Ill l . . p . ‘ . ,.-. In: I i I 0.... .|." .u . u . . Invl n 'I . .... ,a .v. .. .. . . . o t . . v‘. n o a .1 O I . . . O . . . . . _ ., . . I f... .. o — . ..c. . . . . _.. o. . .0. \J a. .4J...A.o of... 7....OoCQN'QO‘... - . . .u . .. . .. . . . ...V a . .I .do..... . ..... ..‘ao..._.. . ...o....oo..... . .‘. .... _ .. . . . . .. .. _ . . o r‘ ‘ . . s. . . .. , .. o .. q . . . .. . . ,..o.. . ,..o...¢.. v. . . .. . . . .. . . ‘ . 0!. o r . .. .. . . . . .. . . . v I. .. .V . . . . . o : o .. — Q ‘ . , . . . . . . _ n a ‘ o .. do“ . . . _ _ . . . . . . .‘ .‘ ,v. . . . . ‘ o . . .o. . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ .. . . . p . a . ..o’.. (3’. ‘... . . . . . .— o u. .v. ... .0 ‘. . — . . . . . . I O . . . . .. . . . . _ . .... .o.. A .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . o. . . r _ . . o . o . . . . A. . . ._ .... r‘. . _ . .g o . . c . . . . o .5. 4 . ., . . . o . . I . . _ . u. . - . . . a . .4 . . . . .. r . —_ . . . . o . . . . . I. . . .. . . o o . . . . . . . n o o a _. - . . .._ . I . . . co. . . _ . . . . . . ~ . V . s . . _. . ..r.. a . o . . , . . _ . c . . .. . V. -r1-.wp¢..¢-o¢—O 0"” g-Ofi-Ooonv-omo '~.. ,o t . F a f! . . . . . .. v“..._.....4. ~. . .. . .51.»-.. : F . .c N S A m. ..... . . ... 121.1,.” Fv,.. 2.. .. I . I) . . A T1- .nu . S. . ,, i» A L. f . . '4.) . H. , ..._. .. _ A A m E O 1.... -H .1 .H .. a u o . o. . . .o . . N. e T: S 1... . T. a; fl.” T t N . ‘ . ... ....o . _ C r. N N. _ . . . . .. V F G .. ... ..,. ....._ _ 0 E .Q u“ ._ .. .. a .H . C . ... W. .m be” . . m . . .. M _ W n . W .. _ u n . .v w . . .- . n : 4 WWW... . o i .o . uh. .. . . . . . - .A... c... .. .... o. .... 2. “up”......ol.w....3.za. .o....l.......|.... n._ ............ h.t._.mam....:.....u.._..... .o .u. .w. v .. . n ..... .. . . . . . _ .. o. . .. ... .. .. ......oc.. : . . ._. ......... _ . . . :01. h.......n.pw.. ..._ ...r:“/.LL2 .._.u.......M»:.L.v/...¢ .._..I.o.‘..o.. rt! I . s‘i 3 12 ‘ 1mmting/Iqullylgnggggmrun/1mm: i 4885 ABSTRACT SOCIAL MOVEMENT PARTICIPATION, LIFE SATISFACTION, AND VALUES BY Dennis Roy Fox Amidst a multitude of social movements and social movement theories, one outstanding fact is the lack of an adequate, empirically-based theory of movement partici- pation. Possible motivations behind commitment to move- ments have been discussed for decades, but research de- signed to test the plethora of theories has been frag- mentary at best. Even what is perhaps the most widespread, "self-evident" assumption--that individuals who partici- pate in social movements are trying to change dissatis- fying life situations--has not been rigorously put to the test. The present investigation sought to fill that gap. An attempt was made to determine if a dissatisfying life situation--manifested in avowed unhappiness, in low self-esteem, in a high degree of alienation, or in the possession of nonnormative value orientations--was . ll Dennis Roy Fox characteristic of participants in a particular social movement, and, also, to determine if these same variables separated movement members who were committed to differ- ent aspects of the movement. A questionnaire was distributed by mail or by hand to 1076 individuals: (a) Three hundred sixty-three members of Hamag- shimim of Hashachar, a college-age Zionist youth movement whose members are at various stages of commitment to the ideology of aliyg (immigration to Israel) and garin (es- tablishment of a new communal settlement); (b) Four hundred thirty-eight individuals who had spent a summer in Israel; and (c) Three hundred Jewish students at Brooklyn College. The questionnaire measured: (a) satisfaction (based primarily upon a variation of Kilpatrick and Cantril's Self—Anchoring Scale); (b) self-esteem (based upon a combination of Sherwood's and Pervin and Lilly's Self-Concept Scales; (c) alienation (the scales of Dean, Middleton, and Nettler); and (d) values (Rokeach's Terminal Values Scale). Dennis Roy Fox Four hundred thirty-four questionnaires--about 40% of each group of subjects--were returned in enclosed return envelopes, of which 415 were usable. The main findings and conclusions were: (a) Participants in the Zionist youth movement did not significantly differ from the nonparticipants in their levels of satisfaction, self-esteem, and alienation, al- though those differences that were obtained tended to in- dicate a greater level of satisfaction, and a lowe£_level of alienation, among the movement members (except for a possibly greater level of cultural alienation). This would seem to indicate that theories based upon the hypo- thesized dissatisfaction of social movement participants are in need of revision. (b) Movement participants did significantly differ from nonparticipants in their value orientations, most notably by deemphasizing the importance of a comfortable life and pleasure, and by emphasizing the importance of a sense of accomplishment, self-respect, mature love, and family security. Such differences seemingly indicate the necessity of a participation theory taking into account the individual's value orientation. (c) Movement participants who were also members of a subgroup planning to establish a new kibbutz in Israel differed from those movement members planning Dennis Roy Fox migration to Israel as individuals by being more alienated in all areas, and by emphasizing the importance of the values of inner harmony, happiness, and self-respect, and deemphasizing mature love and family security. No satis— faction or self-esteem differences were evident. It appears, thus, that variables relevant to the individual's level of commitment are not the same variables that are relevant to the mere fact of participation or nonpartici- pation. SOCIAL MOVEMENT PARTICIPATION, LIFE SATISFACTION, AND VALUES BY DENNIS ROY FOX A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1971 AC KNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Charles Wrigley Dr. Eugene Jacobson Dr. Louis Tornatzky Dr. Frederick Waisanen Patricia Lodato Paul Ewbank Esther Mosak Louise Thanks. I couldn't have done it alone. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 Vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Individual Differences in Social Movement Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Background factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Contradictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Zionism as a Social Movement . . . . . . . . . . 24 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Motivations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The role of dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . . 34 Causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Components of dissatisfaction . . . . . . . . 36 Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Zionism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Kibbutz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Specific hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Dependence of variables . . . . . . . . . . . 42 iii METHOD . . . . . . The Movement . . . The Questionnaire Satisfaction . . Self-esteem . . Alienation . . . Values . . . . . Zionism . . . . Background . . . Subjects and Distribution of Questionnaires . Cover Letter . . . Scoring Variables Satisfaction . . Self-esteem . Alienation . . . Values . . . . . Movement orientation RESULTS . . . . . . Return Rate . . . Background . . . . Group Affiliations Independent Variables Dependent Variables Major Hypotheses: Group Membership Group Participation Zionist Self-Description . Major Hypotheses: Zionist Beliefs Scale Aliia O O O O O Garin Membership Major Hypotheses: Measures . . . . Communalism . . General Migration Stated Reasons for Aliya Zionist-Irrelevant iv Commitment Level Page 44 44 49 52 53 54 55 56 57 57 60 61 62 63 64 65 65 68 68 71 77 79 83 85 86 96 102 102 108 114 120 120 126 132 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . Summary of Results . . Satisfaction . . . . Self-esteem . . . . Alienation . . . . . Values . . . . . . . Zionist-Irrelevant . Possible Explanations Garin and Withdrawal . Background Factors . . Future Research . . Conclusions . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES . . . APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Pilot Interview Schedule B. Cover Letters . . C. Jewish Youth Questionnaire D. The Scales . . . Page 135 135 135 136 138 139 140 141 145 148 151 153 156 168 176 179 190 Table l. 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES Reclassification of Israel Returnees Jewish Students Into Experimental Groups 0 O O O O I O O O O O O 0 Personal Background Information . Present and Past Group Memberships Distribution of Subjects on Movement- Oriented Variables . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix--Independent variables 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Correlation Matrix--Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Group Membership . . . . . . . . . . . Value Rankings: Group Membership Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Zionist Self-Description . . . . . . . . Value Rankings: Zionist Self- Description . . . . . . . . . . Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Zionist Beliefs . . . . . . . . Value Rankings: Zionist Beliefs . Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Aliya . vi Page 70 72 78 80 82 84 87 95 97 101 103 107 109 Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Value Satis Ali Mer Value Satis A1: C0: Value Sati: Ge: Valm Stat Table 14. Value Rankings: Aliya . . . . . . 15. Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Garin NernberShj-p O O O O O O O O I O O 16. Value Rankings: Garin Membership 17. Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Communalism . . . . . . . . . . 18. Value Rankings: Communalism . . . l9. Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to General Migration . . . . . . . 20. Value Rankings: General Migration 21. Stated Reasons for Aliya . . . . . vii Page 113 115 119 121 125 127 131 133 10. ll. 12. Pre Din Figure 1. 2. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Dimensions of Satisfaction: Membership . . . . . . . . Present Self-Concept: Group Membership . . . . . . . . Aspired Self-Concept: Group Membership . . . . . . . . Ideal Self-Concept: Group Membership . . . . . . . . Dimensions of Satisfaction: Zionist Self-Description . Group Present Self-Concept: Zionist Self-Description . . . . . Dimensions of Satisfaction: Zionist Beliefs . . . . . Present Self-Concept: Zionist Beliefs . . . . . . . . . Dimensions of Satisfaction: Aliia O O O O O O O O O 0 Present Self-Concept: Aliya Dimensions of Satisfaction: Garin Membership . . . . . Present Self-Concept: Garin Membership . . . . . . . . viii Page 88 90 91 92 99 100 105 106 110 112 116 117 Figure Page 13. Dimensions of Satisfaction: Communalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 14. Present Self-Concept: Communalism . . . . . 124 15. Dimensions of Satisfaction: General Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 16. Present Self-Concept: General Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 ix In adequate a: time-and ' a revived though now is being p developmen to the rel inVolv€d 1 a movement conCeptS I ago. AS 1 INTRODUCTION In 1947, Anselm Strauss decried the lack of an adequate analysis of collective behavior. Since that time--and especially in the last decade—-there has been a revived interest in the study of social movements, al- though now, as in the past, a disproportionate emphasis is being placed upon the study of the stages of movement development, the type of leadership, and similar topics, to the relative exclusion of the psychological processes involved in an individual's acceptance of commitment to a movement. Very little, in fact, has been added to the concepts presented by Hadley Cantril (1941) three decades ago. As recently as 1970, Muzafer Sherif noted the im- portance of social movement investigations for a "relevant" social psychology. It was the purpose of the present research to in- vestigate several factors hypothesized as being charac- teristic of social movement participants and, further, to determine if the same factors vary with the degree of com— mitment to a movement. The movement organization studied was Hamagshimim of Hashachar, a college-age Zionist youth movement whc another, to as members < (collective Individual I Man) that, in ger large percer those who dc they accept, noted, for e College stud movement whose members are committed, to one degree or another, to migration to Israel, either as individuals or as members of a group seeking to establish a new kibbutz (collective settlement). Individual Differences in Social Movement Participation Many writers have sought to account for the fact that, in general, social movements do not attract extremely large percentages of the "target" population, and that those who do participate differ in the degree of commitment they accept. Fishman and Solomon (1964) and Lipset (1970) noted, for example, that the large majority of American college students took no part in the campus unrest seem- ingly so prevalent in the sixties. The differential suc- cess of movements among people in similar circumstances has, of course, stimulated a plethora of theories, which, unfortunately, are generally poorly substantiated and sometimes contradictory. Individual differences in movement participation have been ascribed to many factors. Many investigators have seen the explanation as involving family background, education, religion, peer groups, and similar socio- demographic, "external" factors. Others have developed hypotheses concerning membership as a response to general frustration, to alienation and a desire for meaning in life, and to basic personality differences. Some fewer writers ha\ in other re writers, 01 are likely Kotler, 197 cerning the a consequen however, fe for recent EEC; have Often 1 Providing a individUals such factor diSCLISSed i, in 1938, A' C authority" C In 1 Several inve general ' eSp writers have looked for the cause in value differences or in other rational ideological sources, while several writers, of course, have indicated that "mixed motivations" are likely to be common (see Gusfield, 1970; Heberle, 1951; Kotler, 1971). Hypotheses have also been proposed con- cerning the "dogmatic style" that has often been seen to a consequence of belonging. Despite the abundant theory, however, few empirical data have been forthcoming, except for recent studies concerning student activists. Background factors. Family background factors have often been considered to be of great importance in providing a "potential universe" of participation-prone individuals (see, for example, Lang & Lang, 1963). One such factor is birth order, the importance of which was discussed in relation to personality development by Adler in 1938. Adler noted the relatively greater "devotion to authority" of first-born children. In line with Schachter's (1959) work on affiliation several investigators have found that first—born and only children seem to have a greater need for affiliation in general, especially in anxiety—provoking situations (see Warren, 1966, and Wrightsman, 1968), and MacDonald (1971) found that only children and first-borns were more "social- ly responsible" than were later-borns. In the political sphere, Vetter (1930) noted an over-representation of children without siblings among "reactionaries" and 'radicals,‘ More recent 45% of the first-borne of the poli but one of vism were 0 fl eral invest. cipation or Viewed "radi (such as All Altbach, 196 that advocat 'rebelliOnu his independ. fully than e. Parents. Th; Student actix 0n the left < Solomon & Fig 1964, did “Qt hOStility; th. expre$51119 hos COHfoIming to actually rejec "radicals,' and of youngest Children among "conservatives." More recently, Solomon and Fishman (1964) discovered that 45% of the demonstrators at a 1962 peace demonstration were first-horns, and only 15% last-borns. On the other side of the political spectrum, Schiff (1964) found that all but one of his "totalistic" converts to conservative acti- vism were only or first-born children. Relations with parents have been discussed by sev- eral investigators concerned with social movement parti- cipation or political behavior. While some writers have viewed "radicalism" as a protest against parental authority (such as Allport, 1929; Jones, 1941; and, more recently, Altbach, 1967), common in recent years has been the view that advocating extreme, activist positions is more a "rebellion'I in which a youth seeks not so much to assert his independence, but, on the contrary, to carry out more fully than ever those values verbally expressed by the parents. This has been hypothesized as occurring among student activists on the right (Schiff, 1964) as well as on the left (Fishman & Solomon, 1964; Keniston, 1967; Solomon & Fishman, 1964; Trent, 1970) (although Schiff, 1964, did note that the "obedient rebellion" may involve hostility; the right-activiSts he studied may have been expressing hostility toward their parents by over— conforming to views the parents ostensibly supported but actually rejected). Flacks (1970) and Lipset (1970) both noted that 5 parents, whi families wer Watts, Lynch Addi to movement Perhaps two strators Stu they had no evidence the COnducive tc for eXamp-le‘ COMUnist Pa shMlar res; by Infield (1970). Lip ity of €011 movemeht. (1954) . Inf noted that students generally hold views similar to their parents, while good relations between activists and their families were also found by Solomon and Fishman (1964) and Watts, Lynch, and Whittaker (1969). Additional background factors of possible relevance to movement membership have, of course, been proposed. Perhaps two of the more important are religion and geo— graphic mobility. While more than half the peace demon- strators studied by Solomon and Fishman (1964) claimed they had no present religious affiliation, there is some evidence that growing up in an "observant" atmosphere is conducive to later membership in movements; Almond (1954), for example, found that more than half of his American Communist Party subjects came from "observant" homes, and similar results were presented for immigrants to Israel by Infield (1955), Isaacs (1967), and the Israel Institute (1970). Lipset (1970) suggested that the geographic mobil- ity of college students is conducive to conversion to a movement. A similar phenomenon is the finding of Almond (1954), Infield (1955), and the Israel Institute (1970) that members of social movements tend to have foreign-born parents to a greater extent than do nonparticipants. Flacks (1967) noted a tendency among more recent student protesters to have immigrant grandparents. Join; purpose of §_1 analyses of q 1959) and of Kotler, 1971] intramovemem movements (se Solomon, 1964 the few avail members are g 1949; Solomon and peer-grou] Person's beha‘ satisfaction ‘- sources of dis social World E Hons to PGISC Cantri frustration, I Maier (1942) Joining and remaining in groups for the express purpose of associating with others has been suggested in analyses of groups in general (Homans, 1950; Schachter, 1959) and of social movements in particular (Cameron, 1966; Kotler, 1971). Many theorists have discussed the role of intramovement friendships in creating loyalty to various movements (see, for example, Blumer, 1951; Fishman & Solomon, 1964; Gusfield, 1970; and Lang & Lang, 1963), and the few available empirical data support the View that members are greatly influenced by other members (Herman, 1949; Solomon & Fishman, 1964). Dissatisfaction. Cantril (1941) went beyond family and peer-group influences to emphasize the fact that a person's behavior is motivated by ego drives to obtain both satisfaction and self-respect. He discussed several sources of discontent between the individual and his social world as being causative factors in seeking solu- tions to personal problems in social movement participation. Cantril's (1941) emphasis on the role of need, of frustration, in joining was soon echoed by many. Thus, Maier (1942) sought to explain social movements in terms of "common needs" expressed in individual patterns, and Edwards (1944) discussed support of, and opposition to, social movements in terms of frustration-relief and -arousal. Hoffer (1951) actually attempted to completely rule out the role of ideology and values in movement acceptance b who seeks to a11--solely The rent partici degrees, by Gusfield (l9 Killian (196 (1970) , Lofl McLaughlin ( (1957) , and concerned wi tle was done sonal needs be kept in m Conditions. explicitly s acceptance by postulating the "true believer," the member who seeks to change the world—-through any movement at a11--sole1y in order to end personal frustrations. The role of inner needs and frustrations in move- ment participation has also been discussed, to varying degrees, by Cameron (1966), Fishman and Solomon (1964), Gusfield (1970), Hartley and Hartley (1952), Heberle (1951b Killian (1964), King (1956), Lang and Lang (1963), Lipset (1970), Lofland and Stark (1965), McCormack (1951), McLaughlin (1969), Toch (1955, 1965), Turner and Killian (1957), and Wallace (1965)--in fact, by most theorists concerned with social movements. Yet, in many cases, lit- tle was done with the concept of the importance of per— sonal needs other than to say that it was a "factor" to be kept in mind, and it was often implied that "societal conditions" were of more immediate significance (this was explicitly stated by Heberle, 1951; see, also, Neal, 1970). Killian (1964) wrote that the psychological analy- sis of social movements is largely unprovable in that it tends to oversimplify motives for joining, and it dis- regards the developmental aspects of the movement (its structure, etc.). Earlier, Turner and Killian (1957) con- cluded that the "tension" theory (that movements relieve tension built up by unsatisfied needs and frustrations) was undemonstrated. This, apparently, was the case, if for no other been tested Barb primitive me with widespr messianic mo sponses to 5 Population, concerned hi absolute, de Oriented) mo Koes COWHnist pa termined who (1954) found individuals as a means 0 as impulSes patterns 1 9t Partly for w ihClUded n S e for no other reason than that the theory had not actually been tested in any rigorous manner. Barber (1941) demonstrated that the occurrence of primitive messianic movements was positively correlated with widespread deprivation; he noted, however, that the messianic movement was only one of several possible re- sponses to such deprivation, such as armed rebellion, de- population, and so on. More recently, Morrison (1971) concerned himself with the role of relative, rather than absolute, deprivation in power-oriented (not participation- oriented) movements. Koestler (1949), discussing those who join the Communist Party, noted that "personal case histories" de- termined who would become ripe for conversion, and Almond (1954) found that more than half his sample (comprising individuals who defected from Communism) saw "the Party" as a means of solving some of their personal problems, such as impulses to deviate, to reject parental and religious patterns, etc.; 58% of the American respondents joined partly for what Almond termed "neurotic" needs, and 70% included "self-oriented interests" among their motivations. Schiff (1964) likewise found that the "New Conservative" program was one that satisfied the needs of his late- adolescent converts. The role of general frustration merges, of course, with the role of specific needs, of anxiety and alienation, of a "desi: Schachter that anxie‘ others (al‘ be the case and Zander be especial anxiety, a: “mass moven overwhelmir. found Commu and Craise between Ber general Stu Free Speech hi91'1er On a 11$ (1954) note early depri CoffinuniSm i kUOWledge a: of a "desire for meaning" in movement membership. Schachter (1959) and Wrightsman (1960, 1968) concluded that anxiety was a factor in eliciting a desire to be with others (although Sarnoff & Zimbardo, 1961, found this to be the case for fear, not for anxiety). Thus, Cartwright and Zander (1968) predicted that groups in general should be especially prevalent among people characterized by high anxiety, and Lang and Lang (1963) specifically noted that "mass movements" offer a "protecting microcosm" against overwhelming anxiety. However, Rokeach and Kemp (1960) found Communists to be low in measured anxiety, and Trent and Craise (1967) found no difference in manifest anxiety between Berkeley Free Speech Movement members and the general student pOpulation; Trent (1970) did report that Free Speech Movement members who were arrested scored higher on anxiety than did nonmembers. Alienation. In the realm of alienation, Almond (1954) noted that "alienative feelings" resulting from early deprivation may contribute to susceptibility to Communism if other aspects of life (such as an individual's knowledge and values) are "ripe." Meier (1965) found that white civil-rights activists were split into two groups-- those alienated from American society (such as "beatniks," "radicals," pacifists, etc.) and those who weren't alien- ated but who were attached to American values and ideals. Fishman and Solomon (1964) pointed out that many youths alienated 1 would stror movement. than did nc and on Dear Sin participant there is ex activists) "search for the revolut They give a Pean Zionis 9radation, (P. 4). Mat the populis the Ordinar the "little have bEen a Qisruption were deSign. formal and : 10 alienated from school, jobs, and other aspects of society would strongly dedicate themselves to work in a social movement. Activists scored higher on Srole's Anomie Scale than did nonactivists in the study by Watts et a1. (1969) and on Dean's Alienation Scale in a study by Sheehan (1971). Similar to the hypothesized alienation of movement participants, Fishman and Solomon (1964) concluded that there is evidence of an "intense nostalgia" (among student activists) for simple cultural roots and traditions--a "search for the romanticized past" no matter how intense the revolution's desire to destroy the more recent past. They give as an example the biblical roots to which Euro- pean Zionist youth looked, roots "which antedated the de- gradation, vulnerability and dependency of the ghetto" (p. 4). Matza (1964) felt that student radicalism involved the populist belief in the creativity and superiority of the ordinary, uneducated, unintellectual peOple. Similarly, the "little Utopias" in Japan were seen by Plath (1968) to have been a reaction to modernization and to the consequent disruption of simple community life; the small communities were designed to "personalize" life, to make life less formal and removed from the individual. Infield (1955), speaking of members of cooperative communities throughout the world, noted that "they feel that in the world of today they are in fact exiles 'who have not built yet their home- land'" (p. 5). 11 All this would seem to support the view that member- ship in a social movement may be most important in giving the individual something to "belong" to when he is alien- ated from the outer society--the movement may help him by "submerging him into the crowd" and by giving him a feel- ing that he is a member of something "larger than himself." Indeed, Abel (1938) reported that membership in the Nazi Gemeinschaft gave life a "new meaning" to many who had lost hope and a sense of purpose, and Cantril (1941) came to the same conclusion in discussing the Nazis as well as follow- ers of the Townsend Plan, the Oxford Group, and the King- dom of Father Divine. Joining, emphasized Cantril, enhanCed the self by giving the individual a reason to live. Fromm's (1941) concept of an "escape from freedom" is ap- parently similar, in that seeking to escape the powerless- ness and insecurity of isolation can often lead to meaning- giving group memberships. Looking at participation in movements as a method of enhancing identity by answering the question "Who am I?" has been suggested by many additional writers. Heberle (1949, 1957) emphasized the devotion of individuals to activist movements which "claim the entire man," and Hoffer (1951) noted that fanatics must have causes that offer "re- birth" and pride and a sense of belonging. King (1956), Turner and Killian (1957), Schein (1961), Vander Zanden (1963), Schiff (1964), Matza (1964), Fishman and Solomon (1964) 7 CO (1966) , an of members nd Zander uncertaint Festinger, submerged eral membe. 0f obtaini: movements. E membership lOgical dis longing On arise—S. of . social move; PErsQnality Cantril (194 Rants, the i his temperam tellectual Ce portEmce in d or rejects th writers! howe. approach he Sec (1963) Claimed 12 (1964), Coles (1964), Meier (1965), Toch (1965), Cameron (1966), and Kotler (1971) all discussed various aspects of membership as a search for meaning, while Cartwright and Zander (1968) discussed groups in general as ending uncertainty concerning the validity of beliefs and values. Festinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb (1957) noted that "being submerged in the group" is a basic need satisfied by gen- eral membership. It appears, thus, that the possibility of obtaining meaning in groups is not limited to social movements. Personality. Even ignoring the possibility of membership in movements as a response to general psycho- logical discontent, or as a search for meaning and be— longing on the part of the alienated, the possibility arises, of course, that differential participation in social movements is a result of the possession of specific personality patterns (Heberle, 1951; Smelser, 1963). Cantril (1941) noted that, despite sociological determi- nants, the individual is important as a selective agent; his temperament, his ways of expressing himself, his in- tellectual capacities, claimed Cantril, are of great im- portance in determining whether he accepts society's norms or rejects them and joins a social movement. Several writers, however, have emphasized the inadequacy of an approach based solely on personality differences. Smelser (1963) claimed that the relevant psychological variables depend on Lang (196i is not a < "follower: F lescent n. in movemel also, that work in dj Schiff (19 on e90 con (1970) pre Lang and L. terns of h: COHGCtive and Kerpeln differences (but not et; commoh among (1963) diSCL‘ the right an (1970) I howe demonstrate“ 13 depend on social conditions and determinants, and Lang and Lang (1963) and Fishman and Solomon (1964) noted that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between personality and "followership" behavior. Fishman and Solomon (1964) pointed out that ado- lescent needs for recognition and exhibition can be met in movement demonstrations, chants, uniforms, etc., and, also, that a dependence-independence continuum may be at work in distinguishing between conservatism and liberalism. Schiff (1964) found conservative activists scoring high on ego control and repression, and Evans and Alexander (1970) presented similar results for black activists. Lang and Lang (1963) similarly suggested that motive pat- terns of high ego-defenders may be of some importance in collective behavior, although the findings of Bay (1967) and Kerpelman (1969) differed over radical-conservative differences on ego defensiveness. High authoritarianism (but not ethnocentrism) was found by Schiff (1964) to be common among activist conservatives, and Lang and Lang (1963) discussed ego-defensive authoritarianism, both of the right and of the left. Snell, Wakefield, and Shonts (1970), however, found no F-Scale differences between peace demonstrators and a matched sample. Before the notion that "rational" reasons exist for social movement participation can be examined, it becomes necessary to investigate the evidence concerning the mental health Of early stud deviant be ment membe to--the ge: characteri: the 26th I: participant relative "n (Mitscherli Mar Vidual para Persecution reform soci. hYSteria in found 13011:; rational, re mama, and behavior in More recentl as the actio DOtEd that ' ( 14 health of movement members. McCormack (1951) noted that early studies considered "radicalism" to be an example of deviant behavior, while later studies found social move- ment members to be no different from--and, even, "superior" to--the general population in regard to various personality characteristics. However, in a recent panel discussion at the 26th International Psycho-Analytical Convention, the participants could not come to a consensus concerning the relative "mental health" or "pathology" of protestors (Mitscherlich, 1970). I Martin (1923) compared the "crowd mind" to indi— vidual paranoia, complete with delusions of grandeur and persecution, and Rinaldo (1921) felt that the drive to reform society was a frustrated sexual need producing hysteria in the individual. Allport and Hartman (1925) found politically extreme behavior to be motivated by non- rational, repressed, emotional behavior rather than by reason, and Lasswell (1930) sought the causes of political behavior in unresolved, infancy-originated conflicts. More recently, Smelser (1963) has seen collective behavior as the action of the "impatient," while Heberle (1951) noted that, especially in the early stages of a movement, a large proportion of neurotic and paranoid individuals are often present. (Perhaps in a similar vein is Fishman & Solomon's, 1964, note that during times of social protest 15 both the crime rate and referrals to psychiatrists de- crease, indicating to them that prosocial action consonant with beliefs may reduce the need for acting out more socially—destructive or self—destructive patterns. How- ever, an alternative explanation may be found in the simi— lar finding of Luetgert, Roth, and Jacobs, 1971, that students in psychotherapy were more idealistic and more optimistic about the possibility of constructive social change resulting from protests. Luetgert et_gl. sug- gested that the same underlying value system may be re- sponsible for expectations regarding change in the individ- ual and change in society.) Heberle (1951) noted that advocating impractical "crackpot" ideas does not necessarily mean that a person is neurotic, and Vetter (1930) and Krout and Stagner (1939) found no evidence for "abnormality" among radicals. Kerpelman (1969), similarly, found activists to be no dif- ferent from nonactivists, and leftists no different from rightists, on an emotional stability scale. The beliefs that to be "neurotic" in a deformed society and that to desire "utopian" solutions to problems is honorable, and in fact, healthy and rational, was ex- pressed by Koestler (1949). Indeed, Flugel (1945) con- cluded that left-oriented attitudes were a healthy adjust— ment and a step toward a "mature persohality." Mor (1967). Kir (1969) , and vists are e of leadersh ligence, "c health. Ki. public stem maladjustmer students, a: theories of tury "antide Often presen 16 More recently, Baird (1968), Bay (1967), Keniston (1967), Kirtley and Harkless (1970), Lessing and Zagorin (1969), and Trent (1970) all presented evidence that acti- vists are equal to, or superior to, nonactivists in terms of leadership, autonomy, flexibility, creativity, intel- ligence, "critical thinking ability," and general mental health. Kirtley and Harkless (1970) concluded that the public stereotype linking student political activity to maladjustment was more appropriate to politically passive students, and Currie and Skolnick (1970), criticizing theories of collective behavior based on Nineteenth Cen- tury "antidemocratic" theorists, noted the rationality often present even in non-movement-oriented collective action such as riots. Values. Hartley and Hartley (1952) gave, as one answer to the question, "Why join groups?" the answer of most social movement participants: to achieve the stated goals of the group. Several others have pointed out that, to one degree or another, "ideological" or "value“ dif- ferences are of some importance. Thus, while Solomon and Fishman (1964) found that most peace demonstrators they studied did not have a broad and firm political ideology, Heberle (1968) maintained that mass adherence to a social movement "is gained by rational reaction to economic or other social conditions" rather than, predominantly, to psychological maladjustments (p. 441). Bittner (1963) similarly sponse of Toch (196! strumenta.‘ Cameron (2 Killian (1 joining tc and Ash (1 "movement the fact t. incentives MCC may represe also a posi Similar Vei demonstrate Vated by re. ideals," anc communities Values. Alt Sought only . cluded that r seeking baSic Littl value differel Rokeach (1968) 17 similarly considered "radicalism" to be the organized re— sponse of a group to its environment. In a like manner, Toch (1965) distinguished between belief-centered and in- strumental motives for joining a movement, and Bay (1967), Cameron (1966), Chin (1964), Lipset (1970), and Turner and Killian (1957) considered idealistic, rational bases for joining to be of some importance in social movements. Zald and Ash (1966), in fact, saw as the main difference between "movement organizations" and "nonmovement organizations" the fact that, in a movement, purposive or value-fulfillman: incentives predominate. McCormack (1951) noted that even though radicalism may represent a protest against established values, it is also a positive identification with other values. In a similar vein, Meier (1965) pointed out that some of the demonstrators he studied were not alienated but were moti— vated by religious principles to strive toward "American ideals," and Plath (1968) discussed the Japanese utopian communities as an attempt to maintain important cultural values. Although Cantril (1941) thought most movements sought only to change specific norms, Altbach (1967) con— cluded that most student movements were value-oriented, seeking basic societal changes. Little has been done, however, to determine actual value differences between movement members and nonmembers. Rokeach (1968) suggested that Socialists, Communists, Fascists ar tive evalua (1951) four adherents c attitudes V. active move Par participati values A No lower, than Tracy (1970; compared 21 that the hi; Inner Harmer World of Bea Self"Respect Security, I stressed Hon. Responsible a Conse CaUSes and th rather than a difficult to : be reasonable acaUSativ€n i n factors 01, Val 18 Fascists and Rightist Republicans differed on their rela- tive evaluation of "freedom" and "equality," and Heberle (1951) found that a "social" attitude predominated among adherents of small sectarian movements--but that "political" attitudes were more characteristic of party leaders and active movement participants. Parrott (1970) presented evidence that individuals participating in a "Moratorium" peace march ranked the values A World at Peace higher, and National Security lower, than did nonmarchers. Similarly, Cross, Doost, and Tracy (1970), also using Rokeach's (1968) Value Survey, compared 21 "hippies" with college students. They found that the hippies ranked more important the terminal values Inner Harmony, Wisdom, A World at Peace, Equality, and A World of Beauty, while they deemphasized the importance of Self-Respect, A Sense of Accomplishment, and National Security. In the area of instrumental values, the hippies stressed Honest and Forgiving as opposed to values such as Responsible and Logical. Consequences. When discussion revolves about the causes and the consequences of belonging to a movement rather than about the correlates of membership, it is often difficult to separate the cause from the effect. It may be reasonable to suppose that family background factors are "causative" in nature. When it comes to personality factors or value differences, however, assigning causality to the SPE unjustifie psychologi to join a addition, of members in fact be Ca; in the mow For one th; take part 1' his mere ac lations, M Um friendl PiCions in . himself 150: This contribute t ofnhmbershi notEdr first V01Ves d Sac] that MOSt memb VOlVed in expel-1encl COmmi them desire is Uring men 19 to the specific trait rather than to the movement may be unjustified, although, in most of the work cited above, the psychological factors were seen as causing the individual to join a movement. There are many theorists who have, in addition, discussed what they indicated to be the effects of membership, although, again, these "consequences" may in fact be causal in nature. Cameron (1966) noted that the effects of membership in the movement on an individual's outside activities vary. For one thing, a person's mobility is affected if he is to take part in movement activities, and this, in addition to his mere act of joining, may affect his interpersonal re- lations. Membership, noted Cameron (1966), may facilitate the friendly reactions of a few, but it may arouse sus- picions in the reactions of many, and the member may find himself isolated from nonmembers. This hampering of relations with nonmembers may contribute to most of the other hypothesized consequences of membership, discussed most fully by Toch (1965). Toch noted, first of all, that membership in a movement in- volves a sacrifice of autonomy and of privacy; he added that Most members . . . either feel that the sacrifice in- volved in commitment is worth it, or else they don't experience it as a sacrifice. They want to make the commitments demanded by their goals. Where this desire is not a factor in joining, it tends to develop during membership (p. 135). Abel (1938) m before person. also discusse« vists. The r of the moveme. i_ty seen amon be “ideologic 1964, and Sol that I'true be be "Without a according to and SOlomon ( vists for Una Muoh 1 membership in Sherif (1936) and Cantril ( Lang and Lang tude as a CO” Nisbett, and . Performs b eha‘ 20 Abel (1938) noted that the Nazis placed "the common good before personal advancement," and Fishman and Solomon (1964) also discussed acts of self-sacrifice among student acti- vists. The readiness to give up something "for the sake of the movement" may add to the feeling of moral superior- ity seen among those who engage in what they consider to be "ideological" rather than "market" politics (see Matza, 1964, and Solomon & Fishman, 1964). Hoffer (1951) noted that "true believers" consider anyone without a cause to be "without a backbone"; only a readiness to die indicates, according to the believer, a lack of inner decay. Fishman and Solomon (1964) also noted the disdain of youth acti- vists for unaffiliated youth. Much work has been done on the role of group membership in general in creating conformity among members. Sherif (1936) pointed out the group's "leveling effect" and Cantril (1941), Infield (1955), Schachter (1959), Lang and Lang (1963), and Newcomb, Turner, and Converse (1965) similarly discussed conformity of behavior or atti- tude as a consequence of group membership. Kiesler, Nisbett, and Zanna (1969) found that when an individual performs behavior consonant with his beliefs in the company of truer believers than himself, he may become more en- trenched in his belief than before, and Backman, Secord, and Peirce (1963) found that the greater the number of significar dividual 1r to changir Se same proce Toch (1965 have simil tend to be Solomon (1 a "pressur belief" in In lander (19¢ of the Wor] seemingly, 40% c (1949) Wrot radical, pu Lofland and nordered Vi. TOCI demanded by 21 significant others who are perceived to agree that an in- dividual has a particular need, the greater the resistance to changing the need. Several writers have pointed out that much the same processes work in social movements as in other groups. Toch (1965) hypothesized that members of movements, who have similar concerns and who share the same authorities, tend to become like-minded, and Schein (1961), Fishman and Solomon (1964), and McLaughlin (1969) similarly discussed a "pressure for conformity," a "passion for unanimity of belief" in social movements. In relation to group conformity, Cartwright and Zander (1968) noted that groups construct a single view of the world to validate individual beliefs. This leads, seemingly, to the much—discussed "closedness of mind" or dogmatism of "true believers" (Hoffer, 1951). Koestler (1949) wrote that "all true faith is uncompromising, radical, purist" (p. 181), and both Simmons (1964) and Lofland and Stark (1965) discussed "belief-systems" or "ordered views of the world" involved in sects. Toch (1965) also emphasized the "closed systems" demanded by ideological commitment after the individual undergoes "psychological reorganization" and comes to see things as they really are" (p. 125). The group member was seen by Toch as undergoing a progression from first commit— ment to dogmatism, a progression that allows the movement and the ideo (1960) noted and a dread (1960) felt orientation , “ideological that the mov Le E of crowds to "closed syst facts of mm on the movem (1963) . Cant Turner and K Cameron (196 Clos Process of s Can alter an Sherif (1935 lief is adOp‘ actively def. which Seek u concepti0n 01 both an extra Cessmg. of f lean 0f cert 22 and the ideology to "explain" the world as it is. Rokeach (1960) noted that a closed system defends against anxiety and a dread of the future; in fact, Rokeach and Bonier (1960) felt that a "closed system" involved a future orientation, and they discussed such an orientation in "ideological movements." Hoffer (1951) had earlier noted that the movement member "lives for the future." Le Bon (1896) much earlier discussed the adherence of crowds to "fictions," and Martin (1923) noted that a "closed system of ideas" is often substituted for the facts of experience. This increasing dogmatic insistence on the movement "line" has also been assumed by Bittner (1963), Cantril (1941), Fishman and Solomon (1964), and Turner and Killian (1957). Most social movements, noted Cameron (1966), seek to instill conviction, not objectivity. Closely related to a dogmatic world-view is the process of selectivegperception. That group situations can alter an individual's perceptions was discussed by Sherif (1936). Toch (1965) hypothesized that, once a be- lief is adopted, it becomes a vested interest that is actively defended by perceptual and cognitive mechanisms which seek to make the world correspond to the individual's conception of it, rather than the reverse. Toch discussed both an extreme "denial of facts" and a more routine "pro- cessing" of facts, exaggerating the importance or preva- lence of certain events and minimizing the extent of others. Bitt? terpreting re confirming ev is usually fo enough to be Despi selective per movements, 11 available. R munists highe However, Bair student activ aCtiViStS, an found Berkele; nonactiviStS . lar data for ‘ in 1925, Moon habits on a m: anong "CODSen being Operatit 23 others. Bittner (1963) also discussed this process of "in- terpreting reality," and Simmons (1964) noted that when confirming evidence for a particular belief is sought, it is usually found, since most situations are ambiguous enough to be interpreted as "confirming evidence." Despite the abundant theory relating dogmatism, selective perception, and so on to membership in social movements, little empirical support for the theory is available. Rokeach and Kemp (1960) did find English Com- munists higher on dogmatism than were non-Communists. However, Baird (1968) and Keniston (1967) concluded that student activists were not more dogmatic than were non- activists, and Watts and Whittaker (1966) and Trent (1970) found Berkeley activists to be more "flexible" than Were nonactivists. Kirtley and Harkless (1970) presented simi- lar data for a different sample. (It may be relevant that, in 1925, Moore found a greater readiness to break old habits on a mirror-drawing task among "radicals" than among "conservatives.") Contradictions. Most of the factors suggested as being operative in movement participation have not as yet been adequately examined, and, in general, the evidence that is available has not shed a great deal of light on the subject. This may be a result of proposing factors for "movements in general" rather than for specific types of movements. It may be too much to expect that the same processes are communities, The c approach is c in different haps Hoffer's concerned wit while other " can be met or there is a 3 Upon rational to inner frus We; Histc '0 Classifyir Some difficul (1966) define C01Ollize HEbz Lang (1963) w ment of a hon Sher-row and R ideology as " JEWish peOPle preferred Pla< being inst on 24 processes are at work in mass revolutions, in small utOpian communities, and in sects predicting the end of the world. The contradictions may be resolved once the approach is changed to one that seeks different motivations in different movements--and in different individuals. Per~ haps Hoffer's (1951) "true believer" may, indeed, be un- concerned with the specific movement of which he is a part, while other "believers" may have quite specific needs that can be met only in quite specific movements. And, perhaps, there is a £523 believer, one who bases his participation upon rationally-derived values rather than upon a reaction to inner frustrations. Zionism as a Social Movement History. When it comes to defining "Zionism," or to classifying it as one of several "types" of movements, some difficulties arise. The American College Dictionary (1966) defines Zionism as a "modern plan or movement to colonize Hebrews in Palestine" (p. 1419), while Lang and Lang (1963) wrote that Zionism "aimed at the re-establish— ment of a homeland for Jews in Palestine" (p. 490). Sherrow and Ritterband (1970) defined commitment to Zionist ideology as "agreement with an analysis of Judaism and the Jewish people which concludes that Israel is the proper or preferred place of settlement of Jews" (p. 216). Peres (1963) thought that Zionism, rather than being just one of many migratory movements, was essentially a revolt of Jewis sion out l'Zionisrn To the o 27). Wh: of the nu of Zionis on the ge "What is answered, Zionists 1 Out the pa 25 a revolutionary movement rejecting the basis of existence of Jewish society in the Diaspora (areas of Jewish disper- sion outside Israel). Hoffer (1951) pointed out that "Zionism is a nationalist movement and a social revolution. To the orthodox Jew it is also a religious movement" (p. 27). While Cameron (1966) noted only the religious origins of the movement, Shuval (1963) discussed the mixed nature of Zionism's religious and political elements, depending on the geographical location of the Zionist. The questions "What is Zionism?" and "Who is a Zionist?" cannot be easily answered, and, in fact, are being hotly discussed among Zionists today (Leuchter, 1970), just as they were through- out the past century (Hertzberg, 1960). Migration to Israel is considered by many to be more than a mere change of residence. As Shuval (1963) noted (p. 46): . . . the immigrant movement to Israel is qualita- tively different from immigrant movements to other countries. The basic difference has to do with the ideology of the Zionist movement and its system of values which has traditionally emphasized the domi- nance of collective rather than individual goals. Whereas immigrants to Australia or Canada are gen- erally most concerned with personal economic gain and security, the Zionist immigrant to Israel is ideally normatively oriented to the economic and social advancement of the country and only secondarily to his own welfare. A possible disparity between ideal and actual acceptance of the norms should, of course, be borne in mind. Among others, Sherrow and Ritterband (1970) recently presented similar views. Thu least, a Zi gration in not a dues- organizatic to Israel 1' Up" to Isre of existenc 1970). The 0f the Dias Jews“and, who Conside countries c the United eConomic a: among Merj (inunigratic ing Rus S i a: Camps , and idEOlOgiCa] ideOlogy OI movements ’ RQVQr go to sitated adj 26 Thus, the immigrant to Israel is, theoretically at least, a Zionist, part of a social movement viewing immi- gration in the framework of a total ideology, even if he is not a dues-paying member of one of the Zionist movement organizations. In fact, the Hebrew word for an immigrant to Israel is glgh, meaning "one who ascends"-—one who "goes up" to Israel and seeks the establishment of a Jewish mode of existence (see Isaacs, 1967, and Sherrow & Ritterband, 1970). The early Zionist expectation of a mass desertion of the Diaspora has not, of course, been fulfilled. Most Jews--and, what is more relevant, masses of individuals who consider themselves Zionists-—continue to live in their countries of birth, especially in those countries (such as the United States) where the Jews have attained relative economic and social security. Sherman (1963) noted that, among American Jews, there is no compulsion for aliya (immigration to Israel), as there was among the Jews flee- ing Russian and Arab pogroms and German concentration camps, and that those who do migrate are moved solely by ideological factors. Whether, indeed, the cause is ideology or any of the other causes operative in social movements, most Jews are not affected, and most Zionists never go to Israel for more than a visit. This has neces- sitated adjustments in Zionist thought, especially among non-Israeli Zionists. S: that "bur: away, and bureaucra‘ izations" tionalizec by many W1 fact that tions were for its ve Zionists t Without 51¢ assist Is: Person r01 for the in Persecutic Cantly Sin been a fir American 2 Slred’ Sta Yo to be the l 27 Silverberg (1970), as many others before him, noted that "bureaucracies do not of their own volition wither away, and by 1949 American Zionism had created an immense bureaucratic structure that sprawled over a host of organ- izations" (p. 447). American Zionism was in the institu- tionalized "end stage" of the movement life span discussed by many writers (see, for example, Wallace, 1956). The fact that Israel was established, that immigration restric- tions were removed, and that the new country was fighting for its very existence made it difficult for American Zionists to justify their remaining in the United States without shifting their aims; Zionism's goal became to assist Israel rather than to create it or take a first- person role in fighting for its survival, to raise money for the immigrants who "needed" Israel in order to escape persecution. And although aliyg has increased signifi- cantly since the 1967 war (Silverberg, 1970), it has long been a firmly established assumption, in the official American Zionist adult world, that "Zionism without (mi— gration to) Israel" is not only the necessary, but the de- sired, state of affairs (Neufeld, 1963). Youthful Zionists often reject what they consider to be the hypocrisy of their elders. In interpreting Zionism after Israel was established, and especially in the past few years, many members of the Zionist youth move- ment organizations sought to make aliya the primary goal of Zionism. the young V and nonaffi Project anc call for Z:' ation mover adult-Spons of greater youth (in 1 Zations") j Si] American SE oriGin, We] tural Settj kibbutz-Or: more immigl ments . The mains assp: is only a 1 that the $1 is dropping Git movement in munities t (iiscilsseC1 t sociolOgica 28 of Zionism. There is at present much disenchantment among the young when they confront the Zionist "establishment," and nonaffiliated groups such as the Jewish Liberation Project and the Radical Zionist Alliance have arisen to call for Zionism to once again become the "national liber- ation movement of the Jewish people." Even within the adult-sponsored youth movements, however, aliy§_has become of greater importance, and a growing hostility between the youth (in the "movement") and their elders (in the "organi- zations") is becoming evident (Jacobson, 1970). Silverberg (1970) reported that one-fifth of the American settlers in Israel, who were largely of urban origin, were either on a kibbutz or in some other agricul— tural settlement. Neufeld (1963) pointed out that the kibbutz-oriented Zionist youth movements were sending many more immigrants to Israel than were the more general move- ments. The appeal of kibbutz for American immigrants re- mains despite the fact that the Israeli kibbutz population is only a fraction of the total Israeli population, and that the status of the kibbutz member in Israeli society is dr0pping (Samuel, 1969). Gide (1930) and Infield (1955) placed the kibbutz movement in the long historical tradition of utopian com— munities throughout the world, and Darin-Drabkin (1963) discussed the kibbutz attempt to contribute "micro- sociologically" in creating a new society, much as the Japanese sects in g butzim ori adequate n Darin-Drab tation" na of a prima early piOn socialist : DE behind Par" an more p; much the sa ments in 9, general, a in mOst. In field (1955 planning tC parents, th mobility; t 29 Japanese "little utopias" (Plath, 1968) and as withdrawal sects in general (Gusfield, 1970). Pointing out that kib- butzim originally formed because of a need to develop an adequate means of agriculture in the swamps of Palestine, Darin-Drabkin (1963) noted that the "social experimen- tation" nature of kibbutz--and its elevation to the status of a primary Zionist goal--developed later, although the early pioneers were strongly influenced by the Russian socialist movement they had just left. Motivations. When one investigates the motivations behind participation in today's American Zionist movement—- and more particularly among those who migrate to Israel-- much the same factors as have been noted for social move- ments in general can be discussed. As for movements in general, evidence is available in several areas but sparse in most. In the area of personal background factors, In- field (1955) found that 27 of his 30 subjects (who were all planning to go on aliyg_to a kibbutz) had two foreign-born parents, thus supporting the notion of the importance of mobility; the Israel Institute (1970) presented similar data for immigrants in general. Also in accordance with hypotheses developed in other contexts, Infield {1955) and the Israel Institute (1970) found evidence of good re- lations between immigrants and their parents, although Samuel (19¢ age their c cause of ti group—-the migrate. for M, lion" disc1 grating to parents by parents do Inf tute (1970) religious j (although 5 (1949, 1962 fluences bc live in Is: exPectation Was the " PI on the deci The f O % 1n . lnterviewim given for 11‘: 30 Samuel (1969) noted that most parents who allow or encour- age their children to join Zionist groups do so only be— cause of the benefits expected in belonging to a "Jewish" group--the parents usually do not approve of the desire to migrate. (Perhaps there is operating in the motivation for aliya, then, something akin to the "obedient rebel- lion" discussed by Schiff, l964—-perhaps the act of mi- grating to Israel is a means of showing hostility to the parents by doing a supposedly acceptable thing which the parents do not really desire.) Infield (1955), Isaacs (1967), the Israel Insti- tute (1970), and Engel (1971) all provided evidence of a religious family background on the part of immigrants (although Neufeld, 1963, assumed the opposite), and Herman (1949, 1962) emphasized the importance of peer group in- fluences both in becoming a Zionist and in deciding to live in Israel. Herman (1949), in fact, noted that an expectation was built up in the movement that immigration was the "proper thing" to do; the most decisive influence on the decision to migrate, reported the respondents, was the example of leaders and friends who also migrated. The whole thrust toward looking for psychological factors in membership has been relatively neglected in terms of Zionism, although Isaacs (1967) did find, in interviewing Americans in Israel, that many of the reasons given for immigration had to do with individual personal 31 problems rather than with the acceptance of Zionist ideol- ogy or of Jewish values. Engel (1971) noted the prevailing "myth" that immigrants who return to the United States are actually motivated by personal problems or by economic factors--"bad" reasons-—while those who remain in Israel are there for "good" Jewish or ideological reasons. What has been emphasized by several investigators is the role that alienation from American society and a "search for meaning" are assumed to play in aliyg, Hoffer (1951) noted that the modern Jew, with the end of his group-dependent existence, became a ready convert for movements, and he suggested that Zionism was available to "enfold" the Jews, to end individual isolation. Halpern (1956) made much the same point when he noted that Zionism gives meaning to many American Jews who are not attracted by the religious aspects of Jewish life. Isaacs (1967) found that many immigrants to Israel were looking for a life with more meaning; the feeling that they were "building the Jewish State" gave a higher purpose to life, and the feeling that "this is mine" represented a sense of belonging. Many who migrated immediately after World War II went to aid in the armed struggle, to help bring in illegal immigrants from EurOpe, to settle the desert--they went, in short, during the "time for heroes." Perhaps individuals seeking to regain the feeling of ac— complishing something worthwhile may still find a possible haven in I in the Uni 1970, and that the i society we detached f the Israel not aliena Th. have also 1 (1953) disc seeking to that the ea t0 Tolstoy. as exemplif near‘aSceti In that an act, Zionist‘insl migrants, bL than Were PG for their Sc kibbutz memb nonmembers, . at equ, vanguard Of t 32 haven in Israel, especially when they do not "feel at home" in the United States (as reported by the Israel Institute, 1970, and Herman, 1962). The Institute also pointed out that the immigrants who were most integrated into Israeli society were the ones who were at the extreme in feeling detached from American society. It should be noted that the Israel Institute (1970) found that the immigrants were not alienated in their work, family, or social relations. The motivations for going to kibbutz in particular have also been considered to some degree. Darin-Drabkin (1963) discussed the attractions of kibbutz for those seeking to simplify and personalize their lives; he felt that the early Jewish pioneers from Russia were attracted to Tolstoy's ideas of the virtues of simple village life, as exemplified by A. D. Gordon and other proponents of near-ascetic Zionist lives. In terms of specific traits, Shuval (1963) found that an active-passive dimension was not relevant to Zionist-inspired career choices among non-American im— migrants, but she did find that Optimists were more likely than were pessimists to choose kibbutz as the proper place for their sons. Darin-Drabkin (1963) noted that early kibbutz members had a sense of moral superiority toward nonmembers, since they were the leaders in the movement aimed at equality and social justice as well as being the vanguard of the desert-conquering pioneers. A feeling in 33 much of Zionist thought that Jews who do not go on aliya are somehow failing in their Juadism was pointed out by Silverberg (1970). Religious reasons, of course, are commonly given as explanations of migration to Israel, and so are Zionist, value-based factors (Engel, 1971; Isaacs, 1967; Israel Institute, 1970; and Neufeld, 1963» although Sherrow and Ritterband (1970) presented evidence (against both views) in favor of an ethnic identification factor felt to be most important. Herman (1949) found that those individuals who were training to become kibbutz members were more likely to feel the interdependency of Jewish fate--to feel that all Jews form a single "people" rather than a re- ligious group--than were nonimmigrants; he also found that future immigrants "enjoyed being Jewish," and were more proud of their identity than were nonimmigrants. In regard to the "consequences" of movement parti- cipation, Infield (1955) noted the conformity of members of kibbutz—oriented groups, part of the "we-feeling" created. A possible selective perception effect at work among European Zionist immigrants in the years immediately after the founding of the state was discussed by Shuval (1963), in terms of perceptions of the immigrant's con- ditions. It appears, thus, that although the factors in-' volved in becoming a Zionist and in going on aliya have not been a migrants 4 (Israel I: grandparel States. T in America ings of a: of the vie life can t ready made ize SUppo: Jewish peo the exiles the direct; Participatj difficult t ffiflffligageE TE GusfiEld ( 11 involved in (1949) , Isaa thing for Am ground factOJ and cognitive different 1110‘ 34 not been adequately investigated, some do stand out. Im— migrants appear to be under an "East European influence" (Israel Institute, l970)--to have religious parents or grandparents who migrated from Eastern Europe to the United States. This migration may help create a marginal status in American society, a status that may contribute to feel- ings of alienation, feelings that lead to the acceptance of the view that Israel is the place where meaning in life can be found—-especially when close friends have al- ready made a similar decision. Immigrants tend to verbal— ize support of the Zionist doctrines of the unity of the Jewish people, of the importance of the "ingathering of ' and of pride in being Jewish. Of course, the exiles,‘ the direction of causality between alienation, movement participation, and acceptance of Zionist ideology remains difficult to determine. Hypotheses The role of dissatisfaction. Heberle (1951) and Gusfield (1970) discussed the complex sources of motivation involved in membership in social movements, and Herman (1949), Isaacs (1967), and Engel (1971) noted much the same thing for American immigrants to Israel. Various back— ground factors, personality variables, value orientations, and cognitive styles undoubtedly play differing roles, in different movements, for different individuals. What seems to run th is the as cussed cc the indiv results i which is difficult work in m. standable sonal diss true by (is as somethi gation. w Satisfied . after decal g for Specifj like” to r pose that a For example V‘E‘riables w} important it faCtion ' and SEemS ‘10 be 35 to run through most discussions of these factors, however, is the assumption that the particular factor being dis- cussed contributes in some way to the dissatisfaction of the individuals concerned, and that this dissatisfaction results in the desire to change the status quo, a desire which is met by participating in a social movement. The difficulty involved in specifying specific variables at work in movement participation is rendered more under- standable when it is realized that even the assumed per- sonal dissatisfaction of members is usually taken to be true by definition (Blumer, 1951; Toch, 1965) rather than as something to be discovered through empirical investi— gation. Whether members of movements are, indeed, less satisfied with their lives than are nonmembers remains, after decades of discussion, a fairly open question. Causality. It is suggested here that the search for specific variables at work across all movements is likely to remain fruitless. It seems reasonable to sup- pose that a general chain of causality does indeed exist. For example, background factors may determine personality variables which may, in turn, create the value orientations important in the development of alienation or dissatis- faction, and this dissatisfaction may result in the de- sire for change necessary for membership. However, there seems to be little basis for assuming that each element in the causal chain is of equal importance in different movements movement. may in pa: different WI one way 0: members be least, has theoretica is demonst fiEd than reasons th. movements ‘ 5Rated the SatiSfied I COm: Shaver (196$ \ nOted a "mod crepant Colldj Self and the System, as pe a causatiVe a 36 movements, or even for different individuals in the same movement. Sometimes, in fact, the direction of causality may in part be reversed, thus making more complex the differentiation of "dependent" and "independent" variables. What does appear to remain constant is that, in one way or another, members of social movements remain members because they are dissatisfied people--this, at least, has been the implicit assumption in much of the theoretical work done in the past. However, only once it is demonstrated that members of movements are less satis- fied than are nonmembers will it make sense to seek the reasons that some dissatisfied people are members of movements while others are not. If it should be demon- strated that members of social movements are ngt_dis- satisfied relative to nonmembers, much of the theoretical basis of the "explanation" of movement participation will have to be altered. Components of dissatisfaction. Robinson and Shaver (1969) discussed "unhappiness" as being one com— ponent of alienation from the social system, and they noted a "moderate correlation" between the two. Converse- ly, alienation--defined by Waisanen (1963) as a "dis- crepant condition between the goals and attitudes of the self and the goals and norms of a particular social system, as perceived by the person" (p. 3)--may be seen as a causative agent in the development of unhappiness. In either c( alienatit deed, th¢ in suppo: of here . lessnessl to an ”ur and more there is aCtiVists Ety than c 1965), Whj lessness" “Feet of not highly The dissatisfaC such diSSat respondenCe his View of I‘EViewing th 37 either case, it appears likely that both unhappiness and alienation may be factors in movement participation. In— deed, the studies discussed above provided some evidence in support of the View of greater alienation among members. It should be noted that the alienation conceived of here includes less of thelaspect of powerlessness, norm- lessness, and meaninglessness (which may be more relevant to an “uncommitted" type of alienation--Keniston, 1965) and more of the aspect of "cultural alienation." In fact, there is some evidence indicating that black civil rights activists see themselves as legs powerless to change soci- ety than do nonactivists (Gore & Rotter, 1963; Strickland, 1965), which would indicate lesser alienation on the "power- lessness" level. Middleton (1963) demonstrated that the aspect of alienation he termed cultural estrangement was not highly related to the other aspects he measured. There is, of course, much more involved in life dissatisfaction than alienation. One possible source of such dissatisfaction would be low self-esteem, a low cor- respondence between an individual's view of himself and his view of what he would like to be. Wilson (1967), after reviewing the literature concerning "avowed happiness," concluded that self-ratings on the happiness dimension were positively related to self-esteem, and Robinson and Shaver (1969) repeatedly referred to positive correlations often found between low life satisfaction, low self-esteem, alienati' Sheehan self-est4 nition 0: I the "char those of the value m by dissatisf. by Waisane A] at all may cipation, "ValLIe dis or recogni: a Strong de a Small Wit It is aSSum value (Seen rather than and ShaVer, not live in 38 alienation, and extreme political beliefs. Similarly, Sheehan (1971) included the elements of alienation, low self-esteem, and rejection of societal values in his defi- nition of the "student activist." Flacks (1970) noted that the "values," as well as the "character structures,“ of youth are at variance with those of the dominant culture. Such a discrepancy between the values held by an individual and those held to be nor- mative by the larger society could be a further source of dissatisfaction closely resembling alienation, as defined by Waisanen (1963). Although holding nonnormative values of any type at all may lead to dissatisfaction and to movement parti- cipation, specific movements may attract individuals whose "value discrepancies" are in the direction advocated by, or recognized in, the movement. Thus, an individual with a strong desire to "serve humanity" is unlikely to join a small withdrawal sect predicting the end of the world. It is assumed here that someone with a strong, particular value (seen here as telic, or means-ends preferences, rather than as ethical, good-evil vieWpoints--Robinson and Shaver, 1969) will be somewhat dissatisfied if he can— not live in a manner consonant with that value. Commitment. Given that a person is dissatisfied in one way or another, and is looking for a way to change the status quo (either his own or society's), there are several dissatis The fine out of 5 social 1 individ1 of persc crepancj element movement mining t and he d and ESE}: 2 StUdied h for Vario to follow ing of "be S’Omething however, t Years and e taken here life diSSat Sent at the 18 entirelY 39 several possible courses of action—-and here the degree of dissatisfaction is seen as less important than the type, The final decision as to whether an individual will drop out of society altogether, or take part in a movement for social change--and the decision as to how involved the individual will become-—may be determined by a combination of personal value orientation, specific self-ideal dis- crepancies, type of alienation, and so on, as well as the element of chance association with members of particular movements. Stanage (1970) noted the importance of deter- mining the type or level of commitment of an individual, and he discussed differences among consentive, intendive, and active commitments to social action. Zionism. In the case of the specific movement studied here, an individual may join the Zionist movement for various reasons--desires to meet other young people, to follow in the footsteps of a relative, to gain a feel- ing of "belongingness," or, occasionally, to take part in something "Jewish." Regardless of the original reason, however, the act of remaining in the movement for many years and eventually deciding to go on £1313 to Israel is taken here to be a probable indication of some type of life dissatisfaction. Whether the dissatisfaction is pre- sent at the moment of first participation, or whether (as is entirely possible) the participation itself causes a later di eventual ment may it may b ment can threaten. be termiJ lated to Promising Continue Within th migration alienatio] and the Is Others cor Ki \ ISrae1, Se' dECisicm t( reasonable dissatisfi-e is more dis; likely to gc for example, in the tradi 4O late£_dissatisfaction, is of only slight importance in the eventual decision to go to Israel. The dissatisfaction involved in the Zionist move- ment may take the form of alienation from American culture; it may be simply an awareness that the values of the move- ment cannot be fulfilled outside Israel; it may be the threatened loss of valued friendships should membership be terminated; it may even be something completely unre- lated to the movement. In any case, eliye can be seen as promising both to end present dissatisfactions and to continue in the future whatever satisfactions are found within the movement. As noted above, the View that im- migration to Israel may be related to "troubled lives" or alienation was supported by the studies of Isaacs (1967) and the Israel Institute (1970), although Engel (1971) and others considered ideological factors to be the prime motivator. Kibbutz. Once an individual has decided to go to Israel, several factors may be involved in the further decision to go to kibbutz. For one thing, it may be reasonable to expect that, given two immigrants equally dissatisfied with the larger American culture, the one who is more dissatisfied on other levels as well will be more likely to go to kibbutz; this greater dissatisfaction, for example, may be in the area of social alienation, or in the traditional "uncommitted" type of alienation involvi; sire to tarian 1 on value a lessel a high 5 a new we motivati the Unit migratioz in genera as part c ever, on exPressed SpeCific 3 unknOWn. §E PIESent re (a ZioniSt YOL for termino Portian of age, thus, r less happy; level); to h 41 involving a feeling of powerlessness. Secondly, the de- sire to become part of a small community based upon equali- tarian principles may be seen to involve a decision based on values that are nonnormative both in America and (to a lesser degree) in Israel, such as a low economic concern, a high interest in equality, an emphasis on being part of a new way of life, and so on. Without the specific Zionist motivation, the same individuals might join a commune in the United States. It may be possible to consider the psychology of migration to Israel as that which is involved in migration in general, and to see an interest in an Israeli kibbutz as part of a general interest in living communally. How- ever, on an ideological level at least, this is not the expressed vieWpoint of most of the participants, and the specific relationship between these variables remains unknown. Specific hypotheses. The hypotheses tested in the present research were the following: (a) Members of a social movement (in this case, a Zionist youth movement organization--see Zald & Ash, 1966, for terminology) are less satisfied with at least some portion of their lives than are nonmembers. On the aver- age, thus, members should be found to conSider themselves less happy; to be more alienated (especially on a cultural level); to have a lower level of self-esteem; and to be less nor members. "members verbally Ship) fre ideology nonmember the membe and those Satisfied bEIievers individual should ind kibbutz; a 42 less normative in their value orientations than should non- members. These differences should separate both official "members" from nonmembers, as well as separating those who verbally identify with the movement (regardless of member- ship) from those who do not; (b) Individuals who vary in commitment to the ideology of the movement--whether dues-paying members or nonmember "followers"--should vary in a manner similar to the member-nonmember relation. That is, Zionist "believers" and those planning to migrate to Israel should be less satisfied, more alienated, and so on, than should non- believers and those not planning to live in Israel, and individuals going to kibbutz should be less satisfied than should individuals planning to live in Israel but not on kibbutz; and (c) An interest in migration in general and in living communally should be positively related to the pro— pensity to go on eliy§_and to go to kibbutz, and those interested in communalism or in migration in general should be less satisfied (again, in all the areas of dis- satisfaction) than those not so inclined. Dependence of variables. As noted above, studies such as the present one, which are both exploratory and correlational in nature, cannot assign causality to any specific variable. The decision in the present study to term the movement-oriented variables "independent" and the satisfact arbitrary events. 43 satisfaction-related variables "dependent" was fairly arbitrary, and was not meant to imply a causal flow of events. The Movem T] youth move more than more local Yo1mg Juda in large p movement a other part Un groups. Wh; members CO! a kibbutz, ZioniSt YOL bEen a "gen members Spe and only af . . 1The If? Its arir w ic 5 Cu . Study. lc METHOD The Movement The movement selected for study was the Zionist youth movement in the United States, which is composed of more than a dozen national movement organizations and many more local ones. The specific organization studied was Hamagshimim, the college-age level of Hashachar (formerly Young Judaea and Junior Hadassah). This group was selected in large part because the investigator is a member of the movement and thought he could obtain the cooperation of the other participants.1 Unlike the chalutzic ("pioneering") Zionist youth groups, which have traditionally sought to have their young members commit themselves to living in Israel, hopefully in a kibbutz, Hashachar ("the Dawn"), the largest of the Zionist youth movement organizations, has traditionally been a "general" youth group which sought to have its members spend a year in Israel before attending college, and only afterwards "consider" the possibility of aliya. lThe investigator's membership in Hamagshimim.and in its garin raises the possibility of biased observations, which should, of course, be kept in mind throughout the study. 44 ThiS'was sors, Iiac (since 19 past few In 1967, branch of of these the influ Hashachar kibbutz-0‘ emphasize: Jewish edl greater in at least, ledders, v. from being enough rem the intere At dues‘paYing are tWo do] repreSEnted movement ha tween high ‘ 45 This was in line with the views of Hashachar's adult spon- sors, Hadassah and the Zionist Organization of America (since 1967, Hadassah has been the sole sponsor). In the past few years, however, several changes have taken place. In 1967, Hamagshimim ("the Fulfillers"), the college-age branch of the movement, was formed. Under the influence of these older members, and, even more important, under the influence of the 1967 war, the entire movement of Hashachar became more eliy35oriented and, also, more kibbutz-oriented. Although the movement ideology still emphasizes the importance of attracting new members, of Jewish education, and so on, personal eliy§_has taken on greater importance, and it is common for the older members, at least, to look with disdain upon members, and especially leaders, who do not go on eliye, However, eliyg is far from being a stated requirement for group membership, and enough remains in the ideology in addition to eliyg_to keep the interest of those Zionists not planning to live in Israel. At the present, Hamagshimim has approximately 390 dues-paying members throughout the United States (dues are two dollars annually). The sexes are about equally represented, and most members are college students. The movement has been hampered by the lack of continuity be- tween high school membership in Young Judaea (numbering in 46 the thousands) and college membership in Hamagshimim. Various explanations are offered for this within the move— ment itself. Many college students who grew up in the high school level of the movement are currently attending uni- versities in Israel, and many others join already-existing campus-based Zionist groups rather than organizing new Hamagshimim groups. Still other members, apparently, just lose interest, either because they have no desire to join any group at all, or because they have decided they no longer need the movement, having already made up their minds about eliyg, Some drop out when their friends do. Consequently, while many members have been in the move- ment for more than ten years, others are new to the move- ment, having just joined in college. Although it has a national mazkirut (executive board) elected annually, which puts out a newsletter and other programming materials and organizes national affairs, Hamagshimim operates primarily as a loose organization of campus groups, mainly at colleges where few additional Zionist or Jewish groups are found and where one or more Young Judaean graduates are interested in forming a group. Among the activities carried on by Hamagshimim groups are lectures and discussions about Israeli social, political, and religious affairs, Hebrew classes, Israeli dancing, discussions about aliya, and so on. Opposition to Arab and Ne! are al Hamagsi groups within has twt The mov Univers in Isral Young Je at Young in relat a group ¢ in Order the time mately 45 members, 11 13 to 25, , CouPles. 1 at the time Hm Israel after to establish: 47 and New Left vieWpoints and to persecution of Soviet Jewry are also common. Some members on campuses where Hamagshimim does not exist join whatever Jewish or Zionist groups do exist, and try to implement movement ideology within the existing groups. Aside from local campus activities, Hamagshimim has two national conventions a year in the New York area. The movement organizes a semester of studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, as well as several summer programs in Israel. Many of the members also serve as leaders of Young Judaea groups throughout the year, and as counselors at Young Judaea camps in the summer. Perhaps the most significant aspect of Hamagshimim in relation to aliya is the presence of a garin ("nucleus"), a group of people who plan to migrate to Israel together in order to form a new kibbutz (see Etzioni, 1959). At the time of the present study, Garin Hashachar had approxi- mately 45 members and 10 candidates for membership. The members, half of whom were in college, ranged in age from 18 to 25, and included two married and three engaged couples. Approximately 10 of the members were in Israel at the time. The gggin_is composed largely of graduates of the high school level of the movement who spent up to a year in Israel after high school. The gegin members are planning to establish a new kibbutz, after first spending either one or two either: lished 1 Septembe in whicl and sper undergoi those go both par tlement ; J 9&1“ hoe: in their form of J nonreligi‘ Israel). Hashachar by Providi Physically of Israel, Act recent merg 48 or two years (depending on the arrival date in Israel of either September, 1971, or September, 1972) on an estab- lished kibbutz or in the Israeli army. The group leaving September, 1971, is joining Nachal, a section of the army in which the group will remain together, study Hebrew, and spend much of the time on a kibbutz, in addition to undergoing basic and advanced military training. Most of those going later will go through basic training only, and both parts of the group together will form the new set- tlement in late 1973. In addition to a largely agricultural focus, the g§£i3_hopes to have among its members individuals working in their professions, and hopes, also, to develop some form of Jewish cultural life for both its religious and nonreligious members (which would be a new development for Israel). Additional goals include serving the movement of Hashachar by establishing a "movement base" in Israel and by providing leadership to the younger members, and being physically situated in an area of importance to the state of Israel. Actually, since Garin Hashachar is the result of a recent merger between two separate garinim (one formed in 1968, the other two years later), each of which considered its membership too small to achieve its aims, and since the two original garinim (plural of gerig) differed in the ages, college experience, and movement backgrounds of the members, state. in Hamag although vidual p. tempt is and Israe h Israel, a migrate i phasis on members, c 5° 0n, alt less activ mOVement_ ferent men: failure to but notice.- Only; Some themSQlVes to be able W sent study pSYChologic hYPotheSeS u 49 members, the new garinfs ideology and plans are in a fluid state. The garin_members are committed to full membership in Hamagshimim and to leadership in Hashachar in general, although in practice there is a wide variation in indi— vidual participation in nong§£ig_movement affairs. An at- tempt is being made to attract new members, both American and Israeli. Not all members of Hamagshimim plan to live in Israel, although the percentage of those intending to migrate is large and rising. There remains a strong em— phasis on providing leadership to the younger movement members, on demonstrating on behalf of Soviet Jewry, and so on, although many members planning to go to Israel are less active in the non-Israel-oriented aspects of the movement. "Zionism" seems to mean different things to dif- ferent members, which may be one cause of the movement's failure to become more widespread. In addition, a small but noticeable portion of the members are members in name only; some of these individuals do not actually consider themselves members, having paid their dues solely in order to be able to take part in Hamagshimim programs in Israel. The Questionnaire In view of both the exploratory nature of the pre- sent study and the unfeasibility of reducing the inherent psychological processes to experimental manipulation, the hypotheses were tested primarily by means of a 50 questionnaire, and secondarily by the participant obser- vation of the investigator. To test the questionnaire, pilot interviews were conducted with six males and six females whose names appeared on lists of about 20 indi- viduals with an expressed interest in possible migration to Israel. Although four of the interviews were conducted in East Lansing, the majority were held in Ann Arbor, where more active Jewish groups were in existence. Only the lack of time prevented interviews with all the indi- viduals on the available lists, as refusals to be inter- viewed at more convenient times were not encountered. The pilot interviews ranged in length from one hour to more than three hours, although they typically lasted about two hours. Each interview consisted of discussion with the interviewee concerning his family and educational background, his religious practices, his attitudes toward Israel, Zionism, Judaism, social movements in general, and communalism, his plans for the future (especially those concerning possible migration to Israel or to other coun- tries), and so on, in addition to written completion of the standardized scales (see Appendix A). The inter- viewees were encouraged to answer honestly, and were told that the purpose of the interviews was to develop a ques- tionnaire for use with a larger sample. They were accord- ingly asked to criticize the questions, scales, and gener- al format of the interview. All but one interviewee expresse a copy c as neces items tr and addi expected and one— deviatio‘ final f0} ( Self‘Anch ( Veroff I a] (c of the Sel (d) (e) (f) subscales 01 (9) Value SurVey. (h) “d (i) ‘1 51 expressed interest in the study, and all asked to receive a copy of the results. The final questionnaire, after revisions indicated as necessary in the pilot interviews and after deletion of items to shorten the schedule, consisted of eight scales and additional background items (see Appendix C). It was expected that the modal respondent would spend about one and one-half hours on the questionnaire, although a large deviation above that length was also foreseen. In its final form, the questionnaire consisted of the following: (a) a variation of Kilpatrick and Cantril's (1960) Self-Anchoring Satisfaction Scale; (b) the one—item happiness question used by Gurin, Veroff, and Feld (1960); (c) a combination of Sherwood's (1962) Inventory of the Self Concept and Pervin and Lilly's (1967) Self- Concept Semantic Differential; (d) Dean's (1961) Alienation Scale; (e) Middleton's (1963) Alienation Scale; (f) the Mass Culture, Familism, and A-Politicalism subscales of Nettler's (1964) Alienation Scale; (9) the Terminal Values Scale of Rokeach's (1968) Value Survey; (h) a specially-developed "Zionist Beliefs Scale"; and (i) personal information items. Anchorir to inves world, a of happi in the f tries. ents to tOp rung the bott tigation The reSp of Satis future) eduCatio father," SCale Wa. "Complet. direCtly lar items PineSS; 1 SElf‘este w. n 1th YOL (Satisfac espeCiau 52 Satisfaction. Cantril (1965) used the Self- Anchoring Scale developed by Kilpatrick and Cantril (1960) to investigate the concerns of people throughout the world, and to compare, on an ll—point scale, the levels of happiness and satisfaction (past, present, and expected in the future) expressed by individuals in different coun— tries. Cantril, for example, verbally asked his respond— ents to point to the apprOpriate rung of a ladder when the top rung represented "the best possible life for you" and the bottom one "the worst possible life for you." For the questionnaire format of the present inves- tigation, Cantril's (1965) instructions were modified. The respondents were asked to indicate their present level of satisfaction (and the level expected five years in the future) on a series of twenty 9-point scales, such as "your educational achievements," "your relationship with your father," and "your life as a whole"; the low end of each scale was labeled "Completely digsatisfied," the high end "Completely satisfied." Seven of the scales were taken directly, or modified, from Verbit (1968); eight were simi- lar items suggested in the literature as relevant to hap— piness; four were constructed to tap the same areas as the self-esteem and alienation measures (such as satisfaction with "your being the kind of person you are"); and one (satisfaction with "your being Jewish") was developed especially for this sample. In addition, the respondents were asked “best (wor: dix D for . Gu. all things days-—woule not too ha] dds quest: response. inclusion c in the Self a Of Self‘GSt individual Suhlects We ' t IaSplredu S- labelea 11-] 53 were asked to indicate their positions on Cantril's (1965) "best (worst) possible life for you" dimension (see Appen— dix D for all individual scales). Gurin et_§l. (1960) asked the question: "Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days--would you say you're ye£y_happy, pretty happy, or not too happy these days?" The present study included this question, with the addition of a "not at all happy" response. The final measure of life satisfaction was the inclusion of a 9-point Whihappy—Happy" continuum, embedded in the Self-Concept items (see below). Self-esteem. Sherwood (1962) developed a measure of self—esteem based on the discrepancy between how an individual sees himself and how he aspires to see himself. Subjects were asked to indicate their "present" and "aspired" selves on 26 pre-labeled and three subject- 1abeled ll-point bipolar dimensions (such as "moral—immoral" and "competent-incompetent") and to rate the importance of each dimension, also on ll—point scales. The resulting weighted discrepancy score, which was taken to be an indi- cation of self-evaluation, was found to have a reliability of .75, and Robinson and Shaver (1969) concluded that the measure had "promising construct validity" as well as face validity (p. 86). A scale similar to that of Sherwood's (1962) was developed by Pervin and Lilly (1967). Investigating the relation desirabil and "MY I tial dime indicated dimension I scales we formed the dents ind: 0n twenty- plus the n LillY' and rated each important) wood's (19¢ and indiCat 54 relation between self— and ideal-self—ratings and social desirability, Pervin and Lilly had subjects rate "MY SELF" and "MY IDEAL SELF" on thirteen 7-point semantic differen— tial dimensions (such as "good-bad"). The subjects also indicated both their certainty and the importance of each dimension on 4-point scales. In the present investigation, the two self-concept scales were combined, although Sherwood's (1962) items formed the basis of the self-evaluative measure. Respon- dents indicated their perceived, aspired, and ideal selves on twenty-eight 9-point dimensions (Sherwood's 26 items, plus the "free—constrained" dimension used by Pervin and Lilly, and a "religious-nonreligious" dimension) and then rated each dimension from 1 (very unimportant) to 4 (very important). The subjects also rated themselves on Sher- wood's (1962) overall 9-point "low-high" esteem continuum, and indicated their position on a "kind of person you'd most (least) like to be" dimension. Alienation. Three alienation scales were included. Dean (1961) conceived of alienation as consisting of the correlated dimensions of powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation; his scale had a reliability of .78, correlating about .30 with Srole's (1956) Anomie Scale and Nettler's (1957) Alienation Scale and about .26 with the F-Scale. All three of Dean's subscales were included in the present investigation, although the 5-point Likert response fl ." to nuze extre the items Mi normlessne social est disagree 5 (without t 0f culture tween ~06 tween .45 Cluded in . A L ation from Culture, f5 deVeloped l: (1957) had With ROSen inveStigat; the A‘Reli vant to th- Va”: was the Te 55 response format was changed from "Strongly Agree, Agree, . . ." to "Agree, tend to agree . . ." in order to maxi- mize extreme responses. The 24 items were intermixed with the items of the Zionist Beliefs Scale. Middleton's (1963) scale measured powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, cultural estrangement, social estrangement, and work estrangement with six agree- disagree statements. The reported reliability was .90 (without the cultural estrangement item). The correlations of cultural alienation with the other aspects ranged be- tween .06 and .31, but most of the correlations were be- tween .46 and .81. The entire Middleton Scale was in— cluded in the questionnaire. A lS-item (dichotomous format) scale tapping alien- ation from society in general, along the dimensions of mass culture, familism, a-religiosity, and a-politicalism, was developed by Nettler (1964). The earlier form of the scale (1957) had a coefficient of reproducibility of .87; the coefficients of the four subscales were higher. The (1964) scale correlated .31 with Srole's (1956) scale, and .25 with Rosenberg's (1957) Misanthropy Scale. In the present investigation, three of Nettler's subscales were included; the A—Religiosity Subscale was deleted as being less rele- vant to the sample. Values. Also included in the final questionnaire was the Terminal Values Subscale of Rokeach's (1968) Value 56 Survey. Rokeach asked subjects to rank 18 "terminal" values (conceived as preferred end-states of existence, such as inner harmony and pleasure) and 18 "instrumental“ values (modes of conduct, such as clean and honest) in order of their relative importance to the individual. Rokeach (1971) reported median reliabilities of .74 and .65 for the two scales, and construct validity was also found to be evident. Zionism. The Zionist Beliefs Scale consisted of three parts. Subjects ranked 12 possible goals of the American Zionist movement in order of their importance. Six of the goals (such as "building the unity of the Jewish People") were modified from "the New 'Jerusalem Program'" adopted by the 27th World Zionist Congress in 1968 (Youth Mobilization, 1971); five were added to cover additional areas (such as "personally migrating to Israel"); and the last was to be labeled by the subject. In addition, subjects were asked to agree or dis— agree (on a 5-point Likert scale) that each of the 11 stated goals was indeed worth attaining, and to agree or disagree with each of nine additional statements concerning Zionist beliefs and activities (this was similar to the procedure of Sherrow & Ritterband, 1970). Two of these additional statements came from Verbit (1968), and the re— mainder (including items such as "a Jew should live in Israel) were especially constructed. (Since there is no general E Zionists on the Z: sidered "High" f quate.) agree wi a series ground it sex, age. Parents' education plans con and Presei Were askec “Qth have and APpend Sub 'ects a] QueSti Qu distribute . hand. 57 general agreement concerning what "Zionism" is or what Zionists "should" believe or do, someone who scores high on the Zionist Beliefs Scale should perhaps not be con- sidered a "Zionist." However, as a means of separating "High" from "Low" believers, the scale appears to be ade- quate.) Finally, the subjects were asked to agree or dis- agree with the statement "I consider myself a Zionist." Background. In addition to the specified scales, a series of questions concerning family and personal back- ground items was presented. Included were tOpics such as sex, age, grade in school, social class, birth order, parents' origin and education, religious background, Jewish education, experience with anti-Semitism, visits to Israel, plans concerning migration, interest in communalism, past and present group affiliations, and so on. The subjects were asked, also, to make any additional comments they might have. (See Appendix C for the complete questionnaire and Appendix D for the scales in each area.) Subjects and Distribution of Questionnaires Questionnaires, with stamped return envelopes, were distributed to 1101 individuals, 753 by mail and 348 by hand. Included were: I (a) Three hundred sixty-three members of figmgg- figigim, 48 of whom received the questionnaire by hand 58 (either at a garin convention or from other members) and 315 by mail. These individuals represented the members of Hamagshimim for whom addresses were obtainable and who were in the United States at the time, about 93% of the total membership. About 75 members had been told at a previous convention to expect to receive the questionnaire, and were asked to participate; (b) Four hundred thirty-eight individuals whose names appeared on lists of participants in various summer prggrams in Israel, all of whom received the questionnaire by mail. Included were 154 participants of the 1969 Summer in Kibbutz program, 118 members of the similar 1970 kibbutz program, and 166 participants of other groups (the 1970 Archeological Dig, Israel Summer Institute, University Study Group, Arts Group, Weizmann Summer Science Group, and National Bar Mitzvah Pilgrimmage). Questionnaires were sent to every third name on the lists (every fourth name for the 1970 kibbutz program) except when identifying information indicated the individual was younger than 17; and (c) Three hundred Jewish students at Brooklyn College. Two hundred seventy of these, students in five introductory psychology or two sociology courses, received the questionnaires by hand after a brief eXplanation of the study (repeating, basically, what was in the cover letter-- see Appendix B). Questionnaires taken by non-Jewish stu- dents (who were encouraged to take a c0py of the questionr in order question: additione were diS‘ several : I meswm three or IEturned ing addre the first to the su retUrned , Children 1 unable to were recej was not fe Di cated was Spondents, movement me might be Ex jects Who tunately’ 1 randOm 3 ya 59 questionnaire but to immediately return the cover letter, in order to inform the investigator of the number of extra questionnaires needed) were replaced and distributed to additional Jewish students. The remaining 30 questionnaires were distributed by an upperclassman to Jewish students in several smaller classes. All questionnaires that were mailed were sent on the same day, and those distributed by hand were delivered three or six days earlier. Twenty-five questionnaires were returned by the post office marked "Moved, left no forward- ing address" or something similar; only the eight received the first week were replaced by additional questionnaires to the summer-in-Israel group. Eight questionnaires were returned by parents of addressees, indicating that their children were not in the United States at the time and were unable to respond. Thus, a total of 1076 questionnaires were received by potential respondents. Unfortunately, it was not feasible to send a follow-up letter. Distributing questionnaires to the subjects indi— cated was designed to maximize the variation among the re- spondents. There were, as a result, subjects who were movement members, subjects who were not members but who might be expected to identify with the movement, and sub- jects who were neither members nor sympathizers. Unfor- tunately, it was not considered possible to obtain a truly random sample of "nonmovement" individuals; the inclusion 60 of the Israel summer returnees and, especially, of the Brooklyn College sample was considered a far-from-ideal second choice. Cover Letter The questionnaire (with the heading "JEWISH YOUTH QUESTIONNAIRE") and the instructions were the same for all groups of subjects. Variation, however, was introduced in the cover letters in order both to make the study more plausible and to increase the return rate (see Appendix B). The basic cover letter was similar to the one used by Glock and Stark (1966). Each letter, under the Department of Psychology letterhead, was dated April, 1971. The letter began by asking for "an hour or so of your time in helping with a study being conducted in completion of the requirements for my Master of Arts Degree." The subjects were told that a study was being made of characteristics of Jewish college-age youth; that the questions were of various types; that the questionnaire was to be returned anony- mously; that there were "no 'right' or 'wrong'" answers; that the interest of the investigator was not just in "typical" Jewish students (or Israel Returnees, or Hamagshimim members); that each response was considered important for "scientifically-accurate results"; and that a copy of the results of the study would be sent to all 61 individuals who enclosed their name and address with the questionnaire or who sent that information on a separate postcard. The respondents were then thanked, and each mimeographed letter was individually signed. The three cover letters diverged in three places. Most obviously, the salutations differed ("Dear Hamag- shimim Member"/"Israel Returnee"/"Jewish Student"). The "Jewish Student" letter was of the basic form given above. The letter to the members of Hamagshimim added, at the end of the third paragraph (see Appendix B), "the group that I am most interested in is Hamagshimim, of which I am a member," and a possible contribution to the work of the movement was mentioned. In addition, the respondents were told that a discussion of the results would take place at the Hamagshimim summer convention. The letter to the summer-in-Israel subjects told of the investigator's interest in "youth who spent a summer in Israel, as I myself did." Again, the hoped-for increased return rate was considered to be worth the added divergence in the subject-investigator relationship. Scoring Variables The expectation that many subjects would omit either entire scales or parts of several scales necessitated the use of adjusted-mean scale scores rather than scores based upon the absolute number of alienated or satisfied 62 responses. The resulting scores are, of course, mathe- matically equivalent to the scores arrived at by summing responses. Satisfaction. The Overall Satisfaction score was the mean of four separate measures, all of which were ex- pected to correlate highly with one another. The measures were: (a) Direct Happiness (Question 13), which directly asked the subject how happy he was. The responses were scored 1 (not at all happy), 2 (not too happy), 3 (pretty happy), and 4 (very happy); the scores were doubled for inclusion in the Overall Satisfaction mean; (b) Happy l-9, in which the subject placed himself on a continuum from unhappy (l) to happy (9); (c) Best Life (Question 14), in which the subject placed himself on the continuum between "worst possible life for you" (1) and "best possible life for you" (9); and (d) Meansat: Present, the mean response to the 20 specific l-to-9 satisfaction items in Question 16. Also obtained as part of the satisfaction measures were two scores related to the subject's prediction of his level of satisfaction five years in the future. §3§E_ Future was the expected future level of Best Life, and Meansat: Future paralleled Meansat: Present. 63 Self-esteem. The Overall Self-Esteem score was also the mean of four separate measures, all of which, again, were expected to be positively related. Included among the measures of esteem were: (a) Kind of Person (Question 15), in which the sub- ject placed himself on the continuum from I (kind of per- son you'd least like to be) to 9 (. . . most like to be). For inclusion in the Overall Self-Esteem score, the sub- ject's score on Kind of Person was reversed (a Kind of Future score was also obtained, for the subject's esti- mation of his position five years in the future); (b) Low-High, which asked the subject to rate his overall level of self-esteem on a l-to-9 low . . . high dimension. This response was also reversed for the score on Overall Self-Esteem; (c) Aspired Discrepancy, the mean of the discrep- ancies between how the individual perceived his position on each of the 28 self-concept continua, and how he aspired to see himself (the greater the discrepancy, the lower the self-esteem); and (d) Ideal Discrepancy, the same as Aspired Dis- crepancy, but using the perceived-self-ideal-se1f discrepancies. Overall Self-Esteem had a possible range from 1 (high esteem) to 9 (low esteem). 64 Alienation. Unlike the scores for Satisfaction and Self-Esteem, each of which contained four measures of ap- proximately the same thing, no single "Overall Alienation" score was deemed adequately meaningful, since the sub- dimensions of alienation were not expected to correlate with one another to an extent great enough to consider them as measures of a unitary concept. Instead, separate scores were obtained for each subscale, and for each total scale as a whole. The scales were: (a) the Middleton Scale, comprising six items: Powerlessness, Meaninglessness, Normlessness, Cultural Estrangement, Social Estrangement, and Work Estrangement. The subject could either agree (the alienated response) or disagree with each item. A score of "40" for a group on the Powerlessness item, for example, would indicate that 40% of those members of the group who answered that question gave the alienated response. Group scores on the total Middleton scale could range between 0 (indicating no alienated responses on any of the six items) to 100 (only alienated responses); (b) the Nettler scale, composed of the subscales Mass Culture, Familism, and Politicalism. Again, scores were expressed as a percentage of possible alienated re- sponses. The total scale score was the mean of the scores on the three subscales rather than the mean of the 12 items, in order to adjust for missing data; and 65 (c) the Dean scale, comprising the areas of Social Isolation, Powerlessness, and Normlessness. Each item on the scale was scored from 4 (the alienated response) through 0 (the non-alienated response). The subscale scores were the means of the items, and the total scale score was the mean of the subscale scores. Values. Group medians for each of the 18 values in the Terminal Values Scale were computed, and the rank-order of each value was also noted. (The lower the number, the more important the value.) Also computed were coefficients of concordance for each group. Movement orientation. There were three groups of "independent" variables concerned with a general orien- tation to a social movement: Participation, Commitment Level, and Zionist-Irrelevant. In general, comparisons were made between what were expected to be movement- oriented and non-movement-oriented groups of subjects. It was expected that the various measures of "movement orientation"——especially the Participation and Commitment Level ones--wou1d be highly related. The measures of Movement Participation were: (a) Group Membership in Hamagshimim, or in other groups, or nonmembership (Question 18); and (b) Zionist Self-Description (Question 17p). Sub- jects were classified as Zionist (responses 4 and 5), Un- certain, and Non-Zionist. 66 The measures of Commitment Level were: (a) Zionist Beliefs Scale. Subjects were divided into High and Low Belief groups, based upon their re- sponses to the 20 relevant items. (Items were scored from 0 to 4, with scores expressed as means, taking into ac- count missing data); (b) Aliya_(migration to Israel) (Question 20). The subjects were classified into Aliya (responses 6 and 7-- probably or definitely going on aliyg), Undecided (3-5), and. Nonaliya (1,2) groups, based upon their future plans; and (c) Garin Membership (Question 23). Members of Hamagshimim only were classified as Garin if they were either members or candidates of Garin Hashachar, or if they were considering joining. Hamagshimim members who were planning on going on aliya, but not with the garin, were classified as Nongarin. The Zionist-Irrelevant measures included: (a) Communalism (Question 21). Subjects were classified as Communal (if they indicated they would probably or definitely live permanently in a communal settlement if they were to go to Israel), Undecided, or Noncommunal; and (b) General Migration (Question 25). Subjects were classified as Migrant (responses 4 and 5), Undecided, and Nonmigrant, based upon their attitude toward personal 67 migration from the United States in the event of not going on aliya. While the first five measures of movement orien- tation (the Participation and Commitment Level dimensions) were expected to be similar measures of generally "Zionist" orientation, communalism--which is stressed in the movement as important, but not absolutely necessary, for a Zionist-- and the general migration measure-~which, of course, is not at all stressed in the movement-—were expected to be less highly related to the others. It is in this sense that interests in communalism and in general migration are "Zionist-Irrelevant." RESULTS Return Rate Of the 1076 questionnaires, 435 were returned--a return rate of 40%. Returning the questionnaires were: (a) One hundred forty-seven members of Hamagshimim, 42% of the 349 not returned by the post office and 38% of the entire movement membership. Included were 11 indi- viduals who did not indicate membership in Hamagshimim on the question concerned with group affiliation, and who were, thus, scored as nonmovement members--six as summer- in-Israel returnees and five (who had not been to Israel) as Jewish students--leaving 136 Hamagshimim members; (b) One hundred seventy-one Israel Returnees, 40% of 427. Included was one individual who indicated member- ship in Hamagshimim; his questionnaire was scored with the movement members; and (c) One hundred seventeen Jewish Brooklyn College students, 39% of the 300 distributed. The greater return rate of Hamagshimim members was not significantly different from the general return rate (212 < 1.00. 91: = 2. E > .05). 68 69 Six questionnaires were rejected for excessive missing data, which would have prevented inclusion in most analyses. In addition, two were rejected because the re- spondents were not Jewish; one because he was in Israel at the time he completed the questionnaire; one because he was an Israeli student in the United States only a short time; one because he was much older than the rest of the subjects (29); and five because they were high school stu- dents who had received the questionnaire by mistake. Four questionnaires were received after data analysis was begun (eight weeks after distribution) and were ignored. There were, thus, 415 usable questionnaires: 129 Hamagshimim members, 167 Israel returnees, and 119 Jewish students from Brooklyn College. Two hundred ten respondents (48%) indicated they would be interested in receiving a summary of the results. Postcards with the subject's name and address were sent by 39 individuals (19% of those requesting information), while the majority merely enclosed their names and addres- ses on the questionnaire or in the return envelope, with no apparent concern for the consequent lack of anonymity. Fifty-nine Hamagshimim members (40% of the movement sample), 83 Israel returnees (49%), and 29 Jewish stu- dents (25%) requested information nonanonymously; those sending postcards, of course, could not be categorized. The overall difference in requests for research results 70 was significant at the .001 level (y2 = 16.92, g£_= 2). It should be noted that several Hamagshimim members who did not request a written copy of the results did indicate a desire to discuss the study at the summer convention. Table 1 presents the reclassification of the Israel returnees and Jewish students into Other Members and Non- members. The Other Members group is composed largely of the summer-in-Israel returnees, while the Nonmembers group is fairly evenly divided between Israel returnees and Brooklyn College students. The 102 subjects classified as Other Members included 21 members of other Zionist groups (such as Habonim); 18 members of Jewish movements not Table l Reclassification of Israel Returnees and Jewish Students into Experimental Groups Experimental Group Questionnaire Total Sent TO: Other Membersa Nonmembersb Israel Returnees 78 89 167 Jewish Students 34 95 119 Total 102 184 a . . . . . . Includes ind1V1duals who were not in Hamagshimim ‘but who were members of at least one other group. bIncludes individuals who are not members of any group at the present time. 71 specifically Zionist (such as the Jewish Liberation Project or the Jewish Defense League); 65 members of Jewish organ- izations (such as Hillel); 11 members of Jewish religious groups (such as Yavneh); and 18 members of non—Jewish "general" groups (such as political or student-protest groups). (Because of multiple memberships, the total is more than 102.) Background The distribution of the subjects according to per- sonal background items is given in Table 2. As indicated in the table, female subjects predominated in all three groups, although much more so among the Other Members and slightly less so in Hamagshimim. Hamagshimim members also tended to be older, and more likely to be sophomores in school rather than freshmen, as were the nonmovement mem- bers (Other Members and Nonmembers). (These group dif- ferences were all significant at the .02 level, using the appropriate chi-square tests.) Hamagshimim members did not significantly differ from the Nonmembers in reporting the social class of their parents, although the Other Members were more likely to report parents in the upper-middle class than were Hamag— shimim members and Nonmembers (this difference, however, was only marginally significant). Nine of every 10 sub— jects in the entire sample considered their parents to be in the middle or upper-middle class. 72 Looac Nae local mmN AOONV Noa AooNc mNN Noyce oo N v loos mN lacs NH .mov o Amos 6 .m.= uoz “was mmm .mmc ONH Acme mm Ammv NNN mmumum nouns: ANNV woman unuuflm m.uomflnsm Ammv mac Afloav «ma AHOHV mod Aooav mma Hmuoa Avov ha Avov m Amos m Amov n ucmpsum mumscmuo ANHV mo .kav Hm lead 0H lead NN uoacmm ....mv.flm AmNc so ANHV «N IONS ON lone ON “cease IONS mm ANNE NN IVNV «N lva om muoeonmom lame mmH lwvc mm Acme mm IVNV Hm cmsnmmum Amos NN ANOV NH “Nov N loav NH “amusumcoz Av .mv mamuo Hoozom Iooac mas .Hoav Nma local NOH lame mNH Hmuoe .wv.m lees mma laws we Ammo mm Ines Gm omauoflz-uwaas Aves mma Amer am lame mm lave No mNnnflz loss He LNHU AN Amos m Amos NH nmcaxuoz $3 mmmao Hmfloom .mucwum& local was Aooav «ma Iooav NON Loafiv aNN Hmuoa mN.mN AoNV moa INNS Nv ANNC NN Ammo me “made 6cm AN ... Ammo NGN Acme mm laws we lave mm ONumH Ammo med Amvc mN Lena mm lvNc Hm ummaso» can ma ANV mm< LOOHV mac local «ma loads NON Aooac mNH Nance .«om m INoV va lows OHH ANNV 4N lame on mamemm Ammo flea love VN InNV mN love mm mam: .1: S... w m w m w m. a m ohmsqm ecu Hmuoa mumbsmecoz mumbsmz uwcuo EeeflnmmmEmm Quouo :ofiumEHOMCH pcsoumxomm Hmcomumm N OHQMB 73 m~.wm iiifid. at mm.NNH {II 5v.mv «aka . hv.H aaoN.wH Aooav Aomv Aomv Aooav Away ANmV Ammv Aooac Amos AONV Ammo AOOHV Anny Ammv Aooav Away 32 El mav mom mom mav mm mam hma Haw mm mmN oav mam vm vav NHH mOH mad Aooav Avmv nwmv hooav Amov Aomv “hwy flooav Awov «Ody Amwv Aooav “any Ammv Aooav AHNV as :3 mmH had mo mma mm mm omH mma omH ova mma mm Hm em Aooav Avvv Ammv locav “mes ANNV Away Aooav Ahoy Ammv Achy Aooav Aomv AONV AHOHV Ammv Ammv an HOH vv hm mom om ma Hog mm an HOH Hm om Noa mm mm em Aooav Aemv Ammv Ammv onv ANmV Anmv Aooav Avav Ammv Ammv Aooav Avhv Ammv Aaoav onv Away «mm» mNH vv mm mNH Nm Nq mm OMH ma mo mNH ma vm mNH Hm mm mv Hmuoa 02 no» Aavv Emwuwswmuauqd nuw3 mucoflummxm Hones once no mnucoe m mnucoe m can» mmmq mcoz .mac NomumH an acumm mane Noyce ooauao ooIHN omlo Avmv HomumH on onwuwumwz mpcwfium mo momucoouwm Hmuoa v .m N .H .o Amv smocmflum ummmoHOs Amazon mo quEdz Hmuoa nmfl3on muwuocflz nmwsmn mama sawsmn aufiuohm: E .e as 1.29 as: 88 L335 .8 mg '74 Aaouv hum AOOHV mmH nooav ma .HOH. VNH H6809 AHH. NO HOH. on HOOO O .OO. O 0:02 ..zuH:on uoz. .O..ON.HO HON. ON .HH. NH HNHO OH .OOO NO nuHsun Hague HOH. OO HOH. HN .ONO ON HHH. OH nononuuo .NO. OOH HOO. OO HOOO OO HOOO OO o>Hun>uoucoo AOHO OO HONO Om HOHO OH .HH. OH auouom HoOOO :oHuOHHHOO< OnoHOHHum O.uooOn:m AOOHO OOO AOOHO OOH HOOHO NOH .OOHO ONH Hnuoa ANOO OOH “ONO OO .OOO Om IOOO OO cuuuo OO.OH .OOO OOH AOOO OO HOOO .OO .NOO OO OHHucoHauooo AOOO NN AOOO O AOOO O HOOO O OHno osmomacam HOHO ON HONO NO .OH. OH HOHO ON uu>oz HOOO uaauum wo mucosvmuh AHOH. NHO AHOHO HOH HOOH. HOH .HOHO ONH Hmuoa HNOO NN HOOO OH IOO. O .OOO HH Hague AOHO HO .OOO N HOOO O HOH. ON .Ilumwwm oOoHHoo OO.OO ANHO OO AOHO ON HONO ON ANHO OH uo>HnOoO anuHH< .... .OOO OOH .OOO OO HOOO OO HOOO OO «Ouwxmos .OHO OO AOHO ON HOH. OH HNHO OH Omuocsm ANOO ON ANHO HN .OOO O ANOO N ecoz HOOO COHUflUHanw £mw30h. IOOH. OHO AOOHO OOH “OOHO NOH .OOHO ONH Hauos o OO.N AOOO OON HOOO OHH AHOO NO HOOO NO OOOH can oHuOHz O. IOOO OOH AOOO NN AOOO Om HON. NO anon OOOH HONO OO HONO OO .ONO ON HOHO ON :oHOHHno «HOOH: Hmvv ONH Anny am .am. ow mev be unufim can ch0 HO.HH AOO. OOH HOMO OO ANOO Om AOO. OO :uom uuuHm O. HOOO ON HOOO OH ANOO N AOOO HH :ouuHHco OHco HmnuOOO Houuo nuuHm O m. O m. O m. O .m mmmwvm Houoa magneoe:oz Ouunau: uunuo aOaHgOOqaua macho .voscHucou N «Hana T75 .mwmuoaouoo mchOnEoo umuwm pwcwoubo .mmHuomoumo mcwcwneoo eyewon vocfimuno s.mmmHo :.mmwau an: mumavm mm: mumsvm Momma: awn Hoon. 0:0 .Hoo. v {Cfii .Ho. v CC' 0mg. v DJ 01 DJ OJ .0”. v C Hno OHOOO Hao OHHOO mopsHocHo no a on n H Ha .HU xwpcmamd vmmv Hmvumnsdc coflumwsv muoowpcw :ESHou mwzu GO mononucmumm cw muonfidzu .mumn mchmOE no“ nonmancm coon 0>mz mHv ou onwppm uoc mofluoomumonn.ouoz AOO. NHO AOOHO HOH AOOHO NOH AOOHO ONH AHNO OO ANHO NN HNOO OO .ONO OO ....OO.HO LON. Om .HHO ON HHNO HN HOOO NO AOOO OON HONO OOH HOOO OO AHOO OO AMUOB amuuo once Ho manucoz mcucos mam xuo>o 00:0 mama no name OHom HOH: Homv mmuw> Iuom muoOmwawm an oocupcouuc 76 There was no difference in the percentage of foreign-born subjects in each group. However, there were several other differences in personal background. A majority of the non-Hamagshimim members reported growing up in a neighborhood that had a majority of Jewish resi- dents (to be expected among the Jewish students at Brooklyn College), while the movement members were more likely than were the others to have grown up with a minority of Jews. While the groups did not differ in reporting the number 0f Jewish "closest friends" they had, Hamagshimim members did report that a significantly greater proportion of their friends were planning to go on a_11y_a_ to Israel. Movement members also reported having been in Israel to a greater e"tellt than did the nonmovement members, and they were much more likely to indicate personal experience with anti- Semitism. When examining the birth-order data also presented in Table 2, it is seen that Hamagshimim members were more likely to be first-born, and less likely to be last—born, than were the other groups. While this trend was only Ihaltginally significant‘with the subjects divided into only- cliildren, first-born, middle-children, and last-born, Con'lbining the only-children and first-born categories, and the middle- and last-born categories, resulted in a signi- E O leant difference among the groups. More than half the 77 Hamagshimim members, but only 37% or 39% of the other groups, were first-born or only children. Table 2 also presents several items relevant to the subjects' religious background and outlook. Hamag- shimim members were less likely to report having had no Jewish education at all, and more likely to report college— level courses; they were, also, less likely to have at- tended yeshivot (all—day religious schools). Movement members were less likely to consider themselves Reform, Orthodox, or "none," and more than twice as likely to con- sider themselves Other Jewish, indicating in the blank such things as "my own kind" and "cultural." They were, also, more likely than were the Nonmembers (but slightly less likely than were the Other Members) to attend reli- gious services on other than minimal occasions. However, while all these differences were highly significant (at the .001 level), movement members did not report a signi- ficantly greater incidence of private prayer. Group Affiliations Present and past group affiliations of the sub- jects are given in Table 3. The majority of the members of Hamagshimim--62%--belonged, in addition to Hamagshimim, to at least one other movement or organization, while only 27% of the Other Members belonged to more than one group. Almost half the movement members belonged to a Jewish 78 Table 3 Present and Past Group Memberships Group M Chi Hamagshimim Other Members agdhsgnmzxgziz Total Square“ 3 s u 4 g 4 u 4 Present Affiliations (it. Other Zionist 26 (20) 21 (21) 21 (07) 47 (12) 13.29.. b Jewish Movement 18 (14) 18 (18) 18 (06) 36 (09) 5.85.... Jewish Organization 56 (43) 65 (64) 65 (23) 121 (29) 18.18 Religious Group 3 (02) 11 (11) 11 (04) 14 (03) < 1'00... General Group 19 (15) 18 (18) 18 (06) 37 (09) 6.78... General Movement 18 (14) 15 (15) 15 (05) 33 (07) 8.21 General Organization 3 (02) 4 (04) 4 (01) 7 (02) < 1.00 Total 129 102 286 415 Multiple Memberships One Group Only 49 (38) 75 (74) 124 (S4) . Two or More Groups so (62) 27 (27) 107 (46) 27.53" ‘C Total 129 (100) 102 (101) 231 (100) Hamagshimim Other Members Nonmembers Total Chi E ‘ E ‘ E ‘ E. . Square Temporary Post-High School Memberships Jewi-h Group 8 (06) 7 (07) 1o (05) 25 (06) < 1,ood General Group 16 (12) 6 (06) 7 (04) 29 (07) a.es" High School or Earlier Any Jewish Group 116 (91) 62 (61) 72 (39) 250 (61) 82.91"" Young Judaea as (69) 4 (04) 16 (09) 108 (26) 176.92"'* Other Zionist 11 (09) 11 (11) 14 (08) 36 (09) < 1.00 Other Jewish 67 (53) 56 (55) 53 (32) 181 (44) 20.12*"‘ General Group 24 (19) 13 (13) 10 (05) 47 (11) 13.37"* Movement 3 (06) 2 (02) 4 (02) 14 (03) 4.60' Organisation 17 (13) 11 (11) 6 (03) 34 (03) 11.12"' Note.--Because of multiple memberships, total percentages were not computed. .All chi-square tests were performed on'the a x b contingency tables formed by crossing the Hamagshimim-Other Members-Nonmembers categories with the Member-Nonmember categories for each addi- tional group. bChi-square tests for the present affiliations were performed comparing Hamagshimim members with the combined Other Members-Nonmembers group (thus, gg - 1). cThis chi-square test was performed on the 2 x 2 table indicated, without combining Other Members and Nonmembers. For past affiliations, Other Member and Nonmember groups were not combined (g; - 2). I p < .10. 2 < .05. 2 < .01. .001. 79 social organization, 20% belonged to a second Zionist group, and 14% belonged to other Jewish movements. Non- Jewish, general movements also attracted 14% of the members of Hamagshimim. These percentages of Hamagshimim double memberships approximately parallel the single memberships of the Other Members. The greater tendency of movement members to belong to additional groups was generally true of past member- ships as well. Hamagshimim members were significantly more likely to have belonged to non-Jewish, general groups in high school, and were more likely to have had brief periods of membership in general groups after high school. The movement members were also much more likely to have belonged to a Jewish group in high school--69% of them to Young Judaea, the high school level of Hashachar. Those subjects who were Nonmembers at the time of the study were less likely than were the other subjects to have belonged to a Jewish or general group in the past. Independent Variables The distribution of the subjects in each group according to their classification on the remaining inde- pendent variables is given in Table 4. As expected, Hamagshimim members were more "movement oriented" than was the sample as a whole, and the Nonmembers less so, on all but one of the measures. Distribution of Subjects on Movement-Oriented Variables 8() Table 4 Group Variable Hamagshimim Other Members Nonmembers Total nggie H 9 E 9 fl 3 N t Zionist Self-Description Zionist 116 (90) 66 (65) 56 (30) 239 (57) 116.47“ Uncertain 8 (06) 11 (11) 30 (16) 49 (12) Non-Zionist S (04) 25 (25) 98 (53) 128 (31) Total 129 (100) 102 (101) 184 (99) 415 (100) Zionist Beliefs Scale High 112 (87) 65 (64) 59 (32) 236 (57) 95.29'* Low 17 (13) 37 (36) 125 (68) 179 (43) Total 129 (100) 102 (100) 184 (100) 415 (100) Aliya (Migration to Israel) Aliya 76 (59) 36 (35) 21 (11) 133 (32) 109.44" Undecided 44 (34) 47 (46) 71 (39) 162 (39) Nonaliya 9 (07) 19 (19) 92 (50) 120 (29) Total 129 (100) 102 (100) 184 (100) 415 (100) Garin Membership Member 20 (15) 2 (02) o (00) 22 (05) 63.45" Candidate/Interested 16 (13) 3 (03) 2 (01) 21 (21) Nonmember 93 (72) 95 (95) 181 (99) 369 (90) Total 129 (100) 100 (100) 183 (100) 412 (100) Communalism Communal 31 (24) 13 (14) 19 (13) 63 (17) 16 oo‘ Undecided 59 (46) 32 (34) 76 (50) 167 (45) . Noncommunal 37 (29) 50 (53) 58 (38) 145 (39) Total 127 (99) 95 (101) 153 (101) 375 (101) General Migration Migrant 19 (15) 16 (16) 28 (16) 63 (16) 4 75 Undecided 17 (14) 6 (06) 26 (14) 49 (12) ' Nonmigrant 89 (71) 78 (78) 126 (70) 293 (72) Total 125 (100) 100 (100) 180 (100) 405 (100) i p < .01 it p < .001 81 The majority of the Hamagshimim members thought they would probably or definitely go on aliya, while only about a third of the Other Members and 11% of the Nonmem- bers indicated similar plans; in fact, only 7% of the movement members--nine individuals--indicated they would probably or definitely not live in Israel. Similarly, Hamagshimim members were significantly more likely to con— sider themselves (or to "tend" to consider themselves) Zionists (90% as Opposed to 30% of the Nonmembers), to score in the High group on the Zionist Beliefs Scale, and to be in a garin. Movement members were also signifi— cantly more likely to be planning on living communally in the event of aliya (24% as opposed to 13%). However, members of Hamagshimim were not more likely than were non- members to migrate to any country besides Israel. The relations among all the independent variables can be observed in their correlation matrix (Table 5). For a sample of this size, the confidence interval at the .05 level is a small one--approximately :.10 (Beyer, 1968). Thus, all the correlations among the five specifically Zionist-related variables were highly significant, ranging between .25 (Garin Membership and Zionist Self-Description) and .73 (Zionist Self-Description and Zionist Beliefs Scale). Excluding the Garin variable, all the correlations among the Zionist-related variables were .50 or greater. 82 Table 5 Correlation Matrix--Independent Variablesa (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Group Membershipb(l) Zionist Self- *** Description(2) 54 Zionist Be- *** *** liefs Scale(3) 50 73 . *** *** *** Aliya (4) 50 67 69 garin Membershipc(5) 35*** 25*** 27*** 4o*** Communalism(6) 13** -02 -10* 10* 48*** General ** ** *** Migration (7) 01 02 -05 19 20 33 Note.--Decima1 points were removed, as were 1's in the diagonal. aMovement-oriented groups were scored high. Cor- relations are based on original scores, before collapsing of categories (for example, Aliya was left in the original l-to-7 format). bHamagshimim members were scored 3, Other Members 2, Nonmembers, 1. C O O Garin members were scored 2, Nongarin, l. * E < .10. ** p < .05. *** p < .01. 83 An interest in Communalism was positively related only to Hamagshimim membership (.13) and to Garin member- ship (.48) among the Zionism measures; the .10 relation between Communalism and Aliya also approached statistical significance. In addition, the negative correlation of .10 between Communalism and Zionist Beliefs was marginally significant. An interest in General Migration was positively related to Aliya, Communalism, and Garin Membership, but not significantly so to Group Membership or to the re- maining Zionism measures. Dependent Variables The correlation matrix of the subscales of the three dependent variables (excluding the values) is pre- sented in Table 6. As expected, the four satisfaction measures were highly related to one another (with corre- lations between .50 and .63), as were the four self-esteem measures (.43-.69). However, also as expected, the corre- lations among the alienation measures were lower. Corre- lations within the three separate alienation scales ranged between .52 (Dean Normlessness and Powerlessness) and -.12 (Middleton Work Estrangement and Cultural Estrangement), although almost all the relations were positive. Where different scales had parallel subscales, the correlations were between .26 (Dean and Middleton Normlessness) and .47 (Dean Social Isolation and Middleton Social 84 .No>oN no. on» an acuuNuNaoN. .ooam- o>un ou vouawlo one) .ouoo- noNn a an nouauNucN ad Eoouno now: undo o- vouou- on!) nadua one) ca. :dzu uouuouu acoNueNouuoo NH< Nacoquo on» :« auouau-uNow unu a.N use aucNoa Nnaaouo .oNnau .Nsu Nou-.cuoz N5 ma NN 6N NN NN vo am an 4. No mm oN sN NN- mN- oN- NN- NN- N.- m.- NN- aN- oN- .mNe Nouos cave Nm vN oN vN NN No SN NN NN oo SN NN vN .N- oN- FN- NN- oN- NN- oN- mN- vN- aN- .vN. auoz coon an NN NN oN no vm NN an no NN NN NN oN- ON- GN- vN- oN- NN- om- NN- NN- ON- ANN. .uoaoa cave mN ac oN oo N. SN 5. No NN oN NN NN- .N- vN- NN- mN- am. am- NN- oN- aN- .NN. NaNoom coco .6 we we ON No NN NN so mo- 6N mo- ao- ON. 60- no- mN- NN- mN- NN- mo- .NN. Nauoa uoNuuoz NN NN 0N we no ON oN mo NN vo- No- 0N- oo- no- mo- mo- oN- 60- No AONO .UNuNNoa uoNuuoz NN 0N NN NN oN mN No- we mo- mo- No- mo- mo- NN- NN- mN- mN- no- .NNV anNNNaua uoNuuwz oo NN- 00- mm NN- NN- vo vo- .o- No- No- No- ON- NN- oo- ao- oo- .QNV ouauNso uuNuuoz on an mm mm N. Na aN- mN- aN- NN- nN- mm- am- QN- mN- mN- .NNV Nouoa couoNcuNx oN NN- NN NN oN NN- NN- NN- ON- NN- mN- NN- mN- No- SN. .GN. x60: couochN: NN VN mo co NN- NN- NN- NN- vN- mv- Nv- mn- an- NN- .mNe NoNoom couquoNz .o- NN No No- No- No- oo- 50- no- mN- oo- .o- mo- lvN. .uNsu couoNuch NN NN NN- NN- aN- aN- oN- NN- NN- NN- NN- mN- .NNV .EHoz couoNuuNz mN oN- No- 60- mo- NN- mo- ao- 60- No- ao- NNNV .chcaox couoNnvN: No- «0- mo- mo- co- No- oo- ao- No- No- .NNV .uozoa acuancN: no so «a NN as me on om 4m ”ON. .umm-aNom NNuuo>o am a. no a. mm oN ov an .a. .aouuuNo NnouN a. N. v. a. mN an pm .me .aouunNa UOanH‘ mm mm 00 mm a. N. is. non I33 on om an on om .0. conuua chx No NN pa N» Am. .oauuNuam NNauopo vm No No ... uconoua u adds—GU: no on Anvenocwaaea uuouaa .N. a-N no mean: AN. ouNN anon ivNe NNNV ANN. ANNV ioNe AaN. .mNe ian NeNv lmN. .vN. ANN. .NNV NNNV .oNe lo. .Nv .N. .G. Ame .e. .nc ”Ne .N. ooNnoNue> acoucoaonI-xauuu! :oNuuNeuuou o OAQQH 85 Estrangement). Middleton's Cultural Estrangement item and Nettler's Mass Culture Subscale, which correlated .35 with each other, correlated least with the other aspects of alienation, while Dean's Powerlessness Subscale was the most highly related to the others. Inspection of Table 6 reveals that the satisfaction and self-esteem measures were highly related. Overall Satisfaction and Overall Self-Esteem correlated .63, and the individual measures correlated between .25 (Direct Happiness and Aspired Discrepancy) and .60 (Meansat: Present and Low-High). Both Overall Satisfaction and Overall Self-Esteem, however, correlated to a much lesser extent with the alienation measures, with a range from -.04 (Self-Esteem with Mass Culture and Politicalism) to -.41 (Satisfaction with the total Dean scale). All three of Dean's subscales were significantly negatively related to all the satisfaction and Self-esteem measures, with a range from -.14 to -.39; the remaining alienation measures were, similarly, consistently negatively related to the Satisfaction and self-esteem variables. Major Hypotheses: Group Participation There were two measures of participation in the Zionist youth movement: dues-paying membership in Hamag- shimim and considering one's self a Zionist. 86 Group Membership. The means and standard deviations of the Hamagshimim, Other Member, and Nonmember groups on the satisfaction, self-esteem, and alienation measures are presented in Table 7. In terms of satisfaction, the mem- bers of Hamagshimim scored lower (less satisfied) than did the Other Members, but higher than did the Nonmembers, on Happy 1-9, Best Life, Meansat: Present, and Overall Satisfaction, as well as on both estimates of satisfaction levels five years in the future. However, none of these differences approached statistical significance. On Direct Happiness, movement members exhibited a marginally signi- ficant tendency (at the .10 level) to score happier than did either of the other two groups. In examining the subjects' responses to the indi- vidual dimensions of satisfaction (see Figure l), the dif— ferences on "your educational achievements" and "your gen- eral intellectual growth" were marginally significant, with the members of Hamagshimim and the Nonmembers less satisfied than the Other Members. Hamagshimim and Other Members were significantly more satisfied with being Jewish. In viewing the future, Hamagshimim members ex- pected to be significantly more satisfied than one or both of the other groups with their religious positions, with being Jewish, and with "agreement with the values of society," with the Nonmembers expecting the least satis- faction in these areas. 87 Table 7 Satisfaction, Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Group Membership Group Hamagshimim Other Members Nonmembers P Mean §g 5 Mean g2 5 Mean §g g ’ Satisfaction Measures Overall Satisfac. 5.78 (1.09—129) 5.89 (1.14-102) 5.62 (1.16-184) 2.09 Best Life 5.48 (1.39-129) 5.67 (1.44-102) 5.45 (1.45—183) 0.81 Best Future 7.49 (1.09-127) 7.75 (1.16-102) 7.38 (1.50-175) 2.52 Happy 1-9 5.76 (1.62-125) 6.01 (1.70-100) 5.61 (1.71-174) 1.75 Direct . Happiness 2.91 (0.65-129) 2.85 (0.65-102) 2.73 (0.66-184) 2.94 Meansat: Present 6.03 (1.03-129) 6.20 (1.10-102) 5.95 (1.13-184) 1.86 Meansat : Future 7.52 (0.80-128) 7.60 (0.90-100) 7.41 (0.90-180) 1.65 Self-Esteem Measures Overall Self-Est.“ 2.86 (0.82-129) 2.80 (0.91-102) 3.00 (0.91-184) 1.79 Kind of Personb 5.94 (1.39-129) 5.99 (1.67- 97) 5.77 (1.48-181) 0.68 Kind of ruturob 7.55 (1.06-128) 7.73 (1.06- 97) 7.57 (1.13-178) 0.87 Low- . a1gnb 6.23 (1.38-128) 6.47 (1.50-101) 6.04 (1.40—171) 2.94 Aspired . Discrep.‘ 1.36 (0.49-127) 1.44 (0.54- 97) 1.52 (0.62-175) 2.81 Ideal r Discrep.‘ 2.16 (0.77-121) 2.06 (0.72- 88) 2.28 (0.80-163) 2.56 Alienation Measures Middleton Total 38 (0.25-129) 43 (0.24-102) 45 (0.28-184) 2.69 Power- . leIanlI 4o (0.49-129) 42 (0.50-102) 47 (0.50-184) 0.84 Meaning- lessness 26 (0.44-129) 27 (0.45-102) 34 (0.48-182) 1.28 More- lessness 48 (0.50-129) 57 (0.50-101) 59 (0.49-182) 1.91 Cultural Estrang. 40 (0.49-125) 41 (0.49-101) 30 (0.46-183) 2.31 Social Betrang. 47 (0.50-129) 52 (0.50-101) 53 (0.50-183) 0.54 mrk O O. Betrang. 29 (0.46-129) 34 (0.48-102) 46 (0.50-184) 4.99 Nettler Tbtll 31 (0.16-129) 33 (0.18-101) 34 (0.15-182) 0.78 Mass Culture 64 (0.27-129) 61 (0.27-101) 58 (0.25-182) 1.99 Famililm 10 (0.19-129) 17 (0.23-101) 20 (0.25-182) 7.1o"“ Political 20 (0.24-129) 21 (0.25-101) 24 (0.23-182) 0.9a Dean Total 1.97 (0.47-129) 1.99 (0.49-102) 2.14 (0.49-184) 5 70"" Social 1.01.. 2.24 (0.57-129) 2.20 (0.60-102) 2.33 (0.61-184) 1.93 Power I ICIInOII 1.88 (0.60-129) 1.98 (0.61-102) 2.08 (0.67-184) 4.11n Norm- lessness 1.72 (0.58-128) 1.70 (0.70-102) 1.93 (0.71-184) 5.72"" 'A high score indicates low self-esteem. bk high score indicates high self-esteem. "E < .05. '2 < .10. ...2 < .01. ""g < .005. ___Hamagshimim (Present) E (Future) educational achiev. 2e87* Oe50 intellectual growth 2.51* 0.82 social rel.--own sex 0.54 1.09 social rel.--opp.sex 1.12 2.41* love relationships 0.35 1.23 sexual activities 1.51 2.72* religious position 1.09 6.41*** kind person you are 0.31 0095 relations--father 2.5h* 1.50 relations--mother 0.h9 0.17 relations--sib1ings 0.09 1.25 physical health 0.99 0.97 mental health 1.85 0.8? fitting in society 0.69 1.56 live personal values 0.59 0.67 being Jewish 5.51*** 11.06*** able to do as want 0.83 1.74 values of society 1.00 4.94*** level of happiness 0.86 0.30 life as a whole 0.63 0.17 *2’< .10. «*2 < .05, ***2 < .01. 83 ------ Other Members ......Nonmembers Present Expected in Future SATISFACTION LEVEL FIGURE 1. Dimensions of Satisfaction: Group Membership 89 The self-esteem measures showed a pattern similar to that of the satisfaction results. For the Overall Self- Esteem, Kind of Person, Low-High, and Ideal Discrepancy measures, the members of Hamagshimim scored lower in self— esteem than did the Other Members, but higher than did the Nonmembers; only the latter two differences even approach— ed significance at the .10 level. Hamagshimim members scored highest in self—esteem as measured by Aspired Dis- crepancy, but, again, only marginally so. Figure 2 compares the mean group ratings on each of the 28 self-concept dimensions (and the additional American-Jewish dimension) for the perceived selves of the subjects. In comparison with the other groups, Hamag— shimim.members saw themselves as significantly more toward the participant end of the scale and as less fair. There was a marginal trend for the movement members to consider themselves more self-confident. Together with the Other Members, Hamagshimim members felt they were more religious and Jewish, and more disposed to leadership than were the Nonmembers, and they tended to consider themselves more independent and talkative. Also significant at the .05 level was the position of Hamagshimim between the other two groups on the active-passive and friendly-unfriendly dimensions. Figures 3 and 4 present the meanmaspired and ideal Self-concepts of the three groups. Movement members 9O Harazsni-ir ------ Other Members P ......Nonmembers Sensitive to Insensitive otners to others 2.1} Self- Lack self- confident confidence 2.06. Critical of Tolerant of others others 0.22 Skillful with Awkward with others others 0.10 deserved Talkative 2.020 Value ayself Value myself high low 0.32 Participant Men- 6.72"‘ participant Authoritarian Democratic Competent Incompetent 1.11 Mon- Aggressive aggressive 1.32 Honest Dishonest 0.99 Active Passive 3.21.. Likeable Not likeable 3.01‘00 Competitive Cooperative 0.95 Insiehtful Lack insight about myself about myself 0.12 Follower Leader “.15ee Timid Bold 1.95 Moral Immoral 0.85 Individual- Conforaist istic 0.97 Hostile Affectionate 1.35 Tense nelaxed 0.80 Unfair Pair 3.27.. Unintellizent Intelligent 1.90 Liberal Conservative 1.92 Friendly Unfriendly 3.92.9 independent Dependent 3.00. Free Constrained 1.25 heligious Non-religious 5.60eee American Jewish 32.07". _,, \ ,,_ ’3 V 3 6 7 8’ '2 ' .10. "n < .05. ...B < 001' PIGUML 2. Present Self-Concept: Group Membership 9]- Hamagshimim ------ Other Members ......Monnembers I Sensitive to Insensitive others to others 1.7? Self- Lack self- confident confidence 1.60 Critical of Tolerant of others others 1.03 Skillful with Awkward with others others 0.19 Reserved Taikative 0.20 9’ Value ayself 1’ Value myself “18“ ,f’ low 0.60 ' Participant ‘ Non- 3.97" ‘ 2‘. participant ‘ \s Authoritarian rs. - Democratic Competent Incoapetent Non- “ Aggressive aggressive .z” 0.62 , ’ Honest Dishonest 0.52 Active ‘. Passive 1.71 Likeable ‘1' Not likeabls O \ . \ .. Cospetitive “ '5 . Cooperative b.0599 _- . Insightful ’ - ‘ Lack insight about myself about myself 1.39 Follower \ Leader 1.95 ' Tllld . Bold 3.90.9 N») / Moral -" a, I ‘ 3.10.. f” sacral I 8 Individual- I ' Conformist istic . 0.03 80831:: . Affecti-nnte T°“'° delaxed 2-55’ Unfair 9.1, 1.79 Unintellisent Intelli 0.83 sent Liberal 6.80... Conservative Friendly Unfriendly Inde ndent 23;“. Dependent Free C stra 1.12 on ined Religious - 9.9)... Non religious American 35.*7... Jewish 1 2 f) 'n < .10. "R < .05. “'2 < .01. FIGURE 3. Aspired Self-Concept: Group Membership Hamagshimim g Sensitive to others 3.8600 Self- confident 1.72 Critical of others Skillful with others 1.29 Reserved 2.80. Value myself high 0.80 Participant 3.2600 Authoriterian Competent 2.51. Mon- aggressive Honest 2.31 Active 2.16 Likeable CompetitiV‘ 6.3“... Insightful about myself 3,u5ee Follower 0.67 Tieid Moral s.~7--- Individual- istio 0.17 Hostile 1.88 Tense 1.21 Unfair 0.82 Unintelliqent Liberal 3.31eee Friendly 2.06 Independent e Free 0.?“ Religious 6.200.. Alorioan 35.23... ----- -Other Members L" r L~\\ . €922 ......Nonmembers Insensitive to others Lack self- c)nfidencs Tolerant of others Awkward with others fal Tolerant of 2” others Awkward with others / \ Talkative Value myself low Non- participant . \\\\\ 20‘ ' ’ Democratic Incompetent Azzressive Dishonest Passive flot likeable Cooperative Lack insight about myself leader 311d Immoral Conformist Affecti.nate Heiaxed Pair lntelliqent Conservative Unfriendly Dependent Constrained Non-religious Jewish f. l H Self-Concept: gazin Hemberahip 118 themselves less insightful and religious, and tended to consider themselves less honest and moral, than did the Nongarin Hamagshimim members. The alienation scores for the two groups are pre— sented in Table 15. On every one of the 12 subscales and three scales, the members of the garin scored at least a point higher than did the nonmembers--more alienated. Four of the differences were highly significant. The Garin scored twice as high on Work Estrangement and on Politicalism, and almost twice as high on Cultural Es- trangement, with the Middleton Total score also signi- ficantly higher. The greater alienation of the Garin on Nettler's overall scale was marginally significant. The tendency of the differences along the Garin Membership variable to differ from those found on the other measures of movement orientation is repeated on the value rankings (see Table 16). (The members of the garig had a coefficient of concordance of .48, while the non- members' coefficient was .34.) The Garin emphasized the importance of Inner Har— mony (which was placed first in importance) and Happiness (second) much more than did the Nongarin Hamagshimim mem- bers (eighth and tenth). The garin members also ranked Family Security as significantly less important than did the nongarianroup (rank 11 as opposed to rank 3). Non— significant trends included the Garin's emphasis on 119 Table 16 Value Rankings: Garin Membership Groupa Values Garin Nongarin Kruskal- Med Rnkb Med Rnk wallls H A Comfortable Life 15.90 (17) 15.17 (17) 0.93 An Exciting Life 11.50 (13) 11.83 (13) 0.21 A Sense of Accomplish- ment 7.07 (7) 7.00 (7) 0.47 A World at Peace 5.50 (4) 5.50 (2) 1.52 A World of Beauty 10.17 (12) 11.30 (12) 0.45 Equality 8.70 (10) 8.50 (11) 0.19 Family Security 10.00 (11) 6.00 (3) 5.08** Freedom 7.00 (7) 7.17 (9) 0.03 Happiness 4.83 (2) 7.83 (10) 4.07** Inner Harmony 3.75 (l) 7.10 (8) 4.03** Mature Love 5.67 (5) 4.50 (1) 0.02 National Security 14.67 (16) 14.50 (16) 0.31 Pleasure 14.50 (15) 14.00 (14) 0.28 Salvation 17.73 (18) 17.67 (18) 0.01 Self-Respect 5.30 (3) 6.30 (5) 1.50 Social Recognition. 14.50 (14) 14.36 (15) 0.15 True Friendship 5.90 (6) 6.00 (4) 0.07 Wisdom 7.67 (9) 6.90 (6) 0.08 :Efs = 34 (Garin), and 38 (Nongarin). Rank order; tant the value. *p < .10; **E < .05. the lower the number, the more impor— 120 Self-Respect, and de—emphasis on Mature Love and Wisdom, when compared with their fellow movement members. Major Hypotheses: Zionist- Irrelevant Measures Communalism. The scores of the Communal, Unde- cided, and Noncommunal groups on each of the dependent variables are presented in Table 17. In terms of satis— faction with 1ife, Communal individuals were significantly less satisfied than were either of the other groups on the Best Life and Meansat: Future measures, and were slightly more satisfied than the Undecideds, but signi- ficantly less satisfied than the Noncommunal subjects, on Direct Happiness, Meansat: Present, Overall Satisfaction, and Best Future. Nonsignificant trends on most of the esteem measures pointed to slightly higher self-esteem for the Communal subjects. Figure 13 illustrates the mean scores on the in- dividual dimensions of satisfaction. In specifying pre— sent levels of satisfaction, the obtained Noncommunal mean was, in all but two cases, higher than the Communal and Undecided means; the latter two groups were fairly evenly divided in possessing the lowest of the satis- faction levels. Eighteen of the 20 individual satisfaction dimensions exhibited significant or marginally signifi— cant differences; a similar pattern was evident on the ex- pected levels of satisfaction five years in the future. Satisfaction, 121 Table 17 Self-Esteem, and Alienation as Related to Communalism Group Dependent Communal Undecided Noncommunal P varlable Mean s9 5 Mean s9 5 Mean s2 g _ Satisfaction Measures Overall ... Satisfac. 5.64 (1.06- 63) 5.55 (1.21-167) 5.99 (1.06-145) 6.14. Best .... Lite 5.19 (1.40- 62) 5.36 (1.45-167) 5.81 (1.35-145) 5.66 Beat sit. Future 7.32 (1.48- 60) 7.27 (1.40-161) 7.83 (1.04-143) 7.23 HAPPY 1-9 5.82 (1.55- 62) 5.63 (1.79-163) 5.94 (1.61-138) 1.34 Direct .. Happiness 2.83 (0.61- 63) 2.71 (0.68-167) 2.92 (0.62-145) 4.17 Meansat: .... Present 5.87 (0.99- 63) 5.81 (1.10-167) 6.38 (1.05-145) 12.02 Meansat: Future 7.30 (0.96- 62) 7.36 (0.90-164) 7.74 (0.74-143) 9.30““ Self-Esteem Measures Overall Self-Est.a 2.79 (0.83- 63) 3.00 (0.89-167) 2.86 (0.91-145) 1.60 Kind of Personb 6.00 (1.34- 62) 5.78 (1.54-165) 5.91 (1.55-141) 0.61 Kind of Futureb 7.45 (1.13- 02) 7.59 (1.07-162) 7.09 (1.04—140) 1.13 Low- Highb 6.28 (1.48- 61) 0.08 (1.44-164) 6.33 (1.34-138) 1.24 Aspired Discrep.a 1.36 (0.51- 62) 1.47 (0.59-162) 1.43 (0.53-137) 0.96 Ideal Discrep.a 2.03 (0.79- 59) 2.25 (0.71—150) 2.17 (0.78-127) 1.76 Alienation Measures Middleton Total 42 (0.23- 63) 45 (0.25-167 40 (0.25-145) 1.72 Power- lessness 42 (0.50- 63) 43 (0.50-167) 46 (0.50-145) 0.41 Meaning- lessness 30 (0.40- 03) 32 (0.47-165) 28 (0.4r-145) 0.29 Norm- lessness 48 (0.50- 61) 59 (0.49-107) 52 (0.50-143) 1.45 Cultural .... VEstrang. 57 (0.50- 63) 36 (0.48-165) 29 (0.46-141) 7.63 Social Estrang. 43 (0.50- 63) 54 (0.50-166) 48 (0.50-145) 2.00 Work Estrang. 33 (0.48- 67) 41 (0.49-167) 34 (0.47-145) 1.17 Nettler Total 40 (0.16- 63) 34 (0.17-165) 28 (0.14-144) 12.84"" Mass .... Culture 72 (0.25- 63) 63 (0.26-165) 52 (0.26-144) 15.07 Familism 18 (0.22— 63) 17 (0.23-165) l3 (0.22—144) 1.52 Political 29 (0.28- 63) 22 (0.26-165) 20 (0.21-144) 3.44“ Dean to Total 2.04 (0.56- 63) 2.12 (0.49-167) 1.97 (0.45-145) 4.36 Social ass. Isola. 2.13 (0.62- 63) 2.38 (0.56—167) 2.20 (0.60-145) '.82 Power- . lessness 2.09 (0.67- 63) 2.04 (0.65-167) 1.91 (0.56-145) 2.71 Norm- lessness 1.82 (0.79- 63) 1.89 (0.67-166) 1.70 (0.65-145) 2.94‘ 8A high score indicates low self-esteem. bA high scorv indicates high self-rstuum. ‘p < .10. ..2 , .05. "‘E < .01. ...‘D < .005. Communal (Present) §,(Future) educational achiev. 2.98* 2.33* intellectual growth 3.14** 1.22 social rel.--own sex 2.90* 2.75* social rel.--opp.sex 2.85* 3.66** love relationships 2.56* 6.37*** sexual activities 1.69 2.83* religious position 0 76 2.31 kind person you are 2.37* 5.44*** relations-~father 3.55** 3.51** relations--mother 3.70** 2.59* relations-~siblings 5.70*** 5.50*** phisical health .25** 2.10 mental health 5.96*** 5.55*** fitting in society 7.56*** 5.17*** live personal values 5.62*** 1.74 being Jewish 8.27sss 4.67sss able to do as want 8.02*** 2.66* values of society 5.57*** 2.64* level of happiness 6.6o*** 7.8m» life as a whole 7.73*** 5.98*** 122 ------ Undecided Present ......Noncommunal Expected in Future *p_< .10. {*2 < .05. ***p < .01. FIGURE 13. Dimensions 7 8 9"— SATISFACTION LEVEL of Satisfaction: Communal ism 123 The group means on the individual Self-Concept dimensions, shown in Figure 14, reveal only three differ— ences reaching standard levels of significance, although all three were highly significant. Communal subjects saw themselves as more liberal, individualistic, and non- religious (and tended to see themselves as more demo- cratic). The tendency for Communal subjects to score themselves as less "Jewish" was not significant. The alienation scores are also presented in Table 17. The Communal group was the most alienated on six of the 15 measures; on Politicalism, Nettler's overall scale, and the two measures of cultural alienation the differ— ences were significant, while the difference on Dean Powerlessness was marginally so. Also highly significant was the tendency to be more alienated than was the Non- communal group, but less alienated than the Undecideds, on the overall Dean Scale; the same trend on the Dean Norm- lessness Subscale approached significance. The Communal respondents were least alienated only on the two social alienation measures, although only the difference on Dean's Social Isolation Subscale was significant. The value rankings (in which the Communal group had a concordance coefficient of .44 in comparison with the Noncommunal's .28 and the Undecided's .32) are given in Table 18. Less of an interest was displayed by the Communal individuals in the values of A Comfortable Life, 124 COmmunal ---- undec1d°d s e s a e e Nomommml E Sensitive to Insensitive others to others 0.44 Self- Lack self- oonfident confidence Critical of Tolerant of others others 0.55 Skillful with Awkward with others others 0.40 Reserved talkative 0.15 Value myself Value myself high low 0.34 Participant Non- O.6b participant Authoritarian Democratic 9, s Competent Incompetent 1.86 Non- Aggressive aggressive 2.02 Honest Dishonest 0.51 Active Passive 0.69 Likeable Not likeable Competitive Cooperative 1.48 Insightful Lack insight about myself about myself Follower Leader 0.17 Timid Sold 0.14 floral Immwral 1.50 Individual- Conformist istic 6.47000 Hostile Affectionate 0.23 Tense ((r" nelaxed 0.55 - Unfair Pair 0.6) Unintelligent Inteiiieent L1rgfgé... Conservative Friendly Unfriendly 0.84 Indepegdent Dependent Pres Constrained 0.89 Religious Non-religious 5.06... American Jewish :03? 4s— ... 1'1 3"— O < .10. ..p < .05. DOOR < .01. PIOUnE 14. Present Self-Concept: Communallsm 125 Table 18 Value Rankings: Communalism Groupa . Non- Kruskal- Values Communal Undec1ded communal Wallis H Med Rnkb Med Rnk Med Rnk A Comfortable **** Life 15.54 (16) 13.92 (15) 13.21 (15) 20.83 An Exciting Life 10.25 (12) 11.21 (12) 11.08 (12) 1.69 A Sense of Accomplish- ment 7.80 (10) 8.91 (10) 8.05 (10) 1.01 A World at ** Peace 3.45 (l) 5.47 (l) 7.65 (9) 11.68 A World of Beauty 9.29 (11) 11.46 (13) 12.18 (13) 16.36 Equality 7.67 (9) 7.96 (9) 9.93 (11) 16.35 Family Security 11.27 (13) 9.73 (11) 7.39 (7) 16.56 Freedom 6.42 (6) 6.13 (4) 7.50 (8) 7.04** Happiness 6.14 (5) 6.86 (7) 5.39 (1) 3.95 Inner Harmony 4.00 (2) 6.25 (5) 6.60 (5) 2.95 Mature Love 5.85 (3) 5.79 (2) 5.50 (2) 1.15 National ** Security 16.53 (17) 15.40 (17) 15.03 (17) 8.17 Pleasure 13.78 (14) 13.30 (14) 12.67 (14) 2.67 Salvation 17.74 (18) 17.55 (18) 17.59 (18) 3.38 Self-Respect 6.75 (7) 7.05 (8) 6.14 (3) 2.08 Social Recognition 14.86 (15) 14.70 (16) 13.39 (16) 4.32 True Friend- ship 5.92 (4) 5.82 (3) 6.29 (4) 2.26 Wisdom 7.65 (8) 6.78 (6) 7.13 (6) 0.78 aN's = 61 (Communal), 163 (Undecided), 142 (Non- communal). b tant the value. *2- < .10; **E < .05; ***E < .01; ****E_<_ Rank order; the lower the number, the more impor- .001. 126 Family Security, and National Security; more of an em- phasis was put on A World at Peace, A World of Beauty, and Equality. Also significant was the tendency for the Com- munal group to be more interested than was the Noncommunal group, but slightly less interested than the Undecideds, in Freedom. The two most important values for the Communal re- spondents were A World at Peace and Inner Harmony. These values were ranked first and fifth for the Undecideds, and ninth and fifth for the Noncommunal subjects. Happiness, ranked first in importance for the Noncommunal group, was fifth for those interested in Communalism. General Migration. The data for the General Mi- gration dimension are presented in Table 19. Those sub- jects indicating a wish to emigrate from the United States to countries other than Israel were less satisfied, more alienated, and had lower self-esteem on almost every measure. (The Migrant group was composed of 64 subjects, half from the Aliya group and about a third--30%—-from the Nonaliya group.) On the Overall Satisfaction measure, as on most of the other satisfaction measures, subjects inclined toward emigration from the United States were significantly less satisfied than were the other respondents. As demonstrated in Figure 15, this was more likely to be the case than not Satisfaction, Self—Esteem, and Alienation as Related to General Migration 127 Table 19 Group Dependent Migrant UndeClded Nonmigrant F "mam“ Mean s2 1;: Mean s_b_ 5 Mean s2 ’1 " Satisfaction Measures Overall .... Satisfac. 5.35 (1.23- 64) 5.49 (1.53- 49) 5.85 (1.82-292) 6.36 Best as Life 5.09 (1.46- 64) 5.32 (1.60- 49) 5.63 (1.38-291) 4.23 Best ees Future 7.07 (1.69— 61) 7.38 (1.42- 47) 7.63 (1.18—286) 4.90 “BPPY 1-9 5.45 (1.90- 62) 5.54 (2.12- 48) 5.85 (1.55-280) 1.79 Direct . Happiness 2.69 (0.71- 64) 2.69 (0.80- 49) 2.86 (0.61-292) 2.77 Meansat: .... Present 5.55 (1.05‘ 64) 5.71 (1.40- 49) 6.20 (1.00-292) 12.48 Meansat: .... Future 7.15 (1.04- 63) 7.25 (1.03- 49) 7.61 (0.78—286) 9.68 Self-Esteem Measures Overall .. Self-Est.a 3.16 (1.07- 64) 2.97 (1.04- 49) 2.84 (0.79-292) 3.65 Kind of Personb 5.74 (1.65- 62) 5.71 (1.84- 48) 5.92 (1.41-287) 0.68 Kind of Futureb 7.51 (1.27- 61) 7.34 (1.27- 47) 7.57 (1.02-285) 2.23 Low- Highb 5.89 (1.80- 63) 6.14 (1.67- 49) 6.28 (1.28-279) 1.93 Aspired ... Discrep.a 1.65 (0.69- 60) 1.48 (0.64- 49) 1.41 (0.52-282) 4.68 Ideal Discrep.‘ 2.35 (0.82- 55) 2.19 (0.88- 44) 2.16 (0.75-267) 1.36 Alienation Measures Middleton .. Total 49 (0.24- 63) 47 (0.26- 49) 4O (0.24-292) 4.51 Power- lessness 50 (0.50- 64) 43 (0.50- 43) 42 (0.50—292) 0.61 Meaning- lessness 20 (0.41- 64) 40 (0.49- 48) 10 (0.46-291) 2.49 Norm- lessness 60 (0.40- 6!) 51 (0.50- 49) H4 (0.50-290) 0.41 Cultural .... Estrang. 60 (0.49- 61) 48 (0.50- 48) 29 (0.45-288) 13. 4 Social .. Eatrang. 65 (0 48- 6!) 54 (0.50- 48) 48 (0.50-292) 1 16 Work Estrang. 39 (0.49- 64) 43 (0.50- 49) i7 (0.48-292) 0.32 Nettler .... Total 44 (0.18— 63) 37 (0.14- 49) 30 (0.15-290) 25.57 H688 sees Culture 72 (0.23- 63) 72 (0.22- 49) 56 (0.27—290) 16.04 Familism 29 (0.28- 63) 17 (0.24- 49) 13 (0.21-290) 11.52"" Political 32 (0.31- 63) 20 (0.26- 49) 20 (0.21-290) 6.49"“ Dean Total 2.20 (0.49- 64) 2.10 (0.54- 49) 2.02 (0.48-292) 1.95" Social Isola. 2.43 (0.60- 64) 2.23 (0.67- 49) 2.24 (0.57-292) 3.0‘ Power- lessness 2.18 (0.65- 64) 2.07 (0.68- 49) 1.95 (0.62-292) 3.94 Norm- lessness 1.87 (0.74- 64) 1.92 (0.60- 49) 1.78 (0.68-291) 1.09 8A high score indicates low self-esteem. b . . . A high score indicates high self-esteem. '2‘. “p < .05. ...B < .01. ----F < .oos. Migrant (Present) 3 (Future) educational achiev. 6.42*** 2.14 intellectual growth 0.45 0.05 social rel.--own sex 2.61* 3.30 social re1.--opp. sex 2.01 3.77** love relationships 1.1? 2.01 sexual activities 0.66 1.29 religious position 0. 7 0.49 kind person you are 4.51** 0.11 relations--father 4.40** 4.38** relations--mother 2.45* 2.65* relations-~siblings 7.89*** 1.59 physical health 7.24*** 3.39** mental health l7.ll*** 4.07** fitting in society 16.23444 17.76444 live personal values 3.68** 0.47 being Jewish 10.59444 10.96sss able to do as want 3.03** 1.54 values of society 10.72*** 9.37*** level of happiness 3.4144 8.3asss life as a whole 3 . 08%! 5 o 29*** *p_< .10. {*2 < .05. ***2 < 0010 FIGURE 15. Migration J “...—...: 128 ------ Undecided Present ......Nonmigrant Expected in Future SATISFACTION LEVEL Dimensions of Satisfaction: General 129 on the individual satisfaction continua as well, both for present levels of satisfaction and for the levels expected in the future. In comparison with the Nonmigrant subjects, Migrant subjects had significantly lower self-esteem as assessed by the Aspired Discrepancy measure and the Overall Self- Esteem measure; the remaining obtained differences were not significant. On the dimensions of the selfdzoncept shown in Figure 16, Migrant subjects felt they were signi— ficantly more immoral, hostile, liberal, and unfriendly than did the Nonmigrant subjects. The groups did not differ on the American-Jewish continuum to a significant degree. Significantly greater alienation for the Migrant group was the rule on ten of the 15 measures of alienation, as seen in Table 19. There was, also, a marginally sig- nificant trend for the Migration subjects to score lowest on Middleton's Meaninglessness item. No apparent differ- ences were obtained on the Middleton Powerlessness and Work Estrangement items, or on either measure of norm— lessness. The value rankings of the groups are indicated in Table 20. The Migrant group had the highest concordance coefficient (.43), with that of the Nonmigrant group being .28 and that of the Undecided group .39. 130 Migrant ...... Undecided . . . . . . Nonmigrant I Sensitive to . Insennitive others >\;\ to others 3.91.. ‘ \ Self- Lack uslf- confident confidence 0.1) \ Critical of \ Tolerant of others ,; others 0s69 / Skillful with ' Awkward with others . others 0.05 Reserved Talk-tive 0.62 Value myself Value myself high low 1.49 Participant Non- 2.20 participant Authoritarian Democratic Competent Incompetent 0.21 Non- Aggressive aggressive 0.91 Honest . Dishonest 1.16 Active Passive 2.879 Likeable Vot likeabls . 2 Competitive Cooperative 0.56 Insightful Lack insight about myself about aysslf Follower Leader 1-59 Timid 501d Moral Immoral 5.20... Individual- Conforaist istic 3.629. Hostile . Affecticnata 4.96... Tense Relaxed 1.73 Unfair 7'1? 1.96 Unintelligent Intelligent O. Libsral Conservative l7.63°" Friendly Unfriendly 3.70.. Independent Dependent 4.65... Free Constrained 4.060. Religious Non-religious .06 American Jewish 1.79 42, 8'77 Op < .10. .0! < .05. 00-3 < .01. FIGURE 16. Present Self-Concept: General Migration Value Rankings: 131 Table 20 General Migration Groupa Migrant Undecided Non-migrant Values Kruskal- Med Rnkb Med Rnk Med Rnk Wallis H A Comfortable **** Life 15.50 (16) 13.94 (15) 13.32 (15) 15.71 An Exciting Life 11.50 (13) 9.17 (10) 11.08 (12) 1.75 A Sense of Accomplish- ment 9.00 (10) 9.70 (11) 8.07 (9) 1.06 A World at Peace 5.06 (2) 4.50 (1) 6.13 (4) 3.23 A World of **** Beauty 9.50 (11) 10.00 (12) 12.22 (13) 17.78 Equality 8.63 (9) 8.25 (9) 9.24 (11) 4.04 Family *** Security 11.32 (12) 10.17 (13) 9.09 (10) 9.99 Freedom 5.50 (3) 6.00 (4) 6.75 (7) 4.07 Happiness 6.00 (6) 6.00 (5) 5.98 (2) 0.14 Inner Harmony 4.36 (1) 6.90 (7) 6.46 (6) 4.59 Mature Love 5.83 (5) 5.90 (3) 5.70 (1) 0.30 National ** Security 16.38 (17) 15.90 (17) 15.00 (17) 7.90 Pleasure 12.00 (14) 13.79 (14) 12.88 (14) 3.64 Salvation 17.59 (18) 17.79 (18) 17.56 (18) 5.81* Self-Respect 7.50 (8) 5.50 (2) 6.42 (5) 1.00 Social Recognition 14.36 (15) 14.64 (16) 14.42 (16) 1.89 True Friend- ship 5.59 (4) 6.10 (6) 6.07 (3) 1.30 Wisdom 7.30 (7) 7.10 (8) 7.18 (8) 1.24 aN's = 64 (Migrants), 49 &Undecided), and 292 (Non- migrants). bRank order; tant the value. *2 < .10; **E < .05; the lower the number, .01; **** E i .001. the more impor— 132 Individuals planning to leave the United States even if not to Israel placed significantly less of an em— phasis on A Comfortable Life, Family Security, and Nation- al Security, and a correspondingly greater emphasis on An Exciting Life and A World of Beauty. Inner Harmony, Peace, and Freedom--the three values felt to be most im— portant by the Migrant group-—were ranked sixth, fourth, and seventh for those probably not migrating. Stated Reasons for Aliya The subjects were asked to "briefly state" the reasons for their answers to the question concerning their aliya plans. Table 21 presents the distribution of re— sponses that could be considered reasons for going on aliya that were given by the members of Hamagshimim, the Other Members, and the Nonmembers. (Reasons were given primarily by those at least "leaning towards" aliya, but 12 individuals leaning against it or definitely not going also gave reasons for possibly going.) As expected, many of the respondents indicated that it was impossible to state their reasons "briefly." Some merely left the space blank. As can be seen in the table, about a third of the respondents answering this question gave answers that could not be readily classified, either because of unclear or idiosyncratic responses, or because the answer was too long or involved to enable 133 Aooav «ma Hooav hm Hooav mm Ammv mm HmuOB Avmv mm Ahmv OH Anmv va Aavv Hm Hmfluo .COHpmcHQEOU Hoov OH Ammo m Hmov H HHoc H mmumum couHCD ocu m>moa OB Hmov mH Hmov m HOHV mm HHHV m mosHm> msoflmflaou no QMHBmh Hnmv we HoHv m Hmmv ma Hmmv mH =copooc= .owfla ca omomuom .muso Hemv ow Homv HH Hmmv MH AHNV ma mumcu meadows .mmaa Houuom w m a m a .m a m mHmQEmz s0mmom mum ofico SHEA woman Hmuoe he 2 Hozuo . .n m commoumxm msouu MNHHé MOM Macmmom counpm Hm mange 134 identification of a single primary motivating factor. Twenty-four percent of the subjects giving reasons indi- cated a desire for a "better life" of one sort or another. One-fourth of the movement members--but only one of every six Nonmembers-—indicated a sense of duty, or the belief that they felt "needed" in Israel, that Israel would pro- vide them with a "sense of purpose." Nonmembers de— emphasized Jewish values or religious-based reasons in comparison with the other groups. However, only one mem- ber of Hamagshimim, and one Other Member, expressed the sentiment that "leaving the United States" was the major reason for aliya, while eight of the 37 Nonmembers giving reasons--22%--gave this as their reason. (The overall chi square for the table was 26.34; with eight degrees of freedom, this was significant at the .001 level). DISCUSSION Summary of Results The data gathered in the present investigation failed to provide evidence in support of the long—assumed View that individuals who participate in social movements are dissatisfied, alienated, low self-esteem people. In fact, the results suggested a trend toward just the oppo- site state of affairs, although the applicability of the dissatisfaction-based theories to particular segments of movements appears to be supported. In addition, the im- portance of the individual's value orientation was af- firmed. Satisfaction. Excluding the 20 individual satis- faction continua, there was only a single significant difference (separating High and Low believers in regard to their expectations of future satisfactions) among the 35 possible differences in the area of satisfaction along the five Participation and Commitment-Level dimensions. That single difference, and the three differences that were marginally significant, could easily have been ob- tained by chance out of the numerous analyses of variance performed on the data. 135 136 However, of the 35 comparisons made (seven for each of the Zionist-related independent variables of Group Membership, Zionist Self-Description, Zionist Beliefs, Aliya, and Garin Membership), 24 were in the direction of greater satisfaction for the movement groups. This would seem to at least strongly suggest the possibility of greater satisfaction levels on the part of social movement participants, at least of participants in the American Zionist youth movement. (It should be noted that five of the eleven exceptions to the above trend occurred when comparing Garin with Nongarin members.) The trend toward greater satisfaction on the part of the movement participants seemed to be consistently related to responses on the 20 individual continua exam— ining life satisfaction in different areas. Individuals in the movement-oriented groups were generally more sat- isfied with particular dimensions of satisfaction—-with being Jewish and with the individual's religious position and, for the future, with expected agreement with societal values (presumably after arrival in a different society, after aliya). Again, however, these trends did not hold for the garin. Self-esteem. A situation similar to the trends of the satisfaction measures was found to characterize the area of self-esteem as well, although here the obtained greater esteem on the part of the movement-oriented 137 subjects (except for the garin) was much less clear. Hamagshimim members tended (to a marginally-significant degree) to have the highest self-esteem as measured by the Aspired Discrepancy weighted mean, and to fall between the other two groups on the Ideal Discrepancy and Low— High measures. However, the remaining measures of self— esteem produced no other significant differences on the Group Membership variable, and no differences at all were significant on the Zionist Self-Description, Zionist Beliefs, Aliya, and Garin Membership dimensions. In terms of the perceived selves of the subjects, fairly stable trends marked by generally—significant dif- ferences were observed. Members of Hamagshimim, respond- ents considering themselves Zionists, High believers, and individuals planning to live in Israel (but not, however, members of the Garin when compared to the other members of Hamagshimim) felt they were more "Jewish" on the American-Jewish continuum, and more religious, bold, inde- pendent, aggressive, active, and talkative than did their opposites; while each of these differences was not evident on each of the comparisons, the overall tendencies were quite clear. Also evident was the tendency on the part of the movement members to consider themselves more "par— ticipant" than "non-participant," and more "leader" than "follower." 138 Alienation. While nonsignificance was the rule for the satisfaction and self-esteem measures (except for particular individual continua), it was much less so for the measures of alienation. With 12 subscales and three total scale scores for each of the five Zionist—related dimensions, there were 75 comparisons made. Sixteen dif- ferences (21%) equalled or surpassed the .05 level of probability, and six more were marginally significant. As with the other areas, comparisons of alienation along the dimension of Garin Membership did not follow the trend of the other dimensions; here, in fact, the trend was com— pletely reversed. In general, movement-oriented subjects were less alienated than were their opposites, most significantly on the Familism, Work Estrangement, and Dean Normlessness and Powerlessness Subscales. The main exceptions to this trend of lesser alienation were the two measures of cul- tural alienation; in all cases, the movement-oriented group was mgre alienated than were the other groups, al— though nonsignificance was characteristic of these dif- ferences. The trend on the alienation measures for the garin was much different. While lesser alienation was usually the case for movement participants, the Garin members were more alienated than were the members of Hamagshimim going 139 on aliya as individuals--on every measure of alienation. Four of these differences were significant. Values. The fourth main dependent variable, the individual's value orientation, was originally conceived of as being a possible source of dissatisfaction for those subjects with "nonnormative" values, or for those who could not fulfill their value-related desires. While the hypothesized dissatisfaction was not found, value dif- ferences were, indicating, perhaps, that value orientations may be motivational without being dissatisfaction-arousing. Differences in value-rankings between the Garin and Nongarin members did not parallel the differences ob- tained along the other dimensions. Most of the signi- ficant differences that separated the groups occurred on the values ranked among the least important for all subjects--values, presumably, that were not of overriding significance for the individual. In general, movement- oriented individuals ranked Pleasure and A Comfortable Life less important, and A Sense of Accomplishment more important, than did the nonmovement respondents. Mature Love, Self-Respect, and Family Security were emphasized more by the movement groups, while Happiness was empha- sized less. Within Hamagshimim, however, Garin and Nongarin members going on aliya did not differ in their emphasis 140 on the values of A Comfortable Life, Pleasure, and A Sense of Accomplishment. What did differentiate the two groups was the stress placed on Inner Harmony and Happi- ness (which were much more important for the members of the garin) and on Family Security (much less important for the garin); the garin also deemphasized Mature Love in comparison with the nonmembers. Zionist-Irrelevant. Although the hypotheses con- cerning greater dissatisfaction among Zionist—movement participants were not supported (except for the within— movement finding of greater alienation among garin mem— bers, and for generally-pervasive value differences), the hypotheses concerning the dimensions of Communalism and General Migration were found to be more tenable. It was predicted that interest in migration from the United States and in communalism would be related to plans for aliya and to garin membership; the results indicated that this was generally the case. It was also expected that dissatisfaction would be greater among individuals interested in communalism or in general migration than among the uninterested. Except for scores on the self-esteem measures along the Communalism dimension, this was generally so. The differences in trends throughout the study for the garin and for the other movement-oriented groups may be related to the garin members' greater interest in general migration and 141 communalism. That which is responsible for the greater alienation and dissatisfaction of individuals planning to leave the United States regardless of destination, and of those interested in communal living, may be part of the specific motivation behind garin membership. Possible Explanations In View of the findings that participants in the social movement under investigation were not characterized by a high degree of alienation or by low degrees of satis- faction or self-esteem, but that the value orientations of the members did differ from those of the nonmembers in important ways, it becomes necessary to suggest a reason— able explanation for the obtained results-—resu1ts that are generally in opposition to most theories of social— movement participation. The great dissatisfaction of members of movements, stated or implied in numerous writ— ings on the subject, was not found. One possibility, of course, is that the level of an individual's satisfaction is not, after all, related to his tendency to take part in social movements. Perhaps the consistent finding of value differences, rather than satisfaction differences, points to the possibility that, indeed, social movement participation is largely based on (or a cause of?) individual value orientations, not dissatisfaction or alienation. Perhaps an individual who 142 deemphasizes the importance of such things as A Comfortable Life and Pleasure, and is more concerned than most with A Sense of Accomplishment and Self-Respect, is prime material for attraction to a movement. In fact, the lesser movement emphasis placed on the traditional American value of living comfortably may be a factor in the trend toward greater alienation for the movement in the area of cultural alienation-— alienation, after all, from American culture. It is entirely conceivable that the desire for accomplishment and self-respect is answered in the movement, and especial- ly in aliya to a land where the cultural alienation may be expected to be reduced and where "agreement with the values of society in general" may be expected to increase. (Perhaps the greater movement emphasis on Family Security—- which was defined as "taking care of loved ones"-—is related to the alienation from American culture; perhaps the movement member desires a better life for his eventual family than he feels can be obtained in the United States.) It is possible, of course, that there is more dis- satisfaction and alienation and less self-esteem among those about to join a movement, but that the dissatis- faction disappears as movement membership commences. Find— ing in the movement a source of pride, a sense of belong- ing, and a place to implement one's personal values, as well as finding new friends with beliefs and values that 143 are in accord with one's own, could result in significantly increasing an individual's sense of well-being, enough so, perhaps, to compensate for the originally depressed level that may have originally motivated movement participation. Unfortunately, the data gathered in the present study were not sufficient to attempt to discover the motivations of members at the moment of joining. (A related possibil- ity is that movement members began as less satisfied in- dividuals, but that the movement "taught" them to devalue happiness and satisfaction. This could account for the lesser movement emphasis on the value of Happiness in the Value Survey.) Also among the possible explanations for the ob- tained findings is that movement participants are actually less satisfied than are nonmembers, but that this differ- ence failed to be detected. This could have been a result of either the particular scales used or of the subjects themselves. The first possibility, that the scales employed were inadequate, may be rejected more readily than the second. The alienation scales were the same scales used successfully in various other contexts, and the self— esteem scale was only different in minor respects from that of Sherwood (1962), which was also successfully used; only the satisfaction measures were substantially differ- ent from the scales upon which they were based. However, 144 as observed in Table 6, the correlations among the scales were generally as expected (see Robinson & Shaver, 1969). Furthermore, the alienation and satisfaction measures, at least, did successfully differentiate between groups in a consistent manner, even though not always in the predicted one. The View that the subjects in the movement were more dissatisfied, but that they somehow presented them- selves as the opposite, is perhaps more tenable. For one thing, the popular view in the Zionist movement today is that individuals who go on aliya to Israel should be going for "good" (ideological) reasons, out of a desire to live a Jewish life, rather than because of personal problems, unhappiness, etc. (Engel, 1971; Herman, 1962). Knowing that dissatisfaction is not considered, in move- ment circles, to be an adequate reason for aliya may have caused the subjects to conceal underlying dissatis- factions--either consciously, in order to protect the reputation of the movement, or unconsciously, to safe- guard their self-regard. (In addition, those subjects in Hamagshimim who personally knew the investigator may have hesitated to admit such "heretical" bases of aliyg_to someone who might conceivably identify them.) One last possible explanation for the obtained data is that subjects may not have been successfully divided into true "movement" and "nonmovement" groups. 145 The View that dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and alien- ation characterize movement participants may be valid only for movements in their early, most active stages of de- velopment; the Zionist movement may not have undergone enough of a rebirth in recent years to attract indi- viduals with "movement-oriented" personality patterns or life situations, although on the surface the organiza- tional framework of Zionism appears to be thriving. Despite increasing opposition from the left-oriented movements, in recent years the consideration of one's self as a Zionist and, even, of aliya to Israel are no longer the marks of a miniscule minority of American Jews. As almost all Jews have come to support the Jewish State and as aliya has increased among established fami- lies as well as among the youth, perhaps those individuals who were classified in the present study as "movement" participants should instead have been considered members of a nonactivist organization. The greater dissatisfaction hypothesized for social movement participants may not at all held for those affiliated with organizations. Garin and Withdrawal The fact that the predicted greater alienation was found for members of the garin, and the finding that g2;ig_and nongarin members greatly differed in their value orientations, may have some implications for the garin-movement relationship. While officially involved 146 in the same movement, garin and nongarin members of Hamag- shimim may actually be taking part in qualitatively dif- ferent movement undertakings, for quite different moti- vations. Perhaps the members of Hamagshimim who are plan- ning to live in Israel outside the garin framework-- members who are less alienated and who place a greater emphasis than do the garin members on family security and mature love--are taking part in what is, for them, just another social organization, one of the many that Hamag- shimim members seem to join. The leadership Opportuni- ties, high esteem, and feelings of accomplishment that movement work can provide may be what the general members are seeking; the presence of lower alienation may enable them to commit themselves to the goals of the movement out of belief rather than desperation. It may be the slightly higher cultural alienation that is the factor motivating participation in a group designed for those leaving the United States. Even if one considers Hamagshimim to actually be a true social movement rather than an organization-~which, despite the apparent organizational framework, remains the most reasonable View when one compares Hamagshimim to groups, such as Hillel, which are admittedly organizations only--the "movements" of the garin and nongarin members may not be the same movement. While Hamagshimim in 147 general may be considered to be oriented toward positive action on American campuses, fewer garin members are con- cerned with such activities. The data obtained in the present study support the view that, while Hamagshimim may be loosely considered an activist group, the garin may be more of a "withdrawal" sect that combines pervasive alienation with Zionist belief. In addition to sharing the general movement member's concern for self—respect and accomplishment-- values which can be fulfilled in either the movement as a whole or within the garin—-the garin member has ad— ditional values and needs that can be met primarily in the small group planning a new, close-knit community. The members of the garin display a relatively excessive interest in the goals of inner harmony and happiness, and, in addition, are more alienated on all the dimensions of alienation measured. The garin may hold out to these people the hope of ending their alienation and of finding the inner peace they put first in importance. Motivations for committing one's self to a group of friends in the garin (or to the idea of a small communal society in general) may be quite different from those involved in acceptance of a commitment to take part in a more activist group concerned with the larger society. The differences in the trends along the Zionist dimensions and along the Communalism and General 148 Migration dimensions would seem to indicate that a Zionist concern for aliya is not the same as a general desire for migration, and, even, that joining a garin is not solely a manifestation of a desire for communal living--many indi- viduals interested in living communally in Israel do not join a garin planning to build a new kibbutz, but, instead, join already-existing settlements. As found for members of the garin, individuals interested in general migration and in communalism are more alienated (and less satisfied). Such dissatisfaction may be an indication of a tendency to withdraw from the larger society, rather than a factor pushing the individual toward activist-oriented partici- pation. Background Factors Data were gathered in the present investigation on various factors in the backgrounds of individuals that might have some influence on the tendency to join a social movement. Hamagshimim members were more likely than were the other groups of subjects to report growing up in a BBB? Jewish neighborhood. This may have been a factor in the greater incidence of experience with anti-Semitism re— ported by movement members, although another factor may have been the greater sensitivity to situations common to all which is developed in the movement. Perhaps growing 149 up as a member of a minority group—-a situation not faced to such a degree by those in a Jewish neighborhood (es- pecially in an area such as New York)-—made the movement members more aware of their "Jewishness" and pointed them in the direction of Zionism when the need (or desire) for a movement developed within them. Peer-group influences, discussed by several writers as important in the tendency to participate, may also be at work in Hamagshimim. Movement members were much more likely than were nonmembers to report a greater percentage of their friends going on aliya, and the movement in gen- eral is characterized by long—term friendships among members often beginning in the pre-high,school level of the movement. The social relations of many individuals are confined entirely to other members or former members, and marriages among movement members are commonplace events. The effects of the peer group, it would seem, are likely to be pervasive. While there is no indication of greater mobility on the part of movement members, the members did report themselves to be more "religious" on all the measures of religiosity except that concerning private prayer, perhaps indicating a broader conception of "religion" among the members (or, alternatively, indicating its greater social desirability within the movement). The greater tendency 150 of the movement members to reject the traditional labels of the "types" of Judaism (Reform, Orthodox, etc.) may indicate a disdain for established Jewish life in America, similar to the overall alienation from American culture. The birth order information presented supports the view that first-born children are more likely to take part in a social movement than are later-borns, as more than half the members of Hamagshimim were first-born or only children. If the first-born's tendency to join groups is considered to be a result of some type of need encountered only in those without siblings, then the movement member's concern for inner harmony and a sense of accomplishment may be rooted in birth order differences. The members of Hamagshimim, it appeared, were much more likely to be "joiners, much more likely to be members of two or more groups than were the Other Members. Perhaps this tendency to join groups indicates a greater "searching" for the answers to the problems of members—— looking, perhaps, for a group to provide accomplishment or love or peace. One last finding was relevant to possible charac- teristics of social movement participants. Movement members had a higher concordance coefficient in their value rankings than did nonmembers, and garin members had a coefficient that was even higher. While this may be related to a possible uniformity of belief upon 151 membership, it may also be evidence in support of the view of increasing conformity of belief with increasing commitment. Future Research The results of the present study would seem to in— dicate several areas in which future research would m clearly be desirable. First, the question of whether satisfaction and W self-esteem play roles in social movement participation must be answered. Few significant differences in these areas were obtained in the present investigation, and replications would be necessary to determine if the trend observed here--of slightly greater satisfaction for move— ment participants--is indeed the true situation, or, alternatively, if the frequently-hypothesized dissatis- faction of members is indeed a necessary correlate of participation. In fact, the possibility remains that an individual's level of satisfaction is not relevant to his movement participation. Second, the specific areas of alienation that separated the groups in the present study should be fur- ther examined. The movement members were characterized by lesser alienation, except on the important cultural level, while the garin was more alienated in all areas than was the movement as a whole. Additional research 152 would be necessary to determine if this pattern is re- peated in other movements—-especially to discover if "cultural estrangement" is the sole source of alienation for movement members in general. Third, research into the nature of specific value orientations would be expected to be most fruitful, in View of the finding that value differences--as expected—- consistently separated movement—oriented from nonmovement— oriented subjects. It is, of course, not yet known if the inclination to take part in a social movement is re- lated to the presence or absence of a specific value, or if the overall pattern is of primary importance. Also yet to be determined is the direction of causality (if causality is indeed involved) between value orientation and movement participation. Fourth, research into all these areas is neces- sary both within movements similar to the Zionist move- ment and within quite different movements. As suggested earlier, individuals in different movements are likely to be motivated by various factors. The lack of dissatis— faction seen among members of Hamagshimim may not be re- peated among members of the Jewish Defense League, the Black Panthers, or Vietnam Peace Committees. Perhaps most important would be to determine if the value orien- tations of Hamagshimim members are shared by social move- ment participants (or even by Zionists) in general, or if 153 different "value deviances" stimulate participation in different movements-—or are stimulated by_such partici- pation. Fifth, the finding that the factors that separate movement participants from nonparticipants are not the same factors that distinguish individuals committed to different aspects of a single movement should be elabo- rated upon. Apparently, in the Zionist movement organ— ization studied here, deeper commitment to the ideology of the movement is not related solely to an increase in the factors associated with membership in the first place; additional research would determine if such is the case within other movements. Finally, as noted several times, the direction of causality between movement participation and all the var- iables discussed above remains to be determined. Only once the direction of causality is determined—-which must, of course, come subsequent to the discovery of the corre- lates of participation-—will any adequate theory of social movement membership become feasible. Conclusions Perhaps the main conclusion to be gathered from the present investigation is that participants in social movements are not necessarily characterized by great levels of personal dissatisfaction, alienation, and 154 lowered self-esteem. (However, these variables may be of some importance in particular movements or segments of movements, such as the garin, that are characterized by a tendency to withdraw from an active concern with the outer society either by withdrawal into a closed group, or by withdrawal to a different society, or both.) While such dissatisfaction might characterize members of other move— ments, it does not characterize the young Zionists in the present sample. Thus, no general theory of social move- ment participation can begin with the assumption that the members are of necessity dissatisfied individuals. Just as important as the finding that the level of satisfaction is not of great importance in explaining movement participation is the finding that, apparently, value differences are. An individual's values need to be considered as a central factor in social movement member- ship, and not left ignored on the periphery. While it cannot be assumed that the value differences found in the present study existed before participation in the movement, further research into the relevance of values to social movements is clearly warranted. The final conclusion to be stated here is that the factors which separate movement members from nonmembers are not the same factors separating individuals committed to different levels of the same movement. Apparently, one set of factors may be responsible for movement membership 155 in the first place, while a different set of factors may determine how active or committed an individual will become. The present study was, basically, an attempt to determine if dissatisfaction with at least a single im- portant area of life is necessarily related to membership in a particular social movement with an ideology that is quite out of step even with the subgroup of which the members are a part. If the predicted situation had indeed been found, there would have been no call for surprise, as the dissatisfaction of members of social movements has for decades been assumed to be a fact. Unfortunately, however, what is often taken to be the obvious truth is not always systematically tested, and the present research sought to take a missing, but necessary, step in the study of social movements. Now that step has been taken, and rather than confirming old assumptions, only new areas of research are indicated as necessary. Once these areas are delved into, perhaps the motivational patterns of social movement participants will be better understood. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Abel, T. The Nazi movement: Why Hitler came to power. A New York: Atherton Press, 1938 (1965). ifl Adler, A. Social interest: A challegge to mankind. Lon- . don: Faber & Faber, 1938 (1949). 5 Allport, F. H., & Hartman, D. A. Measurement and moti- vation of atypical opinion in a certain group. American Political Science Review, 1925, 19, 735-760. "' Allport, G. W. The composition of political attitudes. American Journal of Sociology, 1929, 35, 220-238. Allport, G. W., Vernon, P., & Lindzey, G. Study of values. (3rd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960. Almond, G. A. The appeals of Communism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954 (1964). Altbach, P. G. Students and politics. In S. M. Lipset (Ed.), Student politics. New York: Basic Books, 1967. ' American College Dictionary. New York: Random House, 1966. Backman, C. W., Secord, P. F., & Peirce, J. R. Resistance to change in the self-concept as a function of con- sensus among significant others. Sociometry, 1963, 2§,'102-lll. Baird, L. L. A study of student activism, 1968. Cited in Trent, J. W., Revolution, reformation, and reevalu— ation. In E. E. Sampson & H. A. Korn (Eds.), Student activism andgprotest. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1970. Barber, B. Acculturation and messianic movements. Ameri- can Sociological Review, 1941, g, 663-669. 156 Barber, J. D. Classifying and predicting presidential styles: Two "weak" presidents. Journal of Social Issues, 1968, 24_(3), 51-80. Bay, C. Political and apolitical students: Facts in search of theory. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23 (3), 76-91. Beyer, W. H. Handbook of tables for probability and sta- tistics. (2nd ed.) Cleveland: Chemical Rubber Co., 1968. Bittner, E. Radicalism and the organization of radical movements. American Sociological Review, 1963, 28, 928-940. Blumer, H. Social movements. In A. M. Lee (Ed.), Prin- ciples of sociology. New York: Barnes & NoBIe, 1951 (1957). Cameron, W. B. Modern social movements: A sociological outline. New York: Random House, 1966. Cantril, H. The psychology of social movements. New York: John Wiley, 1941 (1967). Cantril, H. Theypattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1965. Cartwright, D., & Zander, A. (Eds.) Group dynamics: Research and theory(3rd ed.7 New York: Harper & Row, 1968. Chin, R. Values and social action analyses: A preface. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 2g (4), iii-iv. Coles, R. Social struggle and weariness. Psychiatry, 1964, 21, 305-315. Cross, H. J., Doost, R. M., & Tracy, J. J. A study of values among hippies. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1970, 5, 449-450. Currie, E., & Skolnick, J. H. A critical note on con- ceptions of collective behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1970, 391, 34-45. Darin-Drabkin, H. The other society. New York: Hart- court, Brace, 1963. 158 Dean, D. Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review, 1961, 36, 753-758. Edwards, A. L. The signs of incipent fascism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1944, 33, 301-316. Edwards, A. L. Edwards personal preference schedule. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1954. Engel, G. Roadblocks to aliya. Israel Magazine, 1971, 3(8), 69—73. Etzioni, A. The functional differentiation of elites in the kibbutz. American Journal of Sociology, 1959, 33, 476-487. Evans, D. A., & Alexander, S. Some psychological correlates of civil rights activity. Psychological Reports, 1970, 33, 899-906. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, J. Some conse- quences of deindividuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 41, 381- 382. Fishman, J. R., & Solomon, F. Youth and social action: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 30_(4), 1-27. Flacks, R. The liberated generation: An exploration of the roots of student protest. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 33 (2), 52-75. Flacks, R. Social and cultural meanings of student revolt. In E. E. Sampson & H. A. Korn (Eds.), Student activism and protest. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1970. Flugel, J. C. Man, morals and society. London: Duck- worth, 1945. Fromm, E. Escape from freedom. New York: Avon Books, 1941 (1967I. Gide, C. Communist and co-operative colonies. London: George Harrap, 1930. Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. Christian Beliefs and anti- Semitism. New York: Harper & Row, 1966 (1969). 159 Gore, P. M., & Rotter, J. B. A personality correlate of social action. Journal of Personality, 1963, 33, 58-64. Gurin, G., Veroff, J., & Feld, S. Americans View their mental health. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Gusfield, J. R. The study of social movements. In D. Sills (Ed.), International Encyclgpedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 14, MacMillan, 1968. Gusfield, J. R. (Ed.) Protest, reform, and revolt: A reader in social movements. New York: John Wiley, 1970. Halpern, B. The American Jew: A Zionist analysis. New York: Theodor Herzl Foundation, 1956. Hartley, E. L., & Hartley, R. E. Fundamentals of Social Ps cholo . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952 (1961). Heberle, R. Observations on the sociology of social move- ments. American Sociological Review, 1949, 34, 346-357. Heberle, R. Social movements: An introduction to politi- cal sociolggy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1951. Heberle, R. Types and functions of social movements. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences, Vol. 14. MacMillan, 1968. Herman, S. N. A social psychological study of chalutziut (Palestine Pioneering) in America. Unpublished manuscript, Zionist Archives (New York), 1949? Herman, S. N. American Jewish students in Israel: A social psychological study in cross-cultural edu- cation. Jewish Social Studies, 1962, 34, 3-29. Hertzberg, A. The Zionist idea: A historical analysis and reader. New York: Meridian Books, 1960. Hoffer, E. The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New York: Harper & Row, 1951 (1966f. Homans, G. C. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1950. 160 Infield, H. F. Utopia and experiment: Essays in the sociology of cooperation. New York: Frederick Praeger, 1955. Isaacs, H. R. American Jews in Israel. New York: John Day, 1967. Israel Institute of Applied Social Research. Americans and Canadians in Israel. In The Israel Yearbook 1970. Tel Aviv: Israel Yearbook Puincations, 1970. Jacobson, C. Letter to the editor. Hamagshimim Newsletter, 3 1970, 3 (December), 2. Jones, E. Evolution and revolution. International Journal of Psycho—Analysis, 1941, 33, 193-208. Keniston, K. The uncommitted: Alienated_youth in American society. New York: Dell Publishing, 1965. Keniston, K. The sources of student discontent. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 33 (3), 108-137. Kerpelman, L. C. Student political activism and ideology: Comparative characteristics of activists and non- activists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 33, 8-13. Kiesler, C. A., Nisbett, R. E., & Zanna, M. P. On infer- ring one's beliefs from one's behavior. Journal of Personality and Social ngcholggy, 1969, 33, 321-327. Killian, L. M. Social movements. In R. E. L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of modern sociology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. Kilpatrick, F. P., & Cantril, H. Self-anchoring scale: A measure of individual's unique reality worlds. Journal of Individual Psychology, 1960, 33, 158- 170. King, C. W. Social movements in the United States. New York: Random House, 1956. Kirtley, D., & Harkless, R. Student political activity in relation to personal and social adjustment. Journal of P§ychology, 1970, 33, 253-256. 161 Koestler, A. In R. Crossman (Ed.), The God that failed. New York: Harper & Row, 1949. Kotler, P. The elements of social action. American Behavioral Scientist, 1971, 33, 691-717. Krout, M. H., & Stagner, R. Personality development in radicals: A comparative study. Sociometry, 1939, 3, 31-46. Lang, K., & Lang, G. E. Collective dynamics. New York: Thomas Crowell, 1963. Lasswell, H. D. Psychopathology and politics. Chicago: University of CHiCago Press, 1930. Lelkn1,G. The crowd: A study of the popular mind. Lon- don: Ernest Benn, 1896 (1952). Lessing, E. E., & Zagorin, S. W. Some demographic, value, and personality correlates of endorsement of Negro militancy by Negro and white youth. Proceedings of the 77th Annual Convention of the Amefican Psycho- Iogical Association, 1969, 3, 295-296. Leuchter, L. What is Zionism? The Senior, 1970, 33 (December), 2. Lipset, S. M. American student activism in comparative perspective. American Psycholggist, 1970, 33, 675-693. Lofland, J., & Stark, R. Becoming a world-saver: A theory of conversion to a deviant perspective. American Sociological Review, 1965, 33, 862-875. Luetgert, M. J., Roth, C. H., & Jacobs, M. Campus protest and the student in psychotherapy. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Convention of the American Psycho- logical Association, 1971, 3, 435-436. MacDonald, A. P. Birth order and personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 33! 171- I76. Maier, N. R. F. The role of frustration in social move- ments. Psychological Review, 1942, 33, 586-599. Martin, E. D. Some mechanisms which distinguish the crowd from other forms of social behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1923, 33, 187-203. 162 Matza, D. Position and behavior patterns of youth. In R. E. L. Faris (Ed.),Handbook of modern sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964. McClosky, H., & Schaar, J. H. Psychological dimensions of anomy. American Sociological Review, 1965, 30, 14-40. '—— McCormack, T. H. The motivation of radicals. American Journal of Sociolpgy, 1951, 33, 17-24. McLaughlin, B. (Ed.) Studies in social movements: A socia1_p§ycholggica1_perspective. New York: Free Press, 1969. Meier, A. Who are the "true believers"?: A tentative typology of the motivations of civil rights activists, 1965. In J. R. Gusfield (Ed.), Pro- test, reform, and revolt: A reader in sociai— movements. New York: John Wiley, 1970. Middleton, R. Alienation, race, and education. American Sociological Review, 1963, 33, 973-977. Mitscherlich, A. Panel on "Protest and revolution." International Journal of Psycho-Anaiysis, 1970, 33, 211-218. Moore, H. T. Innate factors in radicalism and conservatism. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1925, 32! 234-244. Morrison, D. E. Some notes toward theory on relative deprivation, social movements, and social change. American Behavioral Scientist, 1971, 33, 675-690. Neal, A. G. Conflict and the functional equivalence of social movements. Sociological Focus, 1970, 3, 3-12 e Neal, A. G., & Seeman, M. Organizations and powerlessness: A test of the mediation hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 1964, 33, 216-225T Nettler, G. A measure of alienation. American Sociologi- Nettler, G. Scales of alienated attitudes, revised, 1964. Cited in J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver, Measures of social_p§ycholggical attitudes: Appendix B to Measures of PolitiCal Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1969. 163 Neufeld, E. Zionism and aliyah on the American Jewish scene. Jewish Journal of Sociology, 1963, 3, 111-137. Newcomb, T. M., Turner, R. H., & Converse, P. B. Social psychology: The stugy of human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Parrott, G. L. Who marches? A psychological profile of the San Francisco Moratorium crowd. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the American Psychologi- cal Association, 1970, 3, 447-448. Peres, J. Youth and youth movements in Israel. Jewish Journal of Sociology, 1963, 3, 94-110. Pervin, L. A., & Lilly, R. S. Social desirability and self-ideal self ratings on the semantic differ- ential. Educational and Psycholggical Measurement, 1967, 33, 845-853. Plath, D. W. Modernization and its discontents: Japan's little utopias, 1968. In J. R. Gusfield (Ed.), Protest, reform, and revolt: A reader in social movements. New York: John Wiley, 1970. Rinaldo, J. Psychoanalysis of the reformer. New York: Lee Publishing, 1921. Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. Measures of social pgychological attitudes: Appendix B to Measures of Political Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1969. Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Fran- cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Rokeach, M. The measurement of values and value systems. In G. Abcarian & J. W. Soule (Eds.), Social psychology andppolitical behavior: ProBIems and prospects. Columbus: Charles Merrill, 1971. Rokeach, M., & Bonier, R. Time perspective, dogmatism, and anxiety. In M. Rokeach, The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books, 1960. 164 Rokeach, M., & Kemp, C. G. Open and closed systems in relation to anxiety and childhood experience. In M. Rokeach, The ppen and closed mind: Investi- gations into the nature of belief systems and personalipy systems. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Rosenberg, M. Occupations and values. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957. Samuel, E. The structure of sociepy in Israel. New York: Random House, 1969. Sarnoff, I., & Zimbardo, P. G. Anxiety, fear, and social affiliation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy- chology, 1961, 33, 356-363. Schachter, S. The_psychology of affiliation: Egperimental studies of the sources ofpgregariousness. Stan- ford: Stanford University Press, 1959 (1967). Schein, E. H. The passion for unanimity, 1961. In B. McLaughlin (Ed.), Studies in social movements: A social psychological perspective. New York: Free Press, 1969. Schiff, L. F. The obedient rebels: A study of college conversions to conservatism. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 33 (4), 74-95. Sheehan, P. W. Measurement of a construct of the student- activist personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 33, 297. Sherif, M. The_psychology_of social norms. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1936. ' Sherif, M. On the relevance of social psychology. American P3ycholpgist, 1970, 33, 144-156. Sherman, C. B. Emerging patterns and attitudes in American Jewish life. Jewish Journal of Sociology, 1963' -5_' 47-54e Sherrow, F. S., & Ritterband, P. An analysis of migration to Israel. Jewish Social Studies, 1970, 33, 214- 223. Sherwood, J. J. Self-identity and self-actualization: A theory and research. 1962. In J. P. Robinson & P. R. Shaver, Measures of social psychological attitudes: Appendix B to Measures of Political Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, 1969. 165 Shipley, T. E., & Veroff, J. A projective measure of need for affiliation. Journal of Experimental Psy- chology, 1952, 33, 349-356. Shuval, J. T. Immigrants on the threshold. New York: Atherton Press, 1963. Silverberg, R. If I forget thee 0 Jerusalem: American Jews and the State of Israel. New York: William Morrow, 1970. Simmons, J. L. On maintaining deviant belief systems: A case study. Social Problems, 1964, 33, 250-256. Smelser, N. J. Theory of collective behavior. New York: Free Press, 1963. Snell, J. C., Wakefield, W. 0., & Shonts, J. The "October Moratorium": Student participation and authoritar- ianism. Peace Research, 1970, 3 (ll), 37. Solomon, F., & Fishman, J. R. Youth and peace: A psy- chosocial study of student peace demonstrators in Washington, D.C. Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 33 (4), 54-73. Srole, L. Social integration and certain corollaries. American Sociological Review, 1956, 33, 709-716. Stanage, S. M. A phenomenological model of commitment. Sociological Focus, 1970, 3, 33-41. Strauss, A. Research in collective behavior: Neglect and need. American Sociological Review, 1947, 33, 352-354. Strickland, B. The prediction of social action from a dimension of internal-external control. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 33, 353-358. Toch, H. Crisis situations and ideological revaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1955, 33, 53-67. Toch, H. The social_psychology of social movements. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965. Trent, J. W. Revolution, reformation, and reevaluation. In E. E. Sampson & H. A. Korn (Eds.), Student activism and protest. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1970. 166 Trent, J. W., & Craise, J. L. Commitment and conformity in the American college. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 33 (3), 34-51. Troldahl, V. C., & Powell, F. A. A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces, 1965, 33, 211-214. Turner, R. M., & Killian, L. M. Collective behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957 (1965). Vander Zanden, J. W. The non-violent resistance movement against segregation. American Journal of sociology, 1963, 33, 514-550. Verbit, M. F. Reference for religion among Jewish college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968. Vetter, G. B. The measurement of social and political attitudes and the related personality factors. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1930, 33, 149-189. Waisanen, F. B. Some convergences in the social psy- chology of alienation. Paper presented at the Congress of the Interamerican Society for Psy- chology, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 1963. Wallace, A. F. C. Revitalization movements. American Anthrgpologist, 1956, 33, 264-281. Warren, J. R. Birth order and social behavior. Psy- chological Bulletin, 1966, 33, 38-49. Watts, W. A., Lynch, 8., & Whittaker, D. N. E. Alienation and activism in today's college-age youth: Sociali- zation patterns and current family relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 33, 1-17. Watts, W. A., & Whittaker, D. N. E. Some socio-psy- chological differences between highly committed members of the Free Speech Movement and the stu- dent population at Berkeley. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1966, 3, 41-42. Wilson, W. Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 1967, 33, 294-306. 167 Wrightsman, L. 8., Jr. Effects of waiting with others on changes in felt level of anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 33, 216-222. Wrightsman, L. 8., Jr. (Ed.) Contemporapy issues in social psychology. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1968. Youth Mobilization for Israel. In Hamagshimim Newsletter, 1971, 3 (March), 1. Zald, M. N., & Ash, R. Social movement organizations: Growth, decay, and change. Social Forces, 1966, 33, 327-341. APPENDICES APPENDIX A PILOT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE APPENDIX A PILOT INTERVIEW SCHEDULE What I'm doing is speaking to people who have, at one time or another, thought about living in Israel-- regardless of the final decision these people have made. What I'm trying to find out eventually is what kind of person goes to Israel. Actually, these interviews will form the basis upon which to construct a questionnaire for a much larger number of people. So, throughout the interview, please let me know whenever a question isn't clear, or when you think a question isn't specific enough. Hopefully, when I'm finished, we'll have a better under- standing of the whole situation. I'm sure you realize that the results of this study will be meaningless unless everyone tells the truth. Please try to answer everything honestly; there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, and, in any case, your name will not be linked with your answers. By the way, if you are interested in what I'm doing, I'll send you a copy of the results when I'm finished, sometime around the end of the summer. Do you have any questions? (Indicate: Male Female) First, are you in school now? Yes No (If yes) What year are you in? Fresh. Soph. Jr. Sr. M.A. Ph.D. What are you majoring in? (If no) What exactly are you doing now--working, or what? What kind of job do you have? Were you ever in college? Yes No (If yesi For how long? What was your major What career is your likeliest choice at this time? How sure are you of this choice? How old are you now? Do you have any brothers or sisters? Yes No How many brothers are younger than you? How many sisters are younger than you? 168 169 How many brothers are older than you? How many sisters are older than you? Were you born in this country? Yes No (If no) Where were you born? How old were you when you came to the U.S.? Where was your father born? your mother? your father's father? your father's mother? your mother's father? your mother's mother? How much formal education did your father have? Elem. or less; H.S. only; some college; technical; college grad; post-grad. Your mother? Elem. or less; H.S. only; some college; technical; college grad; post-grad. Do you think of your parents as being in the upper, middle, or lower class? When you were growing up, were most of the people in your neighborhood Jewish? Yes Half Jewish No Don't know In the course of a day, you probably see or speak to many friends, fellow students (fellow workers), and so on. About what percentage of these people would you say are Jewish? How many of your four closest friends are Jewish? 0 l 2 3 4 What kind of Jewish education did you have? none; Jewish weekday school; Sunday school; yeshiva (all-day school); other For how many years? How many days a week did you usually attend? During the time you were growing up, what was the religious affiliation of your parents? Was your father Reform; Conservative; Orthodox; not Jewish; other What about your mother? Ref.; Cons.; Orth.; not Jersh; other How would you classify yourself? Reform; Conservative; Orthodox; None; other Politically, at which number would you place yourself on this scale? (Hold up Card I) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Liberal Conser- vative Are you currently involved in any social movement or any organization? Yes No (If yes) Which ones? How long have you been involved? How active would you say you are? Have you ever held any leadership positions? (If yes) Which ones? 170 (If a member now) Have you ever been involved in any organizations or movements? Yes No (If a member now) Were you ever in any other groups? Yes No (If a member in the past) Which ones? When, and for how long? How active were you? Did you hold any leadership positions then? Yes No (If Yes) Which ones? (If ever a member of any group) Why do you think you became involved with--? (If still a member) Is that why you're still involved, or are there any different reasons? (If was member in past, but no longer) Why aren't you a member of -- any more? (If never a member) Why do you think you never became involved with any groups? I'd like to turn to religion for a moment, O.K.? How often do you attend religious services? never; Bar Mitzvahs and special occasions only; special occasions and High Holy Days only; once every four to six months; once every two or three months; once a month; once every two or three weeks; once a week; two or more times a week How often do you pray privately, when no one else is around? every day; several times a week; about once a week; fairly often, but not once a week; once in a while; only on special occasions; I pray only in syna- gogue; never pray There is great variety among practices carried out by dif- ferent Jews. For each of the things I read, please tell me if you follow that practice rggularly or often, or some- times, or never. study (or know) conversational Hebrew . . . study (or know) Hebrew to understand prayers . study the Bible, Jewish history, etc. at the present time. . . . . . . . . . . . study about Jews in other countries . . . . participate in events of the Jewish community. What I'd like you to do now is to look at these values and rank them in the order of their importance to you. Please read the directions first. (Give Terminal Values Scale) Did you have any problems with the ranking? Yes No What? observe at least some of the dietary laws . . S N say a prayer before or after meals . . . . S N refrain from riding on the Sabbath . . . . S N light candles on Hannukah . . . . . . . S N fast on Yom Kippur . . . . . . . S N (for girls only) light candles on Friday night S N attend a seder at passover . . . . . . S N S N S N 21W$U W$URJWSURHDRIW (D010) ZZZ 171 Did you find it Easy or Difficult? Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days--would you say you're very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy? Now I'd like to go into a little more detail concerning the specific areas of life with which you're satisfied and not satisfied. Please fill out these scales after reading the directions (give Satisfaction Scales). Did you have any trouble with these? Yes No (If yes) What? Do you think any important component of what makes you happy or unhappy was left out? Yes No (If yes) What? Now I'd like you to tell me if you think that the face you were born Jewish has affected the kind of person you are now? Yes No Don't Know (If yes) How? When you consider the fact that you're Jewish, do you feel that it's a problem. . . . Yes No that it's a source of pride . Yes No embarrassed . . . . . Yes No nothing one way or the other. Yes No Have you ever wished you weren't Jewish? Yes No (If yes) under what circumstances? (Hold up American-Jewish Scale) On this scale, someone at 4 feels himself equally American and Jewish. Someone at l feels himself American only, while someone at 7 feels himself Jewish only. Where would you place yourself? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 For each of these statements, tell me if you definitely agree, tend to agree, have no position, tend to disagree, or definitely disagree. (Hold up card with response choices) a Jew ceases to be Jewish when he becomes as atheist or an agnostic . . . . A a N d D a Jew has greater responsibility for other Jews than for non-Jews . . . . . . . A a N d D a Jew should not marry a non-Jew . . . . A a N d D Now I'd like you to rank 10 possible ties among Jews in order of their importance. Put a "l" in front of the most important, then a "2," and so on until all 10 are ranked. (Give list) Religious Cultural Language Common destiny 172 National Historical Common tradition Peoplehood Racial Other (please specify) Check here if you think there are no ties among Jews For each of the following groups, tell me whether you gen- erally support or oppose the group's principles, goals, and methods, as indicated on this card (hold up card with response choices). Students for a Democratic Society. . . . S s N D o 0 Young Americans for Freedom. . . . . . S s N D o O Jewish Defense League. . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Vietnam Moratorium Committee . . . . . S s N D o 0 Democratic Party . . . . . . . . . S s N D o O Communists . . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 "Silent Majority" . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Jewish Liberation Project . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Republican Party . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Black Panthers . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Liberals . . . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Draft evaders . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o O Conservatives . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o O Socialists . . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o O Zionists . . . . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 Student radicals . . . . . . . . . S s N D o O Israeli New Left . . . . . . . . . S s N D o 0 What I'd like you to do now is read these statements and circle the letter to tell me the extent to which you agree or disagree. (Give Alienation Scale.) Now I'd like you to tell me whether you agree, disagree, tend to agree, and so on for a series of statements. Please choose one of the choices on this card. (Hold up card with response choices.) Israel should be the center of a united Jewish people . . . . . . . . A a N d D There should be an ingathering of the Jewish People through immigration to Israel from all countries. . . . . . . . . . A a N d D A Jew should view Israel as the basic home- land of the Jewish People. . . . . . . A a N d D A Jew should visit Israel . . . . . . A a N d D The State of Israel should be strengthened. . A a N d D The State of Israel should be based upon pro- phetic ideals of justice and peace. . . . A a N d D A Jew should help Israel in some significant way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A a N d D 173 A Jew should relate to Israel as to any other foreign nation . . . . . . A a N d D The identity of the Jewish peeple should be preserved through the fostering of Jewish and Hebrew education and Jewish spiritual and cultural values . . . . . A a N d D Jewish rights everywhere should be protected. . A a N d D A Jew should feel a special cultural or religious bond with Israel . . . . . . . A a N d D A Jew should live in Israel . . . . . . . A a N d D A Zionist should live in Israel . . . . . . A a N d D A Jew should be a Zionist . . . . . . . . A a N d D Have you ever visited Israel? Yes No (If yes) When? On which program? For how long? Why did you go? Do you expect to visit Israel (again)? Yes No Maybe (If yes) When? Why? For how long? Why do you think so many American Jews go to visit Israel? Why do you think so many go to live in Israel? Why do you think most Jews do not plan to live in Israel? Have you ever thought about living in Israel? Yes No (If yes) Have you decided anything yet about ali a? Going on all a; Not going; Undecided (If undeClded) Do you think you'll end up deciding to go or not to go? Go Not go Can't decide What are your reasons for thinking as you do? How long ago did you decide? Were the reasons you had then the same reasons you have now, or have they changed? Same Changed (If changed) How? What about your ffiends? about what percentage of them are planning to live in Israel? (If going) How do your parents feel about your decision? Do they approve or disapprove? How has your decision affected relations between you and your parents? What advantages do you Ehihk there are Twould be) for you in going to Israel? Do you see any advantages in leaving the United States? What about disadvantages? Do you see any of these in going? 174 How similar do you think your answers are to those of most people going (or not going)? Very similar Similar Not similar Do you think most people are really going to Israel, or are they running away from problems here? _— Israel Running Both Do you think those that are going in order to solve their problems will be successful? What about you--Do you think you'll (or: do you think you would) be happier in Israel? Yes No Maybe Why? Do you ever have second thoughts about your decision? Yes No (If yes) At these times, what do you think about? Can you think of anything that might change your mind? Yes No (If yes) What? (If going on aliya or undecided) What do you think you'll do in Israel? Ulpan or school first and then decide; kibbutz or urban collective; job; army; undecided Do you have any concrete plans yet? Yes No (If yes) What are they? When do you expect to go (or: If you decide to go, when would you leave)? What do you think are the advantages of living on kibbutz? What are the disadvantages? (If planning on going to kibbutz) Are you most interested in going to a kibbutz which is far from surrounding com- munities or cities, or are you most interested in being near a kibbutz near the population centers? Far Close Doesn't matter Did you ever spend any time on a kibbutz? Yes No (If yes) How long? ‘ Did you ever live ih'a commune here? Yes No (If yes) For how long? Would you go to Israel if you couldn't go to kiBbutz? Yes No In that case, what would you do? Do you consider yourself a socialist? Yes No (If aliya) Do you expect to become an Israeli citizen? Yes No Undecided Do you expect to renounce your American Citizenship? Yes No Undecided Do you speak Hebrew? Yes Little No Yiddish? Yes Little No (If aliya) If you weren't planning to go on aliya, what do you think you would do? Do you think you would migrate to another country, per- haps Australia or Canada? Yes No Undecided WOuld you be happy staying here? Yes No Undecided Why (not)? 175 (If you stay in the United States) What do (would) you plan on doing here--what type of job, where would you live, etc.? One of the things I'm trying to find out is what kind of person you see yourself to be. Please read these instruc- tions, and fill out these pages. (Give self-esteem scale.) Do you consider yourself a Zionist? Yes No What does the word "Zionist" mean to you? What activities should Zionists concern themselves with? Can a person be a ZioniSt if he doesn't live in Israel? Yes No Undecided (If yes) How? Why do you think youTre Inotiia Zionist? I mean, what do you think was an important influence upon you? Parents; School; Friends; Movement or Organization The last specific question I had was to ask you to estimate the probability of your eventually going on ali a. If you used a 7-point scale, where "l" meant "definitely will not end up in Israel" and "7" meant "definitely will go on aiiya," what would you estimate? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 These are all the specific questions I had. Now I'd just like you to tell me your feelings about the interview. Did you have any trouble with any specific questions or groups of questions? Yes No (If yes) Which ones? Were the instructions always clear? Yes No (If no) At which point? Do you think we discussed enough things for me toihave a good idea of what kind of person you are, and of your reasons for thinking about going to Israel? Yes No (If no) What do you think was left out? Should anything else have been included? Yes No (If yes) What? Did you find yourself boredby the interview, or by any parts of it? Yes No (If yes) When? Do you think some parts weren't necessary? Yes No (If yes) Which parts? Were there any parts When you felt it was uncomfortable to tell the truth? Yes No (If yes) Which parts? Do you have any questibns? would you like to receive a copy of the results? If so, please give me your name and address. Thanks a lot . . . APPENDIX B COVER LETTERS M I C H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y East Lansing, Michigan Department of Psychology Olds Hall April, 1971 Dear Hamagshimim Member: I'm writing to ask for an hour or so of your time in helping with a study being con~ ducted in completion of the requirements for my Master of Arts Degree. The study is an attempt to investigate several characteristics of Jewish college-age youth. The group that I am most interested in is Hamagshimim, of which I am a member. I would be extremely grateful if you could complete the enclosed questionnaire, which, as you will see from the different types of questions, deals with several topics. Some of the questions ask about your attitudes toward Israel, while others ask about your experience in organized groups; one section asks about the things in life you most value, while another asks you to indicate what kind of person you see yourself as; still other questions ask about your personal background, in order to be able to more meaningfully interpret your answers. You are not asked to sign your name, so you can be sure that your-answers will be completely confidential. Please remember that I am interested in your own views on these matters, and, since peeple differ in their answers to many of these ques- tions, I hope you will give your true feelings and not what you think the answer "should be." In fact, most of the questions do not have any ”right" or ”wrong" answers at all. Only by obtaining honest answers can a true contribution to know— ledge--and, hOpefully, to the work of Hamagshimim--be made. I urge you to complete the questionnaire even though you may feel that you are not a "typical" member of Hamagshimim, as I am interested in the responses of every person receiving this questionnaire. The procedures 088d assure scientifically accurate results, but only if everyone returns his questionnaire. Your generosity in giving your time and effort to assist in this study is very deeply appreciated. Again, many thanks for your help. Sincerely, Dennis Fox Note: If you are interested in obtaining a summary of the results of the study when it is completed, please let me know either by enclosing your name and home address with the questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope, or, to ensure your anony- mity, by sending me a separate postcard. There will, also, be a meeting held at the Hamagshimim summer convention to discuss the study and possibly interpretations of the results, and to determine if, as I hope, the results can be of some use to the movement. 176 APPENDIX C JEWISH YOUTH QUESTIONNAIRE JEWISH YOUTH QUESTIONNAIRE General Instructions Please follow carefully the directions for each section of the questionnaire. Also, please ignore the extra numbers beside the questions and answers; they are there only to help in t: “bu -ating the answers by computer. It is very impor ant that you answer every question. If you feel a question is unclear, or doesn't allow you to express exactly how you feel, note in the margin your true answer, after choosing the answer closest to your own. You will probably be wondering, as you go through the questionnaire, why several types of questions are included. Please remember that I am interested in what kind of person you are, in your attitudes toward several things, in how you see yourself, etc. Thus, many of the questions may not seem directly related to what you might be expecting. If you are interested in a more detailed explanation of the study and the eventual results, remember to send a postcard (with your name and address) to the address on the return envelope. I hope you find the questionnaire interesting and enjoy filling it out. Thanks again for your c00peration. For the first set of questions, check the appropriate response or fill in the answer, as requested: 1. What is your sex? Male Female ,i I l I 2. How old are you now? '3 Under 17 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26_____ 26- ! __TT‘ '_—r' _—F_— :7 - 7 3. If you are a student now, what year are you in? Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate student W ‘7:" ‘_—3“ ‘“TI‘ —"?r' a 4. If you are not a student now, what was the last year you attended? High school: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior .: Graduate student 1 3 H ‘I 1'; 5. When you were growing up, were most of the people in your neighborhood Jewish? Majority Jewish About half Jewish Majority not Jewish as '”i"‘ “3T‘ 3 6. How many of your four closest friends are Jewish? 0 _ l 2 3 g 4 I J ' .7. J 7. Are you now a member of any Jewish organizations, movements, or activist groups (such as Hamagshimim, Hillel, Jewish Defense League, etc. )? Yes No '8 ‘'I 311 .3 List the names of evepy’ How many years have you Do you nowr hold a Jewish group you belong to: been a member? leadership _position? 111* _;)YHES IqO I _‘1 20 (.xYes N0 M1! llYes No czs * '——__ z 25' 8. Were you ever in any Jewish groups previous to those listed above, either in high school or in moollege (such as Young Judaea, United Synagogue Youth, etc. )? v HYes No ’ ‘17 H313 List the names of How many years wére Did you eVer hold a the groups you belonged to: you a member? leadership position?3 11 , Yes No 3H .... zzYes Ho 1'3: "iY}33 PHD H1. ' C a. 3 179 2 9. Are you now a member of any general organizations or movements (such as Young Democrats, Student Mobilizationwaommittee, Young Americans for Freedom, etc )? Yes N0 97 List the names of eyery_ How many‘years have ‘Did you ever hold a general group YOU belong t0: you been a member? leadership position? HlYes No 9.; . jaYes No Yes No 10. Were you ever in any general groups previous to those listed above? ‘1‘ Yes No vsf; List the names of the How many years were Did you gyg£_hold 3 groups you belonged to: you a member? leadershlp position} ..p. ;Yes No L:;( ,Yes No 1.fl:—__—_——._ .Yes No 11. For each of the following statements and questions, indicate your response by circling the appropriate woard: I L Do you read Reader's Digest? Yes NO £1 Do national spectator sports (football, baseball, hockey)interest you? YES N0 :3 Our public education is in pretty sorry shape. Agree Disagree 9» Do you enjoy TV? Yes No Ly Are you interested in having children (or would you be at the right age)? Yes No a: For yourself, do you think a single or married life would be more satisfacotry? Single Married m If people really admitted the truth, they would agree that children are more often a nuisance than a pleasure to their parents. Agree Disagreezé Do you think most married people lead trapped (frustrated or miserable) lives? Yes No (% Do you vote in national elections? (Or would you if of voting age?) Yes No y, Are you generally interested in local elections? Yes No u Looking backward, did the last national elections in the United States interest you? Yes No 32 In the long run, and with some rare exceptions, who gets elected or doesn't hasn't the slightest influ— ence upon social welfare. Agree Disagree Y f1} 12 0 I3. '14. 3 There is not much that I can do about most of the I 1 important problems that we face today. Agree Disagree 79 Things have become so complicated in the world to— day that I really don't understand what is going on. Agree Disagree 1; In order to get ahead in the world today, you are almost forced to dosomeethings which are not right. Agree Disagree 7‘ I am not much interested in the TV programs, movies, or magazines that most people seem to like. Agree Disagree 77 I often feel lonely. Agree Disagree 1? I don't really enjoy most of the work that I do, but I feel that I must do it in order to have things , that I need and want. Agree Disagree 7? Below is a list of 18 values arranged in alphabetical order. Arrange them in order of their importance to ypp, as guiding principles in your life. Study the list carefully. Then place a 1 next to the value which is most important for ypp place a g_next to the value which. is second most important to you, etc. :The value which is least imperfant, relative to the otherS, should be ranked TB. The end result should truly show how you really feel. L- A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life) .1.3 AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life) .-.s A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution) 1‘”) A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) H A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts) , EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal Opportunity for all) u , FAMILY SECURITY (taking care of loved ones) .Hu —'-__FREEDOM (independence, free choice) ' 1a», .. “HAPPINESS (contentedness) - . w INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict) . MATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy) 23x NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack) ‘ ' PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life) n.” _ SALVATION (saved, eternal life) + ; SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem) u-' SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration) . -1u TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship) ' ' ‘w.4 WISDOM (a mature understanding of life) " °'M~q Taking all things together, how would you say things are chosen doyov-wou‘ld you" say you're: very.happy pretty happy ‘not too happy .not pp all happy “3 Try, to imagine what your best possible life wouldbe. andnhat your worst po ssible. life would be. -On the scale belOW, the number 9 represents the best possible ”life for you, while 1 represents the worst possIble life for yOu. Put the ,letter X where you feel you personally are at the pgesent time. Put~an‘§_where you think you 'll.be five years from_ppw, in“ the future: ' ,. - _;;:_. .EEEEE possible : 3 3 _3 1 3 = : .., - Best possible~life “'.life for you 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 '“ .for,zgg 15. 16. A On the scale below, 9 indicates the kind of person you would most like to be, while 1 indicates the kind of person you would least like to be. Put an X for your position now and an F for where you expect to stand five years“ in the future Kind of person Kind of person iii you'd least : : : : : : : : you'd most "* like to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 like to be Indicate on each of the following scales how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of_ the given aspects of your life. Put an X to show where you stand now, between 9 ("completely satisfied”) and 1 ("completely dissatisfied' ) Put an §_for where you think you ‘ll be five years from 22!- Remember that 5 repre- sents equally satisfied and dissatisfied: Completely : : : : : : : : Completely if dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your educational achievements) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your general intellectual orowth) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your social relations with friends of your own sex) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your social relations with the opposite sex) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your love relationships with individuals of the Opposite sex) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your sexual activ1t1es) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely _di§satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your present religious position) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely .digsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your being the kind of person you are) Completely {___: : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your relationship with your father) Completely : : ‘-_.}_.1F : : : Completely 1h}, dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (yOur relatinnship with your mother) ‘ l7. Completely : : : : : : : . Completely : r dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your relationships with your brothers and sisters) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your physical health) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your mental health) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely 3,. dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your "fitting in” to society as a whole) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely ij¥s dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your living according to your personal values) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your being Jewish) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your being able to do as you want) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your agreement with the values of society in general) Completely : : : : : : : : Completely .digsatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your general level of happiness) . Completely : : : : : : : : Completely 11‘; dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your life as a whole) a ' . . 1' ~ A Please make surefthat each of the above scales has two letters: an §_(for your position now) and an.E (for the position you expect to be in five years from now). For each of the following statements, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the appropriate letter: .Angree aftend to agree _U§uncertain dftend to disagree 'QfDisagree A Jew should view Israel as the basic homeland of the Jewish; L 3 a People. A a U d D 22 Sometimes I feel all alone in the world. A a U d D t: I worry about the future facing today's children. A a U d D it I 2. 3 v 5 Israel should be a state like any other state. A a U d 21 A Zionist should live in Israel. A a U d D I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd really like. A a U d D The end often justifies the means A a U d D ’— Most people today seldom feel lonely. A a U d D Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are using me. A a U d D A Jew should help Israel in some significant way. A a U d D People's ideas change so much that I wonder if we'll ever have anything to depend on. A a U d D A Jew should relate to Israel as to any other foreign nation. A a U d D 35 Real friends are as easy as ever to find. A a U d D {Inf-31h” {Fart 'If is fr1ghteninv-tq~be~respons:ble foerevelopment 9,qr,31§ l childM‘" ' “ ' ”A a u d D Everything is relative, and there just aren't any definite rules to live by. A a U d D I consider myself a Zionist. A a U d D A Jew ceases to be Jewish when he becomes an atheist. A a U d D a: One can always find friends if he shows himself friendly. A a U d D I often wonder what the meaning of life really is. A a U d D There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing a major "shooting' war. A a U d D A Jew should live in Israel. A a U d D *7 18. Have you ever been to Israel? Yes No , If ”yes," for how long? as __1ess than two weeks .~ between four and eight months between two weeks and two months . between eight months and one year between two months and four months , more than one year 19. Do you expect to Visit Israel in the future? Yes ‘ Undecided.x No. ‘6 20. Do you expect to go on aliya (to immigrate to Israel)? ,, r sdefihite1y no -11 Mimi, _: H_: - :H‘ 1_f“ undecided, but leaning tggggggi probably no L Y +wr~7 6:1. ij;r2g’*t probably.y__w undecided, but leaning against ; definitely yes w completely undecided Briefly explain the reasons for your answer to Question 20: 23} 3aIlllllIllllllllIlllIIIIIIIIII:_____________————————————————————————————————————;==i 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. ' yes, I' m a member of (specify the name of the garin) » 7 If you expect to immigrate to Israel, do you expect to live p_rmanently in a communal situation (such as a kibbutz, an urban collective, etc.) or not? ‘0 . definitely §9£_communal y undecided, but leaning probably_ng£ communal towards communal undecided, but leaning against communal e probably ye§_communal » completely undecided 7 definitely y§2_communal (If you do not expect to immigrate to Israel, or are undecided, answer Question 21 §§_i£_you were planning to live permanently in Israel.) Which form of communal life in Israel do you find most appealing? moshav 'q moshav shitufi kibbutz urban collective other (SPBCifY which) ’ ‘ don't know “ -. J (9 Are you a member of a garin (an Israel— settlement group)? I'm now a candidate for membership in #(name of g_rin) . No, but I' m considering joining (name the garig) No About what percent of your friends are planning to migrate to Israel? O—2OZ 2l—4OZ 41—60% 61—80% 81-100% 51 l 1' . '_".""‘ —"C_‘ >' If you do not expect to migrate to Israel, do you think you'll leave the United States to migrate to any other country? 'U 1 definitely or probably go . undecided, but leaning towards undecided, but leaning against migration to '1 .u__completely undecided, but con— ; definitely or probably will sidering migration to_ ____ migrate to _1. ~~.~——— (If you are planning on immigrating to Israel, answer Question 25 as if you were not planning on living in Israel.) Below is a list of 11 possible goals that the Zionist Movement in the United States could concern-itself with. Assuming that greater emphases should be placed on the more important goals, rank the 11 goals in order. from 1 (the goal you think the Zionist Movement should emphasize most) to 11 (the goal you think should be least emphasized). Rank the goals in Column A. After you have ranked ea.ch goal, indicate by circling the appropriate letter in Column §_whetheriygu_pe£§onally agree or disagree that the goal should 93 flEthXE§° The letters mean: _A—Agree gftend to agree _UeUncertain dftend to disagree 'QfDisagree A , E., 2"- “__“Building the centrality of Israel in Jewish life. A 5 U d D -“ Building the unity of the Jewish People. ."' A a U d D Convincing American Jews to migrate to Israel. 3,, A a U d D 1 Fostering Jewish and Hebrew education and Jewish spiritual and cultural values. “" A a U d D := Improving the State of Israel (in the area of 'd ' )7, A a U d D 'L Living a life according to Jewish values. A a U d D " Personally migrating to Israel. A a U d D 4 Protecting Jewish rights everywhere. . A a U d D :1 Strengthening the Sta*;e of Israel. '.-> A a U d D 1- ~Striving for peace with the Arabs. A a U d D . Supporting those Jews who need or want to migrate to Israel. A a U d D - Other: additional goal(s) you consider important 8 27. The following characteristics have been found to be used by many persons in describing themselves. scale. Each characteristic is represented graphically by 3 Please indicate the location on each scale where you presently picture your- self by the letter 5. usually, not in every situation. Indicate the spot on the scale where you aspire to picture yourself by an ‘A. This should be the place toward which you are realistically strivigg. the place you hope to attain in the future. . Indicate the location on the scale where your idealjosition W0U1d be; if- you weren't bound by realistic considerations. To the right of each scale, indicate how important you feel each character- istic is in how you evaluate your picture of yourself. trait to be: very important, put a_4 important-13 Enimportant-jg This should be where you see yours If generally or most If you consider the very-ggimportant-fil Thus, for eagh_scale put an‘g (present), an '5 (aspired), an I (ideal), and a number (to indicate the importance of the trait)- Importance Sensitive to others Self-confident Critical of others Skillful with others Reserved Value myself '71— “E. _§"'_Z"W§"‘€“" _'"E ‘—5_ ——.——_.—-~—_———————.—-—-———-—————— _ ____ .___. .—-—-——- ......— —_.—.—_—._.__—_————-__—...-—-—-—O- .___.__._———-__——-— _-_—-_——__.____ -..,.—. _——._..——— Insensitive to others Lack self-con- fidence Tolerant of others Awkward with others Talkative Value myself ‘11:. TLL§_~‘ . high 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 low Participant __fl3 ____ u". Non-participant .n l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Authoritarian Democratic q. l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 Competent Incompetent l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Non-aggressive ~___ : Aggressive w l 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 Honest __—-. Dishonest l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Active Passive Importance Likeable ° ° ' ° ' ' ' ‘ ‘ ° ° ' ° ° ' ' ' Not likeable Y4U‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "“7— Competitive : C t' 00 era 1ve 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 p ——' “ ’ Insightful - - - ° ' ° - - - - ' ' Lack of insi ht 7 about myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 about myselfg .____ 5 Follower 1, Leader 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ” Timid 1d B0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ’ Moral Immoral 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 " ‘ Individualistic f Con ormist l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hostile . : : : : : . : : —““' Affectionate l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Tense Relaxed _____ l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unfair F - air 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ’ Unintelligent I t 11. t n e 1gen _____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 L'b l 1 era Conservative m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 F ' d rien 1y Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Independent Dependent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 Free Constrained e l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Religious Non—religious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unhappy Happy .__—— l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 American 3 L__ :_1 L_ 3 : Jewish nah l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . Now rate your 9verall level of self—evaluation or self-esteem; that is, how high or low you presently gvaluate your total picture of yourself. Put an E. Low . . . . . . . . o o o o o o__—o an-gh 10 28. For each of the following statements, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the appropriate latter: .A-Agree fiftend to agree U-Uncertain gftend to disagree IQfDisagree I 1 3 ~ 5 g The world in which we live is basically a friendly place. A a U d D I: There are so many decisions that have to be made today that sometimes I could just "blow up." - A a U d '3 The only thing one can be sure of today is that he can be sure of nothing. A a U d W A Jew has greater responsibility for other Jews than he does for non—Jews. A a U d '5 There are few dependable ties between people any more. A a U d 2' There is little chance for promotion on the job unless a man gets a break. A a U d '1 A Jew should visit Israel. A a U d " With so many religions abroad, one doesn't really know which to believe. . A a U d '1 We're so regimented today that there's not much room for choice even in personal matters. , A a U d b We are just so many cogs in the machinery of life. A a U d I: A Jew should feel a special cultural or religious bond with Israel. A a U d ,1 People are just naturally friendly and helpful. A a U d 1 The future looks very dismal. A a U d L4 I don't get to visit friends as often as I'd really like. A a U d 4. A Jew should be a Zionist. A a U d Lt To complete the questionnaire, please answer the following questions about your personal background: 11 29. Were you born in the United States? Yes , No. I was born in (SPeCifY the wou- country): _~ and came to the United States when I ‘ was ____~_m‘_;years old. A. 30. In which country was your father born? Agdeour mother? -- 31. In which country was your father's father born? Your father1§.msthet? 32. In which country was your mother's fathgr born? Your 29159519 m9thsr? ...—- —-———-—--——-»— o—-—- — —-.— - - -- ...?W—g—fl 33. How many younger brothers do you have? ,Younger sisters? How many glde£_brothers do you have? n Older sisters? _. ll 34. Put an.£ next to the amount of formal education that your father had. Put an M next to your mother's educational level: g3] I ;elementary school or less ; completed college u.“ 2 some high school, but didn't graduate L _post—graduate work 1____completed high school, but no college -L___attended technical or q some college, but didn't graduate trade school 35. Do you think of your parents as being part of the H. , lower class ” upper-middle class 1 working class .- upper class middle class 36. Put an F next to the religious affiliation of your father at the time you were growing up. 1.? Put an‘M next to your mother's affiliation whenwyou were growing up. *7” Put an_§ next to your own present religious orientation. I Reform ‘: Other Jewish (please specify)“.~ z Conservative , Not Jewish L___Orthodox &___yNone 37. Check the kind(s) of Jewish education you IECEiV8d3 L___none y; . Jewish Sunday School for years ~L L___Jewish weekday school for years; usually _yfl_yw__days a week 47 1_____Jewish all-day school (yeshiva) for years ;__;;college—level courses for years 2 other (please specify) for months 38. Did you ever attend any Jewish-oriented summer camps? N , 4; Yes, I attended (specify camps) 1 1"“for rhvnm_months L., 39. How often do you attend religious services? 1 never 4 once every four to six months 55 7 BarMitzvahs and other special . once every two or three months occasions only , once a month 3 Special occasions and High Holy 2 once every two or three weeks Days only » once a week or more often 40. How often do you pray privately (when no one else is around)? 1, I I never pray , fairly often, but not as often as I I pray gply_in synagogue once a week 3 only on special occasions { about once a week .. once in a while 1 several times a week 3 every day 41. Have you ever personally experienced any anti-Semitism? Yes No__ :1 . . . "7— 1 If ”yes," please briefly describe the situat10n(s): :3 Please write on the reverse side any observations or comments, about any of the items touched upon in the questionnaire, that you consider important but which the questionnaire has not given you an adequate opportunity to express. If you would like to receive a summary of the results of the study when it is cc completed, remember to send your name and adress to the address on the return envelope. I d like to sincerely thank you for taking the time to participate in this - 1_-1.. .1 ~ A.“- -1—- nu—uan‘n‘A-J APPENDIX D THE SCALES APPENDIX D THE SCALES I. Overall Satisfaction A. Best Life and Best Future--Cantril (1965). Try to imagine what your bestgpossible life would be, and what your worstypossible life wouldgbe. On the scale below, the number 2 represents the best possible life for you, while 1 represents the worst possible life for you. Put the letter X where you feel you personally are at the present time. —Put an F where you think you'll be five_years from now, in the future: Worst pos- Best pos- 3151e life : : : : : : : s1ble life for you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 for you B. Happy 1-9. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unhappy Happy C. Direct Happiness--Gurin et al. (1960). Taking all things together, how would you say things are these days—~would you say you're: very happy pretty happy not too happy 1 2 not at all happy 4 D. Meansat: Present and Meansat: Future--Cantril (1965); Verbit 71968). Indicate on each of the following scales how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the given aspects of your life. Put an §_to show where you stand now, between 2 ("completely satisfied") and l ("completely—Eissatis- fied"). Put an §_for where you think you'll be five years from now. Remember that E represents egually satisfied and dissatisfied: 190 191 Completely : : : : : : ° Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your educational achievements) Completely : : : : : Completely dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 satisfied (your general intellectual growth) (your social relations with friends of your own sex) (your social relations with the Opposite sex) (your love relationships with individuals of the opposite sex) (your sexual activities) (your present religious position) (your being the kind of person you are) (your relationship with your father) (your relationship with your mother) (your relationships with your brothers and sisters) (your physical health) (your mental health) (your "fitting in" to society as a whole) (your living according to your personal values) (your being Jewish) (your being able to do as you want) (your agreement with the values of society in general) (your general level of happiness) (your life as a whole) Please make sure that each of the above scales has two letters: an X (for your position now) and an F (for the position you expect to be in five years from now). II. Overall Self-Esteem A. Kind of Person and Kind of Future. On the scale below, 9 indicates the kind of person you would most like to be, while 1 indicates the kind of person you would least like to be. Put an K for your position pp! and an E for where you expect to stand five years in the future. Kind of per- ' Kind of per- son you'd : : : : : : : : son you'd least like most like to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ES-Bé B. Low-High--Sherwood (1962). Now rate your overall level of self-evaluation or self-esteem; that is, How high or low you presently evaluate your total picture of yourself. Put an é. 192 Low ° High 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C. Aspired Discrepancy and Ideal Discrepancy--Sher- wood (1962); Pervin & Lilly (1967). The following characteristics have been found to be used by many persons in describing themselves. Each characteristic is represented graphically by a scale. Please indicate the location on each scale where you presently picture yourself by the letter X. This should be where you see yourself generally or7most usually, not in every situation. Indicate the spot on the scale where you aspire to picture yourself by an A. This should be the place toward which you are realistically striving, the place you hOpe to attain in the future. Indicate the location on the scale where your ideal position would be, if you weren't bound by realistic conSiderations. To the right of each scale, indicate how important you feel each characteristic is in how you evaluate your picture of yourself. If you consider the trait to be: veEy important, put a i important--2 ppimportant--g ver unimportant--l Thus, for each scale put an X (present), an A (aspired), an I (ideal), and a number (to indicate the importance of the trait). Importance Sensitive . . . . Insensitive to others ° ' ° ° ° to others Self-confi- . . . . . . . . Lack self- dent ° ° ° ° ° ' ' ° confidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Critical of Tolerant of others others Skillful with Awkward others with others Reserved Talkative Value myself Value my- high self low Participant Non-participant Authoritarian Democratic Competent Incompetent Non-aggressive Aggressive Honest Dishonest Active Passive Likeable Not likeable Competitive Cooperative 193 Insightful about Lack of insight myself about myself Follower Leader Timid Bold Moral Immoral Individualistic Conformist Hostile Affectionate Tense Relaxed Unfair Fair Unintelligent Intelligent Liberal Conservative Friendly Unfriendly Independent Dependent Free Constrained Religious Non-religious III. Alienation. A. Middleton (1963). Agree Disagree There is not much that I can do about most of the important problems that we face today. (Powerlessness) Things have become so complicated in the world today that I really don't under- stand what is going on. (Meaningless- ness) In order to get ahead in the world today, you are almost forced to do some things which are not right. (Normlessness) I am not much interested in the TV programs, movies, or magazines that most people seem to like. (Cultural Estrangement) I often feel lonely. (Social Estrangement) I don't really enjoy most of the work that I do, but I feel that I must do it in order to have things that I need and want. (Work Estrangement) B. Nettler (1964) For each of the following statements and questions, indi- cate your response by circling the appropriate word: (Mass Culture) Do you read Reader's Digest? Yes No Do national Spectator sports (football, baseball, hockey) interest you? Yes No 194 Our public education is in pretty sorry shape. (Reversed) Do you enjoy TV? (Familism) Are you interested in having chil- dren (or would you be at the right age)? For yourself, do you think a single or married life would be more sat- isfactory? (Reversed) If people really admitted the truth, they would agree that children are more often a nuisance than a pleasure to their parents. (Reversed) Do you think most married people lead trapped (frustrated or miserable) lives? (Reversed) (Politicalism) Do you vote in national elections? (Or would you if of voting age?) Are you generally interested in local elections? Looking backward, did the last national elections in the United States interest you? In the long run, and with some rare exceptions, who gets elected or doesn't hasn't the slightest influence upon social welfare. (Reversed) C. Dean (1961). Agree Yes Yes Single Agree YES Yes Yes Yes' Agree For each of the following statements, indicate to which you agree or disagree by circling the letter: A-Agree a-tend to agree U-uncertain disagree _Q-Disagree Sometimes I feel all alone in the world. I worry about the future facing today's children. I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd really like. The end often justifies the means. Most people today seldom feel lonely. Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are using me. 4 Disagree NO NO Married Disagree NO NO NO No Disagree the extent appropriate d-tend to 3 2 l 0 A a U d D SI A a U d D P SI N SI(R) P 195 People's ideas change so much that I wonder if we'll ever have anything to depend on. N Real friends are as easy as ever to find. SI(R) It is frightening to be responsible for the development of a little child. P Everything is relative, and there just aren't any definite rules to live by. N One can always find friends if he shows himself friendly. SI(R) I often wonder what the meaning of life really is. N There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing a major "shoot- ing" war. P The world in which we live is basically a friendly place. SI(R) There are so many decisions that have to be made today that sometimes I could just "blow up." P The only thing one can be sure of today is that he can be sure of nothing. N There are few dependable ties between people any more. SI There is little chance for promotion on the job unless a man gets a break. P With so many religions abroad, one doesn't really know which to believe. N We're so regimented today that there's not much room for choice even in personal matters. P We are just so many cogs in the machinery of life. P People are just naturally friendly and helpful. SI(R) The future looks very dismal. P I don't get to visit friends as often as I'd really like. SI SI--Social Isolation; P--Powerlessness; N--Normlessness; R--Reversed item. IV. Values--Rokeach (1968) Below is a list of 18 values arranged in alphabetical order. Arrange them in order of their importance to you, as guiding principles in your life. Study the list carefully. Then place a 1 next to the value which is most important for you, place a 2 next to the value which is second most important to you, etc. 196 The value which is least important, relative to the others, should be ranked 18. The end result should truly show how you really feel. A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life) AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life) A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution) A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts) EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) FAMILY SECURITY (taking care of loved ones) FREEDOM (independence, free choice) HAPPINESS (contentedness) INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict) MATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy) NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack) PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life) SALVATION (saved, eternal life) SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem) SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration) TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship) WISDOM (a mature understanding of life) . Zionism Scales < A. Zionist Self-Description. I consider myself a Zionist. A a U d D B. Zionist Beliefs Scale-~Youth Mobilization (1971); Verbit (19687. Below is a list of ll_possible goals that the Zionist Movement in the United States could concern itself with. Assuming that greater emphases should be placed on the more important goals, rank the ll_goals in order, from I (the goal you think the Zionist Movement should emphasize most) to 11 (the goal you think should be least empha- sized). fiEhk the goals in Column.A. After you have ranked each goal, indicate by circling the appropriate letter in Column §_whether you_personally agree or disagree that the goal should he achieved. The letters mean: AeAgree a—tend to agree UfUncertain detend to disagree D-Disagree A B Building the centrality of Israel in 5 4 3 2 1 Jewish life. A a U d D Building the unity of the Jewish People. A a U d D Convincing American Jews to migrate to Israel. 197 Fostering Jewish and Hebrew education and Jewish spiritual and cultural values. Improving the State of Israel (in the area of ) Living a life according to Jewish values. Personally migrating to Israel. Protecting Jewish rights everywhere. Strengthening the State of Israel. Striving for peace with the Arabs. Supporting those Jews who need or want to migrate to Israel. Other: additional goal(s) you con- sider important For each of the following statements, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the appropriate letter: Angree aftend to agree gfuncertain disagree D—Disagree A Jew should view Israel as the basic home- land of the Jewish People. A Jew should help Israel in some signifi- cant way. A Jew should relate to Israel as to any other foreign nation. (Reversed) A Jew ceases to be Jewish when he becomes an atheist. (Reversed) A Jew should live in Israel. A Jew has greater responsibility for other Jews than he does for non-Jews. A Jew should visit Israel. A Jew should feel a special cultural or religious bond with Israel. A Jew should be a Zionist. d-tend to A a U d D A a U d D NOV 12 1971 R155 "11111 fill/”11111111111111 "