to run the eXpenseS for adOpting TM may in part be a function of income, suggesting that a higher proportion of adoption will occur with a non-student, working pOpulation. These are major limitations in generalizing our findings to non-student populations, but again, the questions involved-can be resolved empirically. -60- Finally, we will like to raise an issue that concerns the type of innovation studied, namely, an idea-specific innovation. Since Object-Specific innovations"sell" material as well as their idea components, we typically think Of them as more eXpenSive to adopt than idea-specific(or non-material) innovations. However, a substan- tial fee is required to adopt TM, introducing a strong material dimension to what should properly be a non-material innovation. The financial demand of TM takes on even greater prominence with a student pOpulation. Nevertheless, we have shown that under this financial constraint, adOption proved to be a function Of depth of spiritual interest in TM. The issue became one of asking oneself! "Am I interested in TM enough to Spend this much money on it? IS it worth this much to me?" It is conceivable that more of the nonadOpters would have adopted TM if_the financial constraint was not present. However, by the.same reasoning, absence of the financial demands could only increase the ‘ number of adOpters, not eliminate the group of nonadopters. It is reasonable to assume that some of the subjects with no Spiritual interest in TM would still not adopt the practice even if they cOuld do so without any financial expenses. Important questions arise from this conclusion. If the likeli-' ' hood of adoption or rejection of TM is determined largely prior to attending the introductory lectures(in the form of Interst), what role then does information acquired at these lectures play in decision? Is it in fact superflous? Both adopters and nonadOpters judged the lectures as "convincing" but only the former went beyond this initial stage. Would highly interested persons have adopted TM even without the introductory lectures? -61- This reasoning has serious implications for change management. It suggests that for many who attend them, the introductory lectures may.only reinforce already-formed tendencies and desires, rather than persuade them: or alternatively, that the lectures were persua— sive only with the segment of the audience that was still "Sitting on the fence", unsure of whether or not to get involved in TM. Whatever the case, we are talking of decision, or attempts at decision, occurring EEEQE to formal persuasion effort by the TM organization. ' This issue clearly deserves attention in further studies ofwthe~ innovation-decision process. Some Generalizations Only a few Of the 103 generalizations from diffusion research contained in Rogers and Shoemaker(Appendix A) are applicable to this study. This is because nearly all the contemporary studies Of diffusion have focussed on differences between adopters at different time periods in a social system, rather than between adopters and. nonadpters at the same time period which is the objective of this study. The following are the generalizations from the list that directly bear on this study: * "Earlier knowers of an innovation have greater change—agent contact than late knowers" (generalization 3-5). ' Rogers and Shoemaker reported overwhelming support for this gene— ralization but this is not borne out by our findings. Of the in subjects who asked SIMS for information on TM, only two had heard of TM for the first time prior to fur years ago. Seven first heard of TM between two and four years ago, and the remaining five, first heard in the past two years. This is a direct converse to the gene- ralization, i.e. late knowers appeared to have had greater change agent contact than earlier knowers. ' * "Mass media channels are relatively more important at the knowledge function and interpersonal channels are relatively more important at the persuasion function."(generalization 8-1) This is compatible with our findings and has already been discussed. * "Change agent success is positively related to the extent of change agent effort"(generalization 7-1).. If we define change agent effort in terms Of arranging lectures and suppying information on TM in other ways, our findings support this generalization. Only a small prOportion of our samples had themselves made the effort to acquire information about TM directly from the change agency. -62- -63- * "Change agent success is positively related to his credibility in the eyes of his clients" (generalization 7-11) Only one study was reported supportive Of this generalization. Our findings do not support this generalization. Both adopters and nonadopters felt that the introductory lectures were convincing, but only the former went beyond this initial stage. * "Change agent success is positively related to the degree to which his program is compatible with clients' needs" (generalization 7-3) If we accept the argument that involvement in TM, for many adopters, is aimed at fulfilling a need for spiritual satisfaction, then this generalization is supported by our findings. * ‘35- if Besides these generalizations, our findings also suggest a number of general propositions. Until further evidence for or against these loose generalizations are available however, they Should be regarded as applicable mainly to transcendental medita- tion, or at best, to idea-Specific innovations. ** "persons with no interest in TM are more likely to hold conventional beliefs about religion and God than persons who have demonstrated interest in TM" (Strong evidence in support). ** "Persons with no interest in TM are more likely to hold neutral, uncommitted, rather than favorable or unfavorable, opinion of TM, than persons with demonstrated interest in TM." (Strong evidence in support). *1} 41"”- 41")? *fl- *4!- My. ** -64- "Persons with no interest in TM are more likely to expect non-Spiritual, rather than Spiritual, benefits from engaging in TM, than persons with ,demonstrated interest in TM". (Strong evidence in support)‘ "Adopters expect more Spiritual benefits from TM than nonadOpters". (Strong evidence in support) "Adapters hold more favorable Opinion Of TM than . nonadOpters". (Data indicate support for this generalization but the evidence is weak and not statistically Significant). "AdOpterS experience greater interpersonal influence in decision than nonadopters. " (Weak evidence- not statistically significant). "Younger students are more likely to reject TM than to adopt it." (Although the evidence in support of this proposition iS‘ statistically significant, the variance in Age is too restricted to permit more than weak confidence in this generalization). ' ‘ "Decision on TM, for adopters and nonadopters alike, involves a mental process of balancing reward against cost. " (Evidence in support of this proposition is inferred from the data) "For many adopters and nonadopters of TM, the introductory lectures merely reinforce decision already made, rather than serve persuasive purposes.” (Evidence in support of this generalization is also inferred from the data). SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The most Significant difference between adopters and nonadopters is in their expectations from TM. A greater prOportion of adopters than nonadopters expressed high spiritual interest in TM prior to decision to adOpt or reject. It would appear that the depth of pre—decision interest in TM was the critical factor in final decision with adOpters showing more willingness to make the financial sacri- fices needed to adopt TM.The two groups also differed significantly in Age and positivity of attitude to God. A greater proportion of the under-21's rejected TM while a greater proportion of the over-23's adopted it. In addition, a greater proportion of the nonadopters had high positive attitude-to-God scores than the nonadOpters. The diffe- rence between adOpters and nonadopters on discussion of TM, and dogmatism, althOugh not statistically significant, was in the direction suggesting that a greater proportion of adopters thannon- adOpters engaged in discussion of TM and scored slightly higher on dogmatism scale. Also, many more of the adopters than the nonadOpters had discussed TM with close friends and relatives. The two groups did not differs noticeably in their Opinion of TM(both held posi- tive opinion), nor on the religiosity measures. However, slightly more adopters than nonadOpters eXpressed favorable Opinion of TM and scored less on the religiosity measures. The Interest group differed Significantly from the NO—Interest group in the depth of the members' spiritual expectations from TM, in their opinion of TM, and on measures of religiosity and positivity of atti- tude to God. ' -65- -66- Significantly more Of the members of the Interest group eXpressed more spiritual interest in TM than members of the No-Interest group. Significantly more Of the former than the latter also hold favorable opinion of TM but scored less on the religiosity and attitude-to-God measures. The two groups showed no Significant difference in the extent to which members discussed TM with other people prior to attending the introductory lectures, nor on the measures Of dogma— tism. Nevertheless, the direction of difference on theSe variables suggest that a greater proportion of the Interest group than the NO-Interest group engaged in such discussion. Future research should be directed at throwing light at the implications of these findings for the general pOpulation Of college students. In Spite of the assertions of the TM organization to the contrary, do most college students see transcendental medita- tion as directly Opposed to organized religion? To what extent is students" interest in TM based on this assumption? What Specific aspects of meditation are perceived as imcompatible with religion? How is information on these aspects acquired? Answers to these and Similar questions will be invaluable contribution to the understan- ding of motivational aspects of I innovation-decision behavior. A replication of this study with non-student population will also be desirable. There is a need to determine whether or not the inver- se relationship observed between religiosity and interest in trans- cendental meditation is confined to student pOpulations. Furthermore, with a working class population, will financial consideration, vis- a-vis interest, Show up as a critical factor in decision on TM? -67- Finally, the influence of the type of innovation studied, namely a Spiritual, idea—Specific innovation, still needs to be clarified, eSpecially in cross—cultural context. What part, if any, does emotional involvement, usually inherent in Spiritual issues, play in the deci- sion on TM? Will the patterns of first knowledge of TM and interper— sonal influences on decision Observed in this study be confirmed in a replication on a university campus in Europe, ASia or Africa? These are a few of the questions that still need to be answered. Wyn-“ T? REFERENCES Barnett,H.G.(1953): Innovation: Thelbasis of cultural change. New York, McGraw Hill. Beal, George M and others(1957): "Validity Of the concept Of stages in the adoption process". Rural Soc. 22: 166-168 Bowers, Raymond V.(1937): "The direction of intra-societal diffusion." Amer. Soc. Rev. 2: 826-836. - _ (1938): "Differential intensity of intra-societal diffusion." Amer.Soc.Rev. 3: 21-31. Campbell, Rex R and John S.Holik(1960):"The relationship between group structure and the perception of community's willingneSs to change." Paper presented to Rural Soc.Society. University Park,‘Pa. Copp, James H. and others(1958): "The function Of information sources in the farm practice adoption process". Rural Soc. 23: 1h6-157. Davis, James A. and others(1961): "A technique for analysing the effects of analysing the effects Of group composition." Amer.Soc.Rev. 26: 215-225 ‘ Davis, Richard H.(1965): Personal and organizational variables related to the adOption of educational innovations in a Liberal Arts College. Ph.D thesis, Univ. of Chicago. _ Edwards, Allen L.(1972): Experimental design ingpsychological reSearch. ' New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ehrlich, D. and others(1957): "Post-decision exposure to relevant information". J.Of Abn.& SoclPsych. 5#, 98-102. Eibler, Herbert J.(1965): A comparison of the relationship between certain aspects or characteristics Of the structure of the High School faculty and the amount of curriculum Innovations.s Ph.D thesis. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan. Emery, F.E. and 0.A.Oeser(1958): Information, decision, and action: a study of the psychological determinants of changes in farming techniques} New York, Cambridge Univ. Press. Francis, David G. and Everett M. Rogers(1960):"AdOption of a nonrecommen- 'ded innovation: the grass incubator". Paper presented at the Rural Socz-Society, University Park, Pa.. Katz, Elihu and others(1963):"Traditions of research on the diffusion of innovations. " Amer. Soc. Rev. 28, 237- 253. Kroeber, A. L. (1937) "Diffusion", in Edwin R. A. Seligman and Alvin Johnson (Eds. ): The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences vol. 2, New York, Macmillan. ~ Lavidge, Robert J. and Gary A. Steiner(1961):"A model for predicting measurements of Advertising effectiveness? J.of Mktg.,25,59-62. LoomiS,Charles P.and J.Allan Beegle(1957): Rural sociology: the strategy Of change, Prentice Hall, 1957. I Maharishi International University: Fundamentals Of PrOgress: Scientific Research Findings on Transcendental Meditation.(pamphlet). Cal., 197A. ‘ ' Mason,Robert G.(1962a): Information source use in the adoption process. Ph.D thesis. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford Univ. (1962b): "An ordinal scale for measuring the adoption process", in Wilbur Schramm(Ed.): Studies of innovation and communication to the public. Stanford, Cal: Stanford Univ.Inst.for Communication Research. ' (1963):"The use of information sources by influentials in the adoption process". Pub.0pin.Qtrly, 27: #55-h57. , (196A): "The use of information sources in the process of adoption". Rural Soc. 29, 40-52. McVoy,Edgar C.(19h0): Patterns Of diffusion in the United States". Amer.Soc.Rev. 5, 219-227. ' * Moser, C. A. and G. Kalton(1972):_Survey methods in social investigation. New York: Basic BOOkS,: Qadir, Abdul S. (1966): AdOption of technological change in the rural Phillipines: An analysis Of compositional effects. Ph.D thesis, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. . : Rahim,S.A.(1961a): The diffusion and adOption Of agricultural practices: a study in a village in East Pakistan. Comilla: Pakistan Acad. for Rural Dev. Rogers,Everett M.(1962b): Diffusion of Innovations.New York: The Free Press Rogers,Everett M. with Lynne Svenning(1969): Modernization amongpeasants: the impact of communication.New York: Holt,Rinehart & Winston. Rogers,Everett M. and F.F.Shoemaker(1971):Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach. New York: The Free Press. Ryan,Bryce and Neal Gross(1943): "The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities". Rural Soc., 8, 15-24.' Shaw, Marvin E. and Jack M.Wright(1967): Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York, McGraw Hill. Siegel,Sidney(1956): Nonparametric Statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, McGraw Hill. Singh,Y.P. and Udai Pareek(1968): "A paradigm of sequential adoption". Indian Educ.Rev.,3, 89-114. ' Trodahl,Verling C.and Fredrick A.Powell(1965):"A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies." Social Forces, 44, 211-214. Van den Ban,Anne W.(1960): "Locality group differences in the adoption of new farm practices."Rural Soc.25: 308-320. ' (1963a):"Hoe Vinden Nieuwe Landbouwmethodeningand"(How a new practice is introduced). Landbouwoolichting 20, 227-239. Wilkening,Eugene A.(1953): Adoption of improved farm_practices as related to familyfactors. Wisc.Agri.Exp.Sta.,ReS.Bu1. 183. (1956): "Roles Of communicating agents in technological change in agriculture". Social Forces, 34, 361-367. IJ. Original Questionnaire APPENDIX A-1, (compiéted by Adopters and Nonadopters) ' I I - MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF C(MZITUNICATION ARTS " EAST LANSING.I.ZICH.48824 DEPARTVENT OF CONKUNICATION Dear Participant: :3e are interested in a few of the communication-related issues involved in the adOption and practice of transcendental medita- tion by college staudents. 7e know that you, as a potential adapter of transcendental meditation, can help us in this regard.. The attached questionnaire asks for your Opinion on these issues. We will appreciate it if you complete the questionn- aire without assistance from anyone. Thanks a lot for giving your time to help us on this study. . Sincerely yours, - Wm, Sana; ti S. Femi Sonaike Graduate Assistant Department of Communication COL. 7 2. 8 9 10 11 12 ID# 1-3 Grou ___. 4 Exh# ._L_ 5 Card 1 6 INSTRUCTION: For each question, please put a circle around the number by the response you consider appropriate. When did you first hear about transcendental meditatinn(TM)? 1 4-8 years ago 2. 2-4 years ago 3 In the last 2 years HOW did you first hear about TM? 1. print media(newspaper,magazine,pamphlet,b69k,etc) 2. electronic media (television,radio.telephone,etc) 3 family member (includes distant relative) 4. friend or neighbor 5. business colleague 6. acquaintance (e.g.other student,cA-cemmuter,eto) 7 high school course or college program 8 other sources (please Specify ‘ Before attending this introductory lecture, did you ask SIMS/EMS for material on TM(e.g.brochure,pamphlet)? O. No 1. Yes Besides TM, have you ever practiced any other kind Of formal meditation (i.e.one involving an organization)? 0. (No ' 1. Yes ' (If you answered "No" to this question,go to Question 7) Which kind? (Please include name of organization) What is your Opinion Of the other kind(s) Of meditation (besides TM) that you have practiced? highly unfavorable ‘ more unfavorable than favorable undecided A . more favorable than unfavorable highly favorable m-F'wNH 13/14 15/16 17 18 .19 20 7. 10. 11. Far this question, pick THREE responses that you consider most apprOpriate to your Situation. Do this by putting" {:2 and 3 in the Spaces by the responses. Put: 1. for the foremost apprOpriate response 2. for the next most apprOpriate response(that is " less apprOpriate than number 1) 3. for the third most apprOpriate response. "I am interested in transcendental meditation because I feel it will- . help my financial situation and/Or business" keep me occupied" ‘Satisfy my curiosity" help me understand myself" help improve my relations with others" improve my mental and psychological health" help me know more about God" help me find inner peace" serve me as a tool for exploring the spiritual- and the metaphysical" _ .— fl “ * * ——-— W w Other reason(please Specify COMPOSITE- PREDISPOSITION Before you decided to attend this introductory lecture. did you discuss TM w1th anyone? 0. - NO 1. Yes , (If you answered "No" to this question, go to Q.13) With how many persons did you discuss TM? only one person 2-3 persons 4-5 persons more than 5 persons {TWNH How many of these were‘friends or family members(including cousins and distant relatives)? - 0. none 1. only one 2. more than one (i.e. two and above) If you discussed TM with only one person, was he/She a TM meditator? O. NO _ 1. Yes 12. If you discussed TM with more than one person, how many of these were TM meditators? 21‘ 0. none 1. only one 2._ more than one 2.2/23 COMPOSITE-INTP/PRE 13. What is your assessment of the introductory lecture you have just attended? 24 1. highly convincing 2. more convincing than unconvincing 3. undecided . 4. more unconvincing than convincing 5. totally unconvincing 14 Do you belong to any fraternity? .25 ' 0. No 1. Yes 15. Do you presently live in a fraternity house or hope to do SO soon? 26 O. No 1. 'Yes 27/28 , COMPOSITE—FRAT/TIE 16. How will you describe your Opinion today, Of transcen- dental meditation (TM)? 29 ’ highly favorable more favorable than unfavorable undecided more unfavorable than favorable highly unfavorable \APWNH PLEASE TURN TO NEXT PAGE The following statements were made by people as their Opinion on the topics concerned. You may find yourself agree- ing strongly with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about some. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many other people feel the same as you do. Please read all the statements very carefully and respond to all Of them on the basis Of your own true belief. Respond to each item by writing in the Space provided at its left, ONLY ONE of the following numbers, 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 These numbers mean: strongly agree with this statement agree with this statement more than I disagree am undecided on this statement disagree with this statement more than I agree strongly disagree with this statement e414 etrs Pl Where multiple- choice type responses are given, put a circle around the number by the reSponse that you consider appro- priate to you. 17. I believe firmly in the teachings of my church. I believe that religious faith is better than logic for solving life's important problems. I believe that our fate in the hereafter depends on how we behave on earth. ' I attend church(or mosque, synagogue etc)- 1. at least once a week 2. about once a month 3. less than once a month I believe that religion is of little use in present day society. I do not believe in any particular religion: instead I have a philosophy of life ' If you are a strong person you do not need religion Promoting a better world is more important to me than religion is I 30/31 COMPOSITE-REL/ATT A MW 32/33 Remember, mark- : I strongly agree I agree more than disagree I'm undecided , I disagree more than agree I strongly disagree Ul-F'UJNH 18. I I am quite convinced of the reality of God The idea of God gives me a sense of security I trust in God to support the right and condemn the wrong There is a far better way of explaining the wor- king of the world than to assume any God I haven't yet reached any definite Opinion about the idea of God The ideas of God are so confusing that I do not know what to believe COMPOSITE-GD/ATT 19. p In this complicated world of ours the only way wecan know what' S going on is to rely on leaders or eXperts who can be trusted Iv blood ooils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he is wrong There are two kinds of people in this world; those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. Most people just don't know what's good for them. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one which is correct. -The highest form of government is a democracy and the higest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. Most of the ideas which get printed novadays aren' t worth the paper they are printed on (continued next page) 34/35 20. 36 21 37 22 38 Thank I strongly agree I agree more than disagree I'm undecided I disagree more than agree I strongly disagree UX?WNH Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful Most people just don't give a "damn" for others. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to the betrayal of our own side. It is Often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the Opinions of those one respects ‘ The present is all too Often full of unhappiness; it is only the future that counts. COMPOSITE-ATHO What is yOur educational level at the moment?' Freshman or sophomore Junior or senior Graduate student, master' S degree Doctoral student Post- doctoral student Other (specify (7meme Your sex, please? 0. Male 1. Female What is your age bracket? 1. under 20 years old 4. 25-30 2. 21-22 5. Over 30 3- 23—25 you very much. We will like to contact you again in about a month from now This will be for a Short follow-up to this questionnaire and will require only a minute or two of your time. “e will appreciate it if you give us your name (only a first name if you so desire), and an address at which we can get in touch with you Please be assured that this and all other information in this questionnaire will be treated in strict confidence. Once again, thank you. Your name: Address: Telephone:' ‘ ' l PENDIX A-2 (completed by NOJ-Interest - Group) A / . * Questions with Single asterisk were adjusted. ** Questions with double asterisks were removed ! from original. ) / GRZ/Exh.1 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS East Eansing. Mich . 48824 Department of Communication Dear Participant: AS you are already aware, you were chosen in a random sampling of studentsin the "Temporary on-campus student directory" for fall term, 1974. For the successful execution of this study, it is essential that the responses you give on this question- naire are YOUR OWN OPINION on the issues raised. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM ANYONE. Please spare the few minutes you need to complete this questionnaireythis weekend so that we canhave itfback by Monday. Thank you very much for giving your time to help us on this study. If you are interested in the results of the study, put an "X" in the box at the bottom left hand corner of this page. , Once again, thanks. ‘ Sincerely yours, .Afigdukfignmkfia S emi Sonaike Graduate Assistant Dept Of Communication Room 219 S Kedzie Hall Office: 355-1866 Home: 355-9755 fin INS RUCTION: For each question, please put a circle around the number by the response YOU consider appropriate. _Col._ 1. Then did you first hear about transcendental meditation(TM)? 7 ‘ 1. u_8 years ago I 2 Z—h years ago 3 In the last two years 2 How did you first hear about transcendental meditation(TH)E 1 print media(neWSpaper,magazine,pamphlet,book etc) 2 electronic media(television,radio,telephone etc) 3 family member(includes distant relative) a friend or neighbor 8 5 business colleague - - 6 acquaintance (e g other student,co-commuter etc) 7 high school course or cellege program 9 other source(s) (please specify * 3 why have you never attended a TM lecture(introductory lecture.on TV held on campus and in town)? 9 h Have you ever practiced any kind of formal meditation (i e one involving an organisation). to - O. No 1 Yes . (If you answered "No" to this question, go to Question 7) 5 which kind?-(please specify name of organization) L1 6 What is your opinion of the - - kind(s) of meditation that you have practiced? highly unfavorable more unfavorable than favorable undecided . more favorable than unfavorable highly favorable N UI-PWNI'" B For this question, pick THREE responses that you consider most appropriate to your situation. Do this by putting 132 and 3 1n the spaces by the three most appropriate reSponses. Put: 1: for the foremost appropriate response 2: for the next most appropriate response (that is less appropriate than number 1) 3: for the third most appropriate reSponse. * 7' "If I ever attend a TM lecture or practice TM, I will be doing so in the hepe that it will:- - help my financial situation and/or business" 13/14 keep me occupied" ' ' satisfy my curiosity" help me understand myself" help improve my relations with others" improve my mental and psychological health" help me know more about God" help me find inner peace" serve me as a tool for exploring the spiritual and the metaphysical Other reason (please Specify a“ 15/16' COVPOSITE—PREDIS . (please ignore) 8 Have you ever discussed TN with anypne? 17 O NO . , 1 Yes (If you answered "No" to this question, go to Q_14) 9 With how many persons did you discuss TN? 1. with one person 18 2. 2-3 persons 3 h-5 persons A more than 5 persons 10 How many of these were friends or family members(including cousins and distant relatives)? 19 , 0 none 1. one only . 2 more than one (i.e.two or more) 11 If you discussed TV with only one person, was he/she a TV meditator? 20 o No 1. Yes 12. 21. :22/23 21.: ** 13. 14. 25 15. 26 27/29 16. If you discussed TM with more than one person, how many of these were TH meditators? 0. none 1. only one 2. more than one COMPOSITE—INTP/PRE (please ignore) N/A (Ignore) Do you belong to any fraternity? O. No 1. Yes Do you presently live in a fraternity house or hepe to do so soon? - O. No 1. Yes COVPOSITE—FRAT/T How will you describe your opinion today of transcen— dental meditation (TM)? highly favorable more favorable than unfavorable undecided-indifferent more unfavorable than favorable highly unfavorable mthH PLEASE TURN TO NEXT PAGE (NOTE: Questions 17 to 22 were the same as in original questionnaire. The name and address section was cancelled since there was no intention to contact this group a second time. APPENDIX B Project Title: TM Study Project No.: 75/1 Directed by: Sonaike, S.A. Full Title: An anlysis of some factors relevant to interest in, and the adoption-rejection of, Transcendental Meditation by college students. Objective : M.A. Thesis. CODEBOOK ‘4 i i L;N0. Variable Col. Label Coding 5 ID# 1-3 Group# # Exhibit# 5 Card# 6 1 Time first heard of ‘ ' TM? 7 TIME Score as in questionnaire 2. How first heard? 8 MEDIUM print = 1 electronic acquaintance = 2 high school family member ' friend/neighbor = 3 . business colleague 3. Ask SIMS for material? 9 ASKSIM No.=O: Yes= 1 1+. Ever practiced other ‘ ' meditation? 10 OTHER N0. = 0: Yes = 1 5. Which kind? 11 KIND (open ended) 0 if "No" to Q.# 1 if Western kind (e.g. Christian) 2 if Oriental 6. Opinion of other medi- tation? 12 OPIN "No" to Q.h = O Unfavorable:== 1 Undecided/ indifferent = 2 Favorable = 3 “01‘”. CD 10 7 11. 12 13 14 15 variable Why Interest in TM Col. Label Coding (expectation from TM) 13-1h WHYTM Treat first 3 responses as "Nonspi- Composite: Predisposition 15-16 Discussed TM with anyone 17 With how many persons discussed TM? 18 How many of these were friends etc? 19 If discussed with one person, was he/she a 20 TM meditator? If discussed with more than one person, how many were TM meditators? 21 Composite: Interperso- nal influence: 22-23 Assessment of introduct- -ory lecture attended zu' Belong to any fraternity? 25 Live in frat.house or hope to? Composite: Fraternity ties 27-28 26 PREDIS, TALKTM MANY CLOSE TMMED TMMED INTERP ASSESS FRATER FRAHOM FRATIE -ritual" second 3 resp. as "moderate Spiritual" remaining responses as"high spiritual" 39939; .t 1 1 b 3 Multi 1 : onsp r1 ua as : if i g ” mod.spiritual as.2 “1'2 .chSdce : high spirit. as 3 1 if 32d ' Code: 0-9 as 0 10-1h as 1 15 & above as 2 Sum scores for Q3. h-7 Code: Less than 2 as 0(none) 2-3 as 1 (low) A & above as 2 (high) No. = 0: Yes = 1 No. None=0: Only one=1: more than one=2 None=0: Only one=1: more than one=2 = 0: Yes = 1 None=0: One=1: more than one=2 Sum scores for Q3. 8-11/12' Treat reSponses 1 & 2 as "Convincing 3 as undecided/ indifferent 4,5 as "Unconvincing" Code: Convincin = 3 ' ' undecided indifferent = 2 Unconvincing = 1 No.= 0: Yes = 1 No.= 0: Yes = 1 Sum scores for Qs.1h and 15. (Q.No. 16 17 18 19.- 20 21 22 Variable Your Opinion of TM Religiosity Attitude to God Dogmatism Educational level (Class) Your Sex Age bracket Col. Label Coding 29 TMOPIN Treat: resp.1 & 2 as favorable 3 as undecided/ indifferent . 4 & 5 as unfavorable Code: Favorable=3 indifferent= 2 unfavorable= 1 30-31 RELIGN Scbring: reverse scoring for fire 1tems(i.e.5°S:aSg1,Th!s as 3's as 3, 2'3 as a, 1'3 as 5) Code items 5-8 as on question -naire. ti Sum all scores and divige by 8; ‘ "r” mulhp v), .0 32-33 GOD Reverse first three items and treat as for above variable. Sum and divide by 6; by 10 3h_35 DOGMA Score all items as on questionnair 36 37 38 Sum and divide by 15; by 10 FOR QUESTIONS 17,18 and 19.: Code:. 0-15 as 0 16-32 as 1(10W) Over 32 as 2(high) EDUC Code: Resp.1 as 1.; 2 as 2 Above 2 as 3 SEX Male=1: Female=2 'AGE Code: Response 1 as 1 2 as 2 Above 2 as 3 MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES llll I!!!" llllllllll Ill lllllllllllll l WI 312 3 04920628