IIIII III‘ I III II I III NH I PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES AND VALUES IN 1968 II I ‘III I .4 :35 I] (JD—3N Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GEORGE FRANKLIN BISHOP 1969 ‘919 J n , f,“ __, -MH' " A” Q: ‘ ’ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII., g I 31293 011019860 ., “3’” W I 21...... a . a” i mi“. II" v ampmc av .1 IIIIAII & SMIS' I :‘ 390K BINDERY INC. 1 LIBRARY manure IIIII' ABSTRACT PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES AND VALUES IN 1968 by GEORGE F. BISHOP The present study involved a test of Rokeach's two value-~freedom and equalitz--model of political ideologies among American liberals, moderates, and conservatives during the 1968 presidential campaign. Approximately 120 politically active, adult supporters of presidential candidates MbCarthy, Humphrey, Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and'wallace were administered Rokeach's Value Survey and a Political Preference Survey during the month of July, 1968. The results obtained strongly supported Rokeach's two value model of ideologies. As hypothesized, supporters of presidential candidates MbCarthy and Humphrey each exhibited a liberal value orientation by placing a high value on both freedom and eguality; supporters of candidates Rockefeller and Nixon each showed a moderate value orientation by placing a high value on freedom and an.intermediate value on eguality; and supporters of candidates Reagan and wallace each showed a conservative value orientation by placing a high value On freedom.and low value on equality. A cross-sample comparison was made with a similar study conducted by Rokeach in April, 1968. The differences between the results of the two studies for the values freedom and gguality were discussed in terms of differences in the type of samples used in each study. George F. BishOp In addition to the hypothesized findings for freedom and e ualit , several other values were found to differentiate significantly among the six presidential groups. Among_these were the values salvation, family security, and national security. The latter value differences were discussed in term of the traditionalist value system associated with American conservatism. Overall similarities and differences in the value systems of the six presidential groups; similarities and differences in orientations toward socialist, communist, and fascist ideologies; and a uni-dimensional scale of the liberal-conservative presidential continuum.in 1968 were also reported and discussed. Finally, the results were discussed within the general framework of political socialization theory. /) I 1/ A. 7 Approved; b46:6?é1&29 9(' jggalé4szzg/ W 774/115? 025,. JIM I Thesis Committee: Dr. Andrew Barclay, Chairman Dr. Milton Rokeach Dr. Charles‘wriglqy PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES AND VALUES IN 1968 By George Franklin Bishop A THESIS submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements fer the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1969 § 5935/ /0/22/(f/ To Lucille ii Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority. Equality without freedom creates a more stable social pattern than freedom without equality. -Hoffer, The True Believer iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank all who assisted in this study. I especially want to thank the chairman of 11v committee, Dr. Andrew Barclay, for his permissive patience and guidance in the preparation of this manuscript. I also want to express my appreciation to Dr. Charles Wrigley for his valuable comments and suggestions concerning the historical and cultural relativity of the theory and the data, and to Dr. Milton Rokeach, whose previous work on values and value systems inepired the present study. Finally, I want to thank 11v colleague, Bernard Silverman for his assistance and advice concerning the analysis of the data. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION...................................................... ii QUOTATION ...................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ................................................. vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................viii LIST OF APPEWICB .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOC n I:WI{OJJUCTIOIJ 0.0.0.0....00...00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0... IETEiOD ICOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI'OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOeIOOOOOCCOOCOOOOOOCC Acquisition of Respondents ................................ ooooooI-J Amtration 0f Surveys seeeesoeeeseeoeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeose Demographic Information fOr the T0138]. SW18 e00000000000000.0000000000000000000000 11 RmL-ELTS AIqIJ I'ISCUSSIOIJ .......................‘0................ 13 Candidate 3110103 and Values eeeeeeesees-00000000000000.0009 13 A Cross-Sample Comparison with RakeaCh's National Sample eeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeosseeeeeee 11‘ Other Variations in Value Orientations eeeeoeeoeeeeeeseeeeeeoeesoosoessseeeeeee 20 The God, Family, Country Value Orientationio........................................ 21 Orientations toward Economic Security and Mature Love eeeeeeeoeeseseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeee 22 Overall Value System Similarities .......OOOI0.0...OO0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOCCCOO 23 Table of Contents (Cont.) Page Political Preference Differences and Similarities see-seeoeeseeoosoeeooeeooeoeeeoeeeoeeooosee 2S The Political Socialization of Values and Preferences .................................. 26 The Meaning Of the Values coassess.oesoeseeeoeoso...eassess. 29 SWY ..........................................0......0....... 31 30,73 CODClUBiOhB .000000000000000000.0000...0000000000000... 32 Suggested Research soeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeseseeeeeeoeeeeeeeeso 32 REFEmICh‘S .0. .00...... ............. ... ..... .... ..... 00.... .O. O... 35 APWINEIIX A .. .... .‘C..... .C. .. ... .O. .. ....... 0. ..... .0. .. C .‘O. .O. 37 APPENDIXB O....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00COOOOOOOOOOO 39 APPENIIIX C eeeeeeeeeoeoeeeoosesseeseeeooeseeeeeoeeoeeeeeeoeoooeoo 1‘1 Resuta and Discu8810n 00000000000000.0000.0.000000000000000 ’42 Orientations toward Socialist, comat, and FaSCiSt IdGOlogieS eeeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeoo 1-‘2 The Liberal-Conservative Continuum in 1968 eeeeeeoee-eeeeeoeoeeeeeseeeeoeeeoeeee ’48 Rafemnces eeeeeooeeeeeooesoeeeoeeseeeeeeeeesoeeeeeeeoo 55 Table l. 2. 3. h. 6. 7. LIST OF TABLES Demographic Information for the Tom SWIG .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00...00.0.0.0... Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders for Supporters of Six Presidential Candidates in 1968 ............................................. A Cross-Sample Comparison Of Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders for Five Presidential Groups in 1968 0:00.0000000000000000000000000.000000000000000... Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders II for Supporters of Six Presidential Candidates in 1968 ............................................. Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders III for Supporters of Six Presidential cmdidates in 1968 eeeoeeoeseoeeeeoeeseeeee0.0000000000000000... Preference Matrix eeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeoeeeeseeeeeeeeee Prefemnce Matrix IIs000......000.......0...OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 8. A Value Similarity Matrix for Six Presidential Groups 111 1968 OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI00...... vii Page 12 16 20 2h h3 h9 53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Schematic Diagram of Ideologies for Seven IdBOlogical Groups 000.000.000.000.0000000000000 LI? 2. Scale Positions of Preference for Six Presidential Groups in 1968 ...................... 51 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. The Value Survey Goooeoeoeeeeeeoeeeeeeee00000000000000.0000... 37 B. Th8 Political Preference Survey eeeeeeoeeeeeeoeeeoeeeooease... 39 C. Political Preference Differences 00000000000000.00000000000000 bl PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES AND VALUES IN 1968 by GEORGE F. BISHOP INTRODUCTION Contemporary psychological studies of the correlates of political candidate preferences have usually employed one or more of the California scales of authoritarianism developed by the authors of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950). Most of these studies represent attempts to establish correlations between candidate choice and scores on the F- Scale. In one of the earliest studies of this type reported in the research literature, Milton (1952) found the sup- porters of presidential candidates MacArthur and Taft to be significantly more authoritarian, on the whole, than the supporters of candidates Stevenson, Eisenhower, Kefauver, and Russell. During the 1960 presidential campaign, Wrightsman et a1. (1961) obtained F—Scale data showing the supporters of candidates Stevenson and Humphrey to be the least authoritarian; supporters of candidates Faubus and Johnson to be the most authoritarian; and supporters of candidates Kennedy, Rockefeller, Nixon, and symington to fall between the latter extremes. In a similar study just prior to the 1960 election, Leventhal et a1. (1964) found that respondents with high F-Scale scores preferred the Republican party and presidential nominee Nixon, while those with low F-Scale scores preferred the Democratic party and candidate Kennedy. - 2 - More recently, Goldberg and Stark (1965) extended these earlier studies to the 1964 presidential election. Their reported F-Scale data showed Goldwater supporters to be more authoritarian, more orthodoxly religious, and generally more conservative than the supporters of Lyndon Johnson. Coordinately, Higgins and Kuhlman (1965, 1967) reported a similar set of results for the supporters of candidates Goldwater and Reagan prior to the_l964 and 1966 elections, respectively. High F-Scale scorers were found to prefer Goldwater over Johnson and Reagan over Democratic gubernatorial candidate Edmund Brown, while low scorers pre- ferred Johnson over Goldwater and Brown over Reagan. Finally, of the same order, Milton and Waite (1964) found Wallace supporters to score highest on the TFI (Traditional Family Ideology) scale; supporters of Goldwater next highest; and supporters of Lyndon Johnson lowest. The results of the studies reviewed suggest a simple dichotomy between "liberal" and "conservative" candidates and parties in terms of an overall "left-right" dimension. Traditionally, in the United States, "left" or "liberal" has meant advocating greater political, economic, or social equality and "right" or “conservative" has meant opposition to change toward greater equality (Lipset et a1. 1954). As the latter point out, a simple left-right dichotomy obscures some of the finer degrees of leftism, rightism, and various issues which cut across the left-right dimension (e.g. local - 3 - control vs. centralism). Yet, as they also point out, the antagonisms centering around equality and social change have been the most dominant ones of the last several political generations. Leftist parties and candidates have usually represented vehicles of social change in the direction of greater equality, while rightist parties or candidates have typically represented the more or less hierarchial social order of the status quo. Thus, it would seem that the funda- mental American value of equality is what underlies high-low authoritarianism and the left or liberal-~right or conservative dimension in American political life. In this regard, Rokeach (1968) has developed a value survey that is applicable to the study of political prefer- ences, and which provides for a direct measure of the value equality among others (e.g. salvation, freedom, national security, family security, a world at peace). More specific- ally, of special relevance to this research report are Rokeach's findings with respect to the two traditional American political values freedom and equality. In Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, Rokeach reports some data on the relationships between the values-~freedom and equality-- and attitudes toward civil rights demonstrations: . . . those who report they are "sympathetic, and have participated" in civil rights demonstrations rank FREEDOM first on the average and EQUALITY third among 12 terminal values; those who are "sympathetic, but have not participated" rank FREEDOM first and EQUALITY sixth; and those who are "unsympa- thetic" rank FREEDOM second and EQUALITY eleventh. (p. 169) On the basis of these and other findings reported in Beliefs, Attitudes,gand Values, Rokeach has constructed a two-value model of political ideologies which describes overall similarities and differences in orientations toward freedom and equality among adherents of the major political "isms" of the modern period-liberalism, conservatism, fascism, and communism. The model, as Rokeach presents it, is as follows. Groups such as liberal democrats, socialists, and humanists are assumed to place a high value on both freedom and equality; groups such as fascists, Nazis, and Ku Klux Klan are assumed to place a low value on both freedom and e ualit ; groups such as the John Birch Society, con- servative Republicans, and followers of Ayn Rand are assumed to place a high value on freedom and a low value on equality; finally, groups such as Stalinist and Mao type communists are assumed to place a high value on equality and a low value on freedom. In support of the model, Rokeach reports frequency counts of various values expressed in Barry Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative, Lenin's Collected Works, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and selected works of liberal social- ists Norman Thomas and Erich Fromm. Rokeach's results show freedom and equality to rank first and second, respectively, in relative frequence among seventeen terminal values for liberal socialists Fromm and Thomas; freedom sixteenth and equality seventeenth for Hitler's Nein Kampf; freedom first and equality sixteenth for Goldwater's Conscience - 5 _ of a Conservative; and freedom seventeenth and equality first for Lenin's Collected Works. A Thus, it was expected that Rokeach's two value (freedom and equality) model of political ideologies would discrim- inate among American liberals, moderates, and conservatives-- as embodied by the 1968 presidential candidacies of candidates Humphrey, McCarthy, Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace. Insofar as the six presidential candidates clearly differed in the degree to which they publicly represented liberal, moderate, and conservative ideologies (see, for example, The New York Times Election Handbook, 1968), the present study was accordingly designed to provide for a direct test of Rokeach's two value model. More specifically, with respect to the two political values freedom and equality, there were two major hypotheses formulated and tested: Hypothesis 1: The supporters of the six presidential candidates Humphrey, McCarthy, Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace will not differ significantly in their overall rankings of the value freedom. A hypothesis of no relation- ship between candidate choice and the valuing of freedom follows from Rokeach's two value model which predicts no differences on the value freedom for ideological groups that lie along the liberal socialist-conservative capitalist continuum. With respect to freedom, the latter groups are predicted to differ only from fascist and communist ideologi- cal groups. Thus, since each of the six American presidential - 6 - groups clearly lies along the liberal-conservative value dimension, each should value freedom highly and approxi- mately to the same degree-that is, they should not differ significantly in their overall rankings for freedom. Hypothesis 2: The supporters of presidential candidates Humphrey and McCarthy will each rank the value equality highest by placing a high value on equality; supporters of candidates Rockefeller and Nixon will each rank equality next highest by placing an intermediate value on equality; and supporters of candidates Reagan and Wallace will each rank equality lowest by placing a low value on equality. The hypothesized relationship between candidate choice and the valuing of equality was derived as follows. The publicly represented ideologies of presidential candidates Humphrey and McCarthy were regarded as representative of the liberal socialist value orientation in American politics (i.e. as placing a high value on both freedom and equality); those of candidates Rockefeller and Nixon as representative of a mainstream, middle-of—the-road value orientation (i.e. as placing a high value on freedom and an intermediate value on equality); and those of candidates Reagan and Wallace as representative of the conservative capitalist value orientation (i.e. as placing a high value on freedom and a low value on equality). Thus, it follows from Rokeach's two value model that the supporters of liberal candidates _ 7 _ Humphrey and McCarthy should rank equality highest; sup- porters of moderate candidates Rockefeller and Nixon should rank equality next highest; and supporters of conservative candidates Reagan and Wallace should rank equality lowest. METHOD During the month of July, 1968 (just prior to the national nominating conventions in Miami and Chicago), a non-probability sample was taken of the politically active, adult (21 and over) supporters of pre-convention presidential candidates McCarthy, Humphrey, Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace. At this time, 121 respondents were administered Form E of Rokeach's Value Survey (See Appendix A) and a Political Preference Survey (See Appendix B). Both surveys were administered individually at the following locales: the Democratic and Republican State Central Committee offices and Democratic, Republican, and American Independent Party Campaign headquarters in the Michigan cities and townships of Lansing, Flint, Detroit, Battle Creek, Warren, and Grand Rapids. In addition, respondents were also obtained at meetings of the following partisan organizations: Young Republicans (Lansing), Citizens for McCarthy (Lansing-East Lansing), and Republicans for Ronald Reagan (Owosso). Acquisition of Respondents At the various political locales reported for South Central Michigan, respondents were screened and secured in the following manner. "Hello, my name is George Bishop, I'm a graduate student at Michigan State in East Lansing. For my graduate studies, I'm conducting a Value Survey of _ 9 - peOple who are politically active or involved in the campaigns of the different presidential candidates. Are you currently involved or working in the campaign? . . . . Are you 21 or older? . . . . (If the respondent answered affirmatively to both questions, then he or she was also asked) . . . . Do you have a few minutes to spare?" If es, the respondent was then administered the Value Survey and Political Preference Survey respectively. At this time, it should be noted that there were several refusals by potential Wallace respondents at the Flint and Warren American Independent Party Campaign headquarters. It should also be noted that most of the respondents were politically active or involved in only a very elementary way (e.g. volunteer workers such as housewives and graduate students, attendance at political meetings such as Young Republicans, circulators of petitions, etc.). There were, however, a sizeable number of respondents who reported some form of political activity as their normal occupation on the demo- graphic section of the Political Preference Survey. Never- theless, all of the respondents obtained were more politically active and involved, on the whole, than most Americans for whom voting is the sole act of participation in politics. Administration of Surveys Each respondent was first administered Rokeach's alphabetically arranged list of 18 terminal values which he or she was required to rank-order in order of importance. - 10 _ The respondent(s) did this by assigning a'l to the value regarded as most important, a‘g to the second most important value, and so forth and so on until all 18 terminal values had been ranked from most to least important. Immediately following completion of the Value Survey, each respondent was given a Political Preference Survey which required, in addition to some basic demographic infor- mation (e.g. education, party preference, etc.), a rank- ordering of an alphabetically arranged list of nine political figures listed along with their various political parties in parentheses. The respondents did this by assigning a,l to the political figure who was most preferred, a‘g to the second most-preferred figure, and so forth and so on until all nine political figures had been ranked from most to least preferred. In addition to the names and parties of presidential candidates McCarthy, Humphrey, Rockefeller, Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace, the political preference list included Gus Hall (Communist Party), Fred Halstead (Socialist Party), and Matt Koehl (American Nazi Party). With respect to the latter three political figures, it should be noted that the present author did not expect most of the respondents to be familiar with the names of the three figures or neces- sarily to regard them in the same class as the six presi- dential candidates. The respondents were, however, expected to be familiar with the stimulus terms "Communist," "Social- ist," and "Nazi" and to respond differentially within the framework of the rank-order preference task. - 11 - Demographic Information for the Total Sample Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of the entire sample as coded for the initial computer analysis of the data. As can be seen in Table 1, most of the respond- ents in the sample were generally younger and better educated than the general American adult (21 and over) population (See, for example, The U.S. Book of Facts,gStatistics & Information, 1968). In this respect, the respondents in the sample were fairly typical of most political activists. Education, for example, is known to correlate highly and reliably with various indices of political participation (McClosky, 1968), at least in the United States. _ 12 - TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE Category Variable Subcategory Total Percent a Male 65 55% 09x Female 56 47 21-29 71 60% Age Group 30—49 38 52 50 and over 10 8 Democrat 55 29% Party Preference Republican #8 40 Independent 57 51 High School or Less 19 16% Education College (Attended or Graduated) 101 84 Professional or Bus. 51 45% White Collar l9 l6 m Protestant 67 57% Religion Catholic 21 18 Jewish and Other 50 25 $10,000 and over 45 38% 7,000-9.999 32 27 Income 5,000-6,999 l4 l2 5,000-4,999 10 8 Less than 3,000 18 15 - 15 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Candidate Choice and Values A non-parametric test of the significance of the dif- ferences was determined for each of the values separately by the Median Egg; (Siegel, 1956). The results of the overall median tests for the values freedom and equality are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the six presi- dential groups did not differ significantly in their overall rankings for the value freedom (x2 a 8.54; DF = 5; non- significant for two-tailed test). Hypothesis One was thus confirmed. With respect to Hypothesis Two, the six presi- dential groups did differ significantly in their overall rankings for the value equality (x2 . 55.45; DF a 5; P<(.001 for two-tailed test). In addition, further inspection of Table 2 shows that McCarthy and Humphrey supporters each ranked equality highest, on the average, by placing a high value on it; Rockefeller and Nixon supporters each ranked equality next highest, on the average, by placing an inter- mediate value on it; and Reagan and Wallace supporters each ranked equality lowest, on the average, by placing a low value on it. Thus Hypothesis Two was also confirmed by the data. In terms of Rokeach's two value model of political ideologies, supporters of candidates Humphrey and McCarthy each exhibited, the liberal socialist pattern of values with both freedom and equality among their first six values; supporters of candidates Rockefeller and Nixon each showed a moderate pattern of values with freedom among their first six values and equality among their middlepost six values; and supporters of candidates Reagan and Wallace each showed the conservative capitalist pattern of values with freedom among their first six values and equality mnang their bottom six values. The results obtained, therefore, support Rokeach's two value model of ideologies, in particular, the concept of a liberal-conservative dimension based on dif- ferences in orientations toward the value of equality. TABLE 2 TERMINAL VAUJE MEDIANS AND COMMITE RANK ORDERS FOR SUPPORTERS 0F SIX PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES IN 1968 CANDIDATE CHOICE Terminal McCarthy Humphrey Rockefeller Nixon Reagan ‘Wellece Msdien Test Values N-30 N-lS N-30 N-16 N-ll N-19 x - P- Freedom Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk 4.5 2 6.8 4 5.1 2 5.5 2 2.0 1 2.4 1 8.54 .129 Equality 4.0 1 5.0 2 8.5 9 9.2 9 15.0 17 15.018 35.45 .000 A Cross-Sample Comparison with Rokeach's National Sample To facillitate discussion of the results obtained for freedom and e ualit , a comparison with a highly similar - 15 _ study conducted by Rokeach during the 1968 presidential campaign is appropriate. The background to the comparison is as follows. During April, 1968, Rokeach contracted field inter- viewers of the National Opinion Research Center in Chicago to administer Form D of the Value Survey to an area probabil-. ity sample of about 1400 Americans over 21 (Rokeach, 1969). At this time, Rokeach obtained Value Survey data on approxi- mately 1200 adult supporters of spring presidential candid- ates Johnson, Kennedy, McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan, Rockefeller, and Wallace. During July, 1968, the present author administered Form E of Rokeach's Value Survey to a non-probability sample of about 120 politically active, adult (over 21) supporters of presidential candidates Humphrey, McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan, Rockefeller and Wallace. Table 3 shows a cross-sample comparison of the median rankings and the composite rank order of the median rankings of the values freedom and equality for the five presidential groups common to both Rokeach's spring sample and the present author's summer sample in 1968. Inspection of Table 5 shows that the median rankings and composite rank orders for the value freedom are highly similar across samples. There is, however, a slight but consistent tendency showing freedom to be ranked somewhat higher, on the average, by each of the five presidential - l6 - TABLE 3 A CROSS-SAMPLE COMPARISON OF TERMINAL VALUE MEDIANS AND COMPOSITE RANK ORDERS FOR FIVE PRESIDENTIAL GROJPS IN 1968 Terminal Value: FREEDOM Samples Presidential Groups McCarthy Rockefeller Nixon Reagan ‘Wallace Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk ‘Med Rnk Med Rnk Spring 5.1 3 5.4 3 6.4 3 4.8 3 5.8 3 Summer 4.5 2 5.1 2 5.5 2 2.0 1 2.4 1 Terminal Value: EQUALITY Presidential Groups McCarthy Rockefeller Nixon Reagan 'Wallace Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Spring 7.3 6 8.6 9 9.8 12 10.3 10 13.0 14 Summer 4.0 1 8.5 9 9.2 9 15.0 17 15.0 18 groups in the summer sample. With reSpect to median rank- ings and composite rank orders for the value equality, the results of the two samples differ to an even larger degree. Inspection of Table 3 shows that the median rankings and composite rank orders for equality are highly similar across samples for the supporters of moderate candidates Rockefeller and Nixon. Much larger differences between the two samples, however, arise at the extremes of the liberal-conservative - 17 - dimension. At the liberal end of the continuum, the McCarthy supporters of the summer sample rank equality considerably higher, on the average, than the McCarthy supporters of Rokeach's spring sample (first and sixth, respectively). At the conservative and of the continuum, Reagan and Wallace supporters of the summer sample rank equality considerably lower (seventeenth and eighteenth, respectively), on the average, than the Reagan and Wallace supporters of Rokeach's spring sample (tenth and fourteenth, respectively). A plausible explanation of the differences between the results of the two samples lies in the nature of the two samples themselves. Rokeach's Spring sample was, again, an area probability of American adults acroSs the U.S. As such, it undoubtedly included a considerable number of respondents who were lacking in ideological commitments of the kind implied by the concept of a liberal-conservative continuum. The latter contention has received considerable support in the research literature. Campbell et a1. (1960) found that only 2-%% of their national cross-sectional samples of the American electorate warranted inclusion in the category "full ideologue" for whom familiar frames of reference such as the liberal-conservative continuum are even operative. Specifically, the authors of The American Voter point to the role of political involvement as one of the major determinants of ideological differences among partisans: - 18 _ ...differences between adherents of the two parties are sharpest among the most highly involved; where involvement is low, there is no significant variation in social welfare attitude by party. (P. 120) ...although from time to time we catch glints of possible ideology operating, by and large the pattern of relationships that are statistically significant is explicable only in terms of a much more modest self-interest assumption. And even the simple self-interest assumption pro- duces partisan relationships only where there is some degree of formal education and involve- ment in politics. (P. 121) McClosky (1958) reports a similar set of observations from his study of "Conservatism and Personality": ...The correlation(s) between them tend, however, to be fairly low, suggesting that for the present, at least, many Americans divide their party preferences, their support of candidates, their economic views, their stands on public issues, or their political self-identifications without reference to their beliefs in Liberalism or Con- servatism. The latter have influence, of course, especially among some of the more articulate groups; for the general population, however, political divisions of the sort named appear to be more affected by group membership factors than by per- sonality. (P. 44-45) The latter studies suggest, again, that most Americans of voting age are relatively non-ideological in their orienta- tions toward politics. Thus, insofar as Rokeach's spring sample was representative of the American electorate, it was a sample of mostly non-ideologues. 0n the other hand, the summer sample obtained by this author was, within the limits of its non-probability nature, an approximation to a sample of "full ideologues" of the type described by the authors of The American Voter. An ideal sample of "full ideologues" - 19 _ would have been that of the delegates or alternates to the Democratic, Republican, and American Independent party conventions in 1968. The summer sample secured by this author did, however, approximate a sample of ideologues for whom it can be safely assumed that values such as freedom, equality, national security, and others were more operative and salient than for most of the respondents in Rokeach's spring sample. To this extent, the differences in the results of the two samples can best be seen as a function of the greater political involvement and consequent commitment (pro and con) to various central values such as.equality on the part of the politically active respondents in the summer sample. In addition, it would seem that the differences in ideological commitments across the two samples are greater as one approaches the ideological extremes of the liberal- conservative continuum. Rockefeller and Nixon supporters, it will be recalled, were highly similar across samples in contrast to McCarthy, Reagan, and Wallace supporters who differed considerably across samples. In otherwords, ideology and involvement may interact such that supporters of centrist candidates will differ very little across various levels of involvement, while supporters of more extremist type can- didates will differ very greatly across levels of involvement. Ideological commitments of different kinds may beget greater involvement, but greater involvement may beget greater ideological commitments only at the ideological extremes. - 20 _ Other Variations in Value Orientations In addition to the findings for freedom and equality, several other terminal values were found to differentiate significantly among the six presidential groups. The latter include salvation, family security, national security, mature lqyg, and a comfortable life. Table 4 shows significant relationships between candidate choice and the terminal values salvation (x2 a 17.00; DF a 5; IN<501 for two-tailed test), family security(x2 = 17.80; DF = 5; P<.01 for two-tailed test), national security (x2 = 21.91; DF a 5; P<:.01 for two-tailed test), mature love (x2 a 16.40; DF = 5; P<:.01 for two-tailed test), and a comfortable life (x2 . 25.50; DF a 5; P< .001 for two-tailed test). TABLE 4 Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders 11 for Supporters of Six Presidential Candidates in 1968 CANDIDATE CHOICE TERMINAL VALUES McCarthy Humphrey Rockefeller Nixon Reagan wallace Midian Test N-30 N-15 N530 Nb16 Nill N519 x - Pa COMF. Med Rnk Med. Rnk Med. Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk Med Rnk LIFE 15.1 15 15.3 16 14.0 14 10.8 12 11.3 13 11.3 13 23.30 .000 NATIONAL SECURITY 15.5 17 13.7 14 15.0 17 7.5 6 9.3 9 6.3 6 21.91 .001 FAMILY SECURITY 11.9 13 10.0 12 8.5 8 8.0 8 7.8 6 6.7 7 17.80 .003 SALNATION 17.6 18 16.0 18 16.5 18 17.5 18 14.3 15 10.0 10 17.00 .005 MATURE LOVE 7.1 6 9.8 10 8.0 6 12.5 15 7.0 5 11.0 12 16.40 .006 The God, Family, Country Value Orientation As shown in Table 4, the findings for salvation, family securit , and national security serve to provide some empirical support for the "God, family, and country" value orientation so often ascribed to the proponents of American conservatism (Lief, 1967; Ebenstein, 1967). For all three values, inspect- ion of Table 4 shows that the largest differences are those between the supporters of liberal candidate McCarthy on the one hand and the supporters of conservative candidate Wallace on the other. Wallace supporters, at the conservative end of the continuum, ranked national secugity sixth, family security seventh, and salvation tenth, on the average, in contrast to liberal McCarthy supporters who ranked national security seventeenth, family security thirteenth, and gglyqr tiqq eighteenth, on the average, among 18 terminal values. Falling between the McCarthy and Wallace extremes on these three values are the median rankings obtained for the supporters of candidates Humphrey, Rockefeller, Nixon, and Reagan. Among the latter groups, inspection of Table 4 shows that supporters of conservative candidate Reagan are most similar to conservative Wallace supporters in their overall rankings for salvation, family security, and national security with one exception. Nixon supporters ranked national security sixth, on the average, while Reagan sup- porters ranked it ninth, on the average. Nevertheless, these findings would, again, suggest that there is some good -22.. empirical ground for the "God, family, country" value orientation associated with American conservative ideology as an ideology of traditionalist values. Moreover, the findings obtained for these three values in combination with those reported earlier for equality suggest that individuals are relatively consistent in their tendency to assume an authoritarian or non-authoritarian position in various ideo- logical areas. That is, to some extent the traditionalist value dimension overlaps with the equalitarian value dimension such that traditionalist values such as salvation, family securit*, and national security are associated with anti- equalitarianism as in the case(s) of Reagan and Wallace supporters and non-traditionalist values with a positive orientation toward equalitarianism as in the case of McCarthy supporters and to a somewhat lesser extent for Humphrey sup- porters. The latter suggestion is congruent with the results of previous studies showing a traditionalist family ideology to be positively and significantly associated with authori- tarianism, ethnocentrism, religious conventionalism, and conservatism (Levinson and Huffman, 1954; Milton and Waite, 1964). Orientations Toward Economic Security and Mature Love Further inspection of Table 4 shows the rankings for a comfortable life (a prosperous life) to differentiate McCarthy, Humphrey, and Rockefeller supporters from Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace supporters; while those for mature love _ 25 - (sexual and spiritual intimacy) separate McCarthy, Rockefeller, and Reagan supporters from Humphrey, Nixon, and Wallace supporters. The rankings for a comfortable_li§g_can probably best be understood in terms of differential orientations toward economic security. Moreover, the higher average rankings of a comfortable life given by Nixon, Reagan, and Wallace supporters would seem to reflect, in part, their candidates' publicly expressed concerns over inflationary trends in the national economy. The latter interpretation could be empirically tested by means of a content analysis of the values and issues expressed in the various political writings and speeches of the six presidential candidates. Finally, the rankings for mature love can probably best be seen as part of an overall predisposition to prefer one candidate over another. In addition, it would seem that candidates themselves project different images and content which may include orientations toward "intimacy with others" as well as toward human rights and liberties. The latter interpretations could be tested by having respondents also fill out the Value Survey for how they think their candidate and other candidates would fill it out. Perceived similari- ties and dissimilarities in terms of mature love and other values would thus provide a more comprehensive base for interpreting candidate choice. Overall Value System Similarities Table 5 shows the eleven remaining terminal values that were non-significant for candidate choice. Inspection of - 24 - as. SK 2 9.: S we 2 9: 2 RS 2 R... a o; mane 6338a za «2. R; 3 mi: 2 RS 3 93 2 RS 3 «.2 2 oi due 38.... 8a. a; 3 5.2 3 «.3 8 mg: 3 92 S as S Ragga .6 Sees a so“. 2; n ea .1. N.» S «.3 5 mg m as m Re .1 page as 882 < e2. 8.... Z S: n mg w as 2 Ta a as e o; Sewage“ as: .eeuoe SN. 8.... a Rm H as m Tm a Re e as a ma .8 spam 4 Sn. 23 s new 2 a6 a as 2 R: m a; n mm $924: $25 «an. SR e as n S... e o5 e ed a a; a We Seam—Tease a}. 35 n as a he a ma M ed n ma n as Baas sea. mn.~ a H.a as o.a on o.o~ m m.e as m.m dd 6.6“ mmazamaes 2 ex: 3 «.3 S 92 S 92 .2 RS 3 . 0;: game Se. 34 sea .3: see .8: sea .8: as. so: see so: as 2.: A u x M a 2.2 on... 2.2 3.2 8.2 2.2 each scape: conga-3. nouuouoxoou sew-om souqz msuueouz+ heusaasm munn<> A .2258. uflflflflflfluflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflfluflflflflflflIlIflIInflflflflflflflflflflfllflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflflfill‘ MUHomU MH