OPiNtON RESPONSES AS ROLE BEHAVIOR: A SOCML PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY IN RACE RELATIONS Thesis fat the Dogma. of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Simon Yasin 1954 THESRS This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Opinion Responses as Role Behavior: Social Psychological Study in Race Relations" presented by Simon Yasin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __':I_.A__ degree in Mm 8: 1‘ nt hr op ology - \ L/demu/ Major prcilessor \ LL 1""! ,1 I c ‘1 Date May 15: 195,4 O~169 WILLIIIIILIIQIMHIIWNW!UNI!HIHHIUHIUH 10516 5082 I : OPINION RESPONSES AS ROLE BEWAVIOR: A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY IN RICE RELATIONS by Simon Yasin A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of ' MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology 195h H'Hfiits ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am particularly indebted to Dr. Wilbur B. Broqkover, Professor of Sociology and of Social Science, for making available the data utilized in this study, and for the time and effort he expended in the guidance and supervision of this thesis. Many of the ideas contained herein were suggested by him. To Dr. Charles P. Loomis, Head of the Department of Sociology and Anthrop01ogy, and to Dr. Charles R. Hoffer, Professor of Sociology, my thanks for their encouragement, sympathy and patience. My appreciation for the efforts exerted by the late John B. Holland, Professor of Sociology, who did much to initiate my interest in this study and in race-relations problems. To Professor Gregory F. Stone, for friendly criticism, comment and numerous suggestions, I offer my gratitude. To both Dr. Duane L. Gibson and Mr. Joel Smith, I am indebted for invaluable advice as to statistical procedures. To my colleagues, the graduate students of the Depart- ment of Sociology and Anthropology at Michigan State College, too numerous to mention individually, I offer my thanks for many suggestions put forward both unconsciously as well as consciously, as well as for services rendered willingly or otherwise. Finally, I extend my everlasting gratitude to my wife, Rose White Yasin: without her constant support, general helpfulness, patience and devotion, this study could not have been completed. S.Y. ii 330980 {Ill I lit: l[[i\[[[[ul([ll[llll[t[ III. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I INTRODUCTION ‘ l Attitudinal Theory In Race Relations ......... s The Measurement of Attitudes ................. ll Prejudice As a Complex of Subjective Elements. 18 Situational Sentiments As Prejudicial Factors. 21 II THE MAPLE COUNTY MINORITY GROUP STUDY 25 Review of Related Literature ........... ..... . 27 Description of the Minority-Groups Research Project ..................................... 30 The Questionnaire 3........................... 32 The Methods of Analysis ...................... 37 III THE CATEGORIZATION OF THE OPINION ENDORSEMENT STATEMENTS 39 Classification of Opinion- Statements Into Situational Categories ...................... 56 IV THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN RESPONSES TO THE ' SITUATIONAL-CATEGORIES 61 Association Between Responses to Jewish Categories ................. ...... ........... 63 Associated Responses as the Result of an AECICUdB oooooooooooeooooooo-ooooooooooooeooo 72 Association Between Responses to Negro Cate- gories ......................................' 73 Summary of Chapter IV ........................ 79 V THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONTACT TO SITUATIONAL SENTIMENTS 82 Associations Between Type of Contact and Sentiments Towards Jews ..................... 86 Associations Between Type of Contact and Sentiments Towards Negroes ........... ..... .. 9h VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS * , ‘ lOl Findings Of the StUdy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 . 00000 10]. Limitations of the Study .... ........ ......... 104 Conclusions .................................. 10h BIBLIOGRAPHY ......... ............. .......... 106 APPENDIX A: TABLES;referred to but not included in the test 00.0.00...OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 111 APPENDIX B: The QUCStionnaire OOOOOIOOOOOOOOO 131 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 ERECUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE OF CONTACT NITH NEGROES AS INDICATED BY RESPONDENTS . ............ 35 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS TO IT7H ASKING "HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE CONTACTS MOST YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE WITH NEGRO (JEWISH) PEOPLE?" ............. ..... ...................... 37 3 RANK ORDERING OF JEWISH OPINION-STATEMENTS BY PiSRCElNTAGE RESPONDIPIG INI‘OLERANTLYQ o o o o o o o o oooooo [P2 h RANK ORDERING OF NEGRO OPINION-STATEMENTS BY PERCENTAGE RESPONDING INTOLERANTLY ..... ...... ... #3 5 ‘ FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF JENISR OPINION- STATEI'IEI‘IP RESPONSE PATTERNS o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o 0 [+5 6 PREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF NEGRO OPINION- STATEMENT RESPONSE PATTERNS ..................... A7 7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF JEWISH SOCIAL- DISTANCE RESPONSE PATTERNS ............ ......... . 50 8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIoN OF NEGRO SOCIAL DISTANCE RESPONSE PATTERIJS .C...‘................ 52 9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AS To SOCIAL-DISTANCE ACCORDING TO TOLERANCE OR INTOLERANCE OF _ . RESPONSES 000.......0...O.........COOCOOCOOOOOOC. 57 10 SUMMARY TABLE OF DEGREES OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN 'JEWISH CATEGORIES OF PLEASANTNESS, STEREOTYPE, AND SACRIFICE TO EACH OF THE JENISR SOCIAL- DISTANCE ITEMS...........“H”n................... 64 ll ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JEWISH PLEASANTNESS AND SOCIAL-DISTANCE .OOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.000.00...O. 66 12 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "ACT THE SAME" AND JEWISH SOCIAL-.BISTANCE. OOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO‘QOOOOO 69 13 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "HONEST, WARM, AND FRIENDLY" AND JEWISH SOCIAL-DISTANCE.....,................. 69 14 SUMMARY TABLE 03 DEGREES OF ASSOCIATION OBTAINED BETWEEN JEWISH SITUATIONAL CATEGORIES ........... 71 iv LIST TABLE 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21A 213 22A 228 23 24A 2A8 OF TABLES ...30nt... SUMMERY TABLE OF DEGREES OF ASSOCIATION, BETWEEF NEGRO CATEGORIES OF PLEASANTNESS STEREOTYPE AND AFRICA R3 EACH OF THE NEGRO SOCIAL-DISTANCE ITEI’IS 0000000000000000 o ...... o o o o o oooooooooooooo o ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND SOCIAL-DISTANCE CLASSIFICATION ................. ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO STEREOTYPE AND SOCIAL‘DISTANCE 0.00060 0.00 oooooooooo coo oooooooo ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "AFRICA" AND NEGRO SOCIAL- DISTANCE 00.00.00000000000000.000.000.000.000... SUMMARY TABLE OF DEGREES OF ASSOCIATION OBTAINED BETWEEN NEGRO-SITUATIONAL-CATEGORIES............ SUMMARY TABLE OF'PROBABILITY OF ASSOCIATIONS OBTAINED BETWEEN EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH JEWS . AND JEWISH SITUATIONAL CATEGORIES ........ . ..... FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, IN PERCENTAGES, OF ‘ RESPONSES TO JEWISH PLEASANTNESS, "ACT THE SAME" AND "HONEST, WARM, AND FRIENDLY",-WHEN ASSOCIATED EVITH JEWISH CONTACT 00.0.0000...0.00.00.00.00... "GOODNESS OF FIT" BETWEEN ASSOCIATION OF CONTACT AND PLEASANTNESS, CONTACT AND "ACT THE SAME" AND "HONEST, WARM AND FRIENDLY" OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO GOODNESS OF FIT BETWEEN ASSOCIATIONS OF JEWISH CONTACT AND "ACT THE SAME" AND JEWISH CONTACT AND "HONEST, WARM AND FRIENDLY" ................ ASSOCIATION BETWEEN RESPONSES TO JEWISH CONTACT AND THE COMBINED RESPONSES TO "ACT THE SAME" AND "HOAJEST’ W’ARM, AND FRIENDLY" OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO. SUMMARY TABLE OF PROBABILITY OF ASSOCIATIONS OBTAINED BETWEEN EXTENT OF CONTACT WITH NEGROES AND THE NEGRO‘SITUATIONAL‘CATEGORIES0o.000000000 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, IN PERCENTAGES, OF RESPONSES TO NEGRO PLEASANTNESS, AND TO NEGRO SOCIAL-DISTANCE, WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH NEGRO CONTACT. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO. GOODNESS OF FIT BETWEEN ASSOCIATIONS OF NEGRO CONTACT TO NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND NEGRO CONTACT TO NEGRO SOCIAL’DISTANCE coo-cocoooooooooooooooo P A GE 7A 76 77 77 78 86 9O 92 93 94 96' 97 LIST OF TABLES ...Cont... TABLE APPENDIX A - TABLES REFERRED TO BUT NOT APPEARING IN THE TEXT .... ........ . ............ vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Current social-psychological research into race-relations is, with certain exceptions, largely limited to two areas of investigation. One of these areas is concerned with delin- .eating and analyzing the various types of behavior which people manifest tOWards ethnic and racial minorities.1 The second mode of investigation is devoted to discovering and describing the subjective factors and forces (i.e.,motives, dispositions, needs, etc.) which presumably underlie and determine such behavior.2 ’ It is possible to carryout the first task viz. analysis and description of racial behavior, without reference to 1The term "behavior" refers to the observable actions, gestures, and vocal expressions of an individual or aggregate. "Racial behavior" therefore refers to behavior which persons, who consider themselves members of conventional society, adopt towards groups whom they exclude from such membership due to differences in ethnic and cultural background, skin color, religion, etc. The term "Race" is used in the popular sense ,to refer to all such "excluded" groups. 2Most textbooks of race-relations when discussing the social-psychological aspects of this field, largely confine their discussions to "prejudice" (i.e.,subjective phenomena) and "discrimination" ("i.e., "behavior"). See for example Simpson,G.A., and Yingen J.M., Racial and Cultural Minoritig§,. (New York: Harper Bros. 1952); Berry 8., Race Relations, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 19515; Hartley, E.L., Problems in Prejudice, (New York: King's Crown Press, l9h6); Rose, KLM., (ed.) Race Preiudice and Discrimination, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ° 1 iams, . ., he eduction of Int I R E Counc I I§ , er rou Tensions, (New York: Social Sc ence esearc i , A7). 2 such subjective categories. Traditionally, however, investi- gators in this area have generally assumed that such dynamic categories do exist, and have utilized the term racial pre- judice (or merely prejudice) to refer to the hitherto under- described "internal" antecedents of racial behavior. Utilization of this residual concept is in itself an indication that these social scientists have implicitly considered this structure a complex subjective configuration. A consideration based, no doubt, on the fact that their studies show racial behavior to be complex. 0n the other hand, research into the psychological dynamics of racial behavior necessarily pre- supposes a knowledge of the nature of such behavior, since the imputation of subjective determinants is inferred directly from observation of action. Ultimately, the imputed subjective antecedents of certain types of behavior, must be sufficiently broad to yield understanding for all varieties of racial behavior. The Study of Subjective States. The procedure of attempting to explain social phenomena through the postulation of subjective feelings or dispositions of individuals or groups has been widely criticized.1 The principle point of criticism against this approach being that subjective phenomena is not directly observable and hence the study of 1For a criticism of this mode of analysis see Lundberg, G., Foundations of Sociology, (New York: The MacMillan Co, 1939) man's innermost dispositions cannot be carried on scientifi- cally. While this argument may be refuted in a number of ways, it is sufficient to say here that the existence of inner feelings, dispositions, needs, wants, emotions and the like are attested to by the every day experiences of social beings. To deny the study of such phenomena in the scientific study of man, is to deny that we can ever achieve determinate understanding of social life. Other arguments levelled against this procedure are methodological rather than destructive. Such criticisms all imply that the imputation of subjective states is hazardous. To illustrate, subjective factors are imputed on the basis of observed behavior; these factors are then in the nature of hypotheses which stand in need of greater exploration and verification. To use such tenuous postulates to explain the behavior from which they were originally imputed, is therefore not permissable, according to some critics. In part this viewpoint is justifiable. It is felt here, however, that a subjective mode of analysis is permissable so long as it is recognized that the validity of the postulated subjective states has not as yet been established.1 ‘ The present study imputes subjective states on the basis of responses to certain racial opinion-statements. These Subjective factors are then utilized to explain these same data. I _. ‘ 1For a sympathetic evaluation of this approach see McIver, IRn;M., "The Imputation of Motives" American Journal of {iszgiglggy, v. 6, July 1940. Pp. l- . The validity of this analysis is limited to the extent to which the postulated subjective factors are verifiable and/or to the extent to which their existence has not been established through intensive case-study. Statement of Problems. This thesis is a study of the nature of racial opinion. The questions to which it addresses itself being: 1. To what extent are opinions held by individuals towards a specific racial or ethnic minority consistently favorable or unfavorable, or to state its corollary, to what extent are such racial-Opinions inconsistent? 2. What dimensions can be discerned within such con- figurations of racial Opinion? 3. How are an individual's responses to one dimension or category of opinion-statements, regarding a specific racial minority, related to his responses to other dimensions or categories of opinion-statements about the same minority? A. How is the degree of contact an individual has had with a specific minority group or its individual members, related to his several responses to the various dimensions or categories of opinion about such a group? The Frame of Reference. This study attempts to explain the opinions peOple hold towards ethno-racial minorities from the standpoint of subjective states. In terms of past research, two distinct theoretical frames of reference are available to us as analytical tools. The first, an older and more widely utilized point of view, sees prejudice as a favorable or unfavorable attitude which a person develops-and holds towards (an ethnic or racial minority. According to this vieWpoint, t;he subjective feeling which is held towards a minority is égeneralized, i.ew,it is held towards the group in question ‘nrithout reference to any particular situation or issue. The implication here therefore, is that racial behavior is consistently favorable or unfavorable depending on whether a person's attitude is positive or negative. The second frame of reference, which in its implication is somewhat incompatible with the attitudinal approach holds that racial behavior must be viewed from the standpoint of social gglgs. This latter orientation conceives of racial behavior as conduct which is socially appropriate to particu- lar situations. From this point of view a person's racial behavior can and does vary from favorableness to unfavor- ableness depending upon situational factors and the individual's predispositions to these.1 These latter predispositions are therefore subjective factors which must be considered in attempting to explain.such behavior. They will be referred to here as situational-sentiments. The present study may be viewed as'a heuristic attempt to integrate the two approaches of attitude and situational-sentiment.2 When such a task is undertaken,a modification of each of these points of view is implied. It is felt here however that an initial step in achieving such integration must begin through the modification of attitudinal theory. While throughout this study the limitations of the attitudinal approach will be alluded to therefore, a substantial section ‘ 1This role frame of reference is oftentimes referred to 635 the social-situations approach. For a recent though (aonceptually awkward discussion of this vieWpoint see Coutu, w. IEmergent Human Nature (New York: Alfred A. Knopf Company, 1949’. 2Both these approaches receive extended discussions in the <2hapter. of this first chapter is directly devoted to a discussion of the limitations of this approach,when it is utilized without reference to situational-factors and the normative predis- positions to these. In analysing the data of a recent study in racial- opinion which begins in Chapter II, a wider frame of reference than that of the attitude approach will be employed. One purpose here, will be to demonstrate how through the joint use of the concepts of attitude and situational-sentiment a more determinate understanding of one type of racial-behavior --namely the expression of racial opinion--can be achieved. ATTITUDINAL THEORY IN RACE RELATIONS The Meaning of Attitude. An attitude is commonly defined as "a generalized and lasting predisposition, or state of readiness, for the individual to respond to a given object or stimulus."1 Several characteristics of the attitude must be made explicit. First, it is lasting in time. Second, it is generalized or more appropriately it is directed towards a generalized object (e.g., Jew) 233.,sg. without reference to the situation in which such an "object" occurs. Logically this precludes a person's holding more than one attitude towards such an object.2 Finally, it is directed, i.e.,it ‘ L 1Allport, G.W., "Attitudes" in Murchison, 0., (ed.) A .flkandbook of Social Ps chology (Worcester: Clark University Press, I935T. p. :793. As will be shown later it is this implication which CiJ'Llutes the utility of the attitude as the subjective causal c>rce of racial behavior. predisposes the individual to act in a favorable or unfavor- able manner and thus may be viewed as a causal antecedent of behavior. The racial attitude called prejudice refers, therefore, to such a prediSposition to act (in such a manner) towards an ethnic or racial "object" or "stimulus." This theory of attitude was developed largely as a result of psychological studies of personality. It conceives of the individual as being equipped with a number of relatively general attitudes which determine his behavior -- behavior which is Consistent with his attitudes.l Adherents of the attitudinal point of view in the field of race-relations, have borrowed these conceptions from the more abstract field of personality. There has not, however, been any concentrated effort to verify whether this particular type of behavior --namely racial behavior-- is consistent with the prejudicial attitude which a person or persons may hold. Instead the efforts of adherents to this point of view have been concen- trated in two areas. These are first,to discover the basic forces which determine the formation of the racial attitude, and second,to perfecting instruments for the measurement of such attitudes. This should not be taken to imply that there is complete consensus among the attitudinalists working in 1It should be noted that an attitude is not considered tfl> be the same phenomenon as behavior. Instead the latter rnaybe regarded as the manifestation of the former i.e., an c)bject or stimulus brings the "state of readiness" (i.e., at13itude) into salience, which initiates action (behavior) tovvards the object. Failure to make these distinctions has leci to a great deal of confusion. “.44 A .,n v. A. c. ‘4 u' U a *V r .w; Iv L J rt... #9 «J ‘1 at tints I LEI. .l.|.l).|l)|el . ,. .. unlit .hnnnn‘a .— « r—1 JIOM ‘ yllvy say. 5 .a.€S C a"r ~ ' ‘4‘.53:.pr' ’ V race-relations. Theoretical and methodological disagreements may be found in both these areas. The Formation of the Racial Attitude. There seems to be considerable agreement among social scientists that an indiv- idual is not born racially prejudiced but rather acquires this attitude in some way. The exact manner in which such an attitude is formed, however, represents the basis for some controversy. In the main, two principle modes of eXplanation for the etiology of the prejudicial attitude may be isolated. One of these schools of thought tends to find the origin of the prejudice in the psycho-biological reactions of the individual to certain types of eXperiences. Among recent exponents of this type of thinking we may cite Dollard, who states that, prejudice is the result of the frustrations which an individual encounters. The hostility engendered by such blockage apparently being relieved through the "scape- goating" mechanism.2 An even more psychoanalytic orientation is manifested by Bettelheim and Janowitz in such a statement as: The intolerant man who cannot control his super- ego demands or instinctual drives projects them upon racial minorities as if, by fighting them in this way or by at least discharging excessive 1A term used here to refer to adherents of the attitudi- . nal model described above. 2Dollard, J., "Hostility and Fear in Social Life" in T.M. Newcomb and E.M. Hartley (ed.), Readin s in Social Psychology, (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Ieafii. tension, he seeks to regain control over unconscious tendencies. These writers find the basic forces leading to prejudice are anxiety and insecurity. Adorno,and his associates,state that racial intolerance is an integral aSpect of the "rigid" or "authoritarian" personality; the Latvncbeing a psychic structure which is engendered by certain basic eXperiences such as premature weaning, or harsh toilet training which the individual is subjected to in early life;2 Other representa- tives of this school of thought are Ackerman and Jahoda, Kramer, G.W. Allport, Petegorsky and Bain, to mention just a few.3 In contrast to the above "psychological" point of view, there is what may be called the sociological or cultural explanation as to the etiology of the racial attitude. This latter approach is based on the conception of attitude as a group norm. It conceives of the individual's.prejudice as the learning or internalization of the prevailing minority lBettleheim, B., and Janowitz, M., "Ethnic Tolerance, A Function of Social and Personal Control", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 55, 1949, p. 144. ~ 2Adorno, T.W., Frankel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, R.N., The Authoritarian Personality, (New York: Harper and Bros., 19507. For an evaluation of these notions see Luchins, A.S., "Personality and Prejudice: A Critique", Journal of Social Psychology, August 1950, pp. 79-9h. 3See Ackerman, N., and Jahoda, M., "The Dynamic Basis of Anti-Semitic Attitudes", Psychoanalytical Quarterly, 17, 1948, pp.240-60;A11port, G.W., WCatharsis and the Reduction of Pre- judice", Journal of Social Issues, December 1945, pp. 3-10; Kramer, B.M., "Dimensions oijrejudice", Journal of Social Ps cholo , 38, 1949; Petegorsky, D.W., "The Strategy of Batred", Antioch Review I, September 1941; Bain, R., "Sociopathy of Anti- SEmitism", Socigmetry 6, l9h3. 10 group sentiments and values of his group. Some of the representatives of this type of thiiking are, Bogardus, Horowitz, Lindesmith and Strauss, Holland, and Hartley.l One of the most recent and most complete statements of this position has been put forward by Newcomb, in his postulate of the reference-group.2 His explanation holds that the sentiments and attitudes manifested by an individual, are derived from his memberships and reference groups. Member- shineztaun refers to those aggregates in which an individual actually participates; referenceeggggp refers to those groups with which an individual identifies himself.3 This point of view makes possible an explanation of how an individual or group can hold prejudicial attitudes towards minorities with whom there is no physical interaction. It is the notion that an individual is affected by a multiplicity of reference and membership groups which in one way forms the basis for the development of the situational sentiments approach which will be described later in this thesis. 1See Bogardus, E.S., Immigration and Race Attitudes, (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 19287; Horowitz,_E.L., "Deve10pment of Attitude Towards Negroes", Archives of P5 choloo , 1936, No. 194; Lindesmith, A.R., and Strauss, A.L., Social Psycholo , (New York: The Dryden Press, 1950); HoIland, J{B., fiEtitudes Towards Minority Groups in Relatidn to Rural Social Structure, Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, .EZEt Lansing; Michigan—State College, 1950; Hartley, E.L. Problems in Prejudice, (New York: Kings Crown Press, 1946). 2Newcomb, T.M., Social Psychology, (New York: The Dryden Press, 1950) p} 225A226} _FOr an extended discussion of membership and reference groups see also Sherif, M., An Out- 1inegof gocial Psychology,'(New York: Harper and Bros.,194B) PP. 3'3 30 3Newcomb, T.M., gp.cit. p. 225. 11 THE MEASUREMENT OF ATTITUDES DeSpite these disagreements, adherents to the attitudi- nal frame of reference are in agreement that it is the atti- tude which is the obviously important subjective causal agent of behavior. From this it may be derived that a given cate- gory of behavior such as racial behavior will be consistent with its concomitant generalized attitude (e.g. a person with a favorable attitude towards Negroes will always act tolerantly towards Negroes). This assumption is of course testable. There has not, with few exceptions, as yet been any direct attempt in social science to carry out such verification.l In general the attitudinalist has taken this assumption as a "given" and has directed his research in other directions. One of these pursuits is the measurement of attitude. This procedure adds yet another characteristic to the attitude-- namely that of linearity; that is, it is assumed that an attitude varies (from person to person) only in terms of directional degree rather than in a multidimensional quali- tative manner not arrangeable on any single quantitative con- tinuum. By far the most popular mode for measuring this linear racial attitude, which peOple supposedly hold, is through the use of opinion-endorsement questionnaires. The assumption here being that the questionnaire responses are a direct result of the attitude. In order however, to make the individual's responses manifest an attitude, as it is conceived 1For a review of the findings where such research has been attempted see Chapter II.,pp. 27-30. 12 by the measurer, it is necessary to manipulate racial opinion-statements. A procedure which has been referred to as the "logical fallacy for affirming the antecedent by synthesizing the consequent." he following discussion of three such procedures will indicate how the actual nature of racial-opinions is obfuscated.l It was Thurstore, generally considered the father of attitude measurement, who pointed out the factors of "ambiguity" and "irrelevence" operating in opinion statements.2 For example, an opinion pertinent to the education of Negroes, may contain elements of an individual's attitudes towards both the Negro, and towards education. Since the purpose of a prejudice test is to isolate the relative intensity of an individual's or group's "pure" attitude towards this racial minority, such an Opinion-statement would be considered "ambiguous".and could not be utilized. In actuality however, the majority of opinions voiced by people do not tend to be 1Dr. P. Tannenbaum, Director of Television Research at Michigan State College, in a personal communication to the writerghas stated that these procedures in all probability indicate that attitudes are not of this order -- i.e«,linear. The objection here however is not to such a conception of attitudes or to these procedures pg; fig, if the purpose is to measure~the attitude, but rather that such procedures create the impression that opinions are linear and internally con- sistent when in actuality such is not always the case, as will be shown. 2See Thurstone, L.L., and Chave, E.J., The Measurement of Attitudes, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929). Practically all attitude scales in use today contain these types of "artificial" Opinion-statements. See for example Hinckley, E.D., The Measurementgof Social Attitudes, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19307; Nettler, G., and Golding, E.H., "The Measurement of Attitudes toward the Japanese in America", American Journal of Sociology, 52, July 1946, pp 31-39. 13 pure in nature. As a result,because of the criterion to avoid ambiguity and other "distorting" factors, the tester is oftentimes forced to exercise literary imagination rather than to draw from the prevailing opinions which exist,in order to get at a set of Opinion-statements which are suffi- ciently concise and unambiguous for the measurement of the attitude. The respondents are therefore confronted with a set of highly artificial Opinion-statements which they can either accept or reject. Social scientists.and others are liable to imply that the responses to such a test are typical of the "climate of Opinion" of their subjects, although in actuality the prevailing Opinions may be less direct and more ambiguous than those used in the instrument.1 Thus,in their eagerness to measure an attitude, some scientists are guilty of creating data which through misinterpretation tends to con- form to their assumptions. A direct way to insure that peOple manifest consistent opinion is represented by the criterion of "internal consis- tency" or "statistical reliability".2 Internal consistency of a test is reached when an individual's response to any 1A conclusion to which the attitudinalists are more prone than anyone else. A great many students of race-relations have taken to calling Opinion-responses attitudes. While this represents a realization on their part that differential responses represent differential sentiments on the part of a respondent towards a minority group, such a practice repre- sents misuse of this concept of attitude which has tradition- ally come to refer to a subjective state of the individual. For example,Klineberg uses the o inion and attitude synonym- ously. See Klineberg, 0., Tensions AffectingIntggnational Understandings,(New York: Social Science Research Council, a _7. 2This criterion adds yet another characteristic to the attitude. 14 statement ona questionnaire correlates highly with the modal scnsre of all his reSponses. There are several construction procedures for ensuring the reliability of a prejudice test, but whatever the method utilized the usual result is that the instrument consists of a set of opinion-statements highly similar to one another. In this way the attitudinalist again "loads the dice" in his favor. Des ite such loading however p .3 , this type of research is continually plagued by an appreciable amount of inconsistency of response. To some this of course represents the basis for modification of theoretical outlook with the realization that 393 all opinions are determined Q)! the prejudicial attitudes. When this happens these researchers are confined to only those subjects who manifest a COnsistent direction of opinion. In this way as much as eighty per-cent of data which may have important implications \ as to the nature of racial Opinion may be lost. To others, adherence to the assumption of consistency is SO great that they find it difficult to believe the data Which they collect. As for example: ....the subjects displayed carelessness by checking one friendly and one antagonistic statement. \ b 15cc Sletto, R.F., Construction of Personality Scales He Criterion offiInternal Consistency, (Minneapolis: Ocic>logy Press, 19377. 2 of As in a study reported by Hinckley, E.D., "The Influence Individual Opinion on Construction of an Attitude Scale", ileeszgisl of Social Psychology, 3, 1932,pp. 283-296. 3Ibi$ p. 286. 15 If we find considerable inconsistency we might attribute it to carelessness of the subjects.. or we might attribute it to defects in the state- ments themselves. Je have so regarded them... This illustrates a remarkable state of affairs in Science ldkuere an assumption postulated for theoretical purposes is believed to be more valid than the data actually observed. Finally, there is still another criterion which functions to obfuscate the nature Of racial Opinions. This is the assumption Of unidimensionality itself.2 Generally, students attempting to measure an attitude have assumed that it must be placed along some sort of continuum. While there are various techniques for doing this, they all result in differential quantitative weights being assigned to tolerant and intolerant reSponses relative to the specific opinion items utilized in the test. The "scores" Obtained from an individual respondent are then subjected to a process Of Staitxistical computation so that a "mean continua score" for the individual or group under consideration is reported. In "hi-Si vmay the specific responses to any one Opinion-statement are lost. Further, the pattern of responses to the certain types Of opinion questions, is rendered unavailable for the analYSis of the nature Of Opinion as a result Of such \L lThurstone and Chave, 3p. cit.Ep. h6-h7. :2 Me- See for example, Lickert, B., "A Technique for the a‘81-11"ement Of Attitude", Archives Of Psychology, NO. 11.0 (New York, 1932). 16 styntistical manipulation. Criticisms of Measurement Procedures. The techniques arnd theoretical assumptions involved in attitude measurement have not been entirely devoid of criticisms from social sculentists. Faris has observed that such procedure deletes those data which the investigator should be most concerned vwitJa uncovering.2 In a stinging attack on the criteria for "good" test construction Merton states: Although this procedure [of utilizing only those Opinion statements which show internal consist- ency] is statistically sound, it obscures falla- cious notions by assuming a disputable logic of relationships involving social evaluations. In making this assumption the investigator is playing the role of logician rather than the psychologist or sociologist. He is in fact tacitly assuming that these presumably incompatible assertions should not be endorsed by the same person. Such a judgement minimizes the possi- bility of securing adequate representation of the inconsistencies of social judgements which in many instances are actually obtained...this emphasis may obscure the sociological utility of including in an inventory some statements, which on the basis of these criteria are not differentiating, i.e., statements endorsed with equal frequency by persons with differentiated - lTo illustrate,H.H. Harlan devised a questionnaire in “”114311 there were twelve stories concerning the treatment aCC3CEIPded Jewish students in a variety of situations. The Eat)ileects were asked to indicate approval or disapproval of hie: Eiccorded treatment on a five point scale. In reporting hoss Iresults this researcher indicated only "mean scores" ti::<=\rer. As a result we are deprived of data which is oer- he].e3rlt to the differential definition of racial situations as in. (1 by these respondents. See Harlan, H.H., "Factors Affect- 5§ Kittitudes Toward uews", American Sociological Review, 7, 1942 3 pp. 816-827 . of‘ 2Faris, R.E., "Attitude and Behavior", American Journal wciology, 31., September 1928, Pp. 271-28I. 17 responses to other statements.. In the case Of such opinions we are no longer dealing with pure, highly distilled opinions concerning the Negro (is a "pure" abstraction) but rather with com- plex opinions concerning Negroes. And with respect to the criterion Of linearity, Kirkpatrick has.noted: It has frequently been assumed that attitudes towards complex social phenomena may be des- cribed by simple favorableness-unfavorableness continua. By definition favorableness or its Opposite is an essential quality of attitudes as abstracted from a total configuration. It is questionable however whether an individual can be meaningfully placed on a unilateral continuum with reference to an unanalyzed and heterogeneous pattern of issues. In discussing attitude tests in general he declares, "A subject should not be forced by suggestion or by the nature Of the measuring instrument to record a conviction which he does not feel."3 Merton's critique notes that the Opinions which a person or persons holds towards minorities are complex, and may be logically inconsistent with one another-~something which is of central importance to this study. lMerton, R.K., "Fact and Factitiousness in Ethnic Opinionnaires", American Sociological Review, 5, February l9h0, p. 18. 2Kirkpatrick, C., "Assumptions and Methods in Attitude Measurement", American Sociological Review, 1, February 1936’ po 77. 3Ibid, p. 77. L’Merton, R.K., O_p. 933., p. 20. 18 PIITIJUDICE AS A COIIPLEXITY OF SUBJECTIVE ELTZI‘TENTS The lultiple Heferents of Prejudice. Kirkpatrick's statement that an attitude "is but one. quality abstrac ed from a total subjective configuration" implies that there are other elements beside the attitude involved in such a configuration, which might conceivably affect the racial behavior manifested by an individual. This is made even clearer when he goes on to note that attitude tests do not take cognizance of what might be called "no attitude" on the part Of a respondent.1 Such remarks have, however, impli- cations to race-relations which can be made explicit in the form Of questions. If an individual holds "no attitude" towards an ethnic or racial minority, to what subjective factors or elements can his behavior towards minorities (Which on the basis of Objective criteria can be described as "tolerant" or "intolerant") be attributed?2 And this leads tO a second question which asks, how many persons involved in recurring interaction with ethnO-racial minorities can be Cha racterized as 393 possessing attitudes towards such groups? The extent to which such characterization can be made, \ lKirkpatrick, C., op.git., p. 76. " 2To illustrate, if an individual who is known to have C:23“;:ttitude" towards Negroes were.asked.to endorse or reject in Opinion-statements concerning this ra01al group, the rinbjfiéctive antecedents underlying his responses would eceSsarily be due to a factor or factors other than that of attitude. represents the extent to which attitudinal theory is no applicable. ’ Even among the attitudinalists there have been writings which imply that other factors intervene to modify the supposedly smooth causal nexus between attitude and overt behavior. Thus Wang, in discussing the criteria for select— ing Opinion statements to be used in an inventOry,decrces that: All statements on a given issue should belong as nearly as can be judged to the same atti- tude variable. That is they must not only be. relevant to the issue but belong $0 the linear cont1nuum that 18 be1ng measured. The crucial point here is the recognition by the above writer that there are statements pertaining to a given issue which g9 Egg belong to the attitude which is being measured. This in turn implies that an individual may hold several different sentiments towards the £333 issue. Similarily Nettler and Golding note, "...there is no reason to believe that the consistency of Opinion is a more valid index of an attitude than is its opposite".2 Here apparently the writers are using the term "attitude" in a gross manner to refer to a complex subjective structure which may manifest itself through the expression of opinions which are perhaps logically inconsistent. 1See Wang, C.K.A., "Suggested Criteria for Writing Attigude Statements", Journal Of Social Psychology, 3, 19321 p. 3 7e 2Nettler, 0., and Golding, E.H., 92. cit., p. 31. 20 Thus , in recent years, several race-relation scientists taking cognizance of the complexity of racial behavior have begun to use the term prejudice as including in its referents not only the general attitude towards a minority which a person may hold, but also as pertaining to specific co-exist- ing sentiments which he segmentally holds to various racial minorities. For example Long, in an excellent discussion on the use of the concept of prejudice, suggests that it has W0 aspects; the first, a relatively stable personality (attitudinal) aspect; the second, a loosely organized and inconsistent asoect.l Both Myrdal and Semelson imply that PTCJ'Udice towards Negroes consist of "mixed" and contradictory feelings~-the resulting structure constituting; something of a dilemma to the average American.2 In a recent; report Brookover and his associates introduce a further note of complexity when they state that racial behavior can be accounted for differently for different persons or groups: Persons with a particular personality structure, Or example an obsessional compulsive, may express constant attitudes in an sort of social Situation. Most persons are re atively flexi- le in the expression of such reactions. They may be highly sensitized to the normative e3Cpectancies of their positions and express can J Long, H.H., "Race Prejudice and Social Change", Ameri- ~~~--\O$nal of Sociology, 52, 1951,“), 15-19, ——"'" and M See Myrdal, G., An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem Wm Democracy, (New York: Harper and Bros., 19“” Analysi Semelson, B., "Mrs. Jones' Ethnic Attitudes: A Ballot 191,5 318", .Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, hO, ’ Dp- ZOE-Hf 21 s more apprOpriate I those attitudes or sentiment to a given social situation. LJ—_._ The notion that some people are primarily creatures of attitude, while others (apparently the majority) vary their behavior in accordance to that which is socially apprOpriate implies also that an individual's behavior may be character- ized by both these forces. The present study investigates the plausibility of using such a joint approach. A second point 9f View, the situational-sentingnts aporoach is therefore develOped to be used in conjunction with the attitude frame of reference. The basis for this social sentiments orienta- tion is grounded in role theory. SITUATIONAL SENTIMENTS AS PREJUDICIAL FACTORS fletero-racial Interaction as Role Behavior. A number of StUdies have indicated that the racial-behavior of many people Often varies from tolerant to intolerant.2 Such Variance has not been regarded as random, but rather as differential socially apprOpriate conduct (i.e., roles) which pertains to the "racial situation" in Which behavior occurs. TWO assumptions pertaining to this social-situations point of View m11st be made explicit: \ Brookover, 21.8., Stone, G.P., and Epley. D.C., renoimlcs of Prejudice Among Maple County Youth"; unpublished and At of the Social Research Service, Department of Sociology 1'lthropology, Michigan State College (1953), p. 5- 23cc Chapter II, pp. 27-30. l. IRace-relations consists of a multiplicity (of spedific, though recurring,situations. rI'hese situations have in common to them the presence of members of a racial or ethnic minority or some symbolic representa- ‘tion of such a group. In other respects,the racial situations may be vastly different. 2. Behavior occurring within any such situation is relatively structured. That is, when a specifically defined situation occurs, there is a probability that a given mode of behav- ior will occur. 13163 basic idea behind the social situations approach, therefEDI‘e,iS'that peOple categorize the many recurring racial- situatui<>ns into several socially defined types. This notion 01‘ a social definition has at least two concomitant aSpects.l On the; cane hand,it refers to those patterns of behavior (called iroles) which an individual's membership, reference grOUpss, or society define as being "prOper" to a given situa- tion. ‘ 'The acting individual regards these as social expectations. On the other hand, it is the situation itself Which is being defined for the individual in terms of meaning. As a result, the individual. perceives and appraises such situations "through the eyes of the group." A basic premise 0f tilias approach is that the many racial situations occurring may each be defined differentially and be logically incongru- ent to one another for the same group or person.2 “‘-~___ int, 1The idea of the "definition of the situation" was first I‘Ociuced by W..I. Thomas. Ne 2To illustrate the behavior adepted by most Whites to ntgt‘oes on public transportation vehicles in Chicago is behlerant" i.e., non-discriminatory. On the other hand, Ne aVior of these same Chicagoans in a situation where ho§bo es attempt to establish residence in a "White" neighbor- d becomes "intolerant.” 23 The Subjective Factors in Situational Racial Behavior. When an individual manifests consistent racial behavior over a span of time, it is likely that such action can be imputed to a general attitude. If, however, the behavior towards a racial group seems to vary with the situation, the subjective predispositions explaining such behavior are in all probability more complex. In such cases the individuals concerned aPparently perceive the situation according to some social definition which has been internalized. Such an internalized definition, which will be called here a situational-sentiment of the individual; may be conceived as being "carried about." by peeple until the concomitant situation occurs to bring it into salience. The situational racial behavior of a Person is viewed,therefore, as being at least partially ‘ determined by the situational sentiments which are held. InasmUCh as an individual may continually encounter several racial situations, each of which are defined differentially, ilLi‘iilbgssible for a person to hold several and indeed many Wt situational-sentiments towards the same racial 'l ° 1 W." This point of view explains why a personcan expreSs opinions or manifest behavior uh ich are "logically \ t This indicates one of the ways in which prejudicial- 1ments differ from the prejudicial attitude since, accord- onl to traditional attitudinal theory, an individual. can hold betw One attitude towards a racial .group. Another difference attieen these two types of subjective variables is that the abet Ude is oriented towards an ”object" wnich is usually are ract and symbolic in nature; sentiments, on the other hand, a muorientedto concrete recurring situations which contain are ltiplicity of objects. Both of these prejudicial variables and §imilar in that they constitute "predispositions to act" 1:1 that they are both relatively lasting in time. .sen 111g 24 inconsistent" (i.e., both tolerant and intolerant). If such sentiments are to be considered as subjective aspects of racial behavior, it is therefore more correct to refer to a person's racial prejudices rather than to his or her racial prejudice. Attitudes and Sentiments as the Detenninants of Racial Behavior. The basic assumption of this treatise is that in contemporary mass society the individual must be viewed as the entity in which both the prejudicial attitude and the socially derived situational-sentiments co-exist. This study may therefore be viewed as an eXploratory attempt to analyze the Opinion-responses manifested in a recent race-relations study through the joint use of both approaches. The fact that both points of view are to be used represents a refuta- tion of the attitudinalist claim that such behavior can be explained in terms of a single imputed dimension. By utiliz- ing this dual approach it is hoped that a more determinate understanding of racial behavior will be achieved. No claim is made that the dual frame of reference employed here represents the solution to the social psycho- logical efforts to understand prejudice. Any ultimate theory of prejudice muSt not only delineate all the factors and' forces involved, but must also state the relationships between these. The joint utilization of two types of imputed variables here may be considered as a preliminary step in this direction. CHAPTER II THE MAPLE COUNTY MINORITY GROUP STUDY Orientation and Problems. The basic assumption of this thesis is that the racial behavior of peeple --in this case their racial opinions-- can be eXplained in part at least through (1) the general attitudes which they hold towards minority groups, and (2) through the various situational predispositions or sentiments which they develop towards such groups with reference to certain recurring situations or issues. To test the utility of this viewpoint, this study draws upon some recently collected opinion-statement responses which a midwestern group of high school students expressed towards Negroes and Jews.1 In terms of the general problems stated earlier, this present work addresses itself to the following questions: ' 1. To what extent do the individual respondents show a consistency of favorableness or unfavorableness to Negroes and to Jews in their responses to the Opinion-statements utilized? . ~ The purpose here is to evaluate the validity of the 1In this analysis the Jewish data will be treated separately from the Negro data with no direct attempt to relate Opinions about Negroes to Opinions about Jews. 26 (Df‘ tdie attitudinal assumption that racial behavior tends to bee pyrimarily constant. It will also indicate the extent to \Nruicii an attitudinal frame of reference can be meaningfully applied to these data. 2. What categories or dimensions of opinion can be discerned among the opinion-statements utilized (i.e., both the Negro and Jewish statements) on the basis of the responses to the opinion-statements in question? Here,the problem is to classify the opinion-statements intxo categories which pertain to different issues or situations involving Jews and Negroes around which situational-sentiments .formn.. Responses to such categories will be utilized as the‘ basis for classifying the direction (i.e., favorable or unikixrorable) of the respondents' particular sentiments towards. the situation to which a category pertains. 3. What is the relationship between responses to the various Jewish and Negro opinion-‘ categories which have been derived? 'This problem attempts to determine the functional relxatxionships which may exist between the various situational- Sentiments manifested towards a particular minority. It is 315“) aa basis of judging whether, or the extent to which, such . a ‘ , Sentlrnents are function of the attitude which may be held to the minority group in general. lb. How is the type of contact which the respondents may have had with Jews or with Negroes related to their responses to the various opinion-cate- gories pertaining to these respective minorities? Tfiie basis for this enquiry is to attempt to determine if the t-Ype of contact is differentially associated with the varQJDIIS situational sentiments the adolescent subjects hold towards Negroes and towards Jews. 27 In each of these enquiries the focus of attention is on the consistency, or lack of it, of racial-opinion, or stated somewhat differently, the consistency or inconsistency between the various aspects of the individual's prejudice configura- tion of general attitude and situational-sentiments. Before going on to discuss the procedures to be utilized or the study from which the data used here has been derived, a consideration of past research in this and similar types of race-relations research undertaken in the past will be reported. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Students of race-relations have shown little concern 'with the nature of actual racial opinion or racial behavior. The fact that few studies have been specifically designed for ‘this purpose is indicative of the degree to which the implicit assumption is held that suCh behavior is attitudinally cone sistent. As early as 19273however, c.w, Hunter, in an unpublished study, indicated that judgements towards segre- ‘gation, towards eating with the Negro,and towards lynching eare independent; and that,in general,any one Specific attitude (i.eu,sentiment) toward the Negro would probably not bear any cxlear relation to the judgement on other issues.1 A study by Horowitz on the development of prediSpositions 'tcnuard the Negro among small children indicated that avoidance lCited in Murphy, G., and Likert, B., Public Opinion §£EC1 the Individual, (New York: Harper and Bros.*19387. p. 26. 28 Of Negroes varied in three "picture" tests each of which pertained to different types of situations.1 Horowitz, however, concluded that there is some integration between disparate feelings towards the Negro with maturation.2 Lapiere, in a now classic study,has shown that ques- tionnaires do not always check with life situations in which the raters have the chance to carry out their professed attitude. Lapiere and a Chinese couple travelled over the Pacific coast stOpping at inns and auto-camps. Although,in many instances,the Chinese did the contacting for rooms, there was only one refusal of lodging. When later Lapiere questioned by mail these same innkeepers and a comparable group of others concerning their acceptance of Chinese guests, many claimed that they would not accept such guests.3 Brookover and Holland,in a study of a midwest community from which the data for this thesis are drawn, found many instances where expressed Opinion towards Negroes and Jews is not congruent with actual behavior manifested towards znembers of these groups.h They conclude that "these verbal- :ized sentiments may be closely related to other behavior of tile person in those situations which he defines as identical 1Horowitz, E.L., 9p, gig. p. 29. 21bid, p. 29. 3Lapiere. B., "Attitudes versus Actions", Social Forces 13 . 1931., p. 230-237. hBrOOkover, W.B., and Holland, J.B., "An Enquiry Into tShe Meaning Of Minority Group Attitude Expressions" American §9ciological Review, 17, April 1952. p. 196-202. 29 or nearly identical to that in which he has responded".- "But in different groups and in different roles the same person may behave entirely different." This finding is validated in a recent study by Gordon. He reports that the individual members of a study-group mOdified their previously expressed private Opinions about the Russians when asked to express such Opinions in the presence of the group.2 These modifications Of opinion were primarily in the direction of the reSpondent's estimate of the group's sentiment towards that issue. In short,the individuals acted in conformity to group expectations. Kutner, Wilkin, and Yarrow,in a modified repetition of the Lapiere study,cOnclude that discriminating behavior is low in "direct" situations where the Negro is present--but is high when the situation is suggested abstractly (as in an Opinion-questionnaire).3 Lohman and Reitzes, found that the racial behavior towards minorities is based on sentiments towards other factors pre- sent in the situation.h For example,white urbanites accepted .Negroes in the factorfivsince such behavior facilitated union ggoals. These same whites,however,were very intolerant of IVegroes in a residential context where property values are a 1Ibid, p. 200 An Observation made by Prof. Gregory F. Stone. 2Gordan, R.L., "Attitude and the Definition of the Sit- LLation", American Sociological Review, 17, February 1952. p.50-58. 3Kutner, B., Wilkin, A., and Yarrow, s., "Verbal Attitude Eirld Overt Behavior Involving Racial Pregudice", Journal of =311normal and Social Ps cholo , L7, p. h9-52o _ hLOhman, J.D., and Reitzes, D.C., "Note on Race-Relations 113..a Mass Society", American Journal Of Sociology;58, November 1952, p. 21.6-21.7. ‘ 30 consideration. The summary of these findings indicates two important points: f.rst, that racial behavior of peOple does 333 tend to be logically consistent towards a minority group, and second, it indicates that such behavior may be the result of senti~ ments other than that of a more or less intense attitude. The focus Of this study will be to see whether such observa- tions also hold true for racial Opinion—responses of a group Of high-school students. DESCRIPTION OF THE’MINORITY—GROUPS RESEARCH PROJECT The data utilized by this study are drawn from a larger :research project undertaken by a committee of the Social Ilesearch Service of Michigan State College.1 This larger study was carried out in cooperation with the American Jewish (30mmittee and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. The :rural midwestern community selected for study has been identi- ;fied as "Maple County" in "Midstate." Therefore, to preserve :its anonymityas well as its uniformity, the same fictitious ruames used in this wider project will be utilized here. The nuetnodology, description of the community and findings of _ ‘ - 1This project, known as the "Minority Group Research APIYDJect" at Michigan State College, has been conducted under tJIEB general supervision of Professor Wilbur B. Brookover. In tiler text of this dissertation this project will be referred tF> eas the "larger study." {.1151 AI; . .II' 31 this project have been dealt with elsewhere." It should be pointed out however that this particular study is not primarily c»ncerned with extending tie race-relation know- ledge about this conmunitm but rather with applicabilitY Of a formulated approach to such data. The Study Gregg. Part of the larger research project concerned itself with the expression of prejudicial attitudes towards certain minorities among the high school students in the community. To this end,the high school freshmen and seniors of the three principle towns in Maple County were sought out on two separate occasions and questionnaires were administered to them. General information about the study group indicates that hostility towards minority groups among the students is rather low. There are only a few minority-group members in Maple County. At the time the larger study was undertaken there were three Jewish students in attendance in two of the three high schools. Two of these, however, were not recognized as .Jewish by their school-mates. The number of Negroes attending 1See for example, Holland, J.B., "Attitudes toward Biinority Groups in Relation to Rural Social Structure", LhapublishedDoctor's dissertation, Michigan State College, 1950 Eholy, D.C., "Adolescent Role Relationships in the DynamiOS'of Prejudice, unpublished Doctor's dissertation,7‘71ichigan State (3C> ege, 1953. Other publications dealing with Maple County irhclude Stone, G.P., and Form, wm., "Instabilities in Status: 17163 Problem of Hierarchy in the Community Study of Status Arrangements", American Sociological Review, 18, 1953. p. 149- :15523; and Brookover, W.B., and Holland, J.B., "An Enquiry into . tiles Meaning Of Attitude Expression", 22,222. p. 196-202. 32 high schools in this county was Only slightly larger than the Jewish enrollment. There is an indication that the sentiments towards Negroes are more highly crystallized among this adoles— cent population than are those concerning Jews. Study-Group Limitations. The present study concerns itself only with the data collected from the high school students at Johnstown, the county seat. This limitation was imposed since there is some indication that each of the high \ schools constitute separate cultural milieus. As a result, ‘this study is confined to the 235 9th and 12th grade students (of the Johnstown High School. THE QUESTIONNAIRE Two questionnaires were administered to this study group: the first in 1949; the second in 1952. "The purpose was to investigate the dynamics Of prejudicial sentiments among iadolescents. As the present study has no such orientation, (only the data from the 1952 questionnaire will be utilized. 'This latter instrument is somewhat more adequate for the [Turpose Of the present analysis than is the earlier one. The 1952 questionnaire was designed for a number Of ‘tlleoretical purposes. As a result,it yielded a wide variety (Df‘ data,not all of which are applicable to this study. TPIIeevarious question-items of this instrument may be classi- f3ied as follows: 1A draft Of the 1952 questionnaire appears in Appendix B. 33 1. Items concerned with family and personal back- ground of respondents. 2. Items concerning reference group orientations of respondents. - 3. Sociometric items. A. Personality items (three types). 5. Items concerning respondents' sentiments towards Negroes, Mexicans and Jews. The Prejudice Instruments. The focus of this study is almost exclusively on the last category. Of these, the items designed to tap sentiments towards minorities, there are four kinds. ' First, the greatest number of items are of the "opinion- endorsement" kind in which a statement is made regarding Jews (8 such statements), Negroes (7 statements) and Mexicans (2 statements).1 The subject is asked to check one of three responses for each statement, that of "Agree", "Disagree", and "Can't quite agree." For purposes of analysis in this study, the responses were classified as "tolerant", if the :respondent agreed with a favorable statement or disagreed with aan unfavorable one, and "intolerant" if his responses were of £1n.opposite nature. The response "can't quite agree" is the atlways classified as an "intolerant" reSponse here, reationale for this being that such a reSponse indicated lSee items No. h8-6h inclusive in questionnaire. Responses ‘t<> the two Mexican items are not utilized in this study. I¥il)le 3 in ChapterIII also lists these items and indicates 'CIIGB percentage responding "intolerantly" to each of these. 3b unwillingness to show complete tolerance to the minority group in question. Since these seven Negro and eight Jewish opinion-state- ments are the ones with which this study is particularly concerned, some further background information pertaining to these items must be given. These items were taken from those used in the California Attitude Scale. This latter Scale was developed by the Institute of Child Welfare of the University of California for use in the California studies of prejudice. The fifteen items used in our questionnaire,then,are those considered as most appropriate to the purpose of the larger study, as well as the most reliable items from the California Scale. {The validity of these items as pertaining to the ' reSpective attitudes towards Jews and Negroes has been discussed.elsewhere.)l As a result,these opinion-statements must be considered as of the "synthetic" variety. This limits ~the attempt of this study to show that the majority of our study group regard many of these items as pertaining to differ- ent situations because of the criterion of internal consis- tzency to which these items have been subjected previously. ILf the reSponses do show a trend towards indansistency, thus iJidicating that these opinion-items pertain to differing iessues or situations, it may be interpreted9therefore, that tfiis trend has been circumvented somewhat by this use of such "disti lled " opinion-statements. lSee Epley, D.C., 92. gig. p. 3b. 35 Second, there arethfih"contact" items, there being one each for Negroes and Jews. These contact questions were designed to elicit information as to the reSpontent's claim of familiarity with each of these minority groups. This question reads as follows: What kinds of contact have you had with Jewish (Negro) peOple? (Circle every item in the list that applies to you.) I have Jewish (Negro) relatives........... .......... l I have played or gone out with Jewish (Negro) boys or girls ........................................... I have known Jewish (Negro) peOple well ............ I have known Jewish (Negro) people but not very well I have seen Jewish (Negro) peOple but not talked to them...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.... I have never seen Jewish (Negro) people............. O\\J'I P'WN For purposes of analysis,responses of either 1,2, and 3, were classified as "intimate"; h and 5, as "casual" and 6, as "no contacts." Table I shows the frequency distribution of the respondents' claims of extent of contact with Negroes and Jews. The most surprising feature of this table is the great number of students who claim intimate or casual contact with Jews. As has been pointed out,there are few Jewish TABLE I FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF TYPE OF CONTACT WITH NEGROES AND JEWS AS INDICATED BY RESPONDENTS “Extent of ‘Negroes Jews contact No. Percent - gNg. Percent l, Intimate Contact 76 32-3 77 3273 Casual Contact 158 67.2 120 ' 51-1 No Contact -- --- 32 13.6 No Response or Unclassifiable __1 .§ __§l 2.§ Totals 235 100.0 235 100.0 36 people in the community, hence opportunity for contact with these is limited. It may be concluded that some of these contacts reported by the students are in part imagined or the result of misconceptions by respondents as to what constitutes a "Jew." It will be noted also that none of the reapondents are classified as having "no contact" with Negroes. This, gives us some confidence in the reliability of this item—- since there were several Negro students in this school and all the respondents would have, at least, seen a Negro. The responses here indicate that this indeed was the case. Two other important instruments, for our purposes, in this questionnaire are the pleasantness scales (one Jewish and one Negro). These scales were used to elicit the adoles- cents' conception towards Negroes and Jews in terms of pleasantness or unpleasanthess. They read as follows: How would you describe the contacts that most young peonle have with Negro (Jewish) people? (Circle one number). . Always Pleasant.................................l Usually Pleasant................................2 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant.....3 Usually unpleasant..............................h Always Unpleasant...............................5 .Table 2 indicates the distribution of responses to this scale for both the Negro and Jewish items. In both these distributions there is a strong tendency to avoid conceiving relationships with either Jews or Negroes as "unpleasant." 37 TABLE 2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS T0 ITEM ASKING "HON WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE CONTICTS MOST YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE WITH NEGRO (JEWISH) PEOPLE?" Degree of Negro Jewish ,pleasantness No. Percent. No. Percent Always pleasant 17 7.2 35 lh.9 Usually pleasant 79 33.6 66 28.1 Sometimes pleasant 11L h8.5 llO h6.8 Usually unpleasant 18 7.7 2 .9 Always unpleasant 3 1.3 l .h No response A 1.7 21 8.9 Totals 235 100.0 235 100.0 It will be noted that 21 respondents indicate that they conceive Negroes as "unpleasant" whereas only 3 indicate such a conception for Jews. Similarly,there are twice as many responses in the Jewish "always pleasant" category as there are in the same Negro category. This indicates a somewhat more evenly distributed range of Opinion towards Negroes than towards Jews along this scale. The fact that 21 adolescent subjects did not reSpond to the Jewish pleasantness item may indicate that an appreciable amount of confusion exists among the reSpondents as to what the appropriate social sentiment towards Jews should be. THE METHODS OF ANALYSIS In order to determine the racial issues or situations to which the eight Jewish and seven Negro opinion-items pertain, the reSponses to these items will be subjected to a modified Guttman scaling technique, and categorization of these will permit assertion that the "scalable" items (viz.)those items to which 38 the response patterns vary in a linear manner) will be considered as pertaining to a racial-situation or issue which is differ- ent from those situations referred to by the non-scalable items. It will be assumed,therefore,thit the responses to these different categories of items represent "situational- sentiments" towards either Negroes or Jews which are quali— tatively dissimilar to one another. The pleasantness scales will constitute one_such category. This is the primary task in Chapter III. In Chapter IV we will attempt to find whether or not (or to what extent) the responses to these derived categories are due to the same factor or factors, and to the degree to ’ which the observed relationship can be attributed to a general attitude towards the minority group in question which the respondents may hold. The test of relationship to be utilized here is the "Coefficient of Contingency." We will attempt to determine in Chapter V whether or not the respondents' type of contact with each of the minority groups is associated to each of the "sentiment-type" categories of response and whether there is a significant difference in each of these various relationships. The Chi-square test of 'significance will be utilized for this purpose. ”Chapter VI will summarize the findings and state the conclusions of this study. 39 CHAPTER III THE CATEGORIZATIQN OF THE OPINION ENDJhSEMENT-S'ATEHENTS The practice of utiliZing responses to a more or less arbitrarily selected set of Opinion—endorsement statements, as if these constitute manifestations of a generalized linear attitude towards a minority-group in the abstract, has been widely criticized. Such criticism is valid in that such responses may, in fact, be manifestations of several quali- tatively different situational-sentiments towards such a group by a respondent. In recent years a technique has been evolved which reveals whether or not a given set of such statements pertain to the same or highly similar situationscn~ issues. This procedure can also indicate whether such state- ments pertain to two or more such issues. The technique in question has become widely known as the "Guttman Scaling Test."1 A modified version of this test will be subjected to our eight Jewish opinion-items, and seven Negro items (as constituting two separate sets of opinion-statements) in order to categorize 1For a description of the Guttman Test and its theoreti- cal basis see Guttman, L., "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data", American Sociological Review, 9, l9hh,pp. 139-150; Stouffer, S.A., et. al.,fiMeasurement and Prediction: Vol. IV of Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, Osborn, F., et al.,h.vols. (Princeton: Princeton—University Press, l9h9-50) AO these items into situational types. The Guttman Scaling Procedure. The Guttman Scaling methoo tests the unidimensionality (i.e., linear variance of individual response patterns) of questions which initially appear logically relevent to a given factor. This method utilizes what is called an "internal validity" check. One proves by this method that the questions measure some one thing consistently, and the determination of its character is done logically from the content. A full discussion of Guttman scaling is unnecessary here. Several points concerning it should be presented, however. Briefly, this type of scaling is done by developing a sample of opinion-statement type questions from a possible universe of those kinds of questions which are expected on logical grounds to be unidimensional.l If the sample questions are of this order, then there should be some means of arranging these in order of difficulty. With our data this can be done by ranking the opinion-statements from the one receiving the highest percentage of intolerant responses to the one with the lowest percentage of intolerant responses (see Tables 3 and A). From this point of view, the statement invoking the highest marginal frequency of intolerant responses is the most "difficult" for any individual to answer tolerantly. A person .lThe ensuing discussion of Guttman scaling is largely taken from a recent mflneographed report. See Gibson, D.L., "A study of Social Strengths in Mental Health", Social Research Service, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State College, 1953- hl responding toleiantlv to this item should answer tolerantly to all easier items. This means that only a limited number of response patterns will be expected. For example, with the eight Jewish Opinion-statements, a person who is assigned a "pure- pattern" number 3, should have answered the five easiest Jewish items tolerantly and responded intolerantly to the three most difficult statements. The extent to which this results is an indication of such "unidimensionality." Its measure is termed the "coefficient of reproducibility." This measure is computed by determining the percentage of responses which fall within the limited pattern indicating unidimensionality. If about ninety-percent are correctly placed and certain other criteria.are met the scale is acceptable. The Rank Ordering of Opinion-Statements. Tables 3 and A show the responses received for the Jewish and Negro items respectively; the statements being ranked in order of percent- age of intolerant responses. Several interesting observations may be made when this ranking of "Jewish" statements is contrasted with that of the Negro items. It will be noted that reSponses to the Jewish items were in general more toler- ant than were the responses to the Negro items; in no state- ment can we find the majority of respondents indicating Thus,in utilizing eight opinion-items for this pro- cedure, nine such "pure-patterns" are possible (see Table 3). . , zThe fOqula for determing the "coefficient of reproduci- blllty" is 1- total no. Of errors See Stouffer S.A. 0p cit. total no. of responses. p 779 ’ ’ ° ’ ° 0 #2 .ooflpnoso ow Sena on» on ocoamon op mcwauom muoonnzm oEom op one one cszaoo mane :H cofluwwsu> .mmm ow momao mo popes: ampop one .9 .momcoamou eooume opaso poccmo H = moosaocH .a ' mmm o.ma 2.9:mnsmumou how a“ pee on oozoaam on oasonm on pomLSMpmon m cw new on muons cooked nwflsow a coma: .w mmm w.om =.o:Hpmonm on some wZow onu oomoflsm o: «a mwo Lennon on Add oHso3 03: .5 mmm 0.0m :.ou ow H own» mowpsom memo on» on 9:03 moax amazow Ma cam some we push o>mn oasoz H: .0 mmm n.4m . =.oaaoma nozpo we came one node hso> pom oaaooa amazed woos: .m Hmm o.mm :.umosm wowsos< oxms op haamOflOpon one sanuw smaomcd_ouowmfinomn o>mn oadooo nmfisow mo mocmmsozsz .4 mmm n.mm :.mponooop no whossma .mpouooo osooon oxen some 00» no: page pa on com oasoem 03: .m mmm m.aa =.oaaooo tango mm saeeowne one saw: .pmocon mo posh one oaeood :mfisow use: .N mmm . H.ma =.ooocpopnmnoc as open eu>oe oaaooa amazes egos we as no“: unwed Ham on oasos pH: .H (mwcflocoqwmm «monsoomom .poaoch mucoSopmom :owcwmo .oz.amupp vouched . “In-(”fl ~492 .n .mmmcommou =omumw muHso poccoo H: moosHoCH .m mmm o.Hm =.c0HumNHHH>Ho cooHnms< o>0hoeH op _ hm: uoom m ma moHuH¢ on xomn mmouwoz onu mcanom= .h mmm ©.mm :.ucmuocmH new humH 0pm moopmcz.mcwxwoam HHHmpocooz .0 mmw m.©m=mo:opzno 05mm on» on om op ooonHw one: oHaoom mufizz cam moopwoz HH hoop>po>o pom nopuon on oHsoz pH: .m omm m.Hm . .moOLmoz up»: opus» upon: wagon a on cam nose mm omnh o>wg oHsoz H: .4 mmm m.mm :.woopwoz on one: ogonu opus: Hoom wcHEEHzn u on om on up»: H HH as on ooconoHHHo o: oxme oHdoz pH: .m mmm o.om :.uoap:aomop 02mm on» no mun noon hoop «a goupop mcon pow oHsoz oHaooQ oumoz new upwnz one: .N 4mm m.m© =.oumoz a scam whoopo oxwp on own H choc: non a xoou H HH me on oocouommwo o: oxme oHsoz pH: .H mcHoconom «momcoawmm r! n .Hoch momcoammm coHCHQo .o: Hmuoe pcoouom Hoez¢mmqoezH ozHozommmm mo¢ezmommm Mm mazmzmec . . . . . . lose physmal prox1m1ty to Negroes,1n a variety of Situa- tion - . s, 18 direct and concrete. In two of the five Jewish items ~44 50 u‘ . u i .\.,.u .. lift. ... IirI‘. ow. u huwaanflosoouoop mo pcowoflmmooo mmw ooa mma nampoe 2 s a - .. - - - s 0H 5 NH + c n u u m 3 pm 3 + + u u u s as am HA + + + - - m am a ma + + + + n m so ma ms + + + + + H shopped momma mommo , la b m m \H gonads a“ momao mo :cpooumnnuOLhoz espouumanousmz m magma poq,ma unsecumum :houumm honed: Hence mo ponsdz mo ponesz Icowafido mo popes: xcmm mzmmeemm mmzommmm woz<9mHQ IQlglege, 1952, pp. 21-28. ’ ’ b procedures and were eliminated from further scaling procedure. a Of the items retained in the social-distance scale, several of the opinion—items show marginal frequencies in the 33 to 70 percent range which is a prerequisite for a valid Guttman Scale. Finally,the reproducibility of all items is higher than the largest frequency of its categories, although there is suggestion from some of the error patterns that there are "quasi-scale" elements within the larger scale (i.e., errors are not randomly distributed). Limitations of the Scales. The procedures outlined here depart,therefore,in certain respects from the criteria laid down for scaling. The purpose of these procedures, however, is not to arrive at an instrument which will measure a single linear“ dimension of prejudice, but rather to determine whether or not the opinion-statements utilized in the larger Maple County' study pertain to several such different issues or dimenssixans. The results of the Guttman test used here indicate that this indeed is the case. Within the limitations Pointed out, however, there is some basis for saying that each 0f 5‘JEHVish items and each of 5 Negro items more or less pertaiJi ‘to a similar issue for these respective minorities. These it:enw will therefore be utilized here as constituting a Situertzional category for further analytical purposes. EalfllEfiirison with the Bogardus Scale. By far,the most uti ' . . - - llzemi scolal-distance scale 18 the instrument developed \J1 U1 by Prof. 13.8. Bogardus more than two decades ago. It is interesting to Cszlp‘ll‘e the similarily labelled scales develOpeu here with Dr. Bogardus' instrument. This latter scale utilizes seven lorgically develOped items and has the following form: DIRECTIONS: According to my first feeling of reaction I would willingly admit members of each race (as a class, and not the best I have known, nor the worst members) to one or more of the classifications which I #5 have circled. '- 1. To close kinship by marriage. 2. To my club as personal chums. 3 . To my street as neighbors. :r ~L-h l4.. To employment in my occupation in my country. 5. To citizenship in my country. 6. As a visitor only to my country. '7. Would exclude from my country. The similarity between some of the items on the above scale and several of the statements in our two scales is ob- viouS. Contrasting the Bogardus instrument with our Jewish Scale, it should be noted that our most "difficult" item-- that Of Jews in the neighborhood-~ranks as the third most intense item on the Bogardus scale. From this it may be conCl’leed that some of the adolescents who can be classified \ "Fati In the Bogardus usage, ."social-distance" refers to the " see Bugs of a race on a qualitative scale of social acceptance; Bogarogardus, E.L., gp_.g_;_t_.., p. 261.. For a cr1t1c1sm of the ‘- (11.15 technique see Lapiere and Farnsworth, Social P 8) %(New York: McGraw-Hill Book 00., 193 p- 233- \fx 0 as "tolerant" tow1rds the social nearness of Jews on our scale would probably not receive so high a classification if a similar categorization were employed by Bogardus, since many who responded tolerantly to the "neighborhood" item W’Rlld perhaps reSpond intolerantly to the Bomirdus "kinship" item. Our ”easiest" Jewish question--"send the Jews back to Palestine"--and the least intense Bogardus item--"would exclude from my Country".--are roughly comparable. A similar contrast may be noted between the Negro social- distance scale uerived here and the Bogardus instrument. Again, our most difficult Neer item of "take orders from a Negro" is not nearly as "difficult" as the kinship item utilized by Bogardus. This comparison, therefore, indicates that the Bogardus scale measures social-distance sentiments over a broader range than do either of our two social-distance scales. This observation must be kept in mind in any sub- SeQUent discussion of those respondents classified as ’f t01erant" towards soc ial-distanc e. CLASSIFICATION OF OPINION-STATEl-iENT INTO SITUATIONAL CATEGORIES We are now in a position to group the various items “1113 ed in the questionnaire into specific situational categories. Since the items in question deal with both Negroes and Jews, there will be a set of categories for each of these groups - 1% Social-Distance Categories. The Guttman technique indi . . . . cates that 5 JeWish and 5 .‘qur0 items each pertain to a Si;ni‘lf . I O O O 31" symbolic Situation or issue for these respective \n \J minorities. It is on this basis that these items can be said to constitute distinct situational oitejories. Those repre~ sent the only categories in this study involving a multiplicity of items. is a result,it is necessary to classify the adoles— cent subjects according to their responses to this issue of social-distance. A respondent indicating none or one intolerant response to any of the five items (Negro or Jewish) is therefore considered as "tolerant". Two or three intolerant responses constitute a classification of "intermediate"; whereas four or five unfavorable roSpnnses makes the reSpondent "intolerant" in terms of his or her willingness to accept sore or less close social interaction with Jews or Negroes. Table 9 indicates the frequency distribution of cases in these three classes for both the Negro.and Jewish "social- distance" categories. It will be noted that relatively few respondents manifested predominantly "intolerant" social- distance sentiments towards the Jews as contrasted to the intolerant sentiments manifested towards the Negroes in this category. TABLE 9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION AS TO SOCIAL-DISTANCE ACCORDING TO TOLERANCE OR INTOLEHANCE OF RESPONSES Classification ‘Negro Jewish Q£_Responses No. Percent No. Percent Tolerant 72 30.9 122 I 52-3 Intermediate 75 ‘ 32-2 83 35.6 Intolerant 86 36-9 28 12-1 Totals -33 IOO 23 IOU The Stereotype Categgries. Lexical ana ysis of the opinion-statement items which proved to be "non-scalable‘ H H) H o (D CL revealed that three of these five items could be class“ as pertaining to "stereotype-issues" regarding the minorities in question. The items in question being the statements which state that "Jews act the same",'ers are honest, warm and friendly", and "Negroes are lazy and ignorant." Because of the fact that there are only two such Jewish stereotype items and one Negro item, it was decided for purposes of further analysis to treat each of these items as constituting a separate situational category (viz., the Jewish items consti- tute two separate "stereotype" categories, not one). The "Sacrifice" Category. The remaining "non-scalable" Jewish item is the opinion-statement reading, "Thousands of Jewish people have sacrificed unselfishly and heroically to make America great." It is obvious that this statement refers to an issue which cannot be considered as either "social- distance" or 'stereotype." This item will therefore stand as a disparate category which--for the want of a better name-- will be called the "sacrifice" category. The "Africa" Category. Similarily the remaining Negro item which states that, "Sending the Negroes back to Africa is a poor way to improve American civilization," is considered a disparate category called here the "Africa"category. In each of these above categories (viz., the stereotype, "Sacrifice" and "Africa" categories) the responses will be ClaSsified as "tolerant" and "intolerant." Where a response 5.7) of "cannot quite agree" occurs, this is treated as an "intol- erant" response.1 The Pleasantness Categories. The "pleasantness" scales referred to earlier will be considered in this study as constituting still other "situational-categories" for both Negroes and Jews (See Chapter II). The classification of responses for these items is essentially the same as indicated in Table 2 of the second Chapter. To summarize,we have,therefore,five‘"situational-cate- gories" for Jews, and four such categories for Negroes. The Jewish categories being: I. The social-distance category (5 items), 2. and 3. The stereotype-categories (2 such categories of 1 item each). h. The sacrifice category (1 item). 5. The pleasantness category (1 item of scaled responses). The Negro categories being: 1. The social-distance category (5 items). 2. The stereotype category (1 itan- 3. The Africa category (I itemL, A. The Negro pleasantness category (1 item of scaled responsesL The Purpose of the Situational Categories. There are Several reasons as to why the items of the questionnaire should be categorized in this way. First, such a classification indicates that these items do not pertain to either Jews or 1See supra Chapter II p.33 Negroes in the abstract. is a result, the utility of employing reSponses to such items in order to measure a linear attitude towards either of those two minorities is dubious. Second, this categorization is an attempt to simp- lify further analysis of the reSponses to these items. The next chapter attempts to discover whether the responses to these categories are related. The extent of the relationships manifested will be indicative of the degree to which these responses are functions of a "generalized" attitude to these minorities. 61 CHAPTER IV THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN RESPONSES TO THE "SITUATIONRL-CATEGORIES" In this chapter we inquire into the relationships between responses to the situational-categories. There are at least three aSpects to this problem. The first, is to see which categories of reSponses are associated and which are not. The second is to compare the various obtained degrees of associa- tion, and the third, to indicate the extent to which the res- ponses to the various categories are dependent and/or inde- pendent . cher Studies. There has been little in the way of research to determine the associatiOn between opinions of people to various racial issues. The majority of studies implicitly assume that such opinions are in fact directly and functionally related, in that they are supposedly mani— festations of a general predisposing "state"of the individual-- i.e., an attitude. Where inquiries of this type have been undertaken, there are indications that the racial sentiments Of individuals are to some extent independent. Gruesser, in a study of the attitudes of Catholic school Children towards Jews, found that even those children who scored "highly tolerant" on a Grice scale, seemed to hold the 62 l prevailing unfavorable stereotypes of Jews as a group. Ratz and Braly, indicate that the rank ordering of certain ethno-racial groups according to the unfavorableness of traits attributed to them, is not similar to a rink ordering of such groups on the basis of rCSponses to toe Bogardus social dis- tance scale by the same study group. This incongruence was especially high for Negroes, Jews, and Orientals.2 An unpublished study by Radke shows that children who held a general attitude of dislike and rejection towards Jews and Negroes are more or less without specific stereotype. A Boynton and Kayo, find intolerance among high school students towards questions concerning social equality, but little if any unfavorable notions of stereotypy with regard to the Negro. The Interpretation of ReSponses to the Categories. The analysis of "agree-disagree" types of reSponses, to an item or category, is necessarily difficult. This is due to the fact that we know little about the content of such internal sentiments underlying this type of response by a respondent-—about all we can say is that such a sentiment is favorable or unfavorable if the respondent answers A See Gruesser, M.J., Categorical Viluation of Jews Amogg xiLhOlic Parochial School Children (Washington: Catholic Univ- ersity ofimericanfipress, 1755) 2. S“ hatz, D., and Braly K., "Racial Prejudice and Racial tereotype" Journal of_ibnormal and Social Psychology 30, (1935) pp. 175-193. 3Radke N., "Children's Attitudes Toward Minority Groups" ‘unpublished study) reported in Liooitt, B., and Radke X, "New Trends in the Investigation of Prejudice" Annals of the American ~AQQQ§m1_2tt (March, l9h6) pp. 68-69. . #Boynton, P.L., and Mayo, G.D.,'h Comparison of Certain ,. fittltUdlnal Responses of White and Negro High Schoo Students, ~92£aal_9f Negro Education 11, 1942 pp. 487-49t. 63 tolerantlv er intoleraatly to a category. In the case of the pleasantness category a reaponse can be considered a favorable sentiment to the degree to which the respondent indicates he conceives relationships with the minority group in question as pleasant on the pleasant-unpleasant continuum provided. In the case of the two social-distance categories which are composed of five items each, a resoondent classified as "tolerant" may be considered as holding predominantly "favorable" sentiments toward social-distance issues pertain- ing to the minority group in question. Methodolog . Two situational sentiments may be said to be associated positively if the subjects who respond favorably to one category do likewise to another category; while those who respond unfavorably to the first, respond in a similar way to the second category.1 To be considered acceptable the confidence limits for the observed associations are set at the five-percent level. ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN RESPONSES TO THE JEWISH CATEGORIE83 Associations with "Social-Distance" Responses. Table 10 summarizes the various degrees of association ("T") obtained 1See Hagood, M.J., and Price, D.O., 9p, cit., p. 361 2 The following qualifying adjectives are used to denote probability ranges: .05>p<.Ol moderately significant; .Ol> p >.OOl highly significant; .00177p extremely significant. 31h this and in the following chapter, the Jewish and Nagro data will be discussed in separate sections. The measure 0f association used here is the Tchuperow Coefficient "T". See Hagood,M.J. and Price, D.O.L9p, git. p..371 a. .o>wmsHocH xx I H moanme .4 vacmom< CH pczom mm mms vm>anov ohm mowumfiumpm omen» scans seem moans» mocomcapcoo one .m m. "e ma. up ea. n9 . ea. us cm. as oUHMatomm 4.. save Hove mods modsH Soda em. "9 mm. “B on. «9 em. up as. us saeeemce use :5 .v. a Sod. a Sod a Sad. a so .V a Eta...” smmcom cm. "a ma. "9 0:. up ea. "9 mm. up same we» use sheave Suva Sofia Notes Hoova ma. u . 5H. u om. u 5a. ue 0H. n9 mmocucmmmoam ..... mafia morn.AH SJA mods 86a . F mucmhzmummm OCprmfime Op mowuhmnw . .opo athDOOD UOOELODSMHGZ mmHhOmvumO CH m3®h xomm m3mfi UCQW pm 950% mm mzoh. CH 250% mEouH mocmpmflanamwoom m.m:meH mozr many of the respondents, mean the abandonment of sentiJTlenats which are unfavorable to the economic or political equalrifitfiy of Jews. It becomes therefore problematical whether or ”CTC- :stereotypic conceptions are "rationalizations" of cultJuralnorms of discrimination. TEibles 12 and 13 show the association between responses to th‘3 ttwo stereotype categories and the composite classi- ficatci<3d1 of responses to the social-distance cateqory. Despite una‘F51C31: that there is association here, some 32 per cent of the r . .. . EEEShondents indicate that their reSponses to the "act the same" - , . . . 3L13em are not assOC1ated to their sentiments re_ardins L.) the o , , ‘°C)<3:1al-distance of Jews. Similarly, 21 per cent of the reSp() . . - rlcients show logical "inconSistency" between responses to the "} 1(Dr‘iest, warm and friendly" item and their social-distance TABLE 12 ‘ASSOCIATION BETWEEN, "ACT THE SAUE", AND JEWISH SOCIlL-DISTAUCE v1 Social-Distance Classification "Act the same" Tolerant Intermediate Intolerant Responses No.Jercent No. percent No. percent Tolerant 99 £2.11. 43 18.8 9 3.1+ Intolerant ‘ 21 9.0 39 16.9 19 8.2 No Res;oonsea 2 .9 l .1, -- .. Total 122 52.3 83 36.1. 28 11.6 134.001 T= .13 N: 333 6}. Those in the "No Response"? classification were not included In the computation of the Chi-square. TABLE 13 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "HONEST, WARM AND FRIENDLY" AND JEWISH SOCIAL-DISTANCE —‘ ——_¥ SocialJDiStance Classification Egggggi 3 3am 8c ToTerant Intermediate Intolerant ‘ weeponses No. percent. No. percent No. percent T°1erant 97 1.1.8 32 13.8 6 2.5 IntOlPrant; 22 9.6 51 21.9 22 9.1 N° Respohsea 2 .9 * 5 .z. -- -- 122 52.3 83 36.1 28 11.6 meow T- .42 N= 233 categobseTaiIing to respond to the "honest, warm and friendly" were not included in the computation of the Chi-square. 70 P , .t ‘ ‘ , — , ‘ r v a , x as in CLO else of pleasantness and stereotype the rWfi :3- . ‘ . 'v r s 1' ‘ ‘.- a '\ ‘,*~ . " ‘wr‘ In. . associitioas between Iusponses to the Jewisn sacrilice 1tem VH1 and those of social-distance are low. FableXavfl in APPGWdiX A indicates thltjllper cent of those who rUSponded tolerantly to the sacrifice category, did not receive such a classifi- cation when cross-tabulated as to social-distance. Associations Between Remaining Jewish Categories. Table 14 summarizes the degrees of association between responses to the several Jewish situational-categories. The association of responses between pleasantness, stereotype, and sacrifice and responses to each of the social-distance items has been discussed above. Focusing attention on the other associations in this table, we note that the lowest degrees of association occurs in those cells where pleasantness reSponses are involved. This would tend to establish the validity of utilizing this item as testing a different issue pertaining to Jews, when contrasted with other Opinion items. The relatively high association derived between reSponses to the "act the same" category and responses to the "honest, warm and friendly" category ("T" =.48) is presumably due to the fact that both these categories pertain to stereotype issues. With the exception of this latter association and the relatively high association between "honest, warm and friendly" and composite social-distance reSponse the degrees of association between reSponses of one category and another. (see Table: XXI to XXVII. 7l .mpcopcoamop mo :owmeflmfimmmao ouawpano on» mucomopdmm .n .HH>Nx I HNM mofipme mom .¢ xflpcoom< ca venom on zms one: ponwumEESm weapon coaumwoommm honuo HH< .nmuamco was» :a :302m hamsow>oha coon o>mn museumwpuamwoom up :ooflwaowm: cam :sapcowpm pew .Ehmz .umoconc .cosmm on» pom: pom moanmu cofipmwoommm one .a Hm. up ---, --- --- Hoo. v a =muatotomm= mm. v.9 3. as 333$ a So. Va .1 .3. So. v a Es... .328? mm. «a _ we. as an: mm. :9 89v a So.v So. v a $58 at 85. mm. as mm. ua. mm. as 0H. I9 nmocpcmmmoam 89v a Hoo.v a 30¢ a Ho. v a encamwsomm: chapcownm use cosmm noonmumwa .SLms .pmmcomz one age: -Hmfioomz ammHmoom9¢o AdonedzeHm mmHsmw zmm39mm amzH<9mo onPamsaoca .HHaN op mama mmanme .a xaacmaaa an vcsom on Haw: vo>fipmp ohm mofipmfiuapm omega sown: Scum meanmu zocmwcfipcoo one .a ma. «9 0m. «9 am. as hm. ue «z :mofihm<= 89a 89v a 8.V a 8. v m em. up mm. «9 ON. .9 mm. as ON. .9 =suwa= 89a 8.va 8.vo_ 8. Va 8.v a *2 ma. as ea. aw mm. .9 ma. .9 mmmcscmmmoamc 8. Va 8.v Q So. Va 8.v a cognac nowuumm iMCHESHZM mpcmpsmpmom mooHMoz Scum moanomoumo pm moopwoz pm mochmoz um wmouwoz an moopwoz mpovuo oxme asap“ :oocmumwo1amaoom: msmeH mozaamHa-aleasantness and of social-distance. 1 1.3% 76 .oumSUmlflno on» he COHumosasoo exp cw ooUSHocw no: one: Emma mmmcpcmmmoaa esp on ocoammh on mcwawmm omens .n .onmswmuwno one we cofiumpzesoo one cw monsoamon :pcmmaoaec: kHHQSms: one new: conflnsoo epozik venomoncd mzmszk‘mo momcoammm .m mmmuz mine HQVd 0.0m om N.Nm mm 0.0m Nu mamuoe o. N o. N nu u: newcoamom oz m.H m an In In monommeaacs mamzad m.s OH H.N m m.a m ucmmaafiac: saamsm: m.oa ma 5.5H as H.HH om pcmmmoaac: magaaosom . new pemmmoaa mosflpoEom 0.0 Hm 4.0 mm m.mH om pcmmmmaa saamsms H.N m H.N m o.m s acammmaa msmzaa pcvonogy .oz pcoopom .oz pcoopum‘ .oz homeomooa mmoCQCMmmmam pcapoHOch . oumwomspoch pcmnmaoe ZOHHfiuoo one one: mcowpspwupmwv emapcuotmd one .a m.n its m.m Amy o.e on H.o Ami m.o on m.m Amy ocoz N.mH Ame s.mm Ame m.oH Amy o.mm Ami e.am Ami N.HN ANV Hmsmmo 0.5 has H.mm AHV 4.5 Ass m.mm AHV a.ma Ase o.HN *AHV osmaascH ucmtmaooCH pcmtoaoe pcmcmHOQCH pcmtoaoe omapmuo>mmqm noanmuo>mm pompcoo a.oumfipmspmch no momma rsavcmflnm # Etm3.pmmcomc :osmm ecu po<= nonspcmmwmam m90wpmn ohm one: mCOfiuanprHp mmwucootem wee .m ©.m Aw“ m.©m As“ m.4m AN“ o.mN no» H.¢N Rev N.nH Amv Hmsmmo m.m Am» ©.mH Am» 0.5H AH“ 0.0 Amy H.m Amy w.m eflavmquHucH fiOHDMhO>mMCD POuMHUOEmeUCH OHDth>mwm ”GweanOOCH ODMHUOEhwufiH uflmLOHOH pompCOO mmmdpcmmmvdm,op meconom cowumOHmfimmmHo oocmumfleuamwoom mo ease . a.eo "Inuit ”am who and what Jews are -- a confusion which does not exist with respect to Negroes. There does not appear to be significant association between Jewish contact and responses to "sacrifice", nor is there statistical association between extent of Negro contact and reSponses to the Negro categories of "lazy" and "Africa." A second related aspect of the problem was to determine where contact is associated with a particular sentiment, whether this association differs from other associations between contact and situational-sentiment. The "goodness of fit" instrument utilized for this purpose shows that the ‘- association between Jewish contact and responses to pleasantness differs significantly from the associations between Jewishgs» contact and "act the same", and Jewish contact and "honest, warm and friendly." Similarily, the associations between Negro contact and responses to the Negro category of "pleasant- ness" differs significantly from the association between Negro 100 contact and the composite classification regarding Negro l social-distance. No significant difference was found between the assoc- iation of Jewisn contact and responses to the "act the same" category and Jewish contact and resnonses to "hOnest, warm and friendly." This indicates that both these items test two similar sentimentSwith regard to Jews. 25'». f 1:- Vi." p w w. . Conclusions. The above findings not only show that the (14:: .' approach of relating contact to the various sentiments which persons hold toward minority groups is a meaningful mode of EFL“ 'g;. i analysis,but also serves to substantiate the hypothesis that the categories derived here pertain to differential opinion dimensions. If all these categories had been used merely as indices of a general attitude towards Jews and towards Negroes, the complex role of contact in racial prejudice would not have been evident. 101 CHAPTER VI SUMAARY AND CONCLUSIONS' FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 5,. 5% This study conceives of racial prejudice as a subjective :fi configuration, involving discrete sentiments (i.e., feelings, a beliefs, prediSpositions, etc.), as well as a general attitude ; towards any specific racial or ethnic minority. This point of i_ view constitutes,therefore, an extension of the attitudinal approaCh which considers racial-prejudice as being simply a favorable or unfavorable attitude, varying only in linear fashion from one person to another. And, this in turn implies that racial-opinions are of a linear nature. As a result the research techniques utilized in race-attitude studies have, to a great extent,obfuscated the actual structure of racial- opinions. The present study focusses itself directly on the expression of racial Opinions. Its purpose is to ascertain the structures manifested by such opinions in order to determine whether the canception of racial-prejudice which has been put forward in this thesis is justifiable. The data utilized was drawn from a recent study of a midwestern group of high-school students. The principle findings from this study are: 102 l. Relatively few of the adolescent respondents showed complete consistency of racial-opinion in terms of favorableness or unfavorableness. 2. A Guttman analysis of the responses to the Opinion-statements utilized indicates that only some Of the Opinion-statements fall along a linear continuum. Within both sets Of Opinion-statements (i.e., the respective Jewish and Negro Opinion-statements) at least four dimensions or categories of opinion were dis- cerned in each. 3. The coefficient of contingency test indicated that the categories Of racial-Opinion derived were not altogether mutually exclusive. On the other hand, there was evidence available, on the basis Of the responses to these cate- gories, that for mEUYy‘ these categories were functionally independent dimensions of Opinion. h. A chi-square test Of association showed that the.frequency of contact with Jews or Negroes is differentially related to the various cate- gories Of opinion Which are held towards sucn groups. Implications as to the Nature Of Prejudice. While at all times wary of the hazards Of imputing subjective aSpects Of behavior on the basis of rudimentary evidence, the above find- ings may be considered as indicating that first, only a small percentage Of the respondents can be considered as absolute "creatures Of attitude." Second, the various dimensions or categories Of Opinions derived indicates the existence of relatively discrete situational-sentiments towards Negroes and Jews. The fact that these sentiments are not mutually exclusive, however, shows that a general attitude towards these minorities may be involved within the prejudice config- urations. Finally, there are suggestions that frequency of contact with minorities has differential effects on the a}, perv—- ‘7.’ ‘_‘" in can-“ *‘M’Q .& _ 103 Virious sentiments which are held towards ethnic or racial groups 0 Corollary finding . Some of the information resulting from this study-group examined within its community setting are: Responses to statements dealing with the supposed characteristics of the Jew tended to be more intolerant when contrasted to responses of those statements which per- tained to situations in which it was asked whether the presence of Jews was desirable or undesirable. On the other hand,responses to the Negro statements indicate that the adolescent respondents generally reject derogatory stereotypes for Negroes but show intolerance to statements dealing with the desirablity of the presence of Negroes in certain situations. The responses to the Jewish statements indi— cates the existence of some confusion on the part of the subjects as to what c0nstitutes a ."correct" answer to these statements. Responses to the Negro items,however, indicate that senti- ments towards Negroes are more or less crystalli- zed among these adobescents. In general the responses indicate that the climate of opinion is more favorable towards Jews than towards Negroes for this adolescent study-group. The over all responses to both the Negro and Jewish Opinion-statements tended to be pre- dominantly in the tolerant direction. In terms of previous studies of this community this was unanticipated. It may be partially explained as resulting from the instruments utilized and the place where the questionnaire was adminsitered. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY In several respects the data used in this study is limited in terms of its adequacy for testing the basic assump— tion that prejudice is a complexity of subjective factors and forces and not merely a single linear attitude. Some of these limitations are: l. The Maple County data pertains to a midwestern high school group. It is therefore entirely possible that the findings here are pertinent only to this particular universe. 2. No intensive case-material is available to ascertain the validity of the subjective analysis undertaken here. As a result, the concepts of subjective disposition put forward are of a highly tenuous and heuristic nature. 3. The Jewish and Negro Opinion-statements used in the study are too few in number to enable us to arrive at an adequate description of the structure of racial opinion regarding these minorities for this particular study-group. h. The opinion-statements used are of the attitude testing variety rather than being types of statements which represent the actual opinions which exist in Johnstown. 5. The index of frequency of contact used may not accurately portray the actual amount of contact which may have occurred between the respondents with Jews or Negroes. It will be seen that some of the above limitations operate to structure the racial opinion responses, which are derived, to manifest linearity and consistency. The fact that arnore complex structure of opinion was discerned in this study gives confidence to the configurational conception of racial prejudice put forward in this thesis. Since several different dimensions of categories of racial Opinion are manifested by individuals towards a given minority, this implies the fins- coexistence Of several subjective factors and forces towards minorities within peOple. The exact nature of this subjective onfiguration has yet to be studied and established. This indicates the use of intensive depthanalysis as well as the improvement of objective instruments for further research in .this area. 2 .4? _ T "' T: Elmloommg Literature Cited in the Thesis. 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Adorno,T.N¢ z«‘rankel- Brunswik, B., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford 1950 R. N., The Authoritarian Personality, New York: $3 Harper and Bros. . . Berry, B., 1951 Race Relations. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. Bogardus, E. S., 1928 Immigration and Race Attitudes. Boston: D.C. Heath and Co. {4.1 V"" 1“" "f.."“..‘ ‘12.; L'h‘ '.T‘i"' p 'd- I Coutu, W. 1949 Emergent Human Nature. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf. Gruesser, M. J. 1950 Categorical Valuation of Jews Among Catholic Parochial School Children (flashington: Catholic University of American Press . Hartley, E. L. l9h6 Problems in Prejudice. New York. King's Crown Press. Hinckley, E. B., 1930 The Measurements of Social Attitudes. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. Klineberg, 0., ‘ 1952 Tensions Affecting International Understandings. New York: Social Seience Research Council. Lapiere, R., and Farnsworth, P. R., 1936 Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Lindesmith, A. R., and Strauss, A. L. 1950 Social Psychology. New York: The Dryden Press. Lundberg, G., 1939 Egundations of Sociology. New York: The MacMillen COO ' 117 1933 Public Opinion 3nd The Individual. New York: Hirper and Bros. Myrdal, G., p 1944 An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Kodern Democracy. New York: szrp r 3nd Bros. 2 vols. Newcomb, T. M., 1950 Social Psychology. New York: The Dryden Press. Rose, A. M., (ed) 1951 Racial Prejudice and Discrimination. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. R058, A. :40 i 1947 Studies In The Reduction of Prejudice. Chicago: American Counci1 on Race-Relations. Sherif, M., 1948 An Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper and Bros. Simpson, G. A. and Yinger, J. M., 1953 Racial and Cultural Minorities. New York: Harper andflBros. Sletto, R. F. 1937 Construction of Personality Scales by the Criterion Internal Consistency. Minneapolis: Sociology Press. Stouffer, S. A., et. a1. 1949- 50 Measurement and Prediction Vol. IV of Studies in Social Psychology in World War II. ed., Osborn, F., et. a1. 4 vols. Princeton: Pr1nceton University Press. pp. 125-149. Thurstone, L. L., and Chave, E. J. , 1929 The Measurement of Attitude. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Williams, R. H., 1947 The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions. New York: Social SciencefiResearch Council. Articles Ackerman, N., and Jahoda, M., 1948 "The Dynamic Basic of Anti-Semitic Attitudes." Psychoanalytical Quarterly, 17, 1948. '9 can- ‘ .34 T-“'—'_ 0"? ~— I‘ ‘. I E, | I V “.4: 4“ ,;. v- 108 Allpc)rt , G. "i. ’ +‘ 1945 "Catharsis and the Reduction of Prejudice." Journal of Social IssuesL December, 1945, pp. 3-10 1935 "Attitudes" in Hurchison 0., (ed). A Handbook of Social-Psychology. Worchester: Clark University Press. , and Kramer, B. N., 1946 |'Some Roots of Prejudice." Journal of Social- Psychology, 22, 194b, pp. 22-25: Bain, R., 1943 "Sociopathy of Anti-Semitism." Sociometry, 6, 1943. Bettelheim, B., and Janowitz, M. 1949 Ethnic Tolerance: A Function of Social and Personal Control." American Journal of Sociology, 55, 1949. Bolton, E. B., 1935 "Effects of Knowledge Upon Attitudes Towards the Negro." Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 1935, pp. 63-90T Boynton, P. L., and Mayo, D., 1942 "A Comparison of Certain Attitudinal Responses of White and Negro High School Students." Journal of Negyo Education, 1942, pp. 487-494. . Brookover, W. P., and Holland, J. B., 1952 "An Enquiry Into the Meaning of Minority Group Attitude Expressions." American Sociological Review, April 1952, pp. 196:202. Diggins, B., 1932 "A Statistical Study of National Prejudice." Character Education. (Washington, D.C.), 1932. Dollard, J., 1947 "Hostility and Fear in Social Life." in Newcomb, T.M., and Hartley, E.M., (ed). Readings In Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1947. ' Faris, R. B., 1928 "Attitude and Behavior." American Journal of Sociology, 34, September, 1928, pp. 271-231. Gordon, R. L., . . 1952 "Attitude and the Definition of the Situat1on." American Sociological Review. 17, February 1952, pp' 50-530 109 Guttman, L., 1944 "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data." American Sociological Review. 9, 1944, pp. 139-150. Harlan, H. H., 1942 "Factors Affecting Attitudes Towards Jews." . American Sociological Review, 7, 1942, pp. 810-827. Hinckley, E. D., 1932 "The Influence of Individual Opinion on Construction of an Attitude Scale." Journal of Social Psychology. 3, 1932. pp. 283-296. Horowitz, E. L., 1930 "Development of Attitude Towards Negroes." Archives of Psychology, 1930, No. 194. Katz, D. and Braly, K., "Racial Prejudice and Racial Stereotypes." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30. pp. 175-195. Kirkpatrick, C., 1936 ' "Assumptions and Methods in Attitude Measurement." American Sociological Review, 1, February 1936. Kramer, B. M., 1936 "Dimensions of Prejudice." Journal of Social Psychology. 33, 1949. Kutner, B., Wilkin, A., and Yarrow, S., "Verbal Attitude and Overt Behavior Involving Racial Prejudice." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, pp. 649-52 Lapiere, H., 1934 "Attitudes Versus Actions." Social Forces, 13, Lickert, R., 1932 "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitude." Archives of Psychology, No. 140, 1932. Lohman, G. D., Reitzes, D. C., 1952 "Note on Race-Relations in a Mass Society." American Journal of Sociology, 58, November 1952. Long, H. H., 1951 ."Race Prejudice and Social Change." American Journal of Sociology, 52, 1951, pp. 1 - . 110 A Luchins, d. 8., 1950 "Personality and Prejudice: A Critique." Journal of Social Psychology, August 195), pp. 79—94. Mclver, R. M., , 1940 "The Imputation of Motives." American Journal of Sociology, 46, July 194), pp. 1-12 Merton, R. K. 9 1940 "Fact and Factitiousness in Ethnic Opinionnaires." American Sociological Review, 5, February 1940 Nettler, G., and Golding, E. H., 1940 "The Measurement of Attitudes Towards the Japanese in America." American Journal of Sociology, 52, July 1946, pp. 31-39 0:17 4A Petegorsky, D. N., 1941 "The Strategy of Hatred." Antioch Review, I, - September 1941. a In. Radke LL,’ E 1946 -"Chi1dren's Attitude Toward Minority Groups." (unpublished study) resorted in Lippett C., and Radke, M., "New Trends in the Investigation of Prejudice." Annals of the American Academy, 244, Marcy 1946, pp. 168-169. Semelson, B., 1945 "Mrs. Jones' Ethnic Attitudes: A Ballot Analysis." Jour al of Abnormal Social Psychology, 40, 1945, pp. 05:215. Stone, G. P. and Form, Wm., 1953 "Instabilities in Status: The Problem of Hierarchy in the Community Study of Status Arrangements." American Sociological Review, 18, 1953, pp. 149-172. Wang, C. K. A., . ' 1932 "Suggested Criteria for Writing Attitude Statements." Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 1932, p. 367. Miscellaneous ' Brookover, N. B., 32. al. 1953 "Dynamics offiPrejudice Among Maple County Youth," Mimeographed report of the Social Research Serv1ce, East Lansing, Michigan State College, 1953. ' 111 Closson, E. E., Y i "A Study of the Factor of Information in Race Prejudice" unpublished Haster'S'Taesis Iowa State University, 193). Bpely, D. G., 1953 "AdolescentyRole Relationships in the Dynamics of Prejudice." Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State College, 1953. Gibson, D. L., st 31. F 1953 "A Study of Social Strength in Mental Health." Social Research Service, East Lansing, Michigan State College, 1953. .wfiazr 4V1u‘nkb.‘ Holland, J. B., 1950 Attitudes toward Minority Groups In Relgtion to Rural Social Structure. Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, Michigan State College, 1950. ' '1‘" “In"- Vener, A. M., 1953 Stratification Aspects_of ClothingImnortangg. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State College, 1953. 1221:1212: 24..- Tables Referred to but not Appearing in the Text. APRhlilé 5.2- Tables Referred to but not Appearing in the Text. 112 TABLE I Abe} DC I AT ION BE'TK'IEEN J3 I'J I I] H 1“ L 1‘3 AS CIT; SSS AND IT “1'. --~ ~ , “w 7" v- ,I\ , ! JLJD IN THE NLLGHBJRHQOD Responses to Responses to ”Neighborhood" Item Pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always PIeasant 27 g 35 Usually Pleasant 36 30 66 Sometimes Pleasant and Sometimes Unpleasant 21 26 113 Totals 120 94 211 p < .03 T: 016 TABLE II ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JEWISH PLEASANTNESS AND "JEWS AS ' DOCTORS, LAWYERS AND TEACHERS" “- IResponses to Responses to Frdoctors, lawyers" item Illeasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totalsfi_ Always pleasant 28 7 35 Usually pleasant AS 21 66 fixnetimes pleasant & Ekxnetimes unpleasant 22 25 113 Totals 132 82 21h p < .02 T=l7 TABLE III ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JEWISH PLEASANTNESS AND "JEWS AT PARTIES" ‘ ReSponses to Responses to "Jews at parties" item fflgaaisantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 32 3 35 Usually pleasant [+7 19 66 Sometimes pleasant 8c Sozn etimes unpleasant _6_2 gg, 112 Totals 1&8 66 214 p (1.01 T= .20 113 TABLE IV ASSOCIATION BE SEES JEIISH DLEAS'“TNnSs 13D "SEND JEMS BACK TO PALSSTINB" RESponses to Responses to "FaIestine"'item. pleasantness .1 Tolerant Intolerant Totals AIways pleasant . 27 8 35 Usually pleasant 36 3Q 65 Sometimes pleasant & Sometimes unpleasant 57 2Q l1} Totals 120 94 214 ‘ p< .02 T= .17 3., K, . TABLE V ' ASSOCIATION BETfiEEN PLEASANTNESS "JEWS IN RESTAURANT" AND Responses to Responses to "Jewish restaurant" item pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals AIways pleasant 33 2 35 Usually pleasant 60 ' 6 66 Sometimes pleasant & Sometimes unpleasant 29 22 113 Totals 133 31 214 p 41.05 T= .15 TABLE VI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "ACT THE SAME" "JEWS IN NEIGHBORHOOD" AND "Act the same IReSponses to "neighborhood";Item responses" Tolerant 'Intolerant Totals Tolerant 103 . 49 152 Intolerant _22 22 _§Q Totals 123 104 232 p<:.05 T= .14 TABLE XVIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SACRIFICE AND M"JEWS AT PARTIES" REEEE;E§§§7§T""I ‘Responses to "Par€I§§"—I3em ‘\ 2§acrifice" items Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 102 33 135 Intolerant _29, 25 _§& Totals 152 67 219 p<<..05 T= .17 119 TABLE XIX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SACRIFICE AND "SEND JEWS BACK TO PALESTINE" p ,..._ai-’v’ 1‘ r-.. .~ --"N-V4\ Responses to Responses to FPalestine"witem "sacrifice" item Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 106 31 137 Intolerant V _29 24 _§4 I Totals 156 65 221 p .01 T= .19 TABLE XX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "SACRIFICE" AND "JEWS IN RESTAURANTS RESponses to Responses to Jewish restaurafiffi item flgacrifice" item ’ Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 128 9 137 Intolerant '_é5 2Q ._§& Totals 192 29 221 p .001 T= .25 11% TABLE XIX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SACRIFICE AND "SEND JEWS BACK TO PALESTINE" Responses to Responses to "Palestine";item "sacrifice" item Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 106 31 137 Intolerant ' _29 34 _§4 / Totals 156 65 221 p .01 T= .19 TABLE XX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "SACRIFICE" AND "JEWS IN RESTAURANTS RESponses to 7 Responses to Jewish restaurafif" item "sacrifice" item ' Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 128 9 137 Intolerant 1 ‘_QA 39 .35 Totals 192 29 221 p .001 Ta .25 119 TABLE XIX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SACRIFICE AND "SEND JEWS BACK TO PALESTINE" Responses to Responses to "Talestine";item "sacrifice" item Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 106 31 137 Intolerant A _29 34 _§4 I Totals 156 65 221 p .01 T= .19 TABLE XX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "SACRIFICE" AND "JEWS IN RESTAURANTS RESponses to ReSponseS to Jewish restaurafi?" item "sacrifice" item ' Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 128 9 137 Intolerant ‘_é§ g9 .fifi Totals 192 29 221 p .001 T= .25 11f} TABLE XXI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JEWISH PLEASANTNESS AND "ACT THE SAME" Pleasantness Responses to "Act the same" responses Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant '- 32 3 35 Usually pleasant 48 18 66 Sometimes pleasant & sometimes unpleasant 6} 29 11} Ema Totals 143 71 214 5 p <;.001 T- .23 TABLE XXII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JEWISH PLEASANTNESS AND A "HONEST, WARM AND FRIENDLY" 3*— Pleasantness IResponses to "Honest, warm and Triendly" reSponses Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 30 5 35 Usually pleasant 41 25 66 Sometimes pleasant & sometimes unpleasant _26 26 112 Total 127 86 213 p < .001 T: 023 TIBLEIXXIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN JEWISH PLEASANTNESS AND SACRIFICE h... Bleasantness Responses to "sacrifice" item .£2§223§§§__ Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 24 9 33 Usually pleasant 42 22 64 Sometimes pleasant & sometimes unpleasant 6O 42‘ 102 Totals 126 74 200 p < .001 Ta .22 TABLE XXIV ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "ACT THE SAME" AND "HONEST, WARM AND FRIENDLY" "Act the sameYT "Honest, Warm and Friendly" responses reSponses Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 114 37 151 Intolerant 20 28 78 Totals 134 95 229 p < .001 T= .48 TABLE XXV ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "ACT THE SAME" AND JEWISH "SACRIFICE Responses to Responses to "sacrifice" item "Act the same" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 105 41 146 Intolerant 21 4g 73 Totals 136 83 219 p< .001 T: 029 TABLE XXVI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "HONEST, WARM, AND FRIENDLY" AND JEWISH "SACRIFICE" Responses to "Ronest 'Responses to "sacrifice"Iitems Warm & Friendly" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 94 36 130 Intolerant 4} 48 21 Totals 137 84 221 p < .001 T= .25 TABLE XXVII ASSOCIATION BETNEEN "SACRIFICE" AND JEWISH SOCIAL-DISTANC Responses to i=rISOCIJIJDISEance cfassificafiion "sacrifice, Tolerant Inter Intolerant Totals Tolerant 90 35 10 135 Intolerant 24 42 42 84 Totals 114 80 25 219 . p. (.001. T= .31 TABLE XIVIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND "TAKE ORDERS FROM NEGROES" Responses to Responses to "take orders" item pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 8 9 17 Usually pleasant 39 40 79 Sometimes pleasant & sometimes unpleasant 35 78 113 Usually unpleasant 3 18 21 Totals 85 145 230 p<.01 T8 .18 TABLE XXIX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND "NEGROES AT RESTAURANTS" RESponses to IResponees to "restaurants? items ppleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 10 7 17 Usually pleasant 47 32 79 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 41 73 114 Usually unpleasant 2 18 21 Totals -101 130 231 p<.001 T= .25 I TABLE XXX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO LEASANTNESS AND "NEGROES IN SNIMMINO POOLS” Responses to ReSponses to "swimming" item p4easantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 7 10 17 Usually pleasant 48 31 79 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 51 63 114 Usually unpleasant 5 16 21 Totals 111 120 231 p< .01 Ta .17 TABLE XXXI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS ' AND "NEGROES AT PARTIES" RESponsesto ”Response to "parties" item pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant~~ Totals Always pleasant lO_ ' 7 17 Usually pleasant 51 28 79 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 45 68 113 Usually unpleasant 2 14 21 Totals 113 117 230 p< .01 T= .19 TABLE XXXII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND "NEGROES AT CHURCH" ——w Responses to Responses to "churcE"Iitem pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant l3 4 17 Usually pleasant 54 25 79 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 72 42 114 Usually unpleasant 2 12 21 Totals 148 83 231 _ J (.11 LNot significant) TABLE XXXIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "NEGROES ARE LAZY" AND "TAKE ORDERS FROM NEGROES" 1 2.3 Responses to I Responses to "take orders" item "lazy" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 72 94 166 Intolerant ‘42 53 68 Totals 87 147 234 p < .01 T8 .20 TABLE XXXIV ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "NEGROES ARE LAZY" AND "NEGROES AT RESTAURANTS" ReSponses to 'Responses to"?estaurants"item "lazy" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 81 86 167 Intolerant 46 52 68 Totals . 97 138 235 p< .01 T8 .23 TABLE XXXV ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "NEGROES ARE LAZY" AND "NEGROES IN SWIMMING POOLS" Responses to ‘IReSponses to "swimming" item * "lazy" Tolerant Intolerant _ Totals Tolerant 9O 77 167 Intolerant _22 . _4é " _§§ Totals 112 123 235 p< .01 T= .20 124 TABLE XXXVI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "NEGROES ARE LAZY" AND "NEGROES AT PARTIES" RESponses to Rgsponses to "parties" item "lazy" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 94 72 166 Intolerant 2O 48 68 Totals 114 120 234 p< .01 T= .25 TABLE XXXVII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "NEGROES ARE LAZY" AND "NEGROES AT CHURCH" Responses to Responses to "church" item "lazy" Tolerant Intolerant Totals #4 Tolerant 116 51 167 Intolerant 34 34 68 Totals 150 85 235 p < 001 T= .26 TABLE XXXVIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "SEND THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA" AND TAKE ORDERS FROM NEGROES" h. RESponses to ‘ReSponses to "take orders" items "Africa" Tolerant .__ Intolerant Totals Tolerant 73 110 183 Intolerant _l& .21 —2l Totals 87 147 234 p< .10 (Not significant) 125 TABLE XXXIX ASSOCIATION BETJEEN "SEND THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA" AND "NEGROES AT RESTAURANTS" Responses to Responses to "restaurants" item "Africa" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 93 91 18h Intolerant 9 42 51 Totals 102 133 235 p< .01 T= .27 TABLE XL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "SEND THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA" AND "NEGROES IN SWIMMING POOLS" Responses to Responses to "swimming" item "Africa" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 10a 79 183 Intolerant 10 51 51 Totals 11h 120 23k p< .001 T== .21 TABLE XLI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN "SEND THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA" AND "NEGROES AT PARTIES" Responses to ' Responses to""Eartf€s" item "Africa" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 104 79 183 Intolerant _lg '_51 _21 ' 1 Totals 114 120 234 p< .001 T= .30 TABLE XLII ASSOCIATION EETNEEN "SEND THE NEONOES BA”K TO AFRICA" AND "NEGROES IN CNUROH" r—J Responses to Responses to "church" items "Africa" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant 126 58 184 Intolerant 2g 21 51 Totals 150 85 235 p < .01 T= .18 TABLE XLIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND "NEGROES ARE LAZY" Responses to Responses to "lazyWIitem pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 1h 3 17 Usually pleasant 65 1h 79 7 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 73 A1 11h Usually unpleasant 12 _2’ 21 Totals 16h 67 231 . ;)<:.02 T= .16 TABLE XLIV ASSOCIATION BETWEEN NEGRO PLEASANTNESS AND "SEND THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA" ReSponses to Responses to "africa" item pleasantness Tolerant Intolerant Totals Always pleasant 13 h 17 Usually pleasant. 68 ll 79 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 88 26 11h Usually unpleasant 12 8 21 Totals 182 L9 231 p <'.10 (Not significant) TABLE XLV ASSOCIATION BETNEEN "NEGROES ARE LAZY" AND "SEND THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA" 1;" Responses to Responses to "Africa" item "lazy" Tolerant Intolerant Totals Tolerant lhh 23 167 Intolerant 50 28 68 Totals 134 51 235 p < .001 T= .30 TABLE XLVI ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF JEWISH CONTACT AND JEWISH SOCIAL-DISTANCE Type OTC Social-Distance Classification Contact Tolerant Intermediate Intolerant Totals Intimate A9 25 3 77 Casual 59 #5 16 120 None '13 12 7 32 Totals 121 82 26 229 p <: .06 (Not significant) TABLE XLVII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF JEWISH CONTACT AND JEWISH PLEASANTNESS “ I _ Responses to Type of contact "pleasantness" Intimate Casual None Totals Always pleasant 20 10 A 3A Usually pleasant 25 3A A 63 Sometimes pleasant & sometimes unpleasant 22 66 13 111 Totals 77 110 21 208 1)<:.02 128 TABLE XLVIII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF JEWISH CONTACT AND "ACT THE SAME" Type of IResponses to "act the same" Contact Tolerant Intolerant Totals Intimate 59 17 76 Casual 77 AL 121 None 15 18 22 Totals 150 79 229 p<.01 TABLE XLIX ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF JEWISH CONTACT AND "HONEST, WARM AND FRIENDLY" Type 01 ReSponses to "honest, warm and friendly" contact Tolerant Intolerant Totals Intimate 57 18 75 Casual 65 55 120 None 12 20 32 Totals 13h 93 227 p < .001 TABLE L ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF JEWISH CONTACT AND "SACRIFICE TS733=3T=3====a========TRiiiiiii?RiTRfiEREEEFIEEE=============== Eagntact Tolerant Intolerant Totals Intimate 53 22 75 Casual 65 L5 110 None .16; _1_6. .12. Totals 13A 83 217 p <1.11 (Not significant) ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF TABLE LI nryvf'hf, (1 UK: .! L (\‘J NEGRO AND NEGRO SOCIAL-DISTANCE Type Of Social-Distance CIdSLifIEaCiOH contact Tolerant Intermediate Intolerant Totals Intimate 33 21 23 76 Casual fig '_6 6; 156 Totals 72 77 83 232 p <:.02 TABLE LII ASSOCIATION BETWEEN TYPE OF NEGRO CONTACT AA NEGRO PLEASANTNESS Responses to Type 6? contact pleasantness Intimate Casual Total Always pleasant l6 7 17 Usually pleasant 29 50 79 Sometimes pleasant and sometimes unpleasant 29 8A 113 Usually unpleasant _§ 13 21 - Totals 76 154 230 p