AN INVESTIGATIGN 0F ROLE-
GRIENTATIUN AND REFERENCE-GROUP
IGENTIFICATIUN IN SYSTEMS DF
BROADCAST COMMUNICATION

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
- 9mm 0. BECKWITH
1968

TIM-Ila

 

0.169

LIBRAR 1»

Michigan State
nivcrsity

 
 
  

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN INVESTIGATION OF ROLE-ORIENTATION AND

REFERENCE-GROUP IDENTIFICATION

IN SYSTEMS OF BROADCAST COMMUNICATION

Date

presented by

Gerald C. Beckwith

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Communication

Major professor

r‘K

Julx 26, 1968

 

  
  
 

  
 
 

9’ amDING BY 1

l‘IUAG 81' rSIlNS'
II IQUEAEII‘ AIMEE
_ _ h .. . ‘.,_.LCHISA!_

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN INVESTIGATION OF ROLE-ORIENTATION AND
REFERENCE-GROUP IDENTIFICATION IN
SYSTEMS OF BROADCAST
COMMUNICATION

by Gerald C. Beckwith

The present study was devised in an effort to develop
theoretically sound procedures for investigating certain
critical aspects of role in systems of mass communication.
The investigation focused upon the elements of role—orienta-
tion and reference-group identification in systems of broad-
cast communication. The theory devised for the study was
abstracted from recent studies of behavior and attitude in
formal organizations and was structured in terms of certain

aSPeCts of the theory of action described principally in the

work of Talcott Parsons.

Data for analysis was obtained from a national sample

of c ' - -
ommerCial broadcasters, including station managers, sales

mana - -
gers, program directors and news directors, both radio and

tel ' '
eV1Sion. The sample Was developed by processes of near-

rand -
om selection. Data was obtained by means of a self—

adm' ' . .
lnlstered mail questionnaire. A total of 247 useable

return
S Were tabulated, representing approximately 69 percent

of -
the questionnaires distributed.

 

 

Gerald C. Beckwith

Two measures were devised for inclusion in the
questionnaire. The first was a Role-Orientation Measure
consisting of 38 forced-choice items, each of which was
substantively related to one or another of five significant
"objects of orientation" identified with the broadcaster's
working environment. The items were also designed to re-
flect one or another of the so—called pattern-variables, or
"dilemmas of choice," which had previously been described
by Parsons.

The second measure devised for the study was the
Reference—Group Identification Measure. This consisted of
Ia set of 16 scales, each requiring the subject to respond
to a named reference-group in terms of the group's relative
importance as a source of influence on the subject's own
job performance.

Thirteen variables were examined in relation to the
results obtained from use of the measures identified. These
Were classified in three sets, as background variables, sys-
tem variables and test or behavior variables, and included
such factors as system position, role—function, education,
age and experience; station type and location, system size
and type of ownership; job loyalty, system tenure, member—
ship status, attendance at broadcast-related organization

aneetings, and activeness in organization affairs.

Three study propositions governed the focus of the
study in its empirical aspects. These were (1) the system

pcmition proposition, which held that the individual's

 

Gerald C. Beckwith

role—orientation is, in part, a function of his position in
the system, (2) the system size proposition, which held that
the individual's role-orientation is, in part, a function of
system size, and (3) the reference-group identification pro-
position, which held that the individual's role-orientation
is, in part, a function of his reference-group identifications.
Related to each of these propositions were a set of five
principal hypotheses and five alternative hypotheses, each

of which was constructed in terms of one or another of the
five pattern-variables.

The Role-Orientation Measure and the Reference-Group
Identification Measure were both subjected to factor analysis
as a means of operationalizing types of role-orientation and
reference-group identifications for testing purposes, and as
a means of judging the relative independence of the theorized
pattern-variables. Seven modes, or types, of role-orienta-
tion were identified by this process, each of which was rep-
resented by a particular factor. Each identified orientation
factor was taken to be suggestive of a certain point of view
or manner of relating to the situation maintained by differ-
ing numbers of broadcasters.

The seven obtained orientation factors were named
as follows: Factor I was identified with utilitarianism
and was assumed to reflect a "goal—centered" role-orientation
focus; Factor II was identified with inter-personalism and

was assumed to reflect a people—centered" role-orientation

focus; Factor III was identified with instrumentalism and

 

Gerald C. Beckwith

was assumed to reflect a "job-centered" role-orientation
focus; Factor IV was identified with altruism and was assumed
to reflect a "service-centered" role—orientation focus;
Factor V was identified with aestheticism and was assumed

to reflect a "product-centered" role-orientation focus;
Factor VI was identified with individualism and was assumed
to reflect a "self—centered" role-orientation focus; Factor
VII was identified with parochialism and was assumed to re—
flect a "situation-centered" role—orientation focus.

Four primary reference factors, and one incidental
reference factor, were clearly identified in the process of
factoring the Reference-Group Identification Measure. Ref-
erence Factor I was named a Career-Set factor; Reference
Factor II was named a Client-Set factor; Reference Factor
III was named a Rule-Set or Power-Set factor, and Reference
Factor IV was named a Primary—Group factor; Reference Factor
V, which was minor in importance, was named a Value-Set
factor.

For testing purposes, following the identification
of the obtained factors, scores were derived for each sub-
ject on each named factor. Subjects were then classified
as "high," "medium" or "low" scorers. Chi-square procedures
were used as a means of testing for significant differences
between groups. The independent variables employed for
this purpose were the previously described background, sys-

tem and behavior variables. The dependent variables were

Illivl

-‘v-‘w

Gerald C. Beckwith

subject factor scores for each of the identified role-
orientation factors and reference-group factors. The ref-
erence-group factors were also employed as independent
variables in relation to the several role-orientation factors.

The results of the study were interpreted in terms
of two primary considerations, one theoretic and the other
empirical. From the point of View of theory, the study
clearly revealed that the concept of role-orientation, as
operationalized, had distinct value. It was demonstrated
that groups of broadcasters could reasonably be differen-
tiated in terms of modes, or types, of role-orientation.
It was also demonstrated that types of reference-group
identifications could be derived from subject responses that
could be meaningfully interpreted. The value of the pattern-
variable, as described in the theory of action, however, was
not found capable of demonstration. It was observed, rather,
that the pattern-variables, as operationalized, did not main—
tain the theoretic level of independence required for use
empirically. Only two of the obtained factors, Orientation
Factor II and Orientation Factor IV, could clearly be identi-
fied in pattern-variable terms. These results, however,
were not viewed as conclusive evidence of a general lack of
validity for the pattern-variable formulation.

From an empirical point of view the following results
were obtained. It was found that the broadcaster's position

in the system was not fully controlling on his role-orientation.

 

 

Gerald C. Beckwith

Broadcasters who maintained economic-related role-functions
(station managers and sales managers) and those who main-
tained service—related role—functions (program directors
and news directors) could not be differentiated in terms

of either role-orientation or reference-group identifica-
tions. It was, however, found that position in system,
taken without regard to role-function, exercises a signifi-
cant influence on the broadcaster's role-orientation in
certain fundamental respects, relative to instrumentalism
(p = <.02) and individualism (p = <.05) particularly.

The results obtained with reference to the system
size proposition were generally supportive. It was found
that broadcasters located in different size systems tended
to maintain different role—orientations. Large system
broadcasters were found to score higher in affectivity
(p = <.05) and to be more collectivity-oriented (p = <.Ol)
than broadcasters located in small systems, as determined
by relative scores on Orientation Factors II and IV. Small
system broadcasters, on the other hand, were found to be
more job-centered (p = <.02) and less goal—centered (p = <.02)
than broadcasters located in large systems, as determined
by relative scores on Orientation Factors III and I.

The reference—group identification proposition was
not generally supported by the study results. Broadcasters
who scored high on given types of reference factors did not

differ in role—orientation from broadcasters who scored low

i

 

Gerald C. Beckwith

on the same reference factors. The one principal exception
to this rule occurred in regard to the Client-Set factor.
Broadcasters who scored high on this factor tended also to
score high on affectivity (p = <.02) and parochialism (p =
<.02) and relatively low on instrumentalism (p = <.01).

Other results obtained from the study indicate that
broadcasters located in stations that were group-owned or
in stations owned by newspapers or other press-related
organizations tended to be more collectivity-oriented, or
service-centered, in their orientations to role (p = <.Ol)
than were broadcasters located in stations that were inde-
pendently owned. It was also found that television broad-
casters tended to be more collectivity—oriented than radio
broadcasters generally (p = <.Ol) and more affectivity-
oriented, or people-centered (p = <.01). Television broad-
casters, in addition, appeared to be somewhat more goal-
centered and less job-centered (p = <.05) than radio
broadcasters, tending toward greater utilitarianism and less
instrumentalism.

It was also observed that broadcasters who occupied
different positions within the system differed in their
orientations to role depending upon their location in either
television or radio stations. Differences of this order
were also discovered, with regard to one or another of the
orientation factors, when the education and experience

levels of broadcasters were tested. To a degree, too,

 

 

Gerald C. Beckwith

differences in station location resulted in certain observed
differences in role-orientation.

Finally, it was found that observed differences in
the role-orientations of broadcasters were significantly
related to certain differences in behavior, including sys-
tem loyalty, system tenure, the broadcaster's membership
status in broadcast-related organizations, his attendance
at meetings and his activeness in association or organiza-
tion affairs. The relationship between role-orientation

and role-behavior, to this extent, therefore, was supported.

 

djiwfloea

.O P'

neieiiib

eisiiib

I ed:
sis:

193

 

T h
‘ I
o y'

- : a ’W’WW’W‘I '- ,. I
. ' 1 L " 3'1, v‘t .U . t ‘1‘)”; TAT-lg; a ’. 1.? {R |o

   

.HI
I ~ ’ ‘ ,. A
a l " ' -“| y ' 4 'D a v
| , ‘ | F “‘!-L
I Q ~ " ~ - ‘_ s,
, .
. . '.-a , 9 v . I
v ‘ - - lu‘ . ‘
I ,'
r
u
I
O

.Wsmranou or ROLE-ORIENTATION ma»
. ’ _- gg‘ffx- "
hammer—snow IDENTIFICATION IN

I SYSTEMS or BROADCAST

COMMUNICATION

BY

.ggora' '
Gerald CV Beckwith

\

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
’ for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

1968

 

. I . y‘ ' V.. 1.2”. a} _ .‘v 1 I
I .' ‘IN " #1: ‘ " T ‘
. : II urn. ‘ ' I
' I"~‘ 2W! k. MI” :3" I
I " I ‘
II ‘ ‘ ‘ SEAS} I I
. ' LII}I "
' I I“ l' I ‘
‘l V. I
' 'fn . . 3'3”?" ibzrfifi‘|
. ."D '73:". II \c. LII
. | , .’ .1 ' . 1 -' ‘,I In} ‘
I \II I 'v'
6‘ H ‘33“?
I ‘1 . r “l I‘
. . ."‘ -,
A.
. . 0'

.1: ' I ’ I.» to»; “I

 

QCopyright by:
Gerald Clifford Beckwith

1969

ii

 

‘V I ' F':‘ w—
, 4;}. .~ . f5. ‘ ‘ 1‘ . a 'I . h “Pm I)
_ \"1Iw 1 u‘ I »- -‘ . ' - y 5 -0!
. . IN I.’ 1 VJ. I‘ W , I'. .
,4 In».- M-.. .3th . In.» I; -. w .‘ ,-
‘rv' “I‘M. ’ “ " ’ , , ’ U‘v‘s. . .fl ..
. '3'. .., n" 2' , j . ytt‘uI 4-} L .
"It. '0, It.“ . \ "VS TI
.._ _s x " ‘- '.' I.
’ “Q. V.‘ ‘.:}L '1‘
‘r ‘P K-I ‘ v -' . ‘

l.
?«a-
.4”
i

I

e 7* “If

' Q.
v:
I

Fifi-:I‘Ifi' ‘
\

t we}:
1'>:
S.
A

II
‘4

        

t

'3gceptsd by the- faculty of the Department- of Com- .

:‘ii
r

a

3 fimfi College of Communication_Arts, Michigan State
.‘ If; ' ’ '

igyi in partial fulfillment of the requirements for;
, '" tor of Philosophy degree.

mix

Director of Thesis

”a -.
a.

shoe Committee: ' , Chairman ,
V -‘ "

 

 

PREFACE

The present study had its beginnings in a paper pre—
pared while the writer was a student in a seminar in mass
communication theory conducted by Dr. Malcolm S. MacLean,
Jr., during the Winter of 1960. That paper represented an
attempt to devise a conceptual model of the mass communica-
tion process. In its preparation, however, it soon became
apparent that one of the key elements in this process could
not adequately be described. This was the role of the mass
communicator. Little was known concerning the general role
of the mass communicator; still less was known concerning
the role of the broadcaster as a representative type of mass
communicator.

The idea of making some effort to fill this obvious
gap in the literature on mass communication grew over time
and resulted in the present study. Without Dr. MacLean's
encouragement and early assistance, then, this study might
never have been developed.

Many other persons have, of course, contributed sub-
stantially to the study, both directly and indirectly. As
thesis advisor, Dr. Hideya Kumata offered the writer the

benefit of his considerable insight and understanding of

iv

 

 

the complex problems involved in any attempt to construct a
theoretically sound procedure for studying the role of the
American broadcaster. Professor Leo Martin's keen awareness
of the issues involved also contributed greatly to the final
product.

The writer also wishes to acknowledge the assistance
of Dr. David Berlo, who, as chairman of the department, pro-
vided the research project with some much needed support as
well as the means of conducting the computer analysis re-
quired. Dr. Charles P. Loomis, in addition, is to be thanked
for providing necessary encouragement in the utilization of
the theoretic formulation of the pattern-variable, and
Dr. Bruce L. Smith, for his many helpful suggestions on the
preparation of the manuscript.

The writer also wishes to acknowledge the valuable
assistance of A1 Talbott, Jeff Katzer and Anita Immele of
the Communication Research Center, who provided much needed
statistical and programming support.

Finally, and most particularly, the writer wishes to
extend a kind word of thanks to the many professional broad-
casters throughout the country who participated in this

study. Theirs was a contribution truly beyond measure.

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE o I o O o l o o o o o o I o o o I o I o c o iV

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . 1
Media as Organization. . . . . . . . . . 4
Media as Social Systems . . . . . . . . 5
The Concept of Role. . . . . . . . . . . 6
Role-Behavior Variance . . . . . . . . . 9
The Concept of Orientation . . . . . . . 15
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
II. DEVELOPING THE THEORETIC RATIONALE . . . . 24
Focusing the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Theoretic Rationale . . . . . . . . . . 26
The Theory of Action . . . . . . . . . 28
Concept of the Pattern Variable . . . 29
Orientation Defined Conceptually . . 34
Orientation Defined Operationally . . 36
Modes of Orientation . . . . . . 38
Developing Typological Systems . . . 40
Developing a System of Modes of
Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Primary Study Propositions . . . . . . . 49
System Position Proposition . . . . . 50
System Size Proposition . . . . . . . 54
Reference-Group Identification
Proposition . . . . . . . . . . . 58

vi

 

T

CHAPTER Page

Secondary Study Propositions . . . . . . 62
Personal Factors . . . . . . . . . . 63
System Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Role-Behavior Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 64

Study Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

III. INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . 70

Background . . . .

Item Construction . . . .

Scoring Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 76
Item Selection . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Pre- -Testing the Instrument . . . . . 81
Content Validation . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Instrument Reliability . . . . . . . . . 87
Item Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
IV. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND STUDY PROCEDURES . . 91
Population Description . . . . . . . . . 91
Sampling Procedures . . . . . . . . . . 92

Sample Description . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Study Procedures, Problems and

Limitations . . . . . . 107
Description of the "Non-Respondent" . . 111
Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . 114

V. DATA ANALYSIS, PART I . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Correlation Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 116
Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Reference-Group Measure . . . . . . .- 125
Orientation Measure . . . . . . . . . 130
Factor Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

VI. DATA ANALYSIS, PART II . . . . . . . . . . 146

Testing the Primary Study Propositions . 148
System Position Results . . . . . . . 149
System Size Results . . . . . . . . . 154
Reference-Group Results . . . . . . . 158

Testing the Secondary Study
Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . 161

Role- Behavior Test Results . . . . . . . 174

 

CHAPTER Page

Controlled Variable Test Results . . . . 178
Controlling System Size . . . . . . . 178
Controlling System Position . . . . . 184

The Influence of Education Level . . . . 188

VI I . CONCLUS IONS O O O O I I C I D I O C O I O O 19 4
Theoretic Considerations . . . . . . . . 194

Empirical Considerations . . . . . 197
Recommendations for Further Study . . . 208

APPENDICES O O I O I I O O O O D I I I I I O I I O 211

BIBLIOGRAPHY I c o o o c o I O o I I o o c o O c o 311

-o—i- -

viii

 

Table
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1

LIST OF TABLES

Sample responses to forced choice item .
Combinations of objects of orientation .

Distribution of test items by number . .

Distribution of stations in the population

by geographical regions . . . . . . .

Distribution of stations sampled by geo-
graphical regions . . . . . . . . . .

Composition of the sample, by position,
station type and geographical region,
indicating the number of requests for
study participation in each category
and the number of favorable returns
received . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Composition of the sample, by position,
station type and geographical region,
based upon the total number of ques-
tionnaires returned . . . . . . . . .

Composition of the final study sample,
by position, station type and geo-
graphical region . . . . . . . . . .

A comparison of the primary sample and
the control sample returns . . . . .

A comparison of certain personal charac-
teristics of respondents . . . . . .

A comparison of certain general system
characteristics . . . . . . . . . . .

Field modification of the primary sample

ix

Page
84
86
89

96

97

98

100

102

104

106

108

110

 

Table Page

5.1 Background and behavior variables:

inter-item correlations . . . . . . . 118
5.2 System variables: inter—item

correlations . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
5.3 Reference factor solution . . . . . . . 127
5.4 Role—orientation factor solution . . . . 131
5.5 Summary identification of orientation

factors 0 O I O O O O O I I O O O O O 143
6.1 Chi-square results relating background

variables and orientation factors . . 150
6.2 Chi—square results relating system

variables and orientation factors . . 155
6.3 Chi-square results relating reference-

factors and orientation factors . . . 159
6.4 Chi—square results relating orientation

factors and system behaviors . . . . 175
6.5 Controlled variable chi-square results

with size of system controlled . . . 182
6.6 Controlled variable chi-square results

with position in system controlled . 186
6.7 Controlled variable chi—square results

with station type and experience
controlled and level of education

varied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.8 Controlled variable chi-square results

with education controlled and role-

function varied . . . . . . . . . . . 193

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Unit of Social Action . . . . . . . . . . 28
2. System Orientation Patterns . . . . . . . 46

xi

 

Appendix

A.

B.

C.

D.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Study Participation Request Forms .
Rules of Order for Sample Selection
Study Questionnaire . . . . . . . .

Correlations of Background, System
and Test Variables . . . . . . .

Reference Measure: Inter—Item
Correlations . . . . . . . . . .

Orientation Measure: Inter—Item
Correlations . . . . . . . . . .

Reference Measure: Factor Loading Matrix

Orientation Measure: Factor Loading
Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reference Measure: Rotated Factor
Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orientation Measure: Rotated Factor
Loadings . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orientation Measure: Item Means and
Standard Deviations . . . . . . .

Orientation Measure: Item Analysis .

Reference Measure: Factor Score
Coefficients . . . . . . . . . .

Orientation Measure: Factor Score
Coefficients . . . . . . . . . .

Reference Measure: Roster of Factor
Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Orientation Measure: Roster of Factor

SCOreS I I I I I I I I I I I I .

Chi-Square Results: Reference Factors

Shown as Dependent Variables . .

Page
212
220

224

237

244

247

253

256

265

268

272
276

284

286

289

299

309

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

 

For a period of years the study of communication
has followed the pattern suggested by Harold Lasswell in
his now famous formulation, "who says what in which channel

to whom with what effect?"1

Of the various elements con—
tained in this formulation, however, the first element,
the "who," has received less than its full measure of
attention, at least so far as its application to the study
of mass communication has been concerned.

With the exception of a wide range of biographical
studies, personal remembrances and fan magazine "profiles,"
few attempts have been made to investigate the mass commu-
nicator in his natural setting. Rosten's early studies of

the Washington correspondent and the Hollywood movie maker

are somewhat unique in this regard,2 as is the later work

 

lHarold Lasswell, "Communication Functions," in
Lyman Bryson, ed., The Communication of Ideas (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 19487, p. 37.

2Leo Rosten, The Washington Correspondents (New
York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1937). Leo Rosten, Holly—
wood: The Movie Colony and the Movie Makers (New York: Har-
court, Brace and Co., 1941).

 

'12.
in.
-

 

of Hortense Powdermaker,3 Charles Swanson,4 and Warren
Breed.5 Other works of a closely related nature include
White's famous study of the "gatekeeper,"6 Gieber's inves—
tigation of the editing practices of a group of wire edi-
tors,7 Pool and Shulman's analysis of possible bias among

a group of newsmen,8 and the work of Donahew,9 Gieber,10

 

3Hortense Powdermaker, Hollywood: The Dream Fac-
tory (New York: Little, Brown and Co., 1950).

 

4Charles Swanson, "Midcity Daily: The News Staff
and Its Relation to Control," Journalism Quarterly, Vol.
26 (Winter, 1949), pp. 20-28.

 

5Warren Breed, "Social Control in the News Room,"
in W. Schramm, ed., Mass Communications (Urbana, Ill: Univ.

of Illinois Press, 1960), pp. 178—195.

6David White, "The 'Gatekeeper': A Case Study in
the Selection of News," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 27
(Fall, 1950): PP. 383-390.

7Walter Gieber, “Across the Desk: A Study of 16
Telegraph Editors," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 33 (Fall,
1956). pp. 423-432.

8Ithiel de Sola Pool and Irwin Shulman, "Newsmen's
Fantasies, Audiences, and Newswriting," Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 23 (Summer, 1959), pp. 145-158.

 

 

9Lewis Donahew, "Publishers and Their 'Influence'
Groups," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 42 (Winter, 1965),
pp. 112—113.

loWalter Gieber, "The Communicator of the News: A
Study of the Roles of Sources and Reporters,“ Social
Forces, Vol. 39 (October, 1960), pp. 76-83.

 

12

Judd,l3

Gieber and Johnson,11 Gray and Edward, and Win-
ick,14 among others.

A review of the studies cited reveals a number of
significant gaps in present knowledge of the working role
of the mass communicator. The lack of knowledge in this
respect is particularly evident in the case of the profes—
sional broadcaster. As pointed out by Leo Bogart, some
years ago: "Much is known about the audiences for various
types of television programs, but remarkably little is
known about the broadcasters themselves."15

Bogart's statement is further echoed by Riley and

Riley. In their study of mass communication and the so—

cial system, the Rileys conclude that a great need exists

 

llWalter Gieber and Walter Johnson, "The City Hall
'Beat': A Study of Reporter and Source Roles," Journalism
Quarterly, Vol. 38 (Summer, 1961), pp. 289—297.

12David L. Grey and Gerald J. Edward, "How the
Newsman Lives: A Self-Image Study," paper presented at
A.E.J. convention, Austin, Texas (August, 1964).

13Robert Judd, "The Newspaper Reporter in a Subur-
ban City," Journalsim Quarterly, Vol. 38 (Winter, 1961),
pp. 35-42.

14Charles Winick, "The Television Station Manager,"
édvanced Management Journal, Vol. 31 (January, 1966), pp.
3—60.

 

 

15Leo Bogart, The Age of Television (New York: F.
Ungar Publishing Co., 1956), p. 348.

 

 

for more concentrated investigation in this important area
"if the social role of the mass communicator is to be thor-

oughly understood.“16

Media as Organization

 

The "who" in the Lasswell formulation quoted ear-
lier is, in Wilbur Schramm's words, "a communication or—

17 Since the

ganization or an institutionalized person."
mass communicator functions within the context of such an
organized system, an understanding of his working role
might best be secured through an examination of the nature
of the formal, or the complex, organization. Systems of
this type have, of course, been studied in some detail by

18 20

March and Simon, Amitai Etzioni,19 Victor Thompson,

 

16John Riley and Matilda Riley, "Mass Communication
and the Social System," in Merton, Broom and Cottrell,
eds., Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959),
p. 568.

l7Wilbur Schramm, "How Communication Works," in
W. Schramm, ed., The Process and Effects of Mass Communica—
tion (Urbana, 111.: University of Ill. Press, 1955 , p. 8.

18James G. March and Herbert A. Simon, Organiza-
tions (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958).

19Amitai Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex
Or anizations (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc.,
1961).

20Victor A. Thompson, Modern Organization: A Gen—
eral Theory (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961).

 

Robert Golembiewski,21 Blau and Scott,22 and others. The

results of these investigations appear to indicate that

all formally constituted organizations have certain char-
acteristics in common. Formal organizations are (1) sys—
tems of cooperative relationships, (2) containing any number
of persons, (3) usually differentiated by function and
arranged in some form of hierarchy, (4) for the explicit
purpose of gaining some stated goa1(s) or for the produc-
tion of certain output(s), (5) the attainment of which will
result in the return of given forms of satisfaction, ma-

terial or otherwise, to the members.

Media as Social Systems

Any formal organization consisting of "systems of
cooperative relationships" may be described as a social
system. Social systems have been variously defined by a
number of writers. The definition employed by Parsons and
Shils, however, seems most applicable to present considera—

tions. This reads as follows:23

 

21Robert Golembiewski, Behavior and Organization
(New York: Rand McNally, 1962).

22Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Or-
ganizations: A Comparative Approach (San Francisco: Chandler
Publishing Co., 1962).

23Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, eds., Toward a
General Theory of Action (Boston: Harvard University Press,
1951). p. 197.

 

 

W

A social system is a system of the actions of individ-
uals, the principal units of which are roles and con-
stellations of roles. It is a system of differentiated
actions, organized into a system of differentiated
roles.

Mass communication systems, as formal organizations,
may, then, be described as social systems and studied ac-
cordingly. Conceptually, as Parsons and Shils have pointed
out, an analysis of this type may best be conducted in

terms of a study of roles.

The Concept of Role

 

An examination of the main body of sociological
literature reveals that few concepts have been so widely
accepted or so generally applied as that of the social
role.24 It has been pointed out, however, that although
the concept has been widely used, there nonetheless exists
a lack of agreement concerning certain aspects of its use.

Although role has been variously used, it most fre—
quently has been defined in terms of the expected or ap-

propriate modes of behavior which are assigned to occupants

or given positions within set social systems. Newcomb has

 

24Lionel J. Neiman and James W. Hughes, "The Prob-
lem of the Concept of Role—-A Re-survey of the Literature,"
Social Forces, Vol. 30 (December, 1951), pp. 141-149.
25Neal Gross, Ward Mason and Alexander McEachern,
gxplorations in Role Analysis (New York: John Wiley & Sons,
958), pp. 11-47.

 

25

z

written, for example, that "the ways of behaving which are
expected of any individual who occupies a certain position
constitute the £212 . . . associated with that position."26
The development of the concept of role in terms of
"what others expect of the person," gives rise to the com-
plimentary concept of role-expectations, which are said to
be approved standards of behavior having many of the attri-
butes of norms. "While a norm is a directive to action,"
Turner has written, "a role is a set of norms, with the
additional normative element that the individual is ex-
pected to be consistent."27
In addition to defining what is expected of the
person under given circumstances, the concept of role fre—
quently takes into account the characteristic mode of be-
havior actually exhibited by persons occupying the desig-
nated social positions. Newcomb has, in this regard,
developed the related concept of role—behavior.28 The

concept has also been described as "role-enactment"29 and

 

26Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psycholggy (New York:
Holt and Co., Inc., 1950), p. 280.

27Ralph H. Turner, "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint
and Reference—Group Behavior," American Journal of Socio—
logy, Vol. 51 (January, 1956), pp. 316-328.

28

 

 

Newcomb, op. cit., p. 330.

29Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory," in G. Lindzey,
ed., Handbook of Social Psycholo , Vol. I (Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1954), pp. 223-258.

 

as "role-performance."30 Regardless of the specific term
employed to express concept, however, the view of the
matter is that differences may exist, and most frequently
do exist, between how a person is expected to behave in a
given social context and how he actually does behave.

The differentiation between the expectational as—
pect of role and the performance aspect has been accorded
wide acceptance both theoretically and empirically. This
has been due in no small measure to the work of Gross,
Mason and McEachern who focused on the general problem of
what they chose to call the "postulate of consensus" in
their study of the school superintendency role.31 This
postulate takes the form of a belief that there exists
basic agreement among the various members of a social sys-
tem with reference to what is or is not "appropriate beha-
vior" for the position occupant. Agreement in this context,
of course, may be taken to imply normativeness.

The postulate of consensus also reflects the assump-
tion that different position occupants will respond to the
demands of the role in quite similar fashions. Such an
assumption, however, is often difficult to reconcile with

experience as Gross, Mason and McEachern point out. "The

 

3OTurner, op. cit., p. 317.

31Gross, Mason and McEachern, op. cit., pp. 21-47.

 

assumption that there is consensus on role definition,"
they write, "on the basis of which socialization takes
place is untenable for the occupational position we

studied."32

Rple-Behavior Variance

 

As Gross, Mason and McEachern have also observed,
"one of the tasks role theorists set themselves is to ac-
count for the variability of the behavior of incumbents of

the same position."33

This is a task which has been ap—
proached from several points of view.

Gordon Allport's approach to the problem is that
of personality theorist. According to Allport the concept
of role has four aspects: (1) role-expectations, which
are defined in terms of "what the culture or subculture

prescribes,’ (2) role-conception, defined as the manner in
which the individual defines his role, (3) role-acceptance,
which is said to be the degree to which the individual is
willing to accept or act out the role expectations pre-
scribed for the position, and (4) role-performance, which

is defined as the manner in which the individual actually

acts out his role in the social system.34 "The

 

32Ibid., p. 321.

33Ibid., p. 4.

34Gordon W. Allport, Pattern and Growth in Person-

ality (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 184.

 

 

10

expectations," Allport writes, "are uniform and prescribed,
but the variation that occurs through differing concep-
tions, degrees of acceptance, and all attendant features
and traits of personality, modifies greatly the eventual
role-performance."35
Newcomb's point of view regarding variation in role
behavior differs somewhat from Allport's although it, too,
is psychologically based. Variations in role behavior,
Newcomb suggests, are tied simply to differences in the
individual's "predispositions to take roles," depending
upon differences in role perceptions and differences in
motive patterns. "Because role—behaviors are personally
motivated," he writes, "and because they are in part de-
termined by self-perceptions which are never fully shared,
no two individuals ever take the same roles in identical
ways."36
Other factors which, according to Newcomb, contri—
bute to the "commonplace observation“ that no two persons
ever take the same role in exactly the same way are (1)
the existence of certain constitutional elements which are
related to the fact that individuals are born different
and develop different physical attributes, (2) the unique

conditions under which given roles are learned by different

 

35Ibid.

36Newcomb, op. cit., p. 333.

 

11

individuals, and (3) the particular sets of attitudes con-
cerning the nature of the self and the nature of others
which are maintained by different individuals.37
The process of differential socialization has also
been employed to account for differences in role—behavior.
Socialization, as defined by Child, "Is . . . a broad term
for the whole process by which an individual, born with
behavioral potentialities of enormously wide range, is led
to develop actual behavior which is confined within a much
narrower range--the range of what is customary and accep-
table for him according to the standards of his group."38
In effect, socialization refers to a system of learning
practiced in a given social group and directed toward.
training the child to take on himself appropriately pre-
scribed roles. Because of differences in technique, in
degrees of effectiveness, and in a number of related fac-
tors, however, the process of socialization usually results
in behavior patterns that differ somewhat in practice. All
.children are socialized, it seems, but not always to quite

the same degree.

 

37Newcomb, op. cit., pp. 298—334.

38Irvin L. Child, "Socialization," in G. Lindzey,

ed., Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. II (Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954), p. 655.

‘

   

12

The concept of socialization has, in addition, been
extended to include considerations of other than childhood
experiences. David Gottlieb, for example, employs the

39 It is Gottlieb's view

concept of "adult socialization."
that socialization can be described as gay development

"which entails the modification of self through the acqui-
sition of personality characteristics through contact with

'significant others.'"40

Used in this manner, the concept
may refer to the general process by means of which the
individual takes on himself any unfamiliar role. This is
also the sense of the term employed by Brim and Wheeler.41
The process of "taking on the role of the other"
has been well described in the work of George Herbert
Mead.42 This process is itself basic to the process of
socialization. To take the role of the other implies the
development of an individual self and the development

within the self of those attitudes of identification which

 

39David Gottlieb, "Adult Socialization: A Discus-
sion of the Sociological Literature," Unpublished paper,
Department of Sociology, Michigan State University (East
Lansing: 1960).

4oIbid., p. 3.

41Orville G. Brim, Jr., and Stanton Wheeler, So-
cialization After Childhood: Two Essays (New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966).

 

42George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934).

 

 

13

are approved by the social group. "I have pointed out,"
Mead writes, "that there are two general stages in the
full development of the self."43
At the first of these stages, the individual's self is
constituted simply by an organization of the particular
attitudes of other individuals toward himself and
toward one another in the specific social acts in which
he participates with them. But at the second stage in
the full development of the individual's self that self
is constituted not only by an organization of these
particular attitudes, but also by an organization of
the social attitudes of the generalized other of the
social group as a whole to which he belongs.
At another point in his writings, Mead states: "What goes
to make up the organized self is the organization of the
attitudes which are common to the group. A person is a
personality because he belongs to a community, because he
takes over the institutions of that community into his own
conduct."44
The process of socialization and the process of
taking the role of the other, as described by Mead, are
joined by one common understanding, that of the importance
of the role-model, whether in the form of the "significant

other" or in the form of the "generalized other," persons

or groups who tend to influence directly or indirectly the

 

43Ibid., p. 235.

44Mead, op. cit., p. 239.

 

l4

role—taking (socialization) process. In a more general
body of literature such persons or groups have been termed
reference objects or reference groups.45
It has been suggested by a number of writers that
the group, or groups, to which one is oriented, by member-
ship or identification, tend to serve systematically as a
measure of the individual's social perceptions and as a
primary source of attitudes, values and norms for behavior.
As Sherif and Sherif have pointed out, the group thus forms
a general "frame of reference" for the individual by pro—
viding him with a meaningful basis for relating to his
environment.46
There are, of course, many different types of
groups which can be characterized as reference groups in
this sense. Merton, for example, has distinguished between
the membership and the non-membership group, the positive
reference group and the negative reference group and groups

serving single reference functions and multiple reference

functions. "Reference groups are, in principle," he

 

45Robert K. Merton and A. Kitt, "Contributions to
the Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in R. K. Merton
and P. F. Lazarsfeld, eds., Studies in the Scope and Method
of the American Soldier (Glencoe, 111.: the Free Press,
1950), pp. 42-53.

46Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Outline
of Social Psycholpgy, Rev. Edition (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1956), p. 80.

 

 

 

 

15

writes, "almost innumerable. . . ."47 Any group, in brief,

has the capability of becoming a point of reference "for
shaping one's attitudes, evaluations, and behavior."48

The multiplicity of possible reference groups, each
one of which may for the individual be quite determining
in matters relating to the process of taking the role of
the other, makes the variability of role behavior more
understandable.

In the above consideration several well defined
perspectives have been described, each one of which has
from time to time been employed as the basis for at least
a partial explanation of why the behavior of various per-
sons performing similar roles might tend to differ in light
of presumed "agreement" in role-expectations. Attention
will next be focused on yet another possible explanation
for the same phenomenon, that related to the concept of

orientation.

The Concept of Orientation

 

Max Weber, the German sociologist, was perhaps the
first to employ the concept of orientation in a description

of social action. According to Weber, "social action, like

 

47Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc-

ture (Glencoe, I11.: The Free Press, 1957), p. 233.
48

 

Ibid.

 

16

other forms of action, may be classified in the following
,four types according to its mode of orientation: (1) in
terms of rational orientation to a system of discrete indi-
vidual ends . . . (2) in terms of rational orientation to
an absolute value . . . (3) in terms of affectual orienta—
tion, especially emotional, determined by the specific
affects and states of feeling of the actor; (4) tradition-
ally oriented, through the habituation of long practice."49
Today it is possible to identify several additional
uses of the orientation concept. The most widely recog-
nized of which is as an element in the theory of action.50
The actor's system of orientations is constituted by a
great number of specific orientations. Each of these
'orientations of action' is a 'conception' (explicit
or implicit, conscious or unconscious) which the actor
has of the situation in terms of what he wants (his
ends), what he sees (how the situation looks to him),
and how he intends to get from the objects he sees the
things he wants (his explicit or implicit, normatively
regulated 'plan' of action).
While the Weberian notion of orientation is clearly
recognized in this statement, much has been added. The

individual's mode of orientation is, in this context, con-

ceptualized as a gystem of orientations. This implies that

 

 

49Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic

Organization, Edited by Talcott Parsons (New York: The
Free Press, 1964), p. 115.

50Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, "Categories
of the Orientation and Organization of Action," in Parsons
and Shils, eds., Toward a General Theogyyof Action (Boston:
Harvard University Press, 1951), p. 54.

 

 

 

17

the individual is not strictly limited to a single orienta-
tion but that he maintains a general orientation to types
of situations and certain specific orientations to objects
located within these situations.

As places in which actions occur, situations con-
sist of "objects of orientation," while the orientation of
the actor consists of "the set of cognitions, cathexes,
plans and relevant standards which relates the actor to

51

the situation." The concept of orientation, then, as

employed by Parsons and Shils, refers first to the actor's
definition of the situation and secondly to what the actor
thinks about or feels toward objects contained within the
situation.

The concept of orientation defined by the theory
of action is also described in terms of a combination of

elements. Of most direct interest in these regards are

those of motivation and evaluation.52

The orientation of the actor to the situation may be
broken down into a set of analytic elements. These
elements are not separate within the orientation pro—
cess; they might be conceived as different aspects or
different ingredients of that process. They may be
divided into two analytically independent categories:

a category of elements of motivational orientation
(appearances, wants, plans), and a category of elements
of value-orientation (cognitive standards, aesthetic
standards, moral standards).

 

51Parsons and Shils, op. cit., p. 56.

52Ibid., p. 58.

 

F"

18

Parsons and Shils further define motivation to include
drives, "a set of tendencies on the part of the organism

to acquire certain goal objects," and need-dispositions,

 

"tendencies to orient and act with respect to objects in
certain manners and to expect certain consequences."53
Value—orientations are said to refer "to those aspects of
the actor's orientation which commit him to the observance
of certain norms, standards, criteria of selection, when-
ever he is in a contingent situation which allows (and
requires) him to make a choice."54
A second use of the concept of orientation, one
which is also suggested in the work of Parsons, is as an
internalized system of values. In this sense one speaks
of an individual's value-orientation. Clyde Kluckhohn is
most identified with the concept when used in this sense.
A value-orientation as employed by Kluckhohn, “may be de-
fined as a generalized and organized conception, influenc—
ing behavior, of nature, of man's place in it, of man's

relation to man, and of the desirable and nondesirable as

they may relate to man-environment and interhuman rela-

 

tions."55
53Ibid., pp. 110-114.
54Ibid., p. 59.
55

Clyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value—Orientations
in the Theory of Action," in Talcott Parsons and Edward A.
Shils, eds., Toward a General Theory of Action, op. cit.,
p. 411.

 

19

As Kluckhohn views the matter, a value is not a
simple preference nor is a person's value-orientation sim-
ply an organized system of preferences. Values go beyond
statements of preferences and involve the abstract sense
of the desirable as opposed to an image of that which may
actually be desired. "The desirable," Kluckhohn writes,

"is what it is felt or thought proper to want. It is what
an actor or group of actors desire--and believe they 'ought'
or 'should' desire--for the individual or a plurality of

"56 Values, then, are standards of what should

individuals.
be desired. In the abstract these are enduring and not
directly limited to any particular situation or set of
circumstances.

Another use of the concept of orientation is re-
flected in the work of Theodore Newcomb, where it is em-
ployed in the sense of a generalizing tendency or predis-
position. To an extent Newcomb's use of the concept
implies the more basic term attitude. "Attitudes," he
writes, "represent persistent, general orientations of the

57

individual toward his environment." Elsewhere Newcomb

states that "the concept of attitude is a shorthand way of

 

56Ibid., p. 396.

57Newcomb, op. cit., p. 119.

 

20

saying that people learn as a result of experience to
orient themselves towards objects and symbols."58

As Newcomb views the matter, then, attitudes are
representative of general orientations to action: "A per-
son's attitude toward something refers not so much to his
learned forms of response to it, which may vary, as to his
learned direction-set toward it."59

A fourth, closely related, use of the concept of
orientation--one frequently employed by Merton, for exam-
ple—-is in the sense of a simple social or psychological
relationship, as in the phrase "the child's peer group
orientation." What is implied here is that the individual
maintains a certain characteristic outlook or perspective
with reference to others. "Others" in this sense can be
defined as other persons or as other ideas, systems of
ideas, values, or objects, as in reference group orienta-
tion, career orientation, political orientation, economic
orientation or religious orientation.

A somewhat different approach to the concept of
orientation is reflected in the work of Etzioni, where it
is used as a form of involvement or commitment to a social

60

group or to a complex organization. For Etzioni persons

 

58Ibid., p. 118.

59Ibid.

60Amitai Etzioni, op. cit., pp. 1-16.

 

21

tend to relate to organizations in terms of their relative

acceptance or rejection of the system of power which is

characteristic of the organization. This can be seen from

the following:61
The orientation of the subordinated actor can be char-
acterized as positive (commitment) or negative (aliena-
tion). It is determined in part by the degree to which
the power applied is considered legitimate by the sub-
ordinated actor and, in part, by its congruence with
the line of action he would desire. We refer to this
orientation, whether positive or negative, as involve-
ment in the organization.

In this respect the actor's orientation may be defined as

a system of beliefs and values, including a set related to

conceptions of power and authority.

As suggested in the above discussion, the concept
of orientation has had a variety of interpretations and
uses. Principally, however, it has been employed to
refer to the relationship between individuals and certain
types of others in given situations and to refer to those
elements, both cognitive and affective, which are most
characteristic of the individual's "point of view" and

which tend thereby to define relationships for the indi-

vidual.

 

61lbid., p. 4.

 

r.__ _- .1.

22

Summary

At the beginning of this chapter it was pointed
out that little is known concerning the role of the mass
communicator. The lack of information concerning the role
of the broadcaster was particularly stressed. It was also
suggested that in order to increase the level of under-
standing of this role, for the specific benefit of students
of mass media and society, a systematic study of the role
would need to be undertaken.

In a consideration of the more general aspects of
the problem it was recognized (1) that the so-called mass
communicator occupies a position within a formal organiza-
tion, (2) that the formal organization has all of the at-
tributes of a social system, (3) that studies of social
systems frequently involve a utilization of the concept of
role, and (4) that the concept of role introduces certain
theoretically related problems, namely the problems of
consensus and role-behavior variability.

A brief review of the literature related to the
concept of role and role-behavior was undertaken. Several
explanations of role—behavior variability were considered.
These included explanations based upon personality differ-
ences, perceptual and predispositional differences, dif-
ferential socialization and differences in orientation.

The concept of orientation was given special attention and

 

23

detailed review because it appeared to offer a reasonable
solution to the problems of role-consensus and role-behavior
variability and a basis for interrelating other primary

study concepts in a meaningful manner.

 

P’——-‘-

CHAPTER II

DEVELOPING THE THEORETIC RATIONALE

It is the purpose of this chapter to (1) provide a
specific focus for the study to be undertaken, (2) develop
a theoretic rationale based upon a consideration of the
theory of action, (3) operationalize the principal concepts
which will be employed in the development of the study,
and (4) indicate the primary and secondary study proposi—

tions and related hypotheses which will be tested.

Focusing the Study

The preceding chapter concluded with the view that
little attention has been given in the research literature
to the general role of the mass communicator. It is evident
too, from a review of the literature that no specific in-
vestigation has yet been attempted of the role of the
American broadcaster as a representative type of mass
communicator.

The general purpose of the present study is, then,
to develop an awareness of certain aspects of the role of
the mass communicator, namely his role—orientation and his
reference-group identifications.

24

 

25

To sharpen the focus of the study still further,
its purpose is to deve10p an awareness of the role-orien-
tation and reference-group identifications of broadcast
communicators, that is, persons occupying positions of
responsibility in systems of broadcast communication as
defined by certain standards of sample selection.

Not all persons engaged occupationally in systems
of mass communication can technically be defined as mass
communicators of course. All persons engaged occupationally
in systems of mass communication do, nonetheless, perform
roles. The role of the mass communicator, however, is
distinct. The mass communicator is a message producer,
one who is engaged directly with the process of determining
message content and form. Broadcast engineers, regardless
of their positions in the system hierarchy, can not be
considered mass communicators. Broadcast newsmen, however,
at least those who write the news or make decisions regard-
ing the reporting of events, may be viewed as mass commu—
nicators in this sense of the term.

No attempt need be made at this time to define more
specifically the character of the mass communication sys-
tems or the special positions within such systems that fit
the above qualifications and which will be sampled for
study purposes. These particular concerns will be consid-
ered in Chapter IV, the chapter on procedures and method—

ology.

26

Theoretic Rationale

 

The theoretic rationale developed for the present
study can be expressed simply. In brief, it is assumed
(1) that all broadcast stations exhibit the attributes
generally associated in the literature of the social
sciences with the concept of the formal organization, (2)
that the concept of the formal organization implies a sys-
tem of social action, (3) that systems of social action
are composed of units of social action, (4) that basic to
any single unit of social action is the concept of a posi-
tion, (5) that individuals occupying positions in the sys-
tem enact roles, (6) that roles are best defined in terms
of expectations, (7) that role-expectations are implicitly
or explicitly communicated to position occupants, (8) that
role-expectations so communicated are subjected to proces-
ses of individual interpretation, (9) that the processes
of interpretation are mediated by the individual's role-
orientation, (10) that the mediated responses of the posi-
tion occupant constitute his role-behavior, and (11) that
the output of the system is in large measure determined by
the types of role—behaviors performed.

The elements of this system center on the position
occupant, his role-orientation and role-behavior. These
elements, conceptualized in terms of a single focal posi-
tion, are represented in Figure 1. Here "system others"

are assumed to be persons who occupy positions in the

27

system having reciprocal relations with the occupant of
the focal position and who develop certain expectations
regarding the ideal behavior of the focal position occu-
pant. These expectations, termed role-expectations, are
transmitted to the person occupying the focal position.
Communications containing role-expectations are termed
the "sent role," following the terminology employed by
Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, 2E. al,, in their study of organiza-
tional stress.1 The messages comprising the "sent role"
are received by the occupant of the focal position and
mediated by the occupant's "role-orientation." The "med-
iated responses" of the position occupant, which are
assumed to be internalized processes, result, in part, in
certain patterns of role-behavior.2

Role-behaviors as the product of the process de-
scribed, may take one of two forms. They may be covert,
in the form of attitudes or predispositions to respond,
or overt, in the form of actions. System output, as an
observable phenomenon, is assumed to be the consequence

of role behaviors performed as action only, however.

 

1Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn,
et. 81-: 0p. cit., p. 15.
2Charles E. Osgood, Method and Theory in Experi-

mental Ps cholo (New York: Oxford University Press,
95 ’ pp. 3 - 2o

 

28

J

Role-Orientation
of Focal Position
Occupant

 

 

 

 

Mediated
Response

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

System ’

Role-Behavior . System
Others

of OccupantAy Output

 

 

 

 

 

 

Role-ExpectationsJ

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Unit of Social Action

The Theory of Action

In the preceding chapter the concept of orientation
was reviewed in terms of its various uses by different
theorists. The concept as develoPed by Parsons and Shils
was stressed particularly. This conceptualization of
orientation has been employed as an essential element in
an involved theoretic formulation described by Parsons and
Shils as the theory of action. Basically, the theory of
action "is a conceptual scheme for the analysis of the
behavior of living organisms."3 As defined, any behavior,'

“mm m"-

of whatever form, can be termed an action. _A§inDS_Lake——

mm-
a... fim'wul" um "#‘
MM.—_,W

 

place in situations”whichmconsistwoflobjacts,~social,
"w”,111._n——

‘ h....n..._-—"v--U‘

 

3Parsons and Shils, op. cit., p. 53.

29

physical or cultural. "Each actor has a system of rela-
tions-to-objects; this is called his 'system of orienta-
tions.”4 Objects of all types are defined by the actor.
in terms of their relative significance. They also are
cathected, that is, viewed as either wanted or not wanted.
Objects so regarded "become organized into the actor's
system of orientation."5
The actor's system of orientation is constituted by a
great number of specific orientations. Each of these
"orientations of action" is a "conception" (explicit
or implicit, conscious or unconscious) which the actor
has of the situation in terms of what he wants (his
ends), what he sees (how the situation looks to him),
and how he intends to get from the objects he sees the
things he wants (his explicit, normatively regulated
"plan" of action).
The theory of action, then, simply stated, "involves ac-
tors, a situation of action, and the orientation of the

actor to that situation."6

Concept of the Pattern Variable

The consideration of how actors relate to situa-
tions is conceptualized in the theory of action in terms
of Talcott Parsons' well-known formulation of the "pattern

variable." A pattern variable is defined as "a dichotomy,

 

4Parsons and Shils, 0p. cit., p. 54.
5Ibid., p. 54.

61bid., p. 56.

30

one side of which must be chosen by an actor before the
meaning of a situation is determined for him, and thus
before he can act with respect to that situation."7
The manner in which the concept of the pattern
variable is joined with the concept of orientation in the
theory of action is described as follows:8
At the outset we must mention two general features
which characterize and perhaps define all such orien-
tations, but which are of such a general nature that
they are not termed as separate modes of orientation.
These are (l) the choice aspect and (2) the expectancy
aspect of the orientation. The first implise that
every orientation is explicitly or implicitly an orien-
tation of alternatives; the orientation involves a
scanning of several possible courses of action and a
choice from them. The second implies that every orien-
tation is an "expectancy" in the sense that it is an
orientation to the future state of the situation as
well as the present.
The actor's orientation to the situation is, then, deter-
mined by the pattern of choices among possible action al-
ternatives which he is required to make with regard to
certain relevant objects within the particular situation.
These may be discrete choices for action, habits of choice
as determined by personality factors, aspects of role-
definition, and aspects of value standards.
Basically, too, pattern variables are, in most

applications, "the categories for the description of value-

orientations . . . A given value-orientation or some

 

71bid., p. 77.

81bido, PI 68.

31

particular aspect of it may be interpreted as imposing a

preference or giving a primacy to one alternative over the

other in a particular type of situation."9

 

The aspect of the pattern variable concept which
will be Operationalized in the present study relates to
the definition of role. In the theory of action, "for most
purposes the conceptual unit of the social systems is the
£212, The role is a sector of the individual actor's total
system of action. It is the point of contact between the
system of action of the individual and the social system."10

"The primary ingredient of the role," moreover,
"is the role-expectation. Role-expectations are patterns
of evaluation; their primary constituents are analytically
derivable from the pattern-variable combinations and from
derivatives of the pattern variables when these are com-
bined with the specific types of situations."11

There are in the theory of action a total of five
pattern variables which, in Parsons' view, constitute an
exhaustive listing. These include, (1) affectivity vs.

affective-neutrality, (2) self-orientation vs. collectivity-

orientation, (3) universalism vs. particularism, (4)

 

9Parsons and Shils, 0p. cit., p. 78.

loIbid., p. 190.

llIbid.

32

ascription (quality considerations) vs. achievement (per-
formance standards), and (5) specificity vs. diffuseness.
Each of the five pattern variables identified in
the Parsonian system will be described below, relative to
its direct application in the definition of roles. Related
to each is one of the five so-called "dilemmas of choice,"
or areas of relevance, which Parsons employs to focus his
theory. These are the five specific choices which the
actor must make "before the situation has a determinate
12

meaning for him."

1. The dilemma of gratification of impulse versus
discipline:'

 

a. Affectivity: the role-expectation that the
incumbent of the role may freely express cer-
tain affective reactions to objects in the
situation and need not attempt to control them
in the interest of discipline.

 

b. Affective neutrality: the role-expectation
that the incumbent of the role in question
should restrain any impulses to certain affec-
tive expressions and subordinate them to con-
siderations of discipline. In both cases the
affect may be positive or negative, and the
discipline (or permissiveness) may apply only
to certain qualitative types of affective ex-
pression (e.g., sexual).

 

2. The dilemma of private versus collective interests,
or the distribution between private permissiveness
and collective obligation.

a. Self-orientation: the role-expectation by the
relevant actors that it is permissible for the
incumbent of the role in question to give pri—
ority in the given situation to his own private

 

 

12Ibid., pp. 76-91.

The

33

interests, whatever their motivational content
or quality, independently of their bearing on
the interests or values of a given collectivity
of which he is a member, or the interests of
other actors.

Collectivity-orientation: the role-expectation
by the relevant actors that the actor is obliged,
as an incumbent of the role in question, to take
directly into account the values and interests
of the collectivity of which, in this role, he
is a member. When there is a potential conflict
with his private interests, he is expected in
the particular choice to give priority to the
collective interest. This also applies to his
action in representative roles on behalf of the
collectivity.

 

dilemma of transcendence versus immanence. In

confronting any situation, the actor faces the
dilemma whether to treat the objects in the situa-
tion in accordance with a general norm covering 311
objects in that class or whether to treat them in
accordance with their standing in some particular
relationship to him or his collectivity, indepen-
dently of the object's subsumibility under a general
norm.

a.

The

Universalism: the role—expectation that, in
qualifications for memberships and decisions

for differential treatment, priority will be
given to standards defined in completely gen-
eralized terms, independent of the particular
relationship of the actor's own statuses (quali-
ties or performances, classificatory or rela-
tional) to those of the object.

 

Particularism: the role-expectation that, in
qualifications for memberships and decisions
for differential treatment, priority will be
given to standards which assert the primary of
the values attached to objects by their partic-
ular relations to the actor's properties
(qualities or performances, classificatory or
relational) as over against their general uni-
versally applicable class prOperties.

 

dilemma of object modalities. When confronting

 

an object in a situation, the actor faces the
dilemma of deciding how to treat it. Is he to
treat it in the light of what it is in itself

34

or in the light of what it does or what might flow
from its actions?

a. Ascri tion: the role—expectation that the role
incumbent, in orienting himself to social ob-
jects in the relevant choice situation, will
accord priority to the objects' given attributes
(whether universalistically or particularisti-
cally defined) over their actual or potential
performances.

 

 

b. Achievement: the role-expectation that the role
incumbent, in orienting to social objects in the
relevant choice situation, will give priority to
the objects' actual or expected performances,
and to their attributes only as directly rele-
vant to these performances, over attributes
which are essentially independent of the specific
performances in question.

 

5. The dilemma of the scope of significance of the
ob'ect. PIn confronting an object, an actor must
choose among the various possible ranges in which
he will respond to the object.

a. Diffuseness: the role—expectation that the role
incumbent, at the relevant choice point, will
accept any potential significance of a social
object, including obligation to it, which is
compatible with his other interests and obliga-l
tions, and that he will give priority to this
expectation over any disposition to confine the
role-orientation to a specific range of signifi-
cance of the object.

 

b. Specificity: the role-expectation that the role
incumbent, at the relevant choice point, will be
oriented to a social object only within a speci—
fic range of its relevance as a cathectic object
or as an instrumental means or condition and
that he will give priority to this expectation
over any disposition to include potential aspects
of significance of the object not specifically
defined in the expectation pattern.

 

Orientation Defined Conceptually

Orientations may be conceived both generally and

specifically. As employed in the present study, a general

35

orientation may be said to provide direction or motivation
for the actor in any of a number of situations. In this
form it consists of a set of generalized standards for be-
havior, conceptions of what one should do or should not do
under given circumstances, particularly with reference to
certain approved goals and plans for action.

A general orientation may also be thought of as a
formula for relating one's self to a wide range of life
situations. It is cognitively structured and effectively
charged and is experienced by the actor covertly in terms
of patterns of right and wrong, good and bad, and so forth.
In this regard general orientations are the cognitive and
moral products of general cultural conditioning processes
and of specialized patterns of socialization, invoked by
the demands of the society and by the sanctions of primary
groups within it.

A general orientation tends to govern the actor's
relations in most situations, whether social, political,
economic or religious. The general orientation serves thus
to structure an actor's attitudes and behaviors within the
situation; to assign meaning to the social and material ob-
jects within the situation; and to arbitrate among his in—
dividual preferences within any system of alternative
possibilities. The general orientation, therefore, acts as
a standard for the individual's judgments and values. De-

fined in this manner, it corresponds with Parsons and Shils'

36

conceptualization of a "system of orientation," and with
Kluckhohn's concept of "value-orientation."

A specific orientation, as distinguished from a
general orientation, is one which is situationally bound,
defining situation in terms of the theory of action. As
employed in the present study, the specific orientation may
be said to refer to that which relates the actor to a single
situation or type of situation and to sets of objects or
symbols anchored in such situations.

Under the terms of these definitions, the actor may
be oriented specifically to pig place of business, pig church
or political party and oriented generally to certain typeg
of business, religious or political values, or attitudes.
The basic distinction between the general and the specific
orientation, therefore, is the difference between the ab—
stract value or the value system and its particular mode of
expression or application within the situation. A situa-
tional orientation is, then, logically derived from, or is

a product of, a general orientation specifically determined.

Orientation Defined Operationally

Kerlinger defines an operational definition as one
which "assigns meaning to a construct or a variable by

Specifying the activities or 'operations' necessary to mea-

13

sure the construct or variable." Such activities or

k

13Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behayioral Re-
search, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965),
po 3:.

 

37

operations, as applied to the concept of orientation, will,
for the purposes of the present study, take the following
form.

An instrument will first be designed, composed of
a variety of related items. The responses to these items
will be said to constitute the respondent's orientation to
the defined situation. This instrument will be constructed
theoretically in terms of the pattern variables described
earlier, and Operationally in terms of the following study
definitions.

1.0 The pattern of choices made by the respondent on a
devised questionnaire, the items of which will be
constructed in terms of pattern variable formula-
tions, will be said to constitute the respondent's

general orientation, as expressed within the con-
text of the specific situation.

 

1.1 Objects about which the respondent is required
to "pattern" his choices on such a question-
naire will be referred to as oriented objects
or as objects of orientation.

 

1.2 Oriented objects may include social objects,
material objects or symbolic objects.

2.0 The objects of orientation described in item form on
the devised questionnaire will be said to Constitute
elements of the respondent's specific orientation.

 

2.1 The sum of the scores assigned to the responses
made on the devised pattern variable question-
naire will be said to constitute the respondent's
situational orientation.

2.2 Any number of respondents in the study sample
who exhibit high levels of similarity, or con-
sensus, with reference to patterns of choice
on items contained on the questionnaire, and
thus who may be said to "share" particular
situational orientations, will be said to be re-
lated according to given modes of orientation.

 

38

The special instrument which was devised for the purpose
of this study will be described in detail in the next
chapter. This instrument was devised according to the
following specifications, each of which can be related to
the theory of action previously described and to more
general considerations of role and role-orientation.

1. Each item devised for the questionnaire must des-
cribe a particular object of orientation.

2. The object of orientation must be characteristic
of the specific situation defined. That is to say
that such objects must relate to the broadcast
station and be relevant in terms of the broadcaster
role.

3. Each item referring to a specific object of orien—
tation must be described in terms of one or another
of the "dilemmas of choice" indicated in the for-
mulation of the pattern variables.

Modes of Orientation

 

The theory of action, the concept of role, and the
concept of orientation, are each tied to the theoretic frame
of reference selected as model and guide in the development
of the present study. The final element which must be fitted
to the system is the concept of modes of orientation.

By definition, any set of respondents who exhibit
high levels of similarity with reference to certain patterns
of choice and who thus share particular situational orienta-
tions can be described in terms of the same mode of

orientation.

39

Defined in this manner the modes of orientation
concept implies a common pattern of relating to the situa-
tion, one shared by numbers of occupants of similar system
positions. Of necessity, then, the modes of orientation
concept also implies an element of consensus, although not
to the same degree complained of by Gross, Mason and
McEachern.l4

The theory of action also postulates certain views

concerning consensus. This is reflected in the use of the

concepts of role-expectation and value-orientation, both of

which are defined in consensual terms, and in the basic con—

ceptualization of the social system.15

A social system is a system of action which has the fol-

lowing Characteristics: (1) It involves a process of
interaction between two or more actors; the interaction
process as such is a focus of the observer's attention.
(2) The situation toward which the actors are oriented
includes other actors. These other actors (alters) are
objects of cathexis. Alter's actions are taken cogni-
tively into account as data. Alter's various orienta-
tions may be either goals to be pursued or means for
the accomplishment of goals. Alter's orientations may
thus be objects for evaluative judgment. (3) There is
(in a social system) interdependent and, in part, con-
certed action in which the concert is a function of
collective goal orientation or common values, and of a
consensus of normative and cognitive expectations.

The consensual basis of modes of orientation in the

sense implied in the theory of action can be taken for

 

14Gross, Mason and McEachern, pp, cit., pp. 21-47.

 

15Parsons and Shils, 9p. cit., p. 54.

 

40

granted. However, this is not to be taken as an indication
that all persons occupying similar positions in the system
will develop similar orientations or structure role-behavior
in like manners. As pointed out in Chapter I, observation
supports the view that no two individuals pattern behavior
in exactly the same manner when occupying a given position
on similar positions in the system. Definitions of role
based upon over estimates of role consensus, therefore, tend
to depart from reality.

"Conceptual schemes for role analysis," Gross, Mason
and McEachern have written, "that preclude the investigation
of the basic question of role consensus are distinctly

limited."16

This may be taken to imply that unless the

theory devised for the analysis of system roles allows for
or takes into account variations in role-behavior, the re-
sulting analyses are likely to be weakened. The modes of

orientation concept is believed to satisfy this requirement

of role theory.

Developing Typological Systems17

That behavioral differences exist among role-performers

is generally recognized and hardly surprising. Of greater

 

16Gross, Mason and McEachern, op. cit., p. 43.

17The concept of the "pure type" was well developed,
in a methodological sense, by the German sociologist Max
Weber. Weber's thesis is that from a study of individual
cases it is possible to abstract certain unifying elements

41

interest is the observation that such differences appear to
be patterned. In the majority of cases studied it was pos-

sible for investigators to classify by type the particular

 

modes of behaviors exhibited by occupants of similar posi-
tions in similar social systems.

In an early investigation of bureaucratic behavior
Leonard Reissman identified several types of bureaucrats.l8
The "functional bureaucrat," as described by Reissman, is
one "who is oriented towards and seeks his recognition from
a given professional group outside of rather than within the
bureaucracy." The "job bureaucrat," on the other hand, is
one who "is immersed entirely within the structure" of the
bureaucracy itself. Other types described by Reissman are
the "specialist" and the "service" bureaucrats, types that
fall between these two points.

Peter Blau also typed the subjects of his investiga-

tions into bureaucratic systems, in terms (1) of the indi-

vidual's relative commitment to the system rules, and (2) the

 

that on application will form a system of empirical possi-
bilities. The four "types of social action" which Weber
identified in his study of bureaucracy form one example of
this process. These "types" are also linked historically

and logically to the system of pattern variables employed

by Parsons in the theory of action. As Parsons has stated:
"It (the type) does not describe an individual course of
action but a 'typical' one--it is a generalized rubric within
which an indefinite number of particular cases may be classi-
fied." (Max Weber, The Theopy of Social and Economic Organi-
zation, op. cit., pp. 8-29.)

 

 

18Leonard Reissman, "A Study of Role Conceptions in
Bureaucracy," Social Forces, Vol. 27 (March, 1949), pp. 305-310.

 

42

individual's relative concern for the best interests of the
client, independently of the system rules; these were de-
fined respectively as a ritualistic (or legalistic) type
and a particularistic type.19
Thompson also developed a system of bureaucratic

20 Those

types in his analysis of the modern organization.
members of the system who emphasize "the objective, exter-
nalized goals of the organization" were identified as one

type, while those members of the system "most closely
associated with personal goals in our bureaucratic structures,"
those who stress rights and authority, were identified as
another type. The former were termed "specialists" by
Thompson, and the latter were termed "bureaucrats."

Those persons termed specialists by Thompson were
labeled "professionals" by Blau and Scott in their investi-
gation of organizational behavior.21 Professionals as
viewed by Blau and Scott, are persons governed in the situa-
tion by certain universalistic standards (norms), by feelings
of affective neutrality, by the specificity of professional

expertness, by achieved status (performance standards), and

by a lack of self-interest motivations. Blau and Scott also

 

19Peter M. Blau, The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, (Chi—
cago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1955).

20Thompson, op. cit.

21Blau and Scott, op. cit., p. 60.

 

43

characterize the standard bureaucrat as a person distin-
guished by his emphasis upon motivations of self-interest
and organizational attachment.

In a study of engineering groups, Barnes discovered
and identified three types of role—behavior, or role-
orientation;22 these were exhibited (1) by persons who
tended to identify with science-professional reference
groups or values, (2) by those who tended to identify with
management, with the organization proper or with business
values in general, and (3) by persons who tended to identify
mainly with socio-familial-religious reference groups.
These groups were termed, respectively, as professionals,
organizationals and socials.

Presthus' work was related primarily to methods of
system accommodation, for the purposes of which he was able
to identify three system types, the upward-mobile, the in—

23 Persons identified as

different and the ambivalent.
upward-mobiles were characterized by their strong identifi-
cation with the system, their commitment to the larger

purposes of the organization, and their general involvement

with organization affairs. The so-called indifferents were

 

22Louis B. Barnes, Organizational Systems and Engi—
neering Groups, (Boston: Harvard University, Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, 1960).

 

23Robert Presthus, The Organizational Society, (New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962).

44

persons who had "come to terms with their work environment

by withdrawal and by a redirection of their interest toward
off-the-job satisfactions." The third type, termed ambiva-
lents, "ordinarily play a specialist, 'cosmopolitan' role."

As such they most frequently identify with extra-organiza-
tional groups and values, while remaining relatively com-
mitted to the status-reward system honored by the organization.

In each of the several studies cited, the tendency
of writers to form typologies is quite evident. The typo-
logical systems formed, moreover, appear to have certain
elements in common. Each is based upon a pattern of self-
other or self-system identification which assumes that the
position-occupant accepts to some extent the organization's
value system or develops an identification with certain non-
organization related professional groups or value-systems.

In summary, it appears that a middle position may
thus be taken, theoretically, between the extreme View that
roles exhibit consensually validated patterns of behavior exe
pected of Eli occupants of given social positions,amdfixaequally
extreme view that no two persons ever pattern role-behavior
in exactly the same manner, because of qualities of indivi-

dual differences.

 

It also seems in keeping with the evidence, there-
fore, to suggest the possibility of designing simple typo-
logies of role-behavior for given positions in systems of

mass to be exhibited by individuals occupying similar

45

positions in the systems under study. This implies that
role-behavior in any given situation is not infinitely
variable but tends to follow certain patterned forms of

similarity and dissimilarity.

Developing a System of Modes of Orientation

By cross-tabulating the fiVe pattern variables
postulated by Parsons and Shils, a typological system of
possible orientations may be devised. Logically such a
combination of variables presents thirty—two possibilities,
as indicated in Figure 2. Each of the cells shown, result-
ing from a particular combination of pattern variables,
represents a logical action possibility, or, in keeping
with present terminology, a particular mode of orientation.

Not all possible combinations of pattern variables
are equally likely to occur, however, and for this reason
it is not necessary to conceptualize the entire system of
logical possibilities. The present study focuses on indi-
viduals performing roles in a certain type of situation,
the formal organization, moreover, it focuses on a certain type
of formal organization, that of the typical broadcasting station.

In America, broadcasting stations are usually de-
fined as economic organizations. Such organizations have
been termed "utilitarian" by Etzioni.24 The principal

characteristics of utilitarian organizations, according to

 

24Etzioni, op. cit., p. 31.

46

 

mcumuumm cofiumucwauo vamhm "N cummwm

 

chmpcma owumuosmousm

 

anemones Hmcoflmmmmoum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOI suawm wuomvzxmsuo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20H wszHD éZHDDBHBBd

.0
n
N... an on 33 3.2 Z mm mm m... a
1. 2
HH mam H K n
HmcofluMNecumuo t.
m
d T.
a p.
1 I
J I.
o m
3.. mm as G om a: 3 S m
a
a
O
m
3 3: Z 2 NH 3 8: m n
.4 0
.A u
T.
A
a
1
d S
a E
I T.
.3 m.
a: a p m a m m E m m
P
u
o
a
UMHODMOHDQ Hmflowmmwuohnm
unwowmwommm mmmcmmsumwo auaowmwommm mumsmmsmmwo mmmcmmsmmwo huwowmeoomm mmmcmmsmwwo muwowmwommm
suaamuusmz m>auoomu¢ sua>auommu< sua>auommuc suaamuuamz m>auommm¢
coaumucoauouumaom coaumuaoauounmua>auooaaoo

47

Etzioni, are (l) the development and maintenance of economic
goals, (2) the production of commodities or services which
may be supplied to outsiders, (3) a stress on calculative
involvement, and (4) a system of renumerative power.

A description of the broadcasting station as an
utilitarian system, after Etzioni, cannot be altogether
accurate, however. The broadcasting station is not exclu—
sively an economically-oriented organization; it is also
licensed formally by the federal government for the purpose
of providing certain classes of needed services to the com-
munity. To this extent, then, the broadcasting station can
also be defined as a public-service organization, one simi-
lar to those termed "normative organizations" by Etzioni.25

As an organizational type the broadcasting station
appears to be a mixed system, containing elements of both
the utilitarian and the normative forms. This being the
case, it is logical to assume that certain position-occupants
within the system will be oriented more to one then to the
other of these separate functions, either the economic-related
function or the service-related function. In part, system-
roles so defined tend to reflect the patterns of self-other
or self-system identifications (orientations) described in

the studies previously discussed. In the Parsonian system

of.pattern variables, this dichotomy is represented clearly

 

25Etzioni, op. cit., p. 40.

 

48

in terms of the collectivity-orientation versus self-
orientation distinction.

In their study of organizational behavior Blau and
Scott identified two primary system types, as previously
noted; these were termed, respectively, professionals and

bureaucrats.26

Professionals were described as persons
governed in the situation by certain universalistic stan-
dards (norms), by feelings of affective neutrality, by the
specificity of professional expertness, by concern for
achieved status (performance standards), and by low levels
of self-interest motivation., In contrast, bureaucrats
appeared to be characterized mainly by their emphasis upon
motivations of self-interest and by organizational attach-
ment and system loyalty.

A bi-polarization of the characteristics identified
with the two system types described by Blau and Scott would
result in a location of the professional (as a mode of
orientation) in cell number one of Figure 2 and the so-
called bureaucrat in cell number eight, in the opposite
corner. This follows from the observation that each of
the distinguishing characteristics described is directly
linked to one or the other of the Parsonian pattern vari-
ables.

Assuming that the contrasting patterns of orienta-

tion identified by Blau and Scott may be generalized to

¥

26Blau and Scott, op. cit., pp. 60-74.

 

49

types of organization other than the type studied by these
writers, and assuming further that the system of possibili-
ties identified within the context of the present study can
be validated empirically, it should be possible to identify
and describe certain characteristic types of broadcasters
as suggested.

It may be anticipated, then, that the forms and
variety of system-types discovered will conform to the pat-
tern of possibilities described; that broadcasters will tend
to differ in terms of orientation to self-interest and
orientation to the interest of the collectivity; in degrees
of attachment to the situation; in the degrees of specific-
ity with which they tend to define their roles; in the de-
grees to which they tend to apply general rules or principles
of behavior; in the degrees to which they accept and apply
standards of performance, relative to significant objects
in the situation.

Whether broadcasters do in fact differ in terms of
these factors is here considered a matter for empirical
testing. A further object of interest is the factors which
act upon the broadcasters in the situation to produce the

differences in orientation described.

PrimaryiStudyfPropositions

 

One of the underlying assumptions in the present

Study is that broadcasting stations, as representative

50

types of mass communication systems, may be likened to
other types of bureaucratic structures in modern society.
It is also assumed that because of the unique system of
organization and control in broadcasting in America, that
is, a system of private ownership operating within a frame-
work of government regulation, that broadcasting stations
represent a mixing of two organizational types, the utili-
tarian and the normative, having both economic-related

systems of goals and service-related systems of goals.

System Position Proposition

In each of the organization studies cited, indivi-
duals occupying given positions in the system were differ-
entiated in terms of modes of orientation, and each system
of types devised to account for such differences was predi-
cated to a greater or lesser degree on certain distinctions
of self-other or self—system identification.'

The first prOposition proposed for investigation in
the present study is derived from the elements of theory
and research discussed in the preceding paragraphs and is
expressed in the following terms.

Pl: That an individual's role—orientation is, in part,
a function of his position in the system.

It is assumed, then, that occupants of certain
positions within the system, are more oriented then others
toward one or the other of the systems of goals identified

with the "mixed" organizational type. In other words, it

51

is assumed that occupants of certain positions in broadcast-
ing stations will be more identified with economic-related
system-goals and occupants of certain other positions will
be more identified with service-related system-goals. Uti-
lizing the pattern-variable concept of collectivity-orienta-
tion versus self—orientation, it is possible to specify the
following hypotheses with regard to the system—position
proposition.

H1: Broadcasters with service-related role-functions
may be expected to be more collectivity-oriented
than broadcasters with economic-related role-
functions.

H2: Broadcasters with economic-related role-functions
may be expected to be more self-oriented than
broadcasters with service-related role-functions.

Here, for purposes of test, economic-related role-functions
are assumed to be associated predominantly with the posi-
tions of station manager and sales manager and service—related
role-functions are assumed to be associated predominantly
with the positions of program director and news director.

By demonstrating that a person's position within
the system is likely to reflect either a self-orientation
pattern or a collectivity-orientation pattern, it should
also be possible to demonstrate that different degrees of
personal or situational detachment or commitment are func-
tions of given positions. Logically, it is assumed, if a
person's relation to the system is expressed primarily in

terms of the self he will be more likely to develop and

maintain a sense of detachment, or lack of involvement

52

(commitment), than if he is primarily oriented to the col-
lectivity. Therefore:

H3: Broadcasters with service-related role-functions
may be expected to demonstrate less personal and
situational detachment than broadcasters with
economic-related role-functions.

H4: Broadcasters with economic-related role-functions
may be expected to demonstrate more personal and
situational detachment than broadcasters with
service-related role-functions.

The concept of personal and situational detachment is here
related to the Parsonian pattern variable termed "affective-
neutrality" and attachment or commitment (involvement) to
the variable termed "affectivity."

It is further assumed that a high degree of commit-
ment, or attachment, expressed in terms of role-affectivity,
implies an increased probability of normativeness as a
value-orientation. Usually, the more a person is committed
to a situation, or to an object, the more he has tended to
assimilate the values or norms generally associated with it.
Commitment, then, logically implies normativeness, which can
be taken as an emphasis upon certain general standards of
behavior or rules of conduct which may be exhibited by the
person in the defined situation or in relation to the speci-
fied object. If, as has been suggested, persons occupying
service—related positions in the system show evidence of

higher levels of commitment, or demonstrate greater role-

related affectivity, the following should also hold.

53

H5: Broadcasters with service-related role-functions
may be expected to demonstrate greater normative—
ness in the situation than broadcasters with
economic-related role-functions.

H6: Broadcasters with economic-related role-functions
may be expected to demonstrate greater expediency
in the situation than broadcasters with service-
related role-functions.

Normativeness may here be expressed in terms of the
pattern variable termed "universalism" and expediency in
terms of the associated concept of "particularism."

Emphasis on expediency, defined in particularistic
terms, tends to be linked with detachment (affective neu-
trality) and concern for the self, in ways suggestive of
the classic definition of "economic man," a type of ration-
alistic person who is, by definition, profit-oriented,
concerned with the results of the activity, and relatively
unconcerned with the means employed to achieve the results
sought. This suggests a relationship among high valuations
of expediency, detachment and achievement. Therefore:

H7: Broadcasters with economic-related role-functions
may be expected to be more oriented to standards
of performance for significant objects in the situa-
tion than are broadcasters with service-related
role-functions.

H8: Broadcasters with service-related role—functions
may be expected to be more oriented to the quali-
tative aspects of significant objects in the
situation than are broadcasters with economic-
related role-functions.

Here the pattern variable "ascription (quality) versus

achievement (performance)” is considered in relation to

the hypotheses stated.

 

$5.816

 

 

54

A final aspect of the orientation system delineated
in theory needs now to be considered, relative to the system-
position proposition. This refers to the scope of signifi-
cance of the object, the View that the actor must choose
among the various possible ranges in which he will respond
to the object. Logically, if concerns for self take prece-
dence over concerns for the collectivity in the orientations
of broadcasters with economic-related role-functions and if
such broadcasters tend also to be more oriented to the sit-
uation in terms of expediency, detachment and achievement,
they should also show more of a tendency to relate to the
situation in terms of its specifics. Those aspects of ob-
jects relevant to the situation which tend to affect the
productivity and efficiency of the system should be of more
concern to broadcasters so oriented. Therefore:

H9: Broadcasters with economic-related role-functions
may be expected to be more oriented to narrowly-
defined expectations of role performance, that is
to say the specifics of behavior, than broadcasters
with service-related role-functions.

H10: Broadcasters with service-related role—functions
may be expected to be more oriented to broadly-
defined expectations of role performance, that is

to say to diffuseness of behaviors, than broad-
casters with economic-related role-functions.

System Size PrOposition

The second proposition proposed for investigation in
the present study is derived from a body of literature closely

related to and partially integrated with organization theory,

Tums

 

 

55

at least with those theories which are concerned with the
natures and functions of bureaucracies.27 Of special in—
terest here is the work of Ferdinand Tonnies, who intro—

duced the now familiar Gemeinshaft und Gesellschaft
28

 

dichotomy. The concept of community and society defined
by T5nnies is based essentially upon the proposition that
social systems vary in certain fundamental respects as a
function of size. Theoretically, the larger the system,

the more complex is its pattern of organization, and the
more structured are the social relationships engaged in by
persons within the system. Basically, large-system behavior
(society) differs from small-system behavior (community) as
follows: (1) It tends to be defined in terms of specific
rules of order, or contractually determined rights and ob-
ligations; that is, system rules tend to be specific rather
that diffuse. (2) The larger system tends to allocate
status by achievement criteria rather than by ascription
criteria, that is, to define the meanings of objects in
terms of the performances of objects rather than in terms

of "inherent" qualities of the objects. (3) It tends to be

governed by general norms, or universalistic standards, more

 

27Robert K. Merton, Ailsa P. Gray, Barbara Hockey
and Hanan C. Selvin (eds.), Reader in Bureaucracy, (New York:
The Free Press, 1952).

 

28Ferdinand Tonnies, Community and Society, trans.
and edited by Charles P. Loomis, (East Lansing: Michigan
State University, 1957).

56

than by particularistic standards. (4) It tends to be gov-
erned by elements of self-discipline, or affective neutra-
lity, more than by elements of personal gratification, or
affectivity, and (5) individuals tend to be ruled by self-
interest rather than collectivity-interests, in most
situations, at least within the limits of system-universal
collective norms.

The relationship of the Gemeinshaft und Gesellschaft

 

conceptualization to the pattern-variable formulations of
Parsons and Shils is very clear, as is its relationship to
the work of Blau and Scott and others. This, then, provides
the basis for the second major study proposition, which takes
the following form.

P2: That an; individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of system-siie.

 

The hypotheses subsumed under this general proposition fol—
low the pattern previously employed relative to the system-
position proposition. There are five primary hypotheses
and five alternative hypotheses. Each of the hypotheses is
based upon an assumed relationship of system—size with one
or another of the five pattern variables. Without benefit
of any intervening descriptions these are presented below.
H11: Broadcasters located in large systems may be ex-

pected to be more collectivity-oriented than
broadcasters located in small systems.

57

H12: Broadcasters located in small systems may be ex-
pected to be more self-orfignted than broadcasters
located in large systems.

H13: Broadcasters located in large systems may be ex-
pected to demonstrate more personal and situational
detachment than broadcasters located in small
systems.

H14: Broadcasters located in small systems may be ex-
pected to demonstrate more personal and situational
attachment (commitment) than broadcasters located
in large systems.

H15: Broadcasters located in large systems may be ex-
pected to demonstrate greater normativeness in the
situation than broadcasters located in small
systems.

H16: Broadcasters located in small systems may be ex-
pected to demonstrate greater expediency in the
situation than broadcasters located in large
systems.

H17: Broadcasters located in large systems may be ex-
pected to be more oriented to standards of perfor-
mance for significant objects in the situation
than broadcasters located in small systems.

H18: Broadcasters located in small systems may be ex-
pected to be more oriented to the qualitative
aspects of significant objects in the situation
than broadcasters located in large systems.

 

29Hypotheses were developed in the form indicated in
seeming counterdiction to the theory expressed, which stated
that largeness of size is more related to orientations of
self-interest, due (1) to the develOpment of professionalism
in large systems such as that defined--here recognizing, as
did Blau and Scott, that professionalism builds into the
normative system an orientation to the collectivity, and (2)
to the fact that collectivity-orientation tends to corre—
late with level of education and that persons with high
education tend to migrate to larger systems and away from
smaller systems. In this regard the factor of collectivity—
interest is defined in terms of the interest of a broad
community or an entire society rather than the small group,
the definition implicit in the T6nnies study.

58

H19: Broadcasters located in large systems may be ex-
pected to be more oriented to narrowly defined
expectations of role performance, that is to say
the specifics of behavior, than broadcasters lo—
cated in small systems.

H20: Broadcasters located in small systems may be ex-
pected to be more oriented to broadly defined
expectations of role performance, that is to say

the diffuseness of behaviors, than broadcasters
located in large systems.

Reference-Group Identification Proposition

The third proposition proposed for investigation in
the present study grows out of the on-going work in reference-
group theory, some of which has been previously described.
Assuming that various groups are used as points of reference
for shaping the individual's attitudes, values, and behavior,
the types of identifications with groups maintained by a
position-occupant in the system may be presumed to influence
his orientation to the situation and, more particularly, his
role-orientation. b

The influence on the individual of his identifica-
tions with particular groups has been demonstrated in many
of the studies cited. Reissman's description of the "func-
tional bureaucrat" as "one who is oriented towards and seeks
his recognition from a given professional group outside of
rather than within the bureaucracy" is a case in point, as

is his description of the "job bureaucrat."30

 

30Reissman, op. cit., pp. 305-310.

 

Tum:

 

 

59

The works of Blau, Thompson, Barnes, and Presthus, and
others, also can be used to support the view that the types
of group-identifications maintained by the individual located
in an organizational setting have strong influences on the
individual's orientation to the situation and to his system
behavior. March and Simon reinforce this view in their
analysis of motivation and intra-organizational decisions,
particularly in their description of the functions of the
individual's goals in the system.31 "Humans, in contrast
to machines," they write, "evaluate their own positions in
relation to the value of others and come to accept others'
goals as their own. In addition, individual members of an
organization come to it with a prior structure of prefer—
ences .-. . on the basis of which they make decisions while
in the organization."32

March and Simon also identify "four principal targets
for identification" for persons functioning within the or-
ganizational setting. These are:33

(l) organizations external to the focal organization

(i.e., extra-organization identification), (2) the focal
organization itself (organizational identification), (3)
the work activities involved in the job (task identifi-

cation), and (4) subgroups within the focal organization
(sub-group identification).

 

31March and Simon, op. cit., pp. 65-81.

 

32Ibid., p. 65.

33Ibid.

 

60

On the basis of these considerations, then, it is possible

to deve10p a third study-prOposition, termed the reference-
group identification proposition. This can be expressed in
the following manner.

P3: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of his reference-group identifications.

 

 

In this regard reference-groups are defined as "persons or

groups that tend to set those standards of [job] performance

with which [the broadcaster is] most in agreement."34

 

Subsumed under this preposition are five hypotheses,
and alternate hypotheses, each of which is expressed in
terms of one or another of the five pattern variables. It
is assumed that different types of reference-groups will in-
fluence the individual's role—orientations along these
particular dimensions:

H21: Broadcasters with primary "out-of—system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to be more
collectivity-oriented than broadcasters with primary
"within-system" reference-group identifications.

H22: Broadcasters with primary "within-system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to be more
self-oriented than broadcasters with primary "out-
of-system" reference-group identifications.

H23: Broadcasters with primary "out-of—system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to demonstrate
more personal and situational detachment than broad-
casters with primary "within-system" reference-group
identifications.

H24: Broadcasters with primary "within-system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to demonstrate
more personal and situational attachment (commitment)

 

34See Study Questionnaire, Part II, Item number 22.

61

than broadcasters with primary "out—of—system"
reference-group identifications.

H25: Broadcasters with primary "out-of—system" reference—
group identifications may be expected to demonstrate
greater normativeness in the situation than broad-
casters with primary "within-system" reference-group
identifications.

H26: Broadcasters with primary "within-system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to demonstrate
greater expediency in the situation than broadcasters
with primary "out-of-system" reference-group
identifications.

H27: Broadcasters with primary "out-of—system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to be more
oriented to standards of performance for significant
objects in the situation than broadcasters with pri-
mary "within-system" reference-group identifications.

H28: Broadcasters with primary "within-system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to be more
oriented to the qualitative aspects of significant
objects in the situation than broadcasters with pri-
mary "out-of-system" reference-group identifications.

H29: Broadcasters with primary "out-of—system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to be more
oriented to narrowly defined expectations of role
performance, that is to say the specifics of behav-
ior, than broadcasters with primary "within—system"
reference-group identifications.

H30: Broadcasters with primary "within-system" reference-
group identifications may be expected to be more
oriented to broadly defined expectations of role
performance, that is to say the diffuseness of be-
haviors, than broadcasters with primary "out—of-
system" reference-group identifications.
"Out-of—system" reference-groups are assumed to be

groups related positively to those groups described in the
previously cited studies on role-orientation and organiza-

tional behavior as "professional groups," and to other

extra-organizational groups that appear supportive of a

62

professional frame of reference. The professional broad-
caster, then, in this sense, is here assumed to identify

positively with out—of—system professional types of groups,

 

associations or organizations. The definition of the pro-
fessional used here is the same as that used by Blau and
Scott in their investigation of the formal organizations.35
It is also assumed that "within-system" reference-
groups are the opposites of those identified above. Broad—
casters who relate positively to groups of this type,
therefore, can be thought of as "organizationals." The
professional and the organizational, then, are presumed to

fall at Opposite ends of the pattern-variable spectrum, and

the hypotheses presented are drawn accordingly.

SecondarypStudprropositions

 

It is possible next to consider certain secondary
propositions and related hypotheses relative to the role-
orientations of broadcasters. There are two classes of
secondary propositions, those relating to personal factors
that might be presumed to influence the orientation process
and those relating to certain situational factors, or system-
related factors, which may also be presumed to influence

this process.

 

35Blau and Scott, op. cit., p. 60.

 

63

Personal Factors

In the development of the present study a number of
personal variables were proposed for investigation to deter—
mine the degree, if any, of their independent influence on
the role-orientation of the broadcaster. Of major interest
in this regard are the factors of education, experience,
age and sex.

An analysis of the literature provides justification
for the view that education, for example, is significantly
related to that type of orientation described as profes-
sional. In this regard it has been suggested that persons
with high education are more likely to develop perspectives
or points of view that are collectivity—centered, to define
relations in specific rather than in general terms, to re-
main affectively neutral in the performances of job-related
functions, to develop and apply objective and impersonal
standards of performance, and to be normatively oriented.
Experience, age and sex may be expected to relate positively

with similar elements of orientation.

System Factors

One of the primary study propositions proposed for
investigation in the present study states that role-
orientation is, in part, a function of system size. The
implication of this proposition, broadly considered, is

that certain aspects of the situation, certain physical

64

characteristics of the system or controlling environmental
factors, have a positive influence on the individual's
role-orientation. Several system factors which may be pre-
sumed to have such an influence are therefore proposed for
investigation. These include factors of station type,
station affiliation, type of ownership, and station loca-
tion.. It is assumed that each factor will relate positively
to the professional role-orientation identified to the ex-
tent that it is actually supportive of the primary study
prepositions named.

What distinguishes the secondary study propositions
from the primary study pr0positions is in most cases the
lack of a clearly based theoretic rationale for the types
of statements made. In effect the propositions preposed
for investigation in these regards were derived on an E
priori basis and are included for their suggestive value.
Data concerning these particular variables, then, should
have descriptive value in terms of the present study if not

direct theoretic relevance.

Role-Behavior Hypotheses

 

One of the assumptions made in the theoretic rationale
for the present study is that role-behavior is in large mea-
sure a function of the individual's role-orientation. This
assumption is, of course, Open to empirical test, given sets
of differing role—orientations and certain measurable role-

behaviors.

65

Considering the detailed nature of the considera-
tions of the present study, relative to the specification
of modes of orientation and aspects of influence, it was
determined that a complete investigation of role-behavior
would not be possible at this time. Nonetheless, in order
to develOp a feel for the question, certain role-behavior
variables were built into the study. These include the
factors of aspiration-level, system—tenure, system-loyalty,
mobility, membership in broadcast-related organizations or
associations, attendance at conventions or broadcast con-
ferences, and degree of activeness in association affairs.

Although the role-behaviors named are not of a
functional or operational nature with respect to system
output, their relationship to the professional orientation
described in the preceding sections may be presumed to have
theoretic implications. In addition, the acquisition of
supportive data, however tentative, for the proposition
that role-behavior is a function of the individual's role-
orientation can be expected to open up this aspect of the
overall problem for further detailed investigation.

The hypotheses developed with regard to considera-
tions of role-behavior are in accord with those already
stated. It is assumed, for example, that each of the role-
behaviors named, when expressed in variable form, will to
some degree relate to various aspects of role—orientation,
again defining role-orientation in terms of the pattern-

variable formulations.

66

In particular, it is hypothesized that system-tenure
and system-loyalty will be positively related with the orga-
nizational side of the pattern-variable spectrum, that is,
with situational attachment or commitment, expediency, the
qualitative aspects of significant objects, the diffuseness
of behaviors, and self-orientation, while the same role-
behaviors will be negatively related with the professional
side of the pattern-variable spectrum. It is also hypothe-
sized that the individual's membership status will be posi-
tively related with the professional side of the pattern-
variable spectrum, as will his attendance at meetings and

the degree of his activeness.

Study_Limitations

 

No attempt will be made in this study to describe
the organization or structure of the broadcasting industry
as a system of mass communication nor will any attempt be
made to define the limits of the social system under in-
vestigation by describing the pattern of organization of
the typical broadcasting station which is taken as the focal
situation within which the role-behavior of the broadcaster
takes place.

In the development of the study the presence of
given "system others" is also taken for granted. Therefore
no attempt will be made to describe the relationships among

the occupants of various positions or to describe the

67

operations performed by each. Similarly, no attempt will

be made to define or structure, objectively, the nature or
range of the role-expectations which are assumed to be de—
velOped and projected by system others. There will in other
words be no attempt made to describe the patterns of system-
communication engaged in with relation to the encodement

and transmission of the "sent role."

The interrelationship of the reference-group and the
role—orientation, i.e., the process of identification and
the process of taking the role of the other, will be des-
cribed in brief, but will not specifically be the concern
of the study; nor will the process of mediating role-behavior,
the manner of interpreting the "sent-role," or the objective
consequences of certain types of role-behavior. In effect,
then, the feedback circuit will be ignored for the present.

Finally, the specifics of the actor's role-behavior,
as determined by his role-orientation, will not receive
primary attention in this study, although these will be
considered to some extent; nor will any attempt be made to
link role-behavior with system output.

In brief, then, the present study will be concerned
principally with (1) developing a means for describing the
role—orientation of the broadcaster, as mass communicator,
(2) defining the role-orientations or modes of orientation,
i.e., the characteristics patterns of relating to the situa—

tion,of representative broadcasters, and (3) identifying the

68

factors or processes which might be presumed to influence

the orientations identified.

SummaEy

In these first chapters an attempt was made to in-
terrelate various theoretic perspectives which have been
used to focus on the nature of roles in an organizational
setting. From these statements a theoretic rationale was
developed, centering on the individual's role orientation,
which appeared to offer certain posSibilities for explain-
ing role-behavior in systems of mass communication. For
this purpose the theory of action developed by.Parsons
and Shils was found to be particularly useful. The concept
of the pattern variable was also selected as a means of
structuring primary study considerations. A series of pro-
positions based on the available literature concerning role-
orientations and types of role-behavior in organizational
settings was devised and a number of hypotheses were formu-
1ated as a means of testing certain aspects of theory as
applied to the role of the broadcaster.

The remainder of the study will treat the steps
followed in testing the propositions and hypotheses presented.
Chapter III will consider the development of the instrument
used to delineate the role-orientations of subject broadcasters.
Chapter IV will describe the procedures employed in selecting

x.

the sample and the various problems and limitations associated

69

with the sampling techniques employed. Chapters V and VI
will describe the data analysis and Chapter VII, the study

conclusions, interpretations and recommendations for further

study.

CHAPTER III

INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT

The principal instrument which was devised for the
present study was the Role—Orientation Measure. The Role-
Orientation Measure consists of thirty-eight forced-choice
items, each of which is linked in theory to the pattern—
variable scheme devised by Talcott Parsons. The procedures
employed in the develOpment of this instrument will be des-

cribed in this chapter.

Background

 

Underlying the pattern-variable theory, as was pre-
viously pointed out, is the view that there exists a finite
number of determinate choices which a person occupying a
,position within a given social system is required to make
lbefore the situation can be said to have meaning.

The pattern-variable formulation also holds that
eaach of the choices made will be made with reference to
sipecific objects, social or material, that are typical of
tdne situation. Thus, in the case of the broadcaster, the
(flioices made would be expected to relate to objects which

tYpically characterize the broadcaster's professional

7O

71

environment, that is, the location in which he carries out

his regular functions as a broadcaster.

 

The problem faced in the development of the instru-
ment, then, was twofold: (l) to devise a convenient and
operable system for relating the pattern-variable scheme to
the selected set of objects of orientation; and (2) to de—
vise a meaningful and discriminating set of items for inclu-

sion on the Role-Orientation Measure.

Item Construction

 

A pattern-variable, by definition, is represented by
"a dichotomy, one side of which must be chosen by an actor
before the meaning of a situation is determinate for him."
The theory deve10ped for the present study, therefore, based
as it was on the pattern-variable formulation, seemed to re-
quire some form of forced—choice procedures.l

Although the selection of the forced-choice method
seemed most logical, it was recognized that certain limita-
tions, or dangers, were associated with its use. Kerlinger
has emphasized, for example, the technical and psychological
difficulties involved, "among which the most important seem

to be the lack of independence of items, the perhaps too

 

1"The essence of the forced-choice method," Ker-
linger writes, "is that the subject must choose among
alternatives." '(Kerlinger, 0p cit., p. 496.)

72

complex nature of some items . . . and the resistance of

subjects to difficult choices."2

Because of this limitation, it was thought necessary
to modify the forced-choice procedure. Fortunately this
was not entirely without precedent. For instance, Stouffer
3

and Toby, in their study "Role Conflict and Personality,"

made use of Guttman type scales when testing certain appli-

cations of pattern—variable theory. The results of their

investigation, moreover, suggested the existence of an under-
lying structure, such as that initially described by Lazars-
feld,4 which bridged the poles of the pattern-variable
cxonsidered, producing what could be termed a pattern-variable
continuum.

The idea of a continuous, as Opposed to a discrete,

puattern-variable appeared worthy of consideration. It was

knelieved that an instrument constructed along such lines
might avoid some of the problems associated with the more

cxnrventional forced-choice procedures. A scale of this type

 

2Kerlinger, Op cit., p. 499.

38. A. Stouffer and J. Toby, "Role Conflict and Per-
sonality," Toward a General Thegy of Acti_o_r_1_, edited by
Parsons and Shils, op. cit., pp. 481-496-

4P. F. Larzarsfeld, "The Logical and Mathematical

Foundation of Latent-Structure Analysis," Chapter 10, Mea-
sgrement and PredictiOll, Vol. IV, Studies in Social Psy-
C—.°\Ogy in World War II, Science Editions, (New York: John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966), pp. 362-412.

73

was in fact suggested by John C. McKinney, in a paper titled
"The Typological Tradition."5
In his paper, McKinney presented a review of work
originally conducted by Loomis and others in a particular
social system. In this system, roles were described by means
of pattern-variable constructs. The procedure involved hav-
ing a group of judges chart a profile of each role in ques-
tion by responding to a series of pattern-variable scales,
of the type presented below. Each scale contained one side
of a single pattern-variable on either end of a nine interval
continuum, much like that of a Semantic Differential Scale.
A profile for the role in question was secured by drawing

connecting lines through the points which represented the

mean responses of the experts on each of the scales.

Pattern-Variable Scale

Affective- . .
neutrality .__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__. Affect1V1ty
Universalism : : : : : : : : : : Particularism

The work of Milton Rokeach6 also influenced to some
extent the final form of the Role—Orientation Measure.

IROkeach made extensive use of a forced-choice procedure in

¥

5John C. McKinney, "The Typological Tradition, in
IFerdinand TOnnies, Community and Society, Trans. and Edited
13y Charles P. Loomis, (East Lansing: Michigan State Univer-
sity Press, 1957) .

 

6Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, (New York:
Basic Books, 1960) .

 

74

his investigations of Open and closed belief systems. The
Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, for example, requires that a sub-
ject respond to each item in terms of relative levels of

agreement or disagreement, as follows:7

+1: I AGREE A LITTLE -l: I DISAGREE A LITTLE
+2: I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2: I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE
+3: I AGREE VERY MUCH -3: I DISAGREE VERY MUCH

It is not only important for the subject to respond to each
item on the Rokeach scale but also to respond by voicing
either agreement or disagreement with the item in question.
The Rokeach scale does not provide for "neutral," "undecided,"
or "no response" categories.

These, then, were the three sources which influenced
the form and style of the Role-Orientation Measure. The idea
of testing subject responses to a series of situational prob-
lems, each one of which might be constructed to reflect a
pattern-variable dilemma,8 was taken from Stouffer and Toby.
The technique of using a continuum was borrowed from Loomis
and his associates. This was done in an attempt to avoid
ssome of the pitfalls of the simple dichotomous choice. Fi-
IIally, the idea of employing relative values of forced-choice

‘vas drawn from Rokeach. The requirement of non—neutrality

—.¥

7R0keaCh' 9p. Cit. ’ pp. 72-73.

 

8For the purposes of the present study it was found
more effective to make use of contrasting statements, or
Points of view, which could be defined as paired Opposites.

also was taken from Rokeach.

Each element cited appeared in

keeping with the requirements of the pattern-variable sys-

tem and therefore applicable to the Role-Orientation

Measure .

What follows is an example of the form and style

adOpted for the Role-Orientation Measure, a form which was

believed in keeping with the pattern-variable concept and

which seemed to take into account the experiences of other

researchers.

Statement A

 

In a well organized and effi-
ciently run station, every
person on the staff is ex-
pected to have specifically
defined duties and responsi-
bilities which may be regu-
lated on the basis of quite
generally recognized and
understood rules and regula—
tions.

4'.
O.

 

(3) (2)“ (l) 4

Statement B

 

Broadcasting is not a busi—
ness which lends itself well
to structured bureaucratic
type operations. Staff re-
lations and activities, there-
fore, tend to be more diffuse
than specific and based more
generally upon subjective

type considerations.

 

-(l) (2) (3)

The two statements above are assumed to reflect one

side or the other of the pattern-variable identified as

"specificity versus diffuseness."

The subject is required

to select the statement that appears best to characterize

his view of the situation.

His selection is also relative,

to a degree, in that he is asked to assign a particular

weight to his choice.

The assigned weights are as follows:

76

g.-
ll

Tend to Agree

2

Agree Very Much
3 = Agree Absolutely
Under this procedure the subject is required to
select both the statement he prefers and the relative
strength of his preference. At no time, however, is he
asked specifically to reject a given statement. Failure
to select, then, must not be taken to signify disagreement

in the usual sense.

Scoring Procedure

 

The scoring procedure employed by the Role-Orientation
Measure follows Rokeach, with a single difference. While
Rokeach assumed a positive and a negative side to the re-
sponses, it is assumed in the present instance that both
sides of the scale are positive. However, like Rokeach, an
assignment is made of scores ranging from one to seven on
each item. The principal scoring rule is as follows. The
extreme scale position "3" is scored as a seven if, and only
if, that statement selected by the subject can be said to re-
flect a given side of the specified pattern-variable. Other—
wise, the extreme scale position "3" is scored as a gag.

Certain of the statements, then, were pre-selected
anddesignated as "approved" statements, not in the sense of
being more valued, but in the sense of their reflecting cer-

tain theoretically assumed relationships. In the list of

77

pattern-variables which follows, those elements which are
listed in Column A are taken to be "approved" while those
listed in Column B are taken to be "non-approved." Speci—
fication of approved status for the pattern-variables

listed reflects the point of view of the "professional," as

 

 

 

 

 

described by Blau and Scott.9
A. B.

Affective- 4/ \_ . .
Neutrality .\ 7, Affect1V1ty
Universalism 4< ); Particularism
Achievement j, \_ Ascription
(Performance) ‘T 7' (Quality)
Specificity :( r )= Diffuseness
Collectivity- \_ . .
Orientation \ ,7 Self Orientation

If reference is made to the example given on page
six, Statement "A" will be found to be the "approved" state-
ment in that it reflects the left side of the specificity-
diffuseness pattern-variable. Therefore a subject's score

on this particular item would be read in the following

 

 

 

manner:
Statement A Statement B
Score: : 7 : 6 : 5 : : 3 : 2 : l :
Response: (3) (2) (1) (l) (2) (3)

Another important feature in the scoring system is

that a subject may receive a score of "4," the hypothetical

 

9Blau and Scott, op. cit., pp. 60-62.

 

78

center of the scale, only in cases of missing data or when
it is otherwise impossible to determine which of the two
statements the subject is registering agreement with; that

is, which side of the pattern-variable he favors.

Item Selection

 

The development of items for the Role-Orientation

Measure involved much intuition and critical judgment. An
attempt was made whenever possible, however, to select real
statements, drawn either from the available literature or
from observation, which were both relevant and suggestive.
The standard of relevance required that a statement relate
meaningfully and critically to the situation under study.
The standard of suggestiveness required that the statement
reflect a pattern-variable consideration. The following
statement meets both standards adequately. It is drawn from
David Ogilvy's Confessions of an Advertising Man.10

The executive is inevitably a father figure. To be a

good father, whether it is to his children or to his

associates, requires that he be understanding, that he

be considerate, and that he be human enough to be
affectionate.

 

This statement involves (l) a personal judgement (2) made
with reference to a’relationship that is said to exist (3)
between an executive and his associates, or staff. As des-

cribed by Ogilvy, this relationship is affectively charged,

 

10David Ogilvy, Confessions of an Advertising Man,
(New York: Dell Publishing, 1963), p. 19.

79

as Opposed, it may be assumed, to a system of relations
built upon a general rule of affective neutrality.

The student of formal organization is aware that
one of the more critical areas of concern in organization
life is that involving staff—management relations, as re—
flected in administrative style, interpersonal behavior,
and so forth. It seemed quite reasonable, therefore, to
consider this same area of concern in the present study.
The Ogilvy statement quoted above, appropriately modified,
seemed to have the making of a significant item. Items of
similar nature were also drawn from books and articles on
broadcasting, quotations of broadcasters which appeared in
various publications, and other standard sources.

In addition, oral comments made by broadcasters,
both public and private, were found to be valuable sources
of useable items. A statement made by CBS programming Vice
President Michael Dann, which suggested that he never based
network programming decisions upon his own personal taste
and interests, typlified a form of detachment or affective
:neutrality, and thus formed the basis for yet another item.11
.A.statement made by a sales manager of a large market tele-
‘vision station to a college audience, implying that a program
sshonld be viewed chiefly as "a hooker," a device used to '

‘

11Time, October, 1966.

80

attract a large number of viewers to the sponsor's message,
was cast in the form of a collectivity-self-orientation
item.12
Given a useful and revealing statement, the next
task involved the reformulation of the thought in terms of
its opposite. For example, the source statement might read
as follows,
The broadcaster may be expected or required ligitimately
to carry out in action only responsibilities which have
been specifically defined by law or ordered by the pub-
lished rules of the FCC.
This statement clearly assigns the aspect of specificity to
the broadcaster-commission relationship. However, in its
present form it suggests only one side of this dilemma of
choice. Therefore it would be necessary to recast the
statement in the form of its opposite for use as a pattern-
variable item.
The FCC has the right to require any behavior from the
broadcaster which it deems to be pr0per and in keeping
with "the public interest," with or without the appli-
cation of a specific rule or section of law.
The statement as now phrased clearly tends to reflect the
aspect of diffuseness. For the sake of discussion (subject
to test) it may be assumed that the two statements listed
above are "true" cpposites and that the tendency of the

broadcaster to agree with either the one or the other will

reflect his view of the relationship in question as either

 

12Observation of the researcher, Fall, 1966.

81

specific or diffuse. It was in this manner, and by these
means, that the items were devised for the Role-Orientation

Measure 0

Pre-Testing_the Instrument

 

The Role-Orientation Measure passed through a series
of revisions and was subjected to two major pre-tests before
it was considered ready for use in the field. Form A of the
instrument, the form used in the initial pre-test, consisted
of a set of twenty-five paired statements designed according
to the specifications discussed above. Each of the five pat-
tern variables was paired with each of five objects of ori-
entation in the form of a 5 x 5 matrix of items. The items
were arranged on the instrument in random order with the
positions of "A" statements and "B" statement periodically
reversed to avoid "response-set" problems.

The instrument in this form was subjected to test
on two small groups during the Summer of 1966. S1 (N = 19)
was composed of a group of graduate students in broadcasting
education at Michigan State University, many of whom had had

broadcasting experience. S (N = 18) was drawn from a popu-

2
lation of active broadcasters located in the area of central
Texas. Because of problems of time and convenience neither
sample was drawn at random from its respective population.

Form B of the instrument, the form used in the second

pre-test, consisted of a set of seventy-two paired statements.

82

This form of the instrument was subjected to test with a
group of thirty-eight advanced undergraduate and graduate
students (S3) in broadcast station management at Michigan
State during the Fall of 1966.

The initial pre-test was intended to serve two func-
tions: (1) as a check of content validity and reliability,
and (2) as a check on the clarity and ease of application
of the study procedures. The second pre-test was concerned
with more theoretic considerations. It was devised chiefly
as a check on the relative independence of the pattern-
variable dimensions which, for test purposes, were defined
operationally by certain combinations of items.13

In addition to these functions, both pre-tests were
intended to serve as the basis for selecting items of high
discrimination value for possible inclusion on Form C of
the Role-Orientation Measure, the form which was to be used

in the final study. For this purpose an arbitrary criterion

was set, making use of the mean score of the item. If the

 

l3This consideration was tested by means of factor
analysis. Space does not permit a detailed description of
the results of analysis here, however. At this point we
need only say that those items were selected for the final
study which seemed "best" to support pattern-variable con—
siderations; that is, those items which tended to cluster
in some form of stable relationship and which also seemed
to reflect given pattern variables. While the results of
the analysis werermnuperfect--certain variables tended to
collapse--the "fit" appeared sufficient to justify further
investigations in terms of the original study design.

83

mean of an item fell within a score range of from three to
five, the item was classified as potentially "useful"; that
is, it was said to discriminate sufficiently to be of pos-
sible use on the final form of the instrument.14
An example of an item which appeared to discriminate
and which thus proved to be useful for the purposes of the
study is shown below. The pattern-variable designation of

the item is that of Performance versus Quality. The oriented

object is presumed to be the program.

 

 

Statement A Statement B
The broadcaster's primary con- The broadcaster's primary
cern with any particular pro- concern with any particular
gram must be in terms of program must be in terms of
whether or not the program its inherent merit, value or
serves its intended purpose, quality, independent of any
in the delivery of audience, purpose it may otherwise
the sale of products, or serve.
whatever.

The mean response of S1 subjects to the item in this form
was 4.2 and the mean response of 52 subjects was 4.8. The
usefulness of this particular item may also be estimated on

the basis of both S and S4 responses. These means along

3
with their respective standard deviations are presented in

Table 3.1.

 

4A mean four would, quite obviously, indicate a
perfect distribution of subject responses.

84

Table 3.l.--Sample responses to forced choice item.

 

 

 

S1 82 83 S4
Item Mean 4.20 4.80 3.86 3.43
Item S.D. 1.57 1.78 1.62 1.81

U)
I

1 Student Sample, First Pre-Test, Summer, 1966.

(D
I

2 Broadcaster Sample, First Pre-Test, Summer, 1966.

U)
l

3 Student Sample, Second Pre-Test, Fall, 1966.

(D
l

4 Broadcaster Sample, National Study, Spring, 1967.

 

Content Validation

 

Two types of content validation were employed in the
develOpment of the Role-Orientation Measure. The first con-
cerned the selection of a set of relevant objects with refer-
ence to the broadcaster's environment. The second concerned
treatment and construction, that is, the method of relating
each object to the pattern-variable scheme. A relevant Ob-
ject was defined as any object which might logically evoke
certain pattern-variable considerations.

Items on the Role-Orientation Measure were validated
with regard to both concerns, first, on the basis of private
judgement and observation, and, second, by means of the

Opinion Of a panel of qualified judges.

85

A thorough examination of published works on broad-
casting revealed a number of objects which appeared to be
critically related to the broadcaster role. TheSe included
the client, the audience, the program, staff, manager-owner,
government, network, community, and other job-related con-
cerns. Confirmation of the relative importance of these and
other objects was obtained by means of a series of interviews
with broadcasters in central Texas during the Spring and
Summer of 1965. Selection of the objects to be used for test
purposes was made on the basis of which of the objects identi-
fied seemed to be most generally applicable; that is, which
seemed to have high relevance to broadcasters in different
situations, considering size of market, station type, and so
forth. Selection was also made on the basis of a presumed
balance, the objects being viewed as neither too critical
(and thus too highly controversial) nor too neutral, objects
which a person might take too much for granted.

Out of regard for these criteria, objects such as
the following were passed over: Networks, Unions, Congress,
The FCC, the NAB, Rating Services, Community Leadership, and
others equally critical. It goes without saying, then, that
any re-development of the Role-Orientation Measure in terms
of "completeness" Of role considerations would need to take
into account such objects as these in addition to the ones

contained on Form C of the questionnaire.

86

The five objects of orientation selected for study

are combined with the five pattern variables in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2.--Combinations of objects of orientation,

m 1

Pattern Variables Objects

 

 

 

 

. Manager/
Client Program Audience Staff Owner

 

Collectivity-Self _ _
Orientation +/- +/- +/- +/ +/

Affective-
Neutrality- +/- +/- +/- +/- +/—
Affectivity

Universalism-
Particularism

Achievement—

Ascription _ _ _ _ _
(Performance- +/ +/ +/ +/ +/

Quality)

Specificity- _ _ _ _ _
Diffuseness +/ +/ +/ +/ +/

 

Following the selection and validation of the objects,
items making use of the objects were constructed and patterned
after the examples described earlier.6 The items were then
submitted to a panel of professional broadcasting educators
at Michigan State University, each of whom was asked to re-
view the items critically in terms of content, construction
and presumed relevance to the concerns of the study.

In addition, the pre-test procedure employed called

for a simple validation check. Sample Group 1, the student

87

sample, was asked to write comments and critically review
the instrument following its completion. Each member of
Sample Group 2, the broadcaster sample, also agreed to an
interview concerning the nature of the instrument, its con—
tent and treatment. In each instance the original formula-
tion of the study received support. The greatest measure
of criticism received, both from the written comments and
from the interviews, related to the forced-choice procedure
which was employed in the instrument design. As one broad-
caster reported:

At a place or two I got the feeling that you were ask-

ing me if I had quit beating my wife. (I asked her,

and she said: "Tell them you never startedl") But
that doesn't fit under Statement A or B.

Instrument Reliability

 

An important consideration in the develOpment of the
Role-Orientation Measure concerned the matter Of reliability.
Here reliability is referred to in terms of Kerlinger's first
definition; that is, "in stability, dependability, predict-
ability terms."15

The method employed in determining the reliability
of the instrument is that most commonly referred to as a
"split-half" estimate of reliability. The various subjects

in the pre-test samples were numbered and assigned to odd-

even groups. Pairs of subjects were then drawn and correlation

 

15Kerlinger, op. cit., p. 430.

 

88

coefficients computed among items. The entire set of
twenty-five items was checked in the first pre-test and a
random selection of fifteen items was checked in the second
pre-test. The mean of the separate sets of matched-pair
correlations was used as the final estimate of reliability
for the split-half. Split-half reliability was then sub-
jected to correction by means of the Spearman-Brown formula,16

providing an estimate of reliability for the instrument as

a whole. The resulting estimates are reproduced below.

tt
S1 .82 .90
52 .94 .97
S3 .82 .90

Item Distribution

 

Having checked for content validity and reliability,
as well as for ease of application and discrimination, a
final selection of items was made for the study. The items
selected were distributed in terms of a cross-tabulation of
pattern-variable constructs and oriented objects. In several
instances, however, due to the substantive nature of some of
the items or to existing questions regarding the power of

the items, more than a single item was selected to fill a

 

16J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology
and Education, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), pp. 452-453}

 

 

89

particular cell. For these reasons the Role-Orientation
Measure as finally constructed was composed of a total of
thirty-eight items rather than twenty-five as might have
been expected. The thirty-eight items were arranged as

shown below.17

The items were, of course, randomly distri—
buted with the positions of "A" statements and "B" statements

reversed periodically to avoid "response-set" problems.

Table 3.3.--Distribution of test items by number.

 

 

Manager/
Client Audience Program Staff Owner

 

 

 

Collectivity-Self . l8
Orientation 30 3 37 27 15
Universalism- 6 10 2 29 l
Particularism 24 20 35 11
Performance- 12 25 23 21 8
Quality 19
Affective—
Neutrality- 9 28 14 22 17
Affectivity 34 33 26 31
Specificity- 4 13 32 7 5
Diffuseness 16
38
17

Form C of the instrument, that employed in the
study, is reproduced in the Appendix. The item numbers used
in the distribution presented are the same as those employed
in Form C.

90

Summary

In this chapter a description of the processes em—
ployed in the develOpment of the Role-Orientation Measure,
the principal study instrument, was presented. This included
such concerns as item selection, treatment and construction,
validation and measures of reliability. In the chapter that
follows the process of sample selection, the procedures em-
ployed in the development of the study, and certain related

problems, will be considered.

CHAPTER IV

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND STUDY PROCEDURES

The procedures employed in the national study will
be considered in the present chapter. A description of the
sampling techniques used and a general discussion of the
characteristics of the sample will also be presented. In
addition, a special section will be devoted to a considera—
tion of questions of methodology with particular reference'
to the use of the self-administered mail questionnaire as

a primary source of data.

Population Description

 

For the purpose of this study the assumed pOpulation
was defined as all persons regularly employed on a full-time
basis in licensed commercial broadcasting stations within
the territorial limits of the United States who, at the time
of the study, occupied positions of managerial responsibility
in other than technical fields. These were classified by
title or function and included General Managers, Station
Managers, Program Directors, News Directors and Sales Man—
agers. Not included were network personnel, officers and

agents of group owners not directly involved in station

91

92

operation, performers, producers, writers, directors, or
technicians of any class.

Defined in this manner, the population corresponds
to the middle level of functional responsibility described
by Talcott Parsons in his analysis of the formal organiza-
tion.1 Parsons' three levels of responsibility include the
"technical" level, a form of suborganization composed of in-
dividuals primarily concerned with the performance of certain
Operational functions, the "managerial" level, a higher order
suborganization charged chiefly with administrative functions,
and the "institutional" level, that suborganization mainly
responsible for policy-making functions and for articulating
system-needs with regard to the broader social order of com-

munity or society.

Sampling Procedures

 

Because of the character of the population, it was
believed that one or both of two study techniques would need
to be employed to yield the data required for a proper con-
sideration of the propositions and hypotheses described
earlier. The first, and preferred, method was that of the
field survey, based upon random sampling procedures and con-
ducted by means of the structured or focused interview. Un-

fortunately this procedure involved factors of cost and time

 

lTalcott Parsons, Structureyand Process in Modern
Societies, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), pp.
16-96.

 

93

that were beyond the means of the researcher. The alterna-
tive method was that Of the mail questionnaire, a procedure
which, in spite of its many limitations, has been defended

by Roy Carter in a consideration of field methods in communi-
cation research.2

A variation of the standard mail questionnaire design
was devised for the current study, in an effort to maximize
questionnaire returns and to minimize costs. Instead of in-
cluding the study questionnaire in the participation request,
a letter was first sent inviting the subject to participate
in the project. Only those subjects who expressed a "willing-
ness" to participate in the study, then, actually received
the study questionnaire.

In addition to the use of the participation request
procedure, an effort was made to stimulate questionnaire
returns by the use of printed materials, by personally ad-
dressing all correpondence, by stressing the importance of
the study, by emphasizing the confidential nature of each
individual return, by labeling the study with a "quality"
identification—-The American Broadcaster Study Project--and
by making use of a private post office box in East Lansing

for study purposes.

 

2Roy E. Carter, Jr., "Field Methods in Communication
Research," IntroduCtion to Mass Communication Research,
edited by RaIph O. Nafziger and David W. White, (Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press, 1958), pp.
78-127.

 

94

Finally, an attempt was made to avoid bias in the
selection of the primary sample3 and to insure its repre-
sentativeness by applying certain rules of order in the
selection process. These rules, in complete form, are ap-
pended. By this means a primary sample of 542 broadcasters,
representing as many different radio and television stations,
was drawn in near random order from the published listings
contained in the 1967 edition of the Broadcasting Yearbook.4

Each of the broadcasters selected was sent a "per-
sonal" mailing inviting participation in the study. A
business reply postcard was enclosed in each request letter
for the convenience of the respondent. A total of 320 post-
cards were returned. A study questionnaire was subsequently
mailed to each Of these "willing" respondents, following a
check of the approximate representativeness of the returns.
This subsample of 320 broadcasters can be viewed, then, as

the actual study sample in that only these broadcasters re-

ceived study questionnaires.

Sample Description

The national sample employed in the present study

was compared with certain known characteristics of the assumed

 

3The primary sample is composed of those persons
initially requested to participate in the study project.

4Broadcasting Yearbook, (Washington, D. C.: Broad-
casting Publications, 1967).

 

95

population, in an effort to determine its relative repre-
sentativeness. The first characteristic considered was
that of the regional distribution of respondents' stations,
by type. Information relating to this consideration is pre-
sented in the following tables. Table 4.1 provides a break-
down, by number and percentage, Of the "on air" radio and
television stations in each of four geographical regions in
the United States, the North Central,5 the Eastern,6 the
Southern,7 and the Western.8 The figures presented here are
known to differ somewhat, for the reasons given, from the
"true" population but are nonetheless taken to represent the
population sufficiently for the purposes of this study.
Therefore, unless otherwise noted, these are the base line
figures employed in computing all sample frequencies.

Making use Of the near-random sampling procedures
devised for the present study, a total of 542 broadcasters

were selected from the defined population. These broadcasters

 

5Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minne-
sota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota,
and Wisconsin.

6Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia.

7Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.

8Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and
wyoming.

96

Table 4.1.--Distribution of stations in population by geo-
graphical regions.*

M E =

Television Perct. Radio Perct. Total Perct.

 

North Central

 

States 157 29% 913 24% 1070 25%
Eastern States 90 17 657 17 747 17
Southern States 171 31 1462 39 1633 38
Western States 127 23 756 20 883 20
Totals 545 100% 3788 100% 4333 100%

 

*Frequency count of broadcasting stations is not a true
and accurate count of stations actually on the air at the time
of the study. The figures presented reflect certain defini-
tions which were devised for sampling purposes. (See Sampling
Rules of Order, Appendix B.) The 1967 Broadcasting Yearbook,
for example, reports that as of November 10, 1966 there were
a total of 617 commercial TV stations on the air (including
UHF stations) and 4,093 AM radio stations on the air.

made up the primary sample. The distribution of the stations
involved in the primary sample is indicated in Table 4.2.

The numbers and frequencies, by station type and geographical
region, compare quite favorably with the true population pro-
portions.

One of the problems observed is the use of a mail
questionnaire is that no matter how much care is exercised in
the selection of the primary sample, the failure of numerous
subjects to respond creates a considerable risk that the
final sample--the actual study sample—-will not match the

population pattern described. It is not surprising, then,

97

Table 4.2.--Distribution of sampled stations by geographical
regions.*

 

 

Television Perct. Radio Perct. Total Perct.

 

North Central

 

States 55 28% 94 27% 149 27%
Eastern States 42 21 56 16 98 18
Southern States 56 28 130 37 186 34
Western States 45 23 64 19 109 20
Totals 198 100% 344 99% 542 99%

 

*Differences in total percentages due to rounding
error.

to discover that certain discrepancies do appear in some of
the tables that follow, particularly those which relate
specifically to the nature and composition, first, of the
sample of so-called "willing" subjects (those who indicated
a willingness to participate in the study), and, second,
those who actually completed and returned study questionnaires.
In spite of the problem of attrition, an analysis Of
Table 4.3 reveals that the total returns on cards, considered
in terms of station type and region, do not vary as much as
might be feared. The average difference, in fact, is no more
than three or four percentage points, with the exception of
the returns received from Southern radio stations, which were
high by seven points. A close examination of the composition

Of the returns, as shown in the table, indicates, moreover,

Lil

 

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmmH no cusumm womN
wmm u mumosgmm
mo mmmucmo
numm mm cusumm
ONO u magnumm Hmuo9
mvm u mummsvmm Hmuoa
Nmm NOO NON NON NmO NON OOH NNN NHN NNN "mmmuamonmm
cucumm
OOH HmH mm ON *OO Nm mm ON Om NO .umm
HON OOH «O OH ONH mm mm NO ON mm .Omm "2309
{ON mm 9O OH {NO NO *NO NO mH OO .umm “muouomnHo
O9 NO NH NH mN OH OH OH NN NH .Omm mgmz
mm OH NH 9O HN HH NH OO OH NH .umm "muouomNHo
ON OH OH HH OH NH NH OH HN OH .Omm smumoum
*ON OH «HO mO POH NO OO OH HH NH .umm "mummmcmz
NO NO OH OH ON mH OH HH OH OH .wmm mmHmm
HO *mN NH *OO . NN IOO *NO *mO OH OH .uwm “mummmcmz
OOH Om HN NH OH OH OH HH Nm mH .Omm :oHumum
oHOmm >9 oHOmm >9 oHOmm >9 oHOmm >9 oHOmm >9
mamuoa cumummz cumcusom cumummm Hmnucmo nunoz

 

 

,.Om>HmomH mcusumn manmuo>mm mo Hones: map can
whommumo zoom :H coaummwowpumm wpsum How mummsvmu mo Hones: on» mchmOHUcH

.coflmmu Hmowcmmnmomm 0cm mama coflumum .GOHUHmom ma .OHQEOm mo cowuwmomEOO|l.m.v OHQOB

99

that while the total percentage of return was not greatly
out of line (when compared to the composition of the pri-
mary sample) there was above average variation in the re-
turns received from persons occupying different positions.
Most notable is the fact that returns received from station
managers averaged fifty percent or less in four out of the
eight station categories while those received from sales
managers, program directors and news directors averaged well
above fifty percent in most cases.

Small discrepancies--variations from category per—
centages set in the primary sample--may also be noted in both
Table 4.4 and Table 4.5, which reveal the composition of the
study sample itself, based, first, on the number of completed
questionnaires, not excluding a certain percentage of non-
useable returns or returns that arrived too late for analy-
sis, and, second, on the final study sample, which includes
several questionnaires circulated for control purposes.
While small discrepancies may be Observed, they appear not
to be of sufficient magnitude to markedly affect the basic
representativeness of the study sample, at least along the
dimensions indicated.

The final table in this particular series represents
the composition of the study sample which is made up of
those respondents whose complete and useable returns form
the basis for the analysis contained in the chapters which

follow. This sample is composed of 247 respondents. Of this

100

 

wow u mmHHOGOOHummsO mo ommucmoumm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wmv u mmmucmoumm mHmEmm unmEHHm
Hem n H8909 Ocmuw
NOOH NOOH NNH NON Nmm NON NON NNN NHN Nmm "mmmucmoumm
va OHH mm om Ow mm mm mm HO mm mHmuOB
"mHOHOOHHQ
hm om mo no mo mo mo 9o OH 9o m3mz
“mHOHOOHHO
vm mm we we mH mo mo mo _ mo mo Emumoum
“mummmcmz
mm Hm mo Ho mo 9o mo mo mo HH mmHmm
"mummmcmz
mv Hm mo mo 9H mo we we mH mo OOHumum
OHUmm >9 Owcmm >9 OHUmm >9 OHUmm >9 OHUmm >9
mHmu09 cumumoz cuwsusom cumummm Hmuucmo anoz

 

 

.Uocusumu mmHHmccoHpmmsw mo Hmnfisc Hmuou on» coma comma

.conmH HOOHnmmumomm can mmmu coHumum .GOHuHmom an .mHmEmm mo coHuHmomEOO|l.v.w mHnm9

101

number 232 are a carry over from the primary sample of 542
subjects who were initially requested to participate in

the study. In conventional terms this represents a 43 per-
cent useable return. If only the number of questionnaires
circulated is considered, however, this represents a return
of about 73 percent.

To this number of completed questionnaires we add
those which were returned by members of a select "control
sample" of 40 broadcasters. This sample was devised for
two reasons; first, as a check on the usefulness, methodolo—
gically speaking, of the business reply participation request
procedure and, second, for the purpose of achieving a better
balance of returns from station managers. To gain these
objectives a random sample of 32 television station managers
and eight radio station managers were drawn from the 1967

Broadcasting Yearbook. These particular managers received

 

a COpy of the study questionnaire directly with a simple re-
quest to complete and return. NO follow-up requests were
made. A total of 15 useable returns were received from this
sample. These are included, in the appropriate categories,
in Table 4.5.

A comparison of Table 4.5 with Table 4.4 suggests
that the addition of fifteen additional station managers did
tend to balance the representation of respondents by position
so far as the total composition of the study sample is con-

cerned. This may be demonstrated by dividing the totals of

102

.mocmumcH comm OH 90990
mcHocsou an 909 omucsooom mum mHmuou OH coHumHHm> .mHmEmm mHmEHHm mo .mnommumo an
.ommucmoumm cam mHmEmm nosum HOGHM mo mHmuou mo mmmucmoumm cmmzumn mocmHOMMHQN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH: wml Nvl NH: Nv+ Nm+ Nv+ wm+ NumocmHOMMHQ

NooH NooH NmHl Nom Nmm Nnm mom Nmm NHm Nom "unmoumm

HMH mHH mm mm mv Hm mm nm ow mm umHmHO9

"mnouomHHQ

om om mo no mo mo mo mo mo no m3mz

“muouomHHo

mm mm mo mo MH mo mo mo mo mo Emumonm

"mummmcmz

mm mm mo mo mo no mo oH mo oH mOHmm

“mummmcmz

ow mm oH mo mH mo mo mo «H oH cOHHmum

OHomm >9 OHomm >9 OHomm >9 OHUmm >9 OHUmm >9

mHmu09 cumummz cumcusom cumummm Hmnucmo nuuoz

 

 

H.mHmEmm Houucoo map 8099 UO>HOOOH mcusumu mHnmmms mosHocH ocm
mcusumu OHnmmmslcoc HHm mmmH mum omucmmmnm mmusmHm oc9v .GOHUOH HOOHcm
Imnmoom paw waxy GOHumum .GOHuHmom ma .mHmEmm wosum Hmch mo GOHuHmomEOOII.m.O mHam9

103

each column by the number of positions, which is equal to
four in each case. The resulting figure is the average
number of respondents which might be expected for each cell
in any particular column. The difference between the ob-
served frequency and the expected frequency is the cell dis-
crepancy. By summing the total number of cell discrepancies,
without regard to sign, and by dividing by the number of
cells--which is equal to 32--the average cell discrepancy
acquired is 1.8, a relatively low figure. It is concluded,
therefore, that the addition of the control sample aided in
achieving a reasonably well balanced study sample, consider—
ing position, type of station and geographical region.

As explained above, however, one of the primary
reasons for adding a secondary control sample was methodologi-
cal. There was an interest in determining whether or not the
study procedure of requesting subject participation in ad-
vance was a useful device. Table 4.6 which follows, provides
a partial answer to this particular question. On the basis
of the returns reported, it must be concluded that it did
not. NO real differences were observed in the proportion
of returns received from the primary sample (the request
sample so-called) and the control sample. Although only
station managers were involved in the selection of a control
sample, it is assumed that were a similar check made of per-

sons in other positions the same results would likely hold.

104

Table 4.6.--A comparison of primary sample and control
sample returns.*

 

 

Card
N Return % Q-Return % Sample %

 

Primary Sample Returns

 

Television Sample 198 131 66% 104 79% 53%
Radio Sample 344 189 55 128 68 37
Total 542 320 59 232 73 43

Control Sample Returns (Managers Only)

Television Sample 32 --— --- 12 38 38
Radio Sample 08 --- --- 03 38 38
Total 40 --- --- 15 38 38

Primary Sample Returns (Managers Only)

 

Television Sample 54 25 46 21 84 37
Radio Sample 108 61 57 44 72 41
Total 162 86 51 65 76 4o

 

*Only useable returns reported.

The question regarding the general representative-
ness of the study sample involves several considerations in
addition to those described. Two areas of concern appear
especially pertinent. The first relates to certain personal
considerations; the second, to certain system concerns. A
prOper analysis of each will involve a comparison of the ob-
served sample characteristic with certain known or assumed

population dimensions.

105

The immediate problem which arises with regard to the
first consideration is the fact that no actual census of
broadcast station personnel exists. Thus, for purposes of
comparison, it was necessary to rely upon certain published
descriptions of other samples which were drawn from the same
or similar pOpulations. Here it was possible to utilize two
studies which made use of management level personnel in
broadcasting. The first of these is the PeOple In Broadcast-
ing study conducted some years ago by the Association for
Professional Broadcasting Education and the National Asso-
ciation of Broadcasters.9 The second is that conducted by
Charles Winick on the occupational role of the television

10 Both studies provide some basic insight

station manager.
with reference to certain relevant characteristics of their
respective samples. A match of these characteristics is
made, for comparison purposes, against the present study
sample in Table 4.7. Allowing for the fact that some nine
years separates the studies reported,11 it is interesting
to note that few differences can be discerned between the

three sample profiles presented. This would seem to indicate,

 

9N.A.B., People in Broadcastin , (Washington, D. C.:
National Association of Broadcasters, l 62).

 

10Charles E. Winick, "The Television Station Manager,
Advanced Management Journal, 31:1 (January, 1966), pp. 53-60.

 

llThe APBE-NAB data was actually gathered in a field
study initiated in 1958.

106

Table 4.7.--A comparison of certain personal characteristics
of respondents.

 

 

APBE-NAB Survey Winick Study Present Study

 

 

 

 

(N=366) (N=287) (N=247)
Characteristics TV Radio TV Managers TV and Radio
Present Age of Re- n n
spondents: 43.8 40.7 Eacly 405 40.7
Years Experience in
Broadcasting: 16.2 14.0 15 16.5
Years of System
Tenure: 8.8 7.5 7 to 8 9.5
Years of Position ____ ____ 5 5 9
Tenure: '
Previous Experience
by Type and Per-
centage:
Sales Experience: 44.7% 40.8% 40% 42.9%
Pr°9r9mmlng Ex" 25 1 26 3 40 31.2
perience: ' °
Engineering Ex- 10 3 8 5 10 9 7
perience: ' ° °
Other Type Ex-
perience: 3.1 3.6 10 9.7
Education Level, by
Type and Percentage:
Attended High
School 99.4% 98.5% 100.0%
Graduated from H.S. 95.2 93.0 -- 97.9
Attended Vocational
or Technical 15.0 29.9 -- 14.9
School
Attended College: 86.2 72.1 75% 79.8
Graduated from
College: 52.7 41.8 -- 54.3
Attended Graduate
or Graduate-Pro- 14.7 12.0 17 22.3

fessional School:

Sex of Respondents,
by Percentage:

Male: 99.0 99.0 -- 98.8
Female: 01.0 01.0 -- 01.2

 

 

Tum

 

 

107

at the very least, that each of the samples reported has
been drawn from the same pOpulation, a. fact which tends
to increase confidence in the representativeness of the
present sample.

This confidence is balanced, however, by the rela-
tive non-representativeness of the sample which becomes
evident when certain known system characteristics are con-
sidered. An analysis of Table 4.8, for example, reveals
that the respondents in the present sample tend dispropor-
tionately to represent stations affiliated with the National
Association of Broadcasters, particularly radio stations,
and stations which are identified as Radio and/or Television
Code subscribers. In addition, respondents associated speci-
fically with radio stations tend also, in proportions not
representative of the pOpulation in general, to be identified
with stations which maintain affiliation with one or the
other of the various national networks. Small radio stations
and large television stations seem also to be somewhat over-

represented in the sample.

Study Procedures, Problems and Limitations

In the development of the present study some thought
was given to methodological considerations. Special emphasis
was given to the problems and limitations associated with the

use of the self-administered mail questionnaire.

108

Table 4.8.--A comparison of certain general system characteristics.

 

 

POpulation Propositioni Sample Proportion

 

TV Stations AM Radio TV Stations2

 

System AM Radio
Characteristics (N=587) (N=4116) (N=123) (N=124)
Station Affiliation
NAB Membership3 88.6% 53.5% 95.1% 79.8%
State Association 5 84.8 75.1 93.5 87.9
Radio and/or TV Code 67.5 43.9 90.2 69.4
National Network6 -- 33.6 96.8 51.6
Station Size7
1 - 10 Employees 5.9% 49.0% 0.1% 56.5%
11 — 25 Employees 17.0 42.9 0.5 30.7
26 - 49 Employees 31.6 5.5 17.1 10.5
50 - 74 Employees 19.6 1.5 19.5 0.2
75 - 99 Employees 11.3 0.6 26.0 0.1
100 ‘ Empl°yees °r 14.9 0.5 31.7 0.0

More

 

lFCC Report, May, 1967.

2Radio-TV Station combinations added to arrive at percent—
age listing.

3NAB Report, August, 1967, (TV Stations, N=520; AM Radio
Stations, N=2201).

4NAB Report, January, 1966, (TV Stations, N=498; AM Radio
Stations, N=3089).

5NAB Report, August, 1967, (TV Stations, N=396; AM-FM
Radio Stations, N=2521). (Note: NAB does not maintain separate
membership categories for AM and FM Radio Stations in this regard.
Percentage for radio based on combined AM FM Station population
of 5746, as per FCC Report, dated May, 1967.)

6Broadcastinngearbook, 1967. (Note: Figures listedwk>not
reflect station affiliation with any of the 53 regional networks
identified in the 1967 Yearbook but only station affiliation with
one or the other of the recognized national networks.)

7Adapted from data published in Broadcasting Yearbook,
1967, p. A-l70. (Note: Study questionnaire employed category of
"less than 12 employees," in the first instance and "12 - 24" in
the second instance. With this exception the data published in
the 1967 Yearbook and that derived from questionnaire data gen-
erally match.

 

109

Although a great deal of care was taken initially to
draw a random sample from the defined population, it was
evident that randomness as a process gave very little assur-
ance of representativeness so far as the study returns were
concerned. The matter of subject participation was, for the
most part, beyond the control of the researcher. Regardless
of the effort made to increase participation, by means of
the request procedure and other devices, the conclusion was
reached that there exists in the field a "return-no-return"
response set which exerts an influence on subject response
patterns, one which is difficult to identify and even more
difficult to evaluate.

An additional problem Observed in the use of the mail
questionnaire concerns the field modification of the primary
sample. The results of this process are presented in Table
4.9. The analysis here reveals that sample modification in
the field resulted principally from two causes, the factor
of personnel turnover and the factor of management style.

When one considers that the present study was initi-
ated within weeks of the January, 1967 publication of the

Broadcasting Yearbook--the primary reference guide in the

 

field and the source employed in develOping the present
sample--it may seem surprising that a modification such as
that could have occurred. However, a study prepared by the
National Association Of Broadcasters suggests that the aver-

age turnover for radio station personnel in 1964 was 33.8

110

 

wo.mH mv mm.HN ow mH.m mo mHm>O9

.mGOHuocsm
ucmHOMMHO mcHEHomumm
udn HO>OH msumum mEmm co
m.o mo m.o Ho m.o Ho mcomEom .Ommmoupom GOmHmm
can» Hmnuo mmmum co conumm
EOHM Um>HmomH mHmmH mmmchsm

.mOOHuocsm
HOHHEHm mcHEHomumm can name
O.H NO H.N NO N.O HO uuummmn 888m 9H OmumooH mac
Iofiom .mumcHouonsm HOOnnsm
Eoum OO>HOOOH nHmmH mmmchsm

.Hmmmcme GOHHMHm
N.m NH N.O NH O.O OO >HHmsms .uomH>ummsm pommnsm
EOHM ©m>HmomH memH mmmchDm

.mucmEOOMHmmH OOHuHmom
Scum hHHmsms .Ummmmupom

 

 

 

 

o.m mm «.mH mm O.O mo mmocu can» Hozuo mcomnmm
E099 OO>HOOOH mHmmH mmOCHmsm
unmoumm Hmnfidz usmoumm HOQEOZ ucmonmm Honssz
Hommuzv HmmHuzv HHmanv
Hmu09 mHmEmm mHmEmm OHUmm mHmEmm conH>mHm9

 

 

 

.mHmamm numsHum as» No coHNNOHNHoos OHmHNuu.N.O mHnm9

111

percent while the average for personnel in television was

28.5 percent.12

The Observed turnover rate, then, as pre-
sented in Table 4.9 is much below the industry rate as a
whole. This, of course, is explained in large part by the
shorter time span and by the fact that the present study
treats management level personnel only.

The second factor which accounts for a measure of
the field modification is that identified as management
style. This factor explains 6.3 percent of the modification
in radio and was found to Operate most frequently in the
smaller stations, stations in which most "out of system"
contacts appear to be maintained by the station manager

alone, either as a matter Of policy or Of Operational

convenience.

Description of the "Non-Respondent"

 

In his discussion of the mail questionnaire, Roy

Carter makes the following Observation.13

Unfortunately, most journalism researchers who have used
mail questionnaires have dutifully reported the response
rate but have failed to indicate whether any data were
available concerning the crucial question, how (and how
much) did the no-answer folk differ from those who did
answer?

 

12N.A.B., Survey of Emplgyee Turnover in Radio and
Television Stations, 1964, YWaShington, D. C.: National
Association of Broadcasters, 1965).

13Carter, Op. cit., p. 114.

 

112

Out of regard for Carter's criticism, this section will be
devoted to a brief description of the so-called "non-
respondent." It will be concerned, then, not with the
nature of the study sample--which has already been described
in some detail--but with the character of the non-sample,
made up of persons known to be represented in the population
at large but who are not adequately represented in the
sample studied.

The first and most Obvious characteristic to be con-
sidered in this regard is that of sex. Whereas some 5 per-
cent of the primary sample (the "request sample“) was composed
of females, only 1.3 percent (N=3) of the completed returns
received were from female respondents. Although 42 percent
of the male contacts in the primary sample completed and re-
turned study questionnaires, only 11.1 percent of the female
contacts in the sample did so. The conclusion, therefore,
is Obvious. The non-respondent is more likely to be female
than male.

A second characteristic of the non-respondent which
can be noted is the fact that he or she is more likely to
be associated with a non-affiliated radio or television sta-
tion, something which is brought out clearly in Table 4.8.

Third, it is significant to note that only 4.9 per-
cent of the study respondents reported station profitability
as "quite poor," a comparatively low figure considering the

fact that more than one-third of the radio stations on the

113

air are known to Operate near or at a profit loss. It must
be suggested, then, that the non-respondent is more likely

to be associated with a marginal station Operation than is

the respondent.

Fourth, it can be reported that the non—respondent
is more likely to be located at some distance from the study
center. The greater the distance in fact, the less likely
the response. This conclusion may be supported by a close
analysis of Table 4.3.

Fifth, the fact that completed questionnaires were
returned by only 39 percent of the persons located in the
primary radio sample while 56 percent of those located in
the primary television sample returned questionnaires, leads
to the conclusion that the non-respondent also is more likely
to be associated with a radio station than with a television
station.

Sixth, because of the very high percentage Of re-
spondents who report a college education, in relation to the
pOpulation in general, both in the present sample and in
others (Table 4.7), it seems possible to suggest that the
non-respondent is likely to possess less education on the
average than the respondent.

Finally, it may be possible to suggest that the non-
respondent is more "locally oriented" than the respondent,
has more distrust of out of system contacts and has less of

a sense of obligation to his profession, factors which tend,

114

on the average, to correlate highly with the level of a per-

son's education.

Summary and Conclusion

 

On the basis of the above description of the non-
respondent, in addition to the factors discussed in the
description of the sample, and on the basis of the limita-
tions related to the self-administered mail questionnaire
prOper, it is concluded that some caution should be exer-
cised in generalizing the results obtained from the present
study. Although the sample appears to be reasonably well
balanced in most significant respects, it should not be taken
to totally reflect the population.

This caution seems justified in principle in view
of the methodological weakness of the mail questionnaire
itself, particularly as a means for studying problems of
the type involving certain socio-psychological considera-
tions. For matters of this nature it would seem more appro—
priate to make use of the structured personal interview.
This latter procedure offers the advantage of allowing the
researcher to probe certain sensitive subject areas when
necessary. In addition, it provides the researcher with
the Opportunity to clarify, for the benefit of the respondent,
his procedures and intentions.

The present chapter provided a detailed description

of the national study sample, the procedures used in its

115

selection and some of the problems and limitations associated
with the application of these procedures. Particular atten-
tion was given to the nature and use of the self-administered
mail questionnaire as a primary data source. In the chapters
that follow an analysis will be made of the data obtained by

these means.

CHAPTER V

DATA ANALYSIS, PART I

It is the purpose of the present chapter to describe
the principal methods employed in the analysis of the data
obtained from the broadcaster role-orientation study and to
present the results obtained from this analysis.

The data obtained from the national sample was sub—
jected to three levels of analysis: (1) correlation analysis,
(2) factor analysis, and (3) analysis of contingency tables.
Each level of analysis will be discussed independently in the
pages that follow even though these forms of analyses were
sequentially ordered and intended for the purpose Of testing
the specific theoretic propositions and hypotheses discussed

in Chapter II.

Correlation Analysis

 

Data derived from the national questionnaire was
subjected to correlation analysis to develop an understand-
ing of the inter-relationship of the specified study vari-
ables, those variables that were assumed to have an effect
upon the role-orientations of broadcasters but whose inde-

pendence could not otherwise be demonstrated.

116

117

The study questionnaire generated data on a total
of thirty-eight useable variables independently of the
thirty-eight-item Role-Orientation Measure and the sixteen-
item Reference-Group Inventory. These were formed into
three classes. The first consisted of a series of back-
ground variables, which included such standard considerations
as subject age, sex, education, system position, role-func-
tion, and experience. The second class consisted of a series
of so-called system variables and involved a consideration
Of questions on type of station, station size and location,
market size and type of station ownership among others. The
third class consisted Of a series of behavior variables,
factors which might be presumed to be acted upon or be in
a dependent relation to subject role-orientation. Included
in this class were questions relating to job loyalty, career
commitment, system tenure, membership status in broadcast-
related organizations or associations, degree of activeness
in broadcast-related organizations and associations, and
similar factors.

The inter-item correlation matrix constructed from
the three classes of variables identified is reproduced in
Appendix D for reference purposes. The values of r shown
in this table are significant at a level Of .05 when r = .14
and at a level of .01 when r = .19, as determined by the

size of sample and number Of degrees of freedom.1

 

1Guilford, Op. cit., pp. 538-39.

118

Table 5.l.--Background and behavior variables:
correlations.

inter-item

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Position 1 -—
College

Education 2 '04
Age 3 -.23 .03 --
Experience 4 -.29 .03 .52 --
System
Position
Mobility 7 .14 .08 -.41 -.31 -.50 -.45 --
JOb Loyalty 8 -011 .05 .33 .14 .08 .16 _022 --
Career Com-

mitment 9 -.04 -.02 .05 -.01 -.13 -.04 .02 .28 --
ASPlrat1°n 10 -.03 -.10 -.23 .16 .24 -.06 .09 -.19 -.20 --

Level
Table 5.2.--System Variables: inter-item correlation.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7

Station Type 1 --
Station Size 2 .77 --
Market Size 3 .47 .74 --
Network 4 .45 .40 .14 --
NOAOBO 5 _022 -029 -021 -019 --
Ownership 6 .34 .51 .45 .21 -.25 --
Location 7 -.10 -.16 -.15 .03 .07 -.12 --

 

119

An analysis of intra-item correlations revealed a
number of significant relations. These were clustered
principally around a relatively small core of primary vari-
ables, chief among which were type of station, system posi-
tion, education, age, experience, size of station and size
of market.

Of special interest was the degree to which these
particular variables were themselves interrelated. Station
type, for example, correlated positively with station size
(r = .77) and with size of market (r = .47), system position
with market size (r = .74), age with experience (r = .52),
and the presence of absence of a college education with both
market size (r = .27) and station size (r = .26).

The degree to which the total complex of variables
were interrelated considerably simplified the study process
and resulted in a reduction of the total number of variables
planned for test (1) through the transtrmation of certain
related variables, and (2) through the elimination Of cer-
tain duplicate variables, i.e., variables that appeared to
be measuring essentially the same underlying structure.

As noted, certain variables, operationally, were
combined for test purposes. The so-called attendance vari-
ables (variables 29-32) were in this class. Due to the high
order of intercorrelation Observed among these items it was
judged best to construct a new variable for the final test.

This was done by summing across the four items. Subjects

120

were then coded on the newly constructed variable as "Regu-
lar Attenders" (attended 3-4 different meetings annually),
"Non-Regular attenders" (attended 1-2 different meetings
annually), and as "Non-Attenders" (did not attend any meet-
ings within the preceding year).2

The education variable subjected to test was selected
on a similar basis. It will be recalled that a total Of five
education variables were incorporated in the study question-
naire. It was not intended, however, that more than a single
education variable would be employed for test purposes. Fol-
lowing an analysis of the returns, a judgement was made to
utilize a reconstituted form of the college education item.
The new variable consisted of three categories, "Non-College
Attenders" (subjects lacking a college education in any form),
"College Attenders" (subjects with less than four years of
college), and "College Graduates" (subjects with four or more
years of college indicated.)

Certain other variables contained on the study ques-
tionnaire were also found to be so highly correlated that
their continued use independently appeared Open to question.
Market size and station size (r = .74) were two such vari-

ables, for example. For test purposes, therefore, it was

 

2Attendance at National N.A.B. Conventions, Regional

N.A.B. Conventions, State Broadcasting Association Confer—
ences, and National and/or Regional conferences or conven-
tions of "other" broadcasting related organizations or
associations.

121

determined that only the market size variable would be em-
ployed. This particular variable, then, was theoretically
redefined as the coded system size variable and subjected
to test accordingly.

Tenure in system and tenure in position (r = .55)
and tenure in system and mobility (r = -.50) were similarly
treated. Tenure in system alone was subjected to eventual
test. Job loyalty and career commitment (r = .28), although
showing a somewhat weaker relationship, were also paired.
Job loyalty is therefore reported and career commitment is
not considered further. Subject age and experience (r = .52)
were provided similar treatment.

The project simplification process was further ex-
tended by dropping out certain types of variables. Such
variables were not carried to the final testing stage either
because they appeared to be relatively non-productive in
their existing Operational form or because of other compli-
cations. Sex, for example, was dropped from consideration
because of the smallness of the sub-sample size. A similar
decision was made with regard to the entrepreneurship vari-
able.3 Subject aspiration was also drOpped due to compli—
cations in coding. In addition, variables relating to subject

evaluation of station share of market, level of competition,

 

3Entrepreneurship was operationally defined in terms
of whether or not the subject concerned held an identifiable
ownership interest in the station with which he was associated.

122

relative profitability and level of community service were
dropped from further consideration because they appeared
relatively non-productive, as evidenced by the mean and
standard deviation in each instance. Network affiliation
was drOpped on the basis of its high correlation with sta-
tion type (r = .45) and size of station (r = .40). Questions
of employer support of subject membership in professional
associations and employer support of subject attendance at
association gatherings, while of interest, did not appear
to be of sufficient value with regard to the propositions
under study to justify further consideration.

The result of the simplification process described
was that a total of thirteen variables were carried over
for final test, out of the more than forty on which data
was initially gathered. In other words, these thirteen
variables were scheduled for use, either in an independent
or a dependent relation to the orientation factors derived
from the thirty-eight-item Role-Orientation Measure4 for
the purpose of determining questions of influence with ref-
erence to the primary study propositions.

The results of the correlation analysis described
made possible certain observations which, while not directly
related to the primary purposes of the study were, nonethe-

less, sufficiently suggestive to warrant comment. It should

 

4To be discussed in detail in the section following.

123

be of interest to the broadcast educator, for example, to
discover that although a college education is positively
related to factors of station size and market size it is
somewhat negatively related to levels of aspiration (r =
-.10). Subject aspiration, in fact, appears to be more
highly related to technical or vocational education (r =
.28) and to "other" forms of education (r = .25). It may
not seem surprising, however, to discover that aspiration
is negatively related, at a significant level, with high
school education (r = -.39) and very positively related to
entrepreneurship (r = .40).

That network affiliation appears to be a function
of station type (r = .45) is not at all surprising and is
generally supported by direct observation, as is the rela-
tionship between network affiliation and size of system.
However, it is somewhat surprising to find that network
affiliation is more or less negatively related to other
types of system affiliation, such as membership in the NAB
(r = -.l9), membership in the state association of broad-
casters (r = -.10) and membership in the radio and/or TV
code (r = -.l4).

Of direct interest to those persons concerned with
the development of professionalism in broadcasting is the
finding that the variable which correlated highest with the
individual's membership in professional (defined as broad—

cast-related) organizations or trade-related associations

T

124

was employer support of membership and that the relationship
was negative (r = -.52). On the other hand, with regard to
the degree of activeness of the broadcaster in such organiza-
tions or associations, the highest related variable was em-
ployer re-imbursement of expenses (r = .46). In other words,
the degree of support by employers of the broadcaster's mem-
bership in a professional or trade-related association is not
a direct consideration with regard to the membership itself,
but such support is a determining influence on subject
attendance at meetings and subject participation in associa-

tion related activities.

Factor Analysis

 

The second level of data analysis engaged in was the
process of factor analysis. This procedure was employed as
a method of operationalizing subject reference-group identi-
fication and subject role-orientation, and as a check on a
primary aspect of the theoretic rationale, the use‘of
pattern-variable concepts in the grouping of items on the
Role-Orientation Measure.

Two factor problems were run, making use of the
Michigan State University Control Data 3600 computer system.
The items factored in both cases were subjected to varimax
rotation, applying the Kiel-Wrigley Option, which was set
at three, with unities inserted in the diagonals. The first

problem run consisted of data derived from subject responses

125

to Item 22, Part III of the study questionnaire, which reads
as follows:

As a broadcaster, to whom do you personally look for

some indication as to how your particular job should

be performed--that is, persons or groups that tend to
set those standards of performance with which you are
most in agreement?

 

Fifteen groups were identified on the questionnaire. In each
instance subjects were asked to indicate whether the group
identified was considered "Very Important," "Somewhat Impor-
tant," or "Relatively Unimportant." Subject responses were
scored "3," "2," and "1" respectively. Space was also pro—
vided for the inclusion of additional groups at the discretion
of the subject.

The second problem run for factor analysis purposes
consisted of data derived from subject responses to Part II
of the study questionnaire, the so-called Role—Orientation

Measure .

Reference—Group Factor Analysis

The concept of the reference group was introduced
in Chapter I. At that time it was suggested that orienta-
tion to role was, in part at least, a function Of the in-
dividual's reference-group identification. Item 22, Part
II, Of the study questionnaire was included as a means of
testing this assumption so far as the role of the broadcaster
is concerned.

The procedures employed for this purpose were as

follows. The fifteen reference-group items were

126

intercorrelated (Appendix E) and subjected to factor analy-
sis for the purpose of isolating certain general types of
reference groups. A factor score was then computed on each
of the identified factors. Subjects were next grouped on
the basis of obtained scores on the identified factors.
Devised groups of high, medium and low scorers were employed
finally as control variables for chi-square test purposes.
The procedures described, made it possible to
clearly identify four primary reference factors and one in-

cidental reference factor. Reference Factor I, consisting

 

of a set of six items, was identified as a Career—Set factor.

 

It-was found that broadcasters who score high on this parti-
cular factor tend to assign high, positive, value to media
critics, trade publications, other broadcasters, network
personnel and to professional groups in consideration of how
their jobs should be performed. It may also be noted, as a
matter of incidental interest, that the reference groups
identified with the Career-Set factor are "out—of—system"

or "other-system" type groups, i.e., groups that are located
at some distance, physical or psychological, from the broad-
caster's own situation but with whom the broadcaster tends
to identify nonetheless.

Reference Factor II, consisting of a set of three

 

items, was identified as a Client-Set factor. Broadcasters

 

who score high on this factor, it was found, tend to assign

high, negative, value to listeners and viewers, advertisers

127

and sponsors and to influential community leaders in con-
sideration of how their jobs should be performed. Each of
the reference groups identified with this factor, moreover,
while not directly "within-system," is in a position none-
theless to directly apply sanctions in one form or another
against the broadcaster should his actual role performance
fail to satisfy their collective expectations. Factor II
reference groups, then, tend to be more or less controlling
or at least somewhat demanding, which may account, in part,

for the negative signing of the items.

Table 5.3.—-Reference factor solution.

 

 

Factor Number Item Number Factor Loadings Communalities

 

I 3 .674 .462
7 .582 .442

10 .644 .486

12 .631 .562

13 .630 .598

15 .436 .532

II 2 -.739 .614
6 -.376 .294

11 -.710 ' .617

III 1 -.631 .542
4 -.722 .587

14 -.429 .459

IV 5 .686 .568
8 .759 .679

9 .656 .614

V 16 .885 .799

 

128

The groups associated with Reference Factor III are

 

also Of a controlling or demanding type although located
"out-of—system" for the most part. These include groups
associated with government, the FCC and congress, the NAB
leadership and the broadcast unions. Reference Factor III

has been identified logically, then as a Rule-Set or Power-

 

Set factor. Broadcasters who score high on this factor'

 

tend to assign high, negative, value to role defining influ-
ences received from these sources. Again, the negative
signing of the factor loadings on Reference Factor III may
well follow from the broadcaster's reaction to the firm,
sometimes mandatory, direction given in role definition by
the groups identified as well as the authority implied in
the relationship.

Reference Factor IV was identified as a Primary-

 

 

Grogp factor in that it consists of items which describe
groups more directly related to the broadcaster on a day-
to-day basis. In some respects, too, this factor might

also be thought of as a situation-related factor. Broad-
casters who score high on this factor tend to assign high,
positive, value to station colleagues, to station management
and/or station ownership and to members of the broadcaster's
own family in consideration of how their jobs should be
performed. Basically, too, Reference Factor IV appears to
represent "within-system" type groups; that is, groups that

are locally situated and with whom the broadcaster is closely

 

I‘ll) I‘A

129

associated on a personal basis. In addition, Reference
Factor IV can easily be viewed as having social rather than
strictly occupational implications.

Reference Factor V, in comparison with the other

 

factors identified, is a distinctly minor factor. It con-
sists of but a single item, that listed on the study ques-
tionnaire as "other groups." The intent of the item was to
provide subjects with the opportunity of identifying certain
groups not otherwise listed. Few subjects actually elected
to employ the item, however (N = 12). Nonetheless, the re-
sponses that were Obtained tended to follow a set pattern
and for this reason the identification of the factor may
likely serve some purpose. It was observed, for example,
that of those broadcasters who elected to identify "other"
important groups for job definition purposes, most tended

to assign high, positive, value to personal beliefs, past
experience, religious values or to personal insight. It
seemed possible, therefore, to at least tentatively identify

Reference Factor V as a Value-Set factor and to assign to it

 

the sum of those unique influences, hard to define but none-
theless real, which give substance to character and result
in decisions of a distinctly personal nature.

The results Obtained through the factoring process
resulted in several conclusions, theoretic and procedural.
It was first observed that the results tended to support the

general view that the individual tends to pattern his

130

reference groups into meaningful reference types, forming,

as it were, a personal gestalt which can be employed for
identification purposes. Second, the reference types so
identified tended to confirm previous research, particularly
with regard to the contrast between "within-system" and "out-
Of-system" identifications, a contrast which has frequently

been employed to designate so-called localite and cosmopolite

 

 

orientations.

The results Obtained from the factoring process also
made possible a testing of the assumed relationship between
the individual's reference-group identificationsaufl.his role-
orientation. For this purpose the reference factors identi-
fied were treated as control variables and the factors
obtained from the Role-Orientation Measure, which will be

discussed in the section following, as dependent variables.5

Orientation Measure Factor Analysis

The concept of role-orientation has previously been
discussed as has the instrument which was designed to Opera-
tionalize this concept for study purposes. It will be re-

called that the primary purpose Of the orientation measure

 

5As an independent exercise, non-related to the pri-
mary concerns of this study, each of the reference factors
identified were subjected to contingency analysis as a de-
pendent variable. The independent, or control, variables
in each instance were the background, system and test or
behavior variables previously identified. The results of
this analysis are appended for reference purposes (Appendix

Q).

131

was to provide a practical means for testing certain funda-
mental propositions regarding the variables that were pre-
sumed to act upon (or be themselves acted upon) the
individual's role-orientation.

The use of factor analysis was intended to further
this Objective in two ways: (1) by testing the relative
independence of the theoretically applied pattern-variables
and the assignment of items to such variables, and (2) by
providing a method for more directly testing the relation-
ship between the variables described and other theoretically
assigned factors.

As indicated in the preceding section, chi-square
procedures were employed to test relationships between
variables. Before proceeding to a discussion of these
procedures and the results Obtained from their application,
some space will be devoted to a consideration of the factors
obtained from the analysis of the thirty-eight-item Role-
Orientation Measure.

The Role-Orientation Measure was subjected to factor
analysis, by means of a varamax rotation method with an
applied Kiel-Wrigley Option (set at three) and with unities
inserted in the diagonals; this yielded a seven-factor solu-
tion which offered a reasonable basis for interpretation,
although not totally within the frame of the theory employed.
A complete listing of item loadings and communalities for this

solution is appended (Appendix J). Table 5.4, which follows,

Table 5.4.--Role-orientation factor solution.

132

 

 

 

Factor Number Item Number Factor Loadings Communalities
I 2 -.581 .393
8 .433 .344
10 -.596 .370
15 -.599 .506
19 -.523 .568
23 .357 .389
27 -.443 .316
II 7 .422 .385
17 .493 .286
22 .395 .338
26 .459 .552
28 .612 .418
31 .674 .486
33 .507 .469
38 .591 .597
III 1 -.542 .390
4 -.441 .324
16 -.677 .488
21 -.301 .249
IV 11 .399 .339
18 .434 .403
20 .505 .304
24 .344 .294
29 .507 .441
30 .538 .383
34 -.478 .400
37 .422 .416
V 6 -.416 .460
9 .611 .470
12 .394 .418
14 .403 .380
25 .519 .387
VI 5 .397 .176
13 .456 .441
32 .557 .349
35 .497 .449
VII 3 -.401 .286
36 .596 .418

 

133

lists the obtained principal factors resulting from the
assignment of items in terms of their highest loadings.

On investigation it was found that the factor
solution arrived at however was at some variance with the
theoretically defined pattern-variables. The exceptions to
this rule that were observed related only to Factor II,
which in the main tended to correspond to the basic nature
of the affective-neutrality vs affectivity variable, and
Factor IV, which tended to reflect a collectivity-orientation.

The finding of non-correspondence reduced the direct
utility value of the pattern-variable concept as applied to
the present study. This is not to suggest, however, that
the theory itself had no relevance. Quite the contrary.
The concept of the pattern-variable was found to have great
merit in the interpretation of the revealed factors. The
expectation of devising broadcaster profiles based directly
upon pattern-variable classifications, however, had to be
discarded. In addition, several hypotheses which were re-
lated to the anticipated develOpment of such a classifica-
tion system also were discarded.

For test purposes, then, the derived factors were
assigned as the primary dependent variables, replacing the
designated pattern-variables in this important regard.
Operationally speaking, therefore, each obtained factor was
taken as a separate and distinct role-orientation and chi-

square tests were constructed accordingly.

134

The seven factors obtained from the analysis of the
thirty-eight-item Role-Orientation Measure were tentatively
identified by means of the following procedure. The item
mean was taken as an indication of which side of the "forced-
choice" item was generally "preferred." If the item asso-
ciated with a particular factor was signed positive, the
preferred side of the item was taken as a direct indicator
of factor content. If the item associated with a factor
was signed negative, the preferred side of the forced-choice
was taken to be rejected for purposes of factor interpreta-
tion. (This was not, however, taken to imply that the non-
preferred side of the item in such an instance was accepted.)
The results of this process are described in the pages that
follow.

Orientation Factor I was assumed to be related to

 

the resolution of certain types of value choices which the
broadcaster might be required to make in the determination
of his role. The types of choices made were found to be
closely related to Parsons' universalism vs particularism
dichotomy but were not limited to such considerations. For
purposes of interpretation this factor was tentatively
identified with the value of utilitarianism, based upon the
types and qualities of decisions made by the broadcasters
sampled in response to the items loaded on the factor. By
definition, the utilitarian person is one who tends to
favor "a system that holds usefulness to be the end and

criterion of action."

135

The broadcaster who scored high on Orientation Factor
I might be said to assign high, more or less negative, value
to certain normative standards of behavior and to assign posi-
tive value to others. In the main, however, the orientation
is negative. In addition, the choices of action observed ap-
pear to be more pragmatic than idealistic, more to the case
than to the rule. A broadcaster so oriented tends for
example, not to assign to any one time period or program a
degree of importance either lesser or greater than that
‘assigned to any other time period or program. He also tends
to reject the view that all segments of his audience are
equally important and therefore "deserving Of equal atten-
tion and consideration." Such a broadcaster affirms or at
least fails to specifically reject, the principle of profit-
ability as central in station operations and to define his
own role as broadcaster primarily in light of the concept
of the marketplace. Although motivated seemingly by profit
considerations, a Factor I oriented broadcaster nonetheless
tends to measure management performance on the basis of a
station's relative standing in the community and other
"qualitative" considerations, believing, perhaps, that the
station that stands well in the public eye is likely also
to be the most profitable. Such a broadcaster also tends
to judge programs not on the basis Of results alone, as
might be expected, but in terms of considerations of merit,

value or quality. In brief, then, a Factor I oriented

136

broadcaster tends not to make a primary distinction between
matters of service and profit. The two goals appear, on
face, to complement each other in the orientation factor
identified. The utilitarian view of the matter, then, might
be said to hold that the one is a necessary pre—condition

to the other, which is to say, that a balanced perspective
is preferred to a singleness of purpose. To this extent at
least, the Factor I oriented broadcaster can be said to be

goal-centered.

 

Orientation Factor II was viewed as a people-centered

 

 

factor. The primary focus of this factor was found to be on
the type, form and quality of the broadcaster's interpersonal
relations, particularly relations with staff. The types of
alternative behaviors represented by Orientation Factor II
appear to be quite similar, in fact, to those described by
Parsons' affective-neutrality vs affectivity pattern variable.
Clearly the main concern is whether or not the broadcaster

is expected to maintain close, friendly and personal relations
with his associates or to develOp and maintain a sense of
personal reserve or detachment.

Orientation Factor II broadcasters might be said to
assign high, positive, value to open expressions of affecti-
vity and to inter-personal relations that are warm, close and
relatively informal. The image Of the broadcaster, as defined
by this factor, is that of a father figure, one who takes

personal pride and satisfaction in his staff and who relates

137

to his fellow workers as a professional colleague. The
image rejected is that of a rather reserved, formal, and
impersonal administrator, an individual who is task cen—
tered and who evidences concern for his staff only in terms
of "getting the job done." In brief, then, the broadcaster
who scores high on Orientation Factor II appears to define
the broadcaster role affectively rather than neutrally, a
quality more frequently identified with a professional
point of view in the literature on this subject.

Orientation Factor III, treats generally of that

 

pattern variable which is principally concerned with "the
sc0pe of significance of the object," asking whether the
actor should respond to the several aspects of the object,
including its various unique qualities, or only to a

clearly specified and limited range of aspects. The quality
or value of objectivism appears, in this regard, to be the
chief element associated with Orientation Factor III. Broad—
casters who score high on this factor might, then, be said
to assign high, negative, value to the diffuseness of func-
tion concept and to certain other qualities of subjectivism
in the definition of role. Characteristically broadcasters
of this type tend not to look much beyond matters of job
description or assignment or the specifics of the contract.
Neither do they appear to focus on the character of the
person with whom they do business or to stress any of the

qualitative aspects of the relationship implied. The

138

expression "what a person is, as a person, is often more
important to a station than what he does or seems capable
Of doing on the job," is one which is quite generally re-
jected by broadcasters so oriented. Factor III oriented
broadcasters tend also to reject the element Of personalism
in staff relations, to avoid considerations of the personal
life and character of the individual (except as related to
job performance) and to stress strict measures of technical
proficiency and more narrow, job-centered, assessments of
professional performance. This factor has therefore been
associated with the value of instrumentalism and is said

to be job-centered in terms of its role-orientation focus.

 

The question of whether or not the broadcaster
should give primacy to the needs and interests of the gen-
eral community or to the short term goals and special in-
terests Of the self and of the station is the principal

focus of Orientation Factor IV. This factor was, then,

 

defined as service-centered. Tentatively, too, it was

 

identified with the special value of altruism, the "self-
less devotion to the welfare of others."

Broadcasters who score high on Orientation Factor
IV tend to assign high, positive value to a sense of public
service responsibility. In most essential respects, the
factor may be characterized by such socially approved terms
as fairness, public interest, community service, and social

responsibility. The emphasis is on the personal commitment

139

of the broadcaster to the ideal of serving the needs of the
community first and the needs of the advertiser second.

The concept of "fair employment," which tends to be treated
negatively (a judgment based upon the mean sample response),
is a curious exception to the otherwise clearly identified

6

sense of the factor.

Orientation Factor V, while not limited to consid-

 

erations of the order of performance vs quality, is nonethe-
less closely related to the pattern-variable so identified.
The basic dilemma of choice appears to reflect the question
of whether the actor should respond to the object in the
light of what it is, of and in itself, or to what it does,
i.e., to its actions or the consequences of its actions.
Tentatively, Orientation Factor V has been identi-
fied with concerns of quality, reflecting the broadcaster's
primary emphasis upon the nature of the product or the
service. Broadcasters who score high on this factor might
be said to assign high, generally positive, value to the
creative act, either in the production of "exciting and
original" commercials or in the development of special
programs. Characteristically Factor V oriented broadcasters

tend to favor a personal involvement in the programming

 

6One may speculate that the sense Of responsibility
identified is a public sense only and does not carry over
into the interna Operations of the station, which might
otherwise be perceived as a matter of rivate concern. This
explanation, however, does not appear suffiCient in all
respects.

140

effort and a strong, personal, attachment or commitment to
the station output. In a manner of speaking, broadcasters
of this type tend to view the program itself almost as an
extension of self, in the manner of the artist. They ap-
pear, too, to take great satisfaction in appealing to a
select audience and in receiving some degree of critical
acclaim for their efforts. Concern for results is of a
secondary order for such broadcasters as is an interest in
and a regard for the client role in broadcasting. Program
decisions are viewed as personal decisions. Client deci-
sions, on the other hand, are made without regard to such
personal considerations. Orientation Factor V, then, tends
to emphasize the quality of the product rather than the
nature of the service rendered. For this reason it is
classified with the value of aestheticism and is said to

be product-centered.

 

Orientation Factor VI appears to be similar in

 

nature to Orientation Factor III in that it too treats of
"the sCOpe of significance of the object," with whether
obligations owed or owing are of a specific order or more
diffuse in character, whether fixed and rule-centered or
more flexible and situation centered. Unlike Factor III,
however, this particular factor is expressed in positive
terms and is concerned with points of view maintained rather

than those rejected.

141

Tentatively, Orientation Factor VI has been identi-
fied with the tendency toward generality or diffuseness in
the definition of the broadcaster's role. Broadcasters who
score high on this particular factor might, then, be said
to assign high, positive, value to treatment by the case
rather than treatment by the rule and to person-centered
authority as Opposed to office-centered authority. A Fac—
tor VI oriented broadcaster, characteristically tends not
to be fixed or rigid in his relations to staff. He might
tend, rather, to individualize or even personalize decision
making, to assign tasks, make demands and to evaluate per-
formance largely on the basis of certain subjective con-
siderations, without regard to objective criteria or rules
of order. Characteristically, too, the broadcaster who
scores high on Factor VI tends to be quite flexible in de-

fining his own role vis a vis the general public, performing

 

the role more in the manner of a politician or a public
official than as a private person. The broadcaster role,
then, viewed from such a perspective tends to be non-struc-
tured and generally undefined in terms of specifics and
otherwise dependent upon matters of individual interpreta-
tion. Such an orientation can be considered relatively

self-centered and individualistic in terms of value.

 

The Final factor identified, Orientation Factor VII,
appears to reflect a combination of pattern-variables, uni-

versalism vs particularism and collectivity-orientation vs

142
self-orientation. Tentatively the factor has been identi-
fied with the value of parochialism and is said to be

situation-centered. Broadcasters who score high on this

 

factor might be said to assign high value to a certain
narrowness of view, to define the concept of community in
limited terms (those which reflect the "paricular views,
values and interests" of the local service area), and to
assign primacy to the interests of the family over those
of the company or station. Factor VII oriented broad-
casters, then, tend to be classed as localites rather than
as cosmopolites insofar as their conception or image of
the role is concerned.

The results obtained from the factoring Of the
thirty-eight-item Role-Orientation Measure tended to mini-
mize the basic utility value of the pattern-variable con-
cept so far as the present study is concerned. The five
pattern-variables identified by Parsons were, however, of
direct value in interpreting the factors obtained from the
measure. The suggestiveness of the results in this regard,
then, appear to justify further investigation of the theory
potential in studies of the type developed.

While the factor results tended to vary from the
theoretically constructed variables, it was nonetheless
possible to proceed with the testing Of the major proposi-
tions and many of the related hypotheses initially described.
For this purpose the identified factors were substituted for

the pattern-variables which were defined in theory. Each

143

identified factor, then, for test purposes, was said to
represent a specific role-orientation. Table 5.5 presents

in summary form the seven orientation factors described.

Table 5.5.--Summary identification of orientation factors.

 

 

 

Factor Number Identification Role-Orientation Focus

I Utilitarianism Goal-Centered

II Inter-Personalism People-Centered

III Instrumentalism Job-Centered

IV Altruism Service-Centered
V Aetheticism Product-Centered

VI Individualism Self-Centered

VII Parochialism Situation-Centered

 

Factor Scores

 

The analytic procedures employed in factoring the
reference group items (Part III, Item 22) and the Role-
Orientation Measure (Part II, Items 1-38) produced a set
of factors which could be said to represent a grouping of
subjects around a common pattern of scoring items. In
effect, each obtained factor could be taken to represent
a particular type of broadcaster, or, more specifically,
a particular type of reference identification or a parti-

cular role-orientation. The next task was to identify the

 

 

L
/

 

 

 

144

position of each subject relative to the Obtained factors.
This was accomplished by means of derived factor scores.

Factor scores were obtained for each subject by the
following procedure. The pattern of scoring of items on
the Obtained factors was first estimated. This was done
by assigning weights to each item response; the higher a
subject's loading on the factor, the greater the weight
assigned. The factor score coefficients, or factor weights,
for each item and each obtained factor are appended, both
for the sixteen-item Reference Group Index (Appendix M) and
the thirty-eight-item Role-Orientation Measure (Appendix N).

An item array of weighted responses for obtained
factors was then produced by summing the assigned weights
across each item separately. The weighted sum for each
subject was then produced and converted to a z-score. The
resulting array of z-scores, ordered by subject and by
factor (Appendix 0 and Appendix P), was taken to be a dis—
tribution of factor scores and used as the basis for assign-
ing subjects to reference—group types and role—orientation
types, or categories, for further test purposes.

Taking the array of Obtained factor scores described,
a judgement was made to classify subjects into three cate—
gories on the basis of individual scores on each identified
factor. For this purpose it was decided that a score of
z = .35, plus or minus from the mean, would be used as the

basis for making an assignment of subjects to categories.

145

If a subject's factor score on any particular factor
was above 2 = .35 the subject was assigned to the category
of "high scorers" for test purposes. If, on the other hand,
a subject's factor score was below that of z = -.35 the sub-
ject was assigned to the category of "low scorers." Subjects
who scored between these points were assigned to the category

of "medium scorers."

CHAPTER VI

DATA ANALYSIS, PART II

The third level of data analysis consisted of an
analysis of contingency tables. This procedure was employed
for the purpose of testing the principal propositions and
hypotheses specified in Chapter II. This was accomplished
by determining the differences and the significance of the
differences between certain observed patterns of role-
orientation among the broadcasters surveyed and certain
expected patterns of role-orientation.

Thirteen variables were subjected to chi-square
test in relation to the seven identified orientation factors.
The variables selected for this purpose are classified and

listed below.

Background Variables

System Position
Subject Role-Function
Level of Education
Level of Experience (Age)

System Variables
Station Type
Station Location

Station Ownership
System Size

146

147

Test Variables

 

Tenure in System
Job Loyalty
Membership Status
Meeting Attendance
Activeness

Each of the background and system variables and each
of the previously identified reference factors were desig-
nated as control variables for chi-square test purposes.
These variables can also be referred to as independent vari-
ables. The so-called spread variables, or dependent variables,
in each instance were the seven orientation factors as repre-
sented by subject factor scores. The seven orientation
factors were also employed as control variables and tested
in relation to the dependent test or behavior variables
described, including tenure in system, system loyalty and
membership status.

The results of these various test runs are shown in
the following tables. Table 6.1 represents the chi-square
results and levels Of significance of the principal back-
ground variables when taken in relation to the orientation
factors. Table 6.2 represents the results Obtained when
similar tests were applied to the four system variables and
Table 6.3 shows the results of the reference factor tests.
The final table in this series, Table 6.4, depicts the re-
sults Obtained when the orientation factors were employed

as control variables in relation to the dependent test

variables.

148

Testing the Primary Studngropositions

An analysis of the various tables reveals certain
recognizable patterns of significance or non-significance
which were taken as preliminary support or lack of sup-
port Of the propositions and hypotheses specified in Chap—
ter II. Only those hypotheses which could be clearly
tested, however, are discussed in these regards.1 In ad-
dition to the specified prOpositions, therefore, only those
hypotheses were tested which related to the elements of
collectivity and affectivity.

To Operationalize the pattern variables identified
it was necessary to employ only two Of the seven orienta-
tion factors described. Orientation Factor II, the inter-
personal factor, was employed as the Operational form of
affectivity and Orientation Factor IV, the altruistic
factor, was employed as the operational form Of collectivity.
The hypotheses tested with reference to these factors were
those subsumed by the principal study prOpositions as speci-

fied below.

Pl: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of his position in the system:

H1: Broadcasters with service-related role-functions
may be expected to be more collectivity-oriented

 

1Once again attention is called to the earlier dis-
cussion in which it was indicated that because several of
the pattern variables constructed for the study did not
hold unidimensionality when subjected to factor analysis,
several of the hypotheses initially develOped for test were
discarded.

149

than broadcasters with economic-related role-
functions.

H2: Broadcasters with service—related role-functions
may be expected to demonstrate less personal and
situational detachment than broadcasters with
economic-related role—functions.

P2: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of system size:

H3: Broadcasters located in large systems may be
expected to be more collectivity-oriented than
broadcasters located in small systems.

H4: Broadcasters located in large systems may be
expected to demonstrate more personal and
situational detachment than broadcasters lo-
cated in small systems.

P3: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function Of his reference-group identification:

H5: Broadcasters with primary "out-of-system" ref-
erence identifications may be expected to be
more collectivity—oriented than broadcasters
with primary "within-system" reference identi-
fications.

H6: Broadcasters with primary "out-of-system" ref-
erence identifications may be expected to
demonstrate more personal and situational de-

tachment than broadcasters with primary "within-
systems" reference identifications.

System Position Results

The hypotheses subsumed by the first study proposi-
tion (Pl) were tested, as indicated, in terms of types of
role-functions. In these regards program directors and
news directors were said to have implied service-related
role-functions and station managers and sales managers were

said to have implied economic-related role-functions.

150

Ho.v H m««%
No.v H m%«

NO.v n ON

 

HNO NO.N NOO.OH OO.O NNNHO.OH Nm.N NNmH.NH Nm.m Hm>mH mocmHummxm

HOV mN.v mm.o mm.m mm.m Namo.MH Hm.H %««¢m.¢H Hm>mq GOHUMODUM
Avv mm.m mm.v mm.m mn.n mm.m mm.H MH.m GOHHOnzmImHom
Hwy mm.H «om.vH «H.m mv.m «Nom.mH oo.NH ov.m Gofluflmom Emumhm

 

MU ollmo mllmo mIIhO wilmo Mllmo NIImO Hllho

 

mmHQMHHm> .0 .m
muouomm coHumucmHHo

 

 

.muouomm COHumucmHno 0cm mmHQMHHm> ocuoumxomn mcHHMHmH mqummH mumsvm|H£UIl.H.o mHnm9

151

The chi-square results Obtained by relating role-
function, as defined, with both Orientation Factor II and
Orientation Factor IV, applying four degrees of freedom,

did not permit a rejection of the null hypothesis. In
addition no significant relations were Observed between
role-function and the five remaining orientation factors
presented in Table 6.1 for which hypotheses were not speci-
fically formed. It was concluded, then, that role-function,

as defined, does not materially affect role-orientation.

The one exception to the rule stated was demon-
strated in regard to Orientation Factor III, the so-called
instrumentalism factor, when the element of role-function
was "purified." By eliminating the category of "combined
role-function"2 and conducting a chi-square test in terms
only Of "pure" service-related and economic-related role—

functions, the following results were Obtained.

Orientation Factor III

Lo Med Hi Totals

 

Econ. 33 62 43 138
2

 

Role-

(x
Function Serv. 38 28 30 96

(P

II II
A

O

o
N
V

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 71 90 73 234

 

2The category in question (N=13) included sub-
jects who combined in a single role the service and economic
functions defined. A station manager who also acted as a
program director would fit this classification as would a
news director who also acted as a sales manager.

152

When two degrees of freedom were applied this dis-
tribution proved highly significant, a result which lends
partial support to the assumption underlying proposition '
P1. In no other case was significance attained by the
"purification" process described.

While the hypotheses subsumed by the first study
proposition (Pl) were not supported by the results, the
general proposition that subject position in the system
would tend to influence role-orientation was not rejected.
Significant results were Obtained when the total range of
subject positions were taken in relation to the tested
orientation factors without regard to function. Specifi-
cally, subject position in system was found to be signifi-
cantly related to Orientation Factor III (p = <.02) and
Orientation Factor VI (p = <.05). In effect, then, the
theoretic rationale developed for the study tended not to
be totally refuted so far as the influence of subject
position in system is concerned although it was quite gen—
erally rejected with regard to the specific combination of
subject positions identified with service-related and
economic-related role-functions.

Further evidence in support of proposition P1 was
also obtained through a partial analysis of the chi-square
results when taken in relation to the positions of sales

managers and program directors alone.3 When the occupants

 

3By definition the two positions identified differ
in matter of role-function.

, 1i, 1, I... .

 

mm:

 

 

 

153

of these positions were singled out and compared directly,
significant differences were Observed in Orientation Factor
II, the interpersonal factor, and Orientation Factor V, the

so-called aesthetic factor. These results are reproduced

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

below.
Orientation Factor II
Lo Med Hi Totals
815. 11 I 16 I 22 | 49
. 2
Subject (x = 8.67)
Position Pgm. 22 l 21 I 10 ' 53 (p = <.02)
Totals 33 37 32 102
Orientation Factor V
LO Med Hi Totals
815. 21 14 14 I 49
. 2
Subject (x = 6.70)
Position Pgm. ll 26 16 l 53 (p = <.05)
Totals 32 40 30 102

The obtained results appear to indicate a tendency
on the part of sales managers to be more affectivity-oriented
in inter—personal relations than program directors and less
aesthetically-oriented to the broadcast product or service.
In terms of role-orientation focus, the sales manager ap-
pears more people-centered and less product-centered than

the program director.

 

m
m

 

154

System Size Results

The second proposition which was investigated (P2)
concerned the relationship of system size to subject role-
orientation. In this regard market size was taken as an
index of system size.

The hypotheses subsumed by the second proposition
(P2) were expressed in terms similar to those employed in
reference to prOposition P1, as indicated above. The fac-
tors tested were Orientation Factor II, the inter-personal
factor, and Orientation Factor IV, the altruistic factor.

The chi-square results of these tests are reproduced below.

Orientation Factor II

Lo Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Small 36 22 16 74
2
. . (x = 10.19)
System Size Medium 25 31 30 86 (p = <.05)
Large 24 31 32 87
Totals 85 84 78 247

Contrary to expectation, broadcasters located in
large systems appear to be somewhat more affectivity-oriented
than broadcasters located in small systems. The hypothesis
(H4) stated that broadcasters located in large systems "may
be expected to demonstrate more personal and situational
detachment . . . ." This hypothesis was not, then, sup-
ported, although the null hypotheses was in this instance

rejected.

mm

 

 

Ho.v n m«««

 

155

 

No.v u m*«

mo.v H m*
Ase On.N HN.m mm.N NNNOO.ON «NNN.NH NNH.OH Nn.N mNHm Smum>m
Ase NO.N OO.N mm.m NNNHN.NN HH.N NO.O ON.N ms>9 mHsmsmszo
HOV NH.NH NNNHN.ON m0.0H ns.N N9.HH mO.NH ON.N mmsN HNOHsmmsmomw
HOV ON.O OO.H mm.s NNNON.HN ns.m NNNNN.OH mN.n soHumum mm>9
No nnumo O-umo m-umo Ouumo muumo Nuumo Huumo mmHanNm> mamum>m

 

muouomm coHumucano

 

 

.muouomm cOHumucmHuo cam mmHanHm> Emumwm mCHumHmH mpHsmmH mumswmlHSOIu.m.m OHQO9

 

 

 

156

Orientation Factor IV

LO Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

Small 38 22 14 74
2
. . (x = 20.69)
System Size Medium 27 28 21 86 (p = <.01)
Large 18 28 41 87

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 83 78 86 247

The results of the Orientation Factor IV test
proved to be significant and in the direction indicated by
the stated hypothesis (H3). The hypothesis stated that
broadcasters in large systems could be expected to be "more
collectivity-oriented than broadcasters located in small
systems," and this was clearly demonstrated by the results.
Therefore the null hypothesis was rejected and the hypothesis
as expressed supported.

The proposition (P2) stating that role-orientation
is, in part, a function of the size of the system was sup-
ported even though, in the one instance, the results were
contrary to those expected. This prOposition is further
supported with reference to Orientation Factor III, the in-

strumentalism factor, as indicated on the following page.

157

Orientation Factor III

LO Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

Small 18 25 31 74
2
. . (x = 12.22)
System Size Medium 22 34 30 85 (p = <.02)
Large 34 37 16 87

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 74 96 77 247

An examination of the corner cells in the chi-square table
reproduced above is particularly interesting. The results
suggest that broadcasters located in small markets are more
instrumentally oriented than are broadcasters located in
large markets. That small market broadcasters should more
significantly reject the diffusion of function concept is
a highly interesting and suggestive finding, one which could
not altogether have been anticipated in advance on the basis
of theory.

If small market broadcasters, as indicated,
appear more job-centered in terms of Orientation Factor III
scores, they are nonetheless less goal—centered in terms of
their scores on Orientation Factor I. The chi-square re-
sults when applied to Orientation Factor I were not signif-
icant, as revealed in Table 6.2. However, when, as shown
below, only the largest and smallest markets were contrasted,
broadcasters in the larger markets were found to differ
significantly in this respect from their small market count—
erparts. These results appear even more impressive when

only the corner cells are compared.

rum.

 

 

158

Orientation Factor I
LO Med Hi Totals

 

Small 32 I 22I 20 74

 

(x = 8.57)
(p = <.02)

 

System Size Large I19 I 33 I 35 87

 

Totals 51 55 55 161

Applying two degrees of freedom to the above dis-
tribution, the results again demonstrated support of the
general prOposition regarding the influence of system size
on role—orientation. In this instance the evidence appears
to point to a more develOped pragmatic sense in the role-
orientation of broadcasters located in large markets as

compared to those located in small markets.

Reference-Group Results

The third study proposition (P3) specified that
role-orientation is, in part, a function of reference-
group identification. The primary test results, as shown
in Table 5.6, are not supportive of the proposition, how—
ever. The influence of reference-group identification,
as Operationalized, was clearly evident in only four of
the thirty-five tests run, and in only one instance was a
level of significance Obtained with regard to either
Orientation Factor II or Orientation Factor IV. In this
instance Reference Factor II, which was identified as a

client-centered factor, negatively signed, was found to

159

 

 

Ho.v m«*%
No.v QNN
mOJ 9..
Hwy vm.m on.m mm.v mm.m mo.~ Ho.N mw.m I mm
Avv *«Nmm.mm vm.m Hm.N mm.m mm.n mo.N Hm.H I mm
Avv Hm.H mN.N mm.m mm.N Hm.H mm.H mm.m I mm
Avv «Nmo.MH nm.m nN.H no.0 «*4om.mH *m¢.HH mm.¢ I mm
Avv mm.m mm.m an.o wm.m mH.N mo.m mm.N I mm
MU nIImO mIIhO mIImO ellho mIImO NIImO HIImO mHOuomm mocmummmm

 

 

.mHOHUMH COH#M#GOHHO UGM mHOuhumm GOGGHGMQH mfifluvMHOH mflHDmmH GHMSUmIHEUllomsm GHQMH.

160

relate significantly with affectivity in role-orientation.
Broadcasters who scored high on Reference Factor II also

scored high on Orientation Factor II.

Orientation Factor II

LO Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

Low 36 30 23 89
2
Reference . (x = 11.48)
Factor II Medium 37 31 26 94 (p = <.05)
High 12 23 29 64

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 85 84 78 247

Broadcasters who scored high on Reference Factor
II also tended to score low on Orientation Factor III
(p = <.01) and high on Orientation Factor VII (p = <.02).
The general influence, comparatively speaking, of this par-
ticular reference factor combined with the relative insig-
nificance of the career-centered reference factor (RFl)
and the primary-group reference factor (RF4) seems to imply
that how a broadcaster relates to listeners and viewers,
advertisers and sponsors and to community leaders, is apt
to be more important than any other single reference factor
in determining how he is likely to relate to his general
role as broadcaster.

In summary, there appears overall to be insufficient
evidence in support of proposition P3 and the hypotheses
subsumed thereunder to permit a rejection of the null hypo-

thesis in these regards.

161

Testing the Secondary Study Propositions

 

In the develOpment of the study a number of secondary
propositions were postulated relating role-orientation to
such factors as subject age and experience, education, sta—
tion type and location, and type of station ownership. Sec—
ondary propositions were, in most instances, distinguished
from the primary study prOpositions described earlier by
their lack of clear determination by theory. Hypotheses
subsumed by such propositions were largely arrived at by

a priori processes.

 

The secondary propositions investigated and, where
applicable, the hypotheses subsumed thereunder are repro—
duced below.

P4: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of experience and age.

H7: Older and more experienced broadcasters may be
expected to be more collectivity-oriented than
broadcasters who are younger and comparatively
less experienced.

H8: Older and more experienced broadcasters may be
expected to demonstrate greater personal and
situational detachment than broadcasters who
are younger and comparatively less experienced.

P5: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of level of education.

H9: Broadcasters with higher levels of education
may be expected to be more collectivity-oriented
than broadcasters with lower levels of education.

H10: Broadcasters with higher levels of education
may be expected to demonstrate greater personal
and situational detachment than broadcasters
with lower levels of education.

162

The above two propositions and the hypotheses sub-
sumed thereunder were tested in the manner described
earlier, utilizing Orientation Factor II and Orientation
Factor IV as the operational equivalents of affectivity
and collectivity respectively. The results of these tests
will be described before proceeding with a discussion of
the other secondary propositions indicated. The results
presented, however, must be interpreted in light of the
following considerations.

Initially subject experience and age were postu-
lated as distinctly different variables. The degree of
correlation demonstrated by analysis, however, (r = .52)
argued that experience and age were directly and positively
related. Any test of subject experience in relation to
role-orientation, therefore, tended also to become a test
of subject age, the reverse also being true. For this
reason proposition P4 considers experience and age as re—
lated variables. Therefore only the results of the test
of experience are detailed below. The results of the test
of age, however, are included in Table 5.4.

A positive and significant correlation was also
demonstrated between college education and station size
(r = .26) and market size (r = .27). It could be argued,
therefore, that any demonstrated influence of education
on role-orientation was an influence of system size. It

could also be argued that the previously demonstrated

163

influence of system Size was itself the consequence of
variance in education. Questions of this order were taken
into account in the interpretation of the test results re-
lating to the influence of education on role-orientation.4

The results relating to the study consideration of
proposition P4, the influence of experience and age on
role-orientation, are presented in Table 6.1. These results
confirm the relative influence of experience with regard to
Orientation Factor II. The influence of experience on role-
orientation is, in addition, demonstrated in relation to
Orientation Factor VI.

The direction of the influence of experience on

Orientation Factor II and Orientation Factor IV may be

determined from the crossbreaks shown below.

Orientation Factor II

LO Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low 23 15 24 62
2
. . (x = 12.15)
Experience Medium 38 42 45 125 (p = <.02)
High 24 27 9 60
Totals 85 84 78 247

A close analysis of this crossbreak indicates that
broadcasters with the highest levels of experience (twenty-

One years or more) also score comparatively low on

 

4A full consideration of this topic will be presented
in the pages that follow.

164

affectivity while broadcasters with the lowest levels of
experience (ten years or less) score comparatively high

on affectivity, as measured by Orientation Factor II.

These results, while not altogether as clear as one might
hope, tend to support the hypothesis (H8) and necessitate

a rejection of the null hypothesis in this regard. Similar
support is provided for hypothesis (H7) concerning the ques-

tion of collectivity-orientation and experience in broadcasting.

Orientation Factor IV

Lo Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

Low 30 18 14 62
2
. . (x = 14.01)
Experience Medium 40 43 42 125 (p = <.01)
High l3 17 30 60

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 83 78 86 247

An analysis of the crossbreak on experience and
collectivity—orientation, as measured by Orientation Factor
IV, lends support to the hypothesis (H7) as expressed.
Broadcasters with high levels of experience do tend to
score higher on the dimension of collectivity than broad-
casters with low levels of experience.

Study proposition P5, relating to the influence of
education on role-orientation, was only partially supported
(Table 5.4) on the basis of the results obtained and only
in relation to Orientation Factor I, the utilitarian factor

(x2 = 14.339; p = <.01), and Orientation Factor III, the

165

instrumentalism factor (x2 = 13.059; p = <.02). The two
factors employed to test the hypotheses subsumed by prOpo—
sition P5, Orientation Factor II and Orientation Factor IV,
did not produce significant results. The null hypothesis,
then, was not rejected in either instance.5

However, in consideration of Orientation Factor IV,
it appeared reasonable to re-analyze the results Obtained
by means of a second test run, applying only two degrees of

freedom. For the purposes of this particular test, High

Orientation Factor IV

LO Med Hi Totals

 

Low 49 31 33 113 2
. . (x = 8.89)
Education (p = <.02)

High 34 47 53 134

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 83 78 86 247

Education was defined as four or more years of college and
Low Education as less than four years of college or no
college education at all. The first and second categories
of education were combined and contrasted with the totals
obtained in the third category, reproduced here as High
Education. It was reasoned that the non-college graduate
was less like the college graduate than like subjects who

had never attended college. The results appear to support

 

5 . .

For a more complete analySis on education as a
significant variable compare the section on controlled
variable tests which follows.

166

this assumption. Broadcasters with High Education, as de-
fined, scored higher on the dimension Of collectivity than
broadcasters with Low Education, as re-defined.

It may also be reported that although broadcasters
with High Education scored significantly higher on the di-
mension of utilitarianism (Orientation Factor I) than
broadcasters with low education they scored low, compara-
tively speaking, on instrumentalism, as Operationalized by
Orientation Factor III.

PrOposition six, concerning the relation of station
type (a system variable) took the following form.

P6: That an individual's role-orientation is, in
part, a function of system or station type.

Initially two hypotheses were subsumed under this proposi-
tion. The first hypothesis (H11) stated that broadcasters
working in television stations could be expected to be more
collectivity-oriented than broadcasters working in radio
stations. The second hypothesis (H12) stated that broad-
casters working in television stations could be expected

to demonstrate greater personal and situational detachment
than broadcasters working in radio stations. The two hypo-
theses were Operationalized, as before, in terms of
Orientation Factor II and Orientation Factor IV, identified
in terms of affectivity and collectivity respectively. The
chi-square results Obtained in support of each of the above

hypotheses are reproduced below.

167

Orientation Factor II

LO Med Hi Totals

 

Radio 56 38 30 124

 

2 16.572)

<.01)

(x

Station Type TV 14 30 24 68 (p

 

Radio/TV 15 16 24 55

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 85 84 78 247

The obtained results appear substantially to sup-
port the view that broadcasters working for radio stations
are less oriented to affectivity, as scored by Orientation
Factor II, or are less people-centered than broadcasters
working for television stations or for combination radio
and television stations. These results fail to confirm the
hypothesis as expressed (H12). The null hypothesis is
therefore rejected, although the hypothesis is not supported

as phrased.

Orientation Factor IV

Lo Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Radio 56 39 29 124
2
. TV 16 18 34 , 68 (x = 21.263)
Station Type . (p = (.01)
Radio/TV ll 21 23 55
Totals 83 78 86 247

Applying four degrees of freedom to the above prob—
lem the level of significance obtained was sufficient to

confirm the hypothesis relative to the dimension of

168

collectivity (H11) and allow a rejection of the null hypo-
thesis. Clearly television broadcasters tend to score
higher on Orientation Factor IV than radio broadcasters.

In failing to reject the null hypothesis in either
instance, some confidence is generated in support of study
proposition P6, which holds that role—orientation is, in
part, a function of system type. There is some doubt,
however, that the results can be expressed clearly in this
form. Attention is called to the results which were des-
cribed earlier in a discussion of one of the three primary
study prOpositions, that which postulated a positive rela—
tion between system size and role-orientation (P2). It
will be recalled that system size was related to levels of
affectivity and collectivity as defined by the instruments.
The present results are clearly supportive if one considers
that a relationship exists between system size and station
type. As indicated in the correlation tables appended,
station size and station type are related at a level of
r = .77 while market size and station type are related at
a level of r = .47. These high correlations taken in rela-
tion to the distribution of subjects in the chi-square
tables shown on size and station type seem to point to a
strong need for additional study. At least such study
would appear to be needed in advance of stating with con-
viction that system size and system type can or should be

treated and reported separately.

169

Proposition seven, concerning the relation of sta—
tion location (an additional system variable) to role-
orientation was expressed in the manner indicated.

P7: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of station location.

In this regard station location was considered in terms of
four geographical areas, the Middle-West, the East, the
South, and the West. How these sections were defined is
described in an earlier chapter. It was anticipated that
subjects in certain sections of the country would tend to
develOp differing role-orientations. No distinct hypotheses
were formulated along these lines, however, although it was
assumed that subjects located in stations in the South would
evidence greater affectivity and proportionately less col—
lectivity than subjects located in stations in the North
or East.

Employing a distribution of subjects in terms of
the four geographical areas identified, and applying six
degrees of freedom to the obtained chi-square results, it
was found that station location had a significant effect
upon Orientation Factor VI only. The results obtained
from this distribution while significant, nonetheless
failed to provide any measure of insight which might clearly
be interpreted in support of prOposition P7. The results
are simply not that distinct with regard to any particular

region of the country.

170

Orientation Factor VI

LO Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

 

North 15 14 23 52
Station EaSt 25 2° 30 75 (x2 = 26.308)
L°°at1°n South 16 44 14 74 (P = ('01)
West 19 13 14 46

 

 

 

 

 

Totals 75 91 81 247

An attempt was made, therefore, to devise a second
set of chi-square tests that would result in patterns of
difference which could be more easily interpreted. For
this purpose station location was recast in terms of two
categories, North-East and South-West. In these terms,
applying two degrees of freedom, relatively clear differ-
ences were Obtained in relation to Orientation Factors II,
III and VII, in addition to Orientation Factor VI.

An examination of the re-constituted chi-square
table on Orientation Factor II, the affectivity factor re—
veals that contrary to expectation, broadcasters located
in stations in the North and East produced higher scores
on this factor than did broadcasters located in the South
and West. Broadcasters located in the North and East were
also found substantially to be less instrumentally-oriented,

as Operationalized by Orientation Factor III.

Station North-East
Location South-West
Totals
Station North-East
Location South-West
Totals

171

Orientation Factor II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lo Med Hi Totals

36 I 40 SlI 127 (x2 = 9.33)
49 I 44 27 120 (P = ('01)
85 ‘ 84 78 247

Orientation Factor III

Lo Med Hi Totals

48 47 I32 127 (x2 = 8.57)
26 49I 45 120 (P = ('02)
74 96 77 257

Surprisingly enough, too, it was found that broadcasters

located in the South and West were less situation-centered,

as determined by their relative scores on Orientation Factor

VII, then were broadcasters in the North and East.

Station North-East
Location South-West
Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orientation Factor VII

Lo Med Hi Totals

34 52 41 127 (x2 = 6.97)
51 36 33 120 (P = ('05)
85 88 74 247

By re-constituting the basic

chi-square tables re-

1ating to the geographical location of subjects, a number

of significant relations became evident. It is possible,

then, to conclude that the proposition concerning the rela-

tive influence of station location (P7) was partially

172

supported. However, some caution must be exercised in
freely interpreting these results in such terms. Although
the correlations between station and market size and geo-
graphical location Of stations is relatively weak and nega-
tive, (r = -.16 and -.15 respectively, U. S. census figures
indicate that more than sixty percent of the American urban
population is located in those sections of the country
identified in the re-constituted chi-square tables as North
and East.7 It is possible, then, that the reported signif-
icant differences are to a degree related to population
density, or indirectly, to size of markets.

Proposition eight, which concerned the relation of
type of station ownership (also a system variable) to role-
orientation has been expressed as follows.

P8: That an individual's role-orientation is, in part,
a function of type Of system ownership.

Data on three types of system ownership were derived from
the study questionnaire and subjected to test. The three
system types were (1) independent ownership, (2) group
ownership, and (3) press ownership, including group owned
stations with press identifications. Again, although no
specific hypotheses were constructed in relation to proposi-
tion P8 it was generally anticipated that a collectivity-

orientation would be more closely associated with position

 

7An urban area is defined as at least one city of
50,000 inhabitants (central city) plus contiguous, closely
settled areas (urban fringe). Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1960.

173

in a group-owned station or a press-related station and that
similar results would prevail with regard to the question
of personal and situational detachment.

An analysis of Table 6.2 shows that a significant
relationship between system ownership and role-orientation
occurs in one instance only. As anticipated, this result
is obtained with reference to Orientation Factor IV, the
operational form of collectivity-orientation. These results

are shown below.

Orientation Factor IV

LO Med Hi Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Independent 53 29 25 107
2
System _ (x = 22.807)
Ownership Group Owned 18 29 37 84 (p = (.01)
Press-Owned ll 19 23 53
Totals 82 77 85 244

The results Of the chi-square test relating
system ownership to the question of personal and situational
detachment (Orientation Factor II) gave evidence of no sig-
nificance, as did the results of the tests applied to each
of the other orientation factors. Only in relation to col-
lectivity-oriented broadcasters was the matter of system

ownership important.8

 

8Compare section on controlled variable test
results for additional insight on tOpic considered.

174

Role—Behavior Test Results

 

As indicated in an earlier chapter, one of the pri-
mary assumptions made relative to the present study was that
role-behavior could be expected to vary essentially as a
function Of role-orientation. To test this assumption on
a tentative basis several data types were gathered on role-
behavior. Included was information on system tenure, job
loyalty, membership status in broadcast-related organiza—
tions, attendance at organization meetings or conventions,
and activeness in organization affairs.

The five behavioral variables, termed test variables
in the preceding sections, were dependently related to the
seven orientation factors and subjected to chi4square
analysis to determine the level of relative significance
of any obtained differences. The chi-square results in these
regards are reported in Table 5.7. These results indicate
that five of the seven orientation factors reached a level
of significance equal to or greater than p = .05 in rela-
tion to at least one of the five behaviors named.

Although the variables tested were rather loosely
defined and the test applied somewhat crude for the pur-
poses intended, the results obtained nonetheless are suf-
ficient to permit at least a tentative rejection of the
null hypothesis. This conclusion, however, is one which

should be subjected to further test in view of the fact

 

 

175

 

HO.v n 9444

N0.v H m««

I m0.v H m«
Amy Aev Amy Amy A00 m0
0v.H HN.N #Hm4n mm4H 00.H n I 90
vm.H NNHN.MH mH.m 0n40 nm.m 0 I 90
v¢.N 00.m mm.H «Hm.0 atmn.0H m I mo
mm.v tttv0.na «yam.n mm.H 00.0H v I no
tmm.m nN4N 0m4H mm40 n0.m m I 90
mH4H hm4H v0.H 00.0 H040H N I ho
mH.0 nm.H , mm.m 004N M040 H I 90

mmmcm>Huo¢ monvcmuud mswwuw MuHmmOH 095:09 muouomm coHumucwHHo

mHsmanamz Emumhm Emummm

 

.mHOH>m£OQ Emummm ocm muouomm cOHumucmHno mcHumHmH manmmH mumsvaHcOII.w.o OHQOB

176

that the relation between role-orientation and role-behavior
was not itself the primary focus of the present study.
Certain of the relations noted are of special in-
terest, however, and are therefore reported below. It was
observed, for example, that product—centered broadcasters,
those scoring highest on Orientation Factor V, were somewhat
less disposed to system loyalty than broadcasters who ap-

peared less product-centered.

System Loyalty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-
loyal Loyal Totals
Low 21 59 80
. 2
Orientation . (x = 6.913)
Factor V Medium 29 61 90 (p = <.05)
High 34 40 74
Totals 84 160 244

Here system loyalty is defined in terms of whether the
broadcaster was considering a move to a different job or
anticipated making such a move within the near future.

A result of similar interest was produced with
reference to the relation of Orientation Factor IV, the
altruistic factor, and the membership status of broadcasters.
Broadcasters with a.high collectivity orientation were found
more likely to maintain membership in broadcast-related
organizations or associations than broadcasters with a low

collectivity orientation.

177

Membership Status

Non-
Member Member Totals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low 35 48 83
. . 2
Orientation . (x = 7.990)
Factor IV Medium 43 33 76 (p = <.02)
High 54 31 85
Totals 132 112 244

In addition, it was found that a collectivity-orienta-
tion, as measured by Orientation Factor IV, had a significant
effect on the broadcaster's habit of attending or not attend-
ing broadcast-related meetings or conventions. Broadcasters
who were defined as regular convention goers (those who re-
ported attending at least three meetings within the year)
were found to score significantly higher on Orientation Factor

IV than the non-attending broadcasters.

Attendance at Meetings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Non- Non-
Regular Regular Attend Totals
Low 16 33 34 83
. . 2 .

Orientation . (x = 17.835)
Factor IV Medium 26 37 15 78 (p = (.01)

High 33 39 14 86

Totals 75 109 63 247

The results obtained in these regards appear sufficient to
support the view that role-orientation does have an effect

upon role-behavior.

178

Controlled Variable Testing

 

In the preceding discussion it was pointed out that
system size was significantly related to role-orientation,
particularly with reference to Orientation Factors II and
IV. In this section the results of certain controlled
variable tests will be presented for discussion. By a con-
trolled variable test is meant a three-dimension chi—square
test. This is a procedure whereby a primary variable is
held constant in one of its aspects while a secondary vari-
able is manipulated in relation to a third, dependent,

variable.

Controlling System Size

By means of controlled variable testing an attempt
was made to demonstrate the pervasiveness as well as the
relative independence Of the influence of system size on
role-orientation. This was to be accomplished by testing
certain of the basic background variables, such as educa-
tion and eXperience, and certain other system variables,
such as station type, geographical location, and so forth,
against the orientation factors which were tested previously.
This time, however, size of system was controlled. That is,
subjects located in small markets were tested independently,
as were subjects located in medium sized markets and sub-

jects located in large, metro, markets.

179

An analysis of the contingency tables resulting from
this series of tests, with system size controlled, revealed
that most of the secondary variables tested in relation to
the orientation factors selected for this purpose achieved
significance with a remarkable degree of consistency. The
significance achieved, with few exceptions, was usually ob-
served with regard tO subjects located in small markets and
subjects located in large, metro markets. The results of
the analysis developed by the means described are presented
in Table 6.5.

It may be recalled that both system size and station
type, for example, tended to relate significantly to Orien-
tation Factors II and IV. When station type was varied by
market size, that is, when market size was controlled, the
level of significance achieved by variance in station type,
with four degrees of freedom applied, exceeded p = .01 and
remained constant, at least in small and large markets.
However, when the same procedure was employed with type
station controlled and system size varied, radio stations
tested against size of system, and television stations
tested against size of system, no significant differences
were Observed. Contrary to expectation, type of station
appeared to have a much more profound influence on role-
orientation than the size of the system itself. The re—
sults previously described, then, appear not as important

as initially thought.

180

Size of system (i.e., market size) is fundamentally
important but this importance is reflected in terms of sta-
tion type. Attention is drawn however to the relation be-
tween station type and station size (Television stations,
on the average, are larger organizational types.) and the
additional relation between station type and size of market.
(Television stations, on the average, are located in larger
markets.)

The results of the controlled variable test procedure
relating system size and station type to role-orientation
appears also to imply that radio and television broadcasters
differ significantly in orientation to role when located in
small systems and when located in large systems but do not
differ when located in medium sized systems. Radio broad—
casters alone, however, did not differ significantly when
located in different sized systems, nor did television
broadcasters. It is concluded, therefore, that radio
broadcasters in small markets are more similar in role-
orientation to radio broadcasters located in medium and
large systems than to television broadcasters located in
systems of similar size.

Additional insights of equal interest were gained
from the controlled variable tests. Geographical location,
for example, (Table 6.2) was generally a non-significant
variable when tested in relation to role-orientation,auzleast

as originally constituted. However, when system size was

181

controlled it was discovered that geographical location

makes a difference in orientation to role, again in both
small and large systems, although the degree of the dif-
ference Observed was much more evident in small markets

than in large markets.

Education resulted in similar differences in role-
orientation when considered in terms of system size. The
level of education was found to be significantly related
to differences in orientation to role in systems of small
size and in systems of large size but not in systems of
medium size. Experience, like education, also tended to
be related significantly to variations in role-orientation
in small and large systems. The same held true for system
ownership. Whether a station was independently owned, group
owned or owned by a press-related company appeared to relate
significantly to differences in role-orientation.

It was suggested in the introduction to this section
that an attempt was made to demonstrate the pervasiveness as
well as the relative independence of the influence of system
size on role-orientation. In summary it is suggested that
while size of system can be shown to have a more or less
pervasive influence on subject role-orientation, at least
in small systems and large systems, its complete independence
could not be demonstrated. There is reason to believe, in
fact, that a complex of variables, each to a degree related

to the matter of system size, may be at work producing that

Table 6.5.--Controlled variable chi-square results with

182

system size controlled.

 

 

 

Category Control Spread x2 df Significance
Small Market Sta. Type OF-l 53.59 4 .01
OF-2 55.83 .01
OF-3 52.40 .01
OF-4 55.95 .01
Medium Market Sta. Type OF-l 6.87 4 n/s
OF-3 7.83 n/s
OF-4 4.41 n/s
Large Market Sta. Type OF-l 27.01 4 .01
OF-2 29.65 .01
OF-3 27.68 .01
OF-4 25.11 .01
Small Market Geog. Area OF-l 12.83 6 .05
OF-2 16.99 .01
OF-3 14.40 .05
OF-4 20.10 .01
Medium Market Geog. Area OF-l 7.92 6 n/s
OF-3 3.99 n/s
Large Market Geog. Area OF-l 12.50 6 n/s
OF-2 12.12 n/s
OF-4 14.21 .05
Small Market Education OF-l 17.03 4 .01
OF-2 22.85 .01
OF—3 18.11 .01
OF-4 25.17 .01
Medium Market Education OF-l 6.30 4 n/s
OF-2 2.71 n/s
OF-4 1.22 n/s

Table 6.5 (Continued)

183

 

 

 

Category Control Spread x2 df Significance
Large Market Education OF-l 10.42 4 .05
OF-Z 11.66 .05
OF-3 15.10 .01
OF-4 15.54 .01
Small Market Experience OF-l 13.95 4 .01
OF-2 15.92 .01
OF-3 17.99 .01
OF-4 22.52 .01
Medium Market Experience OF-l 6.36 4 n/s
OF-2 1.25 n/s
OF-3 7.55 n/s
OF-4 4.12 n/s
Large Market Experience OF-l 15.59 4 .01
OF-2 10.42 .05
OF-3 15.29 .01
Small Market Ownership OF-l 43.38 4 .01
OF-2 41.59 .01
OF-3 39.06 .01
OF-4 43.80 .01
Medium Market Ownership OF—l 11.21 4 .05
OF-2 3.76 n/s
OF-3 4.35 n/s
OF-4 5.84 n/s
Large Market Ownership OF-l 24.58 4 .01
OF-3 24.13 .01
OF-4 24.63 .01

 

184

relationship with role-orientation which has been observed.
How these different variables themselves interrelate and
act upon orientation is not at all clear at this point,

however.

Controlling System Position

As revealed earlier, the influence of system posi-
tion on role-orientation is relatively clear. This is
suggested at least by observed response patterns to items
loaded on Orientation Factors III and VI. The influence
of system position, however, was not discernable in terms
of role-function as was originally believed except in rather
specific instances, such as the Observed differences between
sales managers and program directors when considered inde-
pendently in relation to Orientation Factors II and V.

The question to be considered in this section is the
same as that reviewed in the preceding section; that is, to
what extent would certain related variables influence role-
orientation should position in system be held constant?

In response to this expressed concern it was
arranged to test three related variables against the four
basic position categories of station manager, sales manager,
program director and news director. The three variables
tested were station type, education and experience. The
orientation factors taken as dependent variables for such

tests were factors II, III and VI. The procedures employed

THE."

 

 

 

 

 

185

for these tests were the same as those described in the
preceding section and identified as a controlled variable
chi-square test. The results obtained are indicated in
Table 6.6, next page.

An analysis of the results shown in Table 6.6 in-
dicates that with system position held constant, education,
experience and station type have varying degrees of influ-
ence on the individual's role-orientation. The most direct
influence was the factor of station type, whether the broad-
caster was associated with a radio station or with a tele-
vision station.

The type stations broadcasters were associated with
produced, in most instances, variations in role-orientation,
as measured by scores on Orientation Factors II, III, and
VI. Radio broadcasters differed from television broadcasters
without regard to position along the various dimensions in-
dicated with the following exceptions: Radio and television
station managers did not differ significantly in terms Of
relative scores on Orientation Factor VI which indicates
that station managers cannot be differentiated by degrees
of individualism. Radio television sales managers also
did not significantly differ in terms Of relative scores
on Orientation Factor III, the factor of instrumentalism,
which may indicate the radio sales managers, on the whole,
are neither more or less job-centered than sales managers.

Finally, radio and television program directors did not

186

Table 6.6.--Controlled variable chi-square results with
system position controlled.

 

 

 

 

Category Control Spread x2 df Significance
Station Managers Sta. Type OF-2 13.77 .01
OF-6 9.47 n/s
Sales Managers Sta. Type OF-2 13.58 .01
OF-3 5.66 n/s
OF-6 14.49 .01
Prog. Directors Sta. Type OF-2 13.55 .01
OF-3 15.12 .01
OF-6 8.44 n/s
News Directors Sta. Type OF-2 13.81 .01
OF-3 10.95 .05
OF-6 13.25 .02
Station Managers Education OF-2 11.34 .05
OF-3 9.07 n/s
OF-6 5.81 n/s
Sales Managers Education OF-2 16.55 .01
OF-6 16.25 .01
Prog. Directors Education OF-2 8.60 n/s
OF-3 6.08 n/s
OF-6 4.92 n/s
News Directors Education OF-2 7.50 n/s
OF-3 6.23 n/s
OF-6 7.23 n/s
Station Managers Experience OF-2 14.87 .01
OF-3 22.08 .01
OF-6 17.48 .01
Sales Managers Experience OF-Z 18.10 .01
OF-3 12.73 .02
OF-6 16.50 .01
Prog. Directors Experience OF-2 19.65 .01
OF-3 6.40 n/s
OF-6 5.00 n/s
News Directors Experience OF-2 2.72 n/s
OF-3 6.63 n/s
OF-6 11.11 .05

 

 

 

 

 

 

187

materially differ in terms of relative scores on Orientation
Factor VI, the individualism factor.

With these few exceptions, it was demonstrated that
type of station had a decided influence on role-orientation
across all positions in the system with regard to the three
orientation factors identified. This finding taken together
with those described in the preceding section strongly sug-
gests the need for additional research on the relationship
between orngaization type and structure and role-orientation.

The influence of education on role—orientation, taken
in regard to system position, in a controlled variable chi-
square test, was demonstrated clearly in association with
the sales manager position only. This implies the relative
dominance of system position over education in the develop-
ment of the broadcaster's orientation to role. Education
as an influence on role-orientation cannot be treated so
simply, however, in spite of the results presented. It may
be recalled, for example, that differences in education
were related to differences in role-orientation in both
small market and large market stations. Similar differences
were also Observed when education was considered in relation
to types of stations and to varying levels of experience.

The third and final variable related to system posi-
tion in a controlled variable chi—square test was that of
experience. Here, as shown in Table 6.6, it was found that

differences in levels of experience among broadcasters were

mm:

 

 

 

 

 

 

188

related to variations in role-orientation, considering
Orientation Factors II, III, and VI only. These results,
however, were Observed primarily with regard to station
managers and sales managers. Experience differences among
program directors resulted in significant differences in
role-orientation only in the area of affectivity, as opera-
tionalized by Orientation Factor II. Similarly, differences
in level of experience among news directors resulted in
differences in role—orientation only with reference to
Orientation Factor VI, the individualism factor.

In summary, then, it was found that with subject
position held constant, the principal influence on role-
orientation among the variables tested was that of station
type, which,when varied, resulted in significant differences
across each position category studied. Conversely, differ-
ences in level of eudcation generally resulted in significant
differences in the role-orientation of sales managers only,
and experience, when varied, influenced clearly only the
orientations of station managers and sales managers except

as otherwise indicated.

The Influence of Education Level

 

To return to the question raised concerning the
relative influence of education, it was found that this
particular variable significantly affected role-orientation

only under certain conditions. In the initial test Of the

189

education variable, significant results were Obtained in
relation to both Orientation Factor I and Orientation Factor
III and, when redefined in "high" and "low" categories only,
in relation to Orientation Factor IV. These results, more-
over, were substantially supported in the controlled vari-
able chi-square test when system size was held constant, at
least so far as broadcasters located in small systems and
large systems were concerned. When subject positions was
held constant, however, Orientation Factor III alone, of
those factors tested, was found to be significantly related
to education and then only in relation to the position of
the sales manager.

Education was also varied in terms Of station type
and in terms Of eXperience to provide greater understand-
ing of the relative influence of this particular variable
on role-orientation. The results of the controlled variable
chi-square tests of education are shown in Table 6.7.

Attention is focused first on the relationship of
education to role-orientation with type of station con-
trolled. Here the influence was clearly evident in relation
to Orientation Factor IV, the service-centered factor. Dif—
ferent levels of education resulted in significant differ-
ences in subject scores on Orientation Factor IV in radio
stations, television stations and in combination radio and
television stations. The influence was general regardless

of station type so far as this particular factor was

 

THE.”

 

 

 

 

190

Table 6.7.--Chi-square results with station type and experi-

ence controlled and education varied.

 

 

 

Category Control Spread x2 df Significance
Station Type
Radio Education OF—l 8.35 4 n/s
Stations OF-4 12.27 .02
OF-7 7.20 n/s
Television Education OF-l 6.07 4 n/s
OF-7 10.18 .05
Radio/TV Education OF-l 12.79 4 .02
Stations OF-4 11.71 .02
OF-7 8.02 n/s
Experience

10 yrs. or less Education OF-l 13.11 4 .02
exp. OF-2 13.89 .01
0F—4 14.98 .01
OF-6 14.54 .01
11—20 yrs. eXp. Education OF-l 8.97 4 n/s
OF-2 7.79 n/s
OF-4 6.82 n/s
OF-6 7.67 n/s
21 yrs. or more Education OF-l 12.66 4 .02
exp. OF-2 15.54 .01
OF-4 13.13 .02
OF-6 7.99 n/s

 

 

'l-IED‘I

 

 

191

concerned. Education level otherwise resulted in difference
in subject scores on Orientation Factor I only in combination
radio and television stations and on Orientation Factor VII
in television stations.

The influence of education level on role-orientation
with experience in broadcasting controlled was somewhat less
evident, being limited to broadcasters with the least experi-
ence and the most experience primarily. NO significant
differences appeared to result when education level was
considered among broadcasters having medium levels of ex-
perience, that is, more than ten but less than twenty years
experience.

Inasmuch as several of the orientation factors
tested against the education variable with experience con-
trolled were also tested against this variable with system
size, subject position and type station controlled, a com-
parative analysis of these results can be shown.

Considering Orientation Factor IV independently, it
was found that education generally influenced subject scores
on this factor under the following conditions; In small and
large systems (but not in medium sized systems), in all types
of stations, and among the least and most experienced broad-
casters (but not among those broadcasters with medium levels
of experience).

Considering Orientation Factor I, it was found that

education tended to influence subject scores on this factor

192

in both small and large systems and among the least and most
experienced broadcasters but not in either radio or televi—
sion stations considered independently. Level Of education
tended to influence subject scores on Orientation Factor II
also, again in both small and large systems, among station
managers and sales managers (but not program directors or
news directors), and among the most experienced and the
least experienced broadcasters. Level of education tended,
in addition, to influence subject scores on Orientation
Factor III, but to a much less extent, being evident in both
small and large systems and otherwise limited to sales
managers.

One result of the controlled variable chi-square
test which is of special interest concerns the question of
role-function. It will be recalled that when role-function,
defined in terms of economic and service-related positions,
was tested independently no significant differences in role-
orientation scores were observed. However, when role-
function was tested against Orientation Factors I, III, and
IV--the factors most generally influenced by education--
with level of education controlled, a number of significant
differences became apparent. These results are shown in
Table 6.8.

When groups of broadcasters were taken with regard
to similarity in levels of education, role-function dif—

ferences resulted in distinct differences in role-orientation.

193

Table 6.8.--Controlled variable chi-square results with
education controlled and role function varied.

 

 

 

Category Control Spread x2 df Significance

Non-College Function OF-l 13.91 4 .01
Education OF-3 5.09 n/s
OF-4 13.04 .02

Less Than 4- ‘ Function OF-l 11.98 4 .02
Years College OF-3 15.78 .01
Education OF-4 10.64 .05

4 or More Years Function OF-l 12.33 4 .02
College OF—3 9.45 n/s
Education OF-4 11.59 .05

 

It is evident, then, given these results, that broadcasters
having different role-functions, whether service-related or
economic-related, may develop different role-orientations
and that these differences may be significant under certain
conditions of test.

In summary it may be suggested that level of educa-
tion tends to influence role-orientation, particularly with
regard to Orientation Factors I and IV, and that it does so
under certain conditions and in relation to certain other
intervening variables, such as size of system, station type,
experience and position in system. It can be suggested
further than education level relates to the level of influ-
ence of role-function on role-orientation. Much additional
research, however, will be required before a pattern Of in-
fluence can be clearly determined for level Of education in

these regards.

rum:

 

CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSIONS

The results described in the preceding chapters
provide a basis for developing certain conclusions con-
cerning (1) the value of the theoretic rationale employed
in the study and (2) the propositions and hypotheses tested.
These conclusions will constitute the main part of this final
chapter. A consideration of their applicability to future

studies of a similar type will also be presented.

Theoretic Considerations

 

Two aspects of this study stand out from a theoretic
point of view. The first concerns the concept of orienta-
tion itself and its placement at the center Of a conceptual
model of social action; the second concerns the utility value
of the pattern-variable formulation.

When Operationalized by meanscfiffactor analysis, the
concept of role—orientation was found to have distinct emh
pirical value. Seven modes of role-orientation were identi-
fied in the study, each one of which was represented by a
particular factor. Each factor was suggestive Of a certain
point of view, or manner of relating to the situation, main-

tained by certain numbers of broadcasters.

194

 

195

'The study also identified a number of significant
influences on the role-orientations of broadcasters, chief
among which were those Of position, education, experience,
system-size, station-type and station-location.

Finally, and of primary importance to theory, the
study demonstrated the general tendency of the role-
orientations identified to influence the role-behaviors of
the broadcaster, at least within the limits described.

The second concern relating to theory construction
which grew out of the present study involved a considera-
tion of the utility of the pattern-variable formulation.

A lack of empirical validity for this formulation had to

be assumed to some extent as a result of the failure of the
orientation items to factor clearly in terms of the five
pattern-variables identified. Although the items used may
be faulted to some extent, in form or content, there is
sufficient evidence to suggest nonetheless that these vari-
ables do not fully maintain independence when treated
empirically.

On the basis of the results obtained in the present
investigation it can be suggested that the universalism-
particularism pattern-variable may easily be confused with
the collectivity—self—orientation variable and that specifi-
city-diffuseness and performance-quality are interrelated.
There is also reason to believe that these same variables

may fuse with the affectivity-affective-neutrality variable,

 

THIS!

 

 

 

196

depending upon the specific content of the items con-
cerned.

Over time, given a sufficient number of trials, it
might be possible to obtain pure factors based upon the
pattern-variables described. This would require much
greater refinement of procedural detail than was permitted
in the present study and a much larger universe of items.
However, such factors, if Obtained, probably would tend to
be of a highly abstract nature, having somewhat limited
value when applied to specific problems of role in the real
world.

It had been hoped, Of course, that the use of the
pattern-variable formulation would make possible the devel-
opment of a convenient and reasonably practical procedure
for making needed comparisons among roles and role-incum-
bents located within given systems of mass communication
or those located in different systems. It was hoped, in
other words, that progress could be made in the development
of a standard instrument for measuring important aspects of
role in general. It now appears that further work will be
required before this can be done.

The results of this study, naturally, need not be
taken as conclusive in this important regard. The pattern-
variable formulation still is quite suggestive as applied
to role theory and may yet prove to be an extremely valuable

tool for this type of research. It is possible that all

197

that all that is really needed is a sufficient amount of

refinement and additional testing.

Empirical Considerations

 

Three primary study propositions and several sec—
ondary prOpositions were devised for the study of the
broadcasters' role-orientations. Subsumed under each were
five hypotheses and alternative hypotheses, each one of
which was related to one or the other of the five pattern-
variables. Because of the failure of the pattern-variables
to factor clearly, the number of the hypotheses was reduced
from five to two in each instance, but this had no corres-
ponding effect on the study propositions themselves.

The principal substitution in the study was the
acceptance of the factor results as operational definitions
of various role-orientations in place of the theorized
pattern-variables. The conclusions developed from the study,
then, reflect the specified orientation factors and not the
original pattern-variable formulation. This is true even
though the pattern-variables themselves were suggestively
employed in the identification and interpretation of the
designated factors.

The primary study propositions investigated were
(1) the system-position prOposition, (2) the system-size
proposition, and (3) the reference—group identifications

proposition. The major conclusions drawn from the Obtained

198

test results are related to these considerations, although,
in certain instances, they have been mediated by other fac-
tors, particularly education, experience, station type or
station location.

It must be concluded, first, that system position
is an important influence on the broadcaster's role-orienta-
tion but not in the ways originally thought. It was found
that broadcasters who primarily maintained economic-related
role-functions (station managers and sales managers) and
those who primarily maintained service-related role-functions
(program directors and news directors) could not generally
be differentiated in terms of orientation, except in terms
of relative instrumentalism. Broadcasters who maintained
economic-related role-functions tended, in effect, to be
more job-centered than broadcasters who maintained service-
related role-functions.

When system position was not defined in terms of
role-function, however, but simply in terms of location,
it was demonstrated to have considerably greater influence
on role—orientation. The degrees of differences observed,
moreover, were particularly noticeable when sales managers
and program directors were compared and when station man-
agers and news directors were compared. Sales managers
and news directors, in fact, had much more in common than

could have been expected.

199

The observed similarity between sales managers and
news directors may be related to their locations within the
system. Both can be said to occupy "boundary positions,"
in that each is required to maintain extensive out-of-
system contacts. This suggestion grows out of the research
on organizational stress conducted by Robert L. Kahn and
his associates at the University of Michigan. Kahn states
that "persons in boundary positions are more likely than
others to reduce the intensity of their relationships with
role-senders within their organization and seek other iden-
tifications outside the organization. . . ."1

Within the present study this view is supported by
evidence that sales managers and news directors, on the
average, are more likely to belong to broadcast-related
organizations or associations, other than trade-associa-
tions, than are station managers or program directors.

The tendency of sales managers to orient themselves
to the interpersonal aspects of the role and to relate to
others affectively rather than in terms of strict affective-
neutrailty, the tendency, in other words, of sales managers
to be people-centered, may also be interpreted in this same
manner. "Lacking formal authority over his outside con-

tacts," Kahn writes, "a person at the company boundary

 

1Robert L. Kahn, D. M. Wolfe, R. P. Quinn, 33. 31.,
gp, cit., p. 106.

200

must rely heavily on personal sources of power over these
role senders; the trust, respect, and friendship of his
outside contacts is less a reward than a necessity."2

The system-size proposition and the hypotheses
associated with it also produced certain unexpected re-
sults. Contrary to expectation broadcasters located in
large systems tended to score as more affectively oriented,
or peOple-centered, than broadcasters located in small
systems. Large system-broadcasters also appeared to be
less instrumentally oriented, or job-centered, than small-
system broadcasters.

There are several explanations which may account
for these findings. The first is that broadcasting is a
unique Operation, generally unlike the standard industrial-
business system most frequently studied by social scien-
tists. The production and distribution of messages for
mass audiences might be said to differ fundamentally from
the simple production of goods and services. The qualities
in broadcasting which produce uniqueness in this respect,
moreover, may be more in evidence in large systems than in
small systems.

It is also possible that broadcasters located in
large systems are more beset with problems and worries

relative to their task-responsibilities and have, therefore,

 

21bid., p. 109.

201

a greater sense of insecurity than broadcasters located in
small systems. For example, if the large-system broad-
caster experiences more role-conflict or has a more ambig-
uous type of role to perform than the small system broad-
caster, it is possible that he will seek mainly to develop
ties with "system others" based more on qualities of friend-
ship, trust and mutual confidence than on systems of rights
and obligations.

A third possibility is that broadcasting itself is
relatively more unstable, from a system point of view, than
some other forms of organizations, that it is more dependent
upon the capriciousness of the advertiser, the transience
of public taste, the uncertainties of the marketplace and
the will of government, all factors which may be more sa-
lient to actors in large systems than to actors in small
systems.

Other factors related to system-size which were
clearly in evidence in the present study, and which tended
to support the system-size proposition, were (1) that
broadcasters located in large systems were more collec-
tivity-oriented, or service-centered, than broadcasters
located in small systems, and (2) that broadcasters located
in large systems were more utilitarian, or goal-centered,

than broadcasters located in small systems.

202

What is of special interest to students of the mass
media is the relation of these results to certain well
known aphorisms in broadcasting. Public policy, for exam-
ple, has long been predicated on the belief that the closer
the broadcaster is to the community he "serves," the more
responsive he is likely to be to the needs and interests of
the peOple. It has also been generally assumed that the
independent station, particularly if locally owned, is more
responsive to the community than stations which are group-
owned. Bigness as represented by multiple-station owner-
ship or by simple size has been viewed as a frightening
thing, to be guarded against or firmly controlled in the
"public interest." Virtue has traditionally been thought
to be on the side of smallness of size and of independent
ownership.

If the results of the present study are indicative,
it is possible that these assumptions are Open to question.
Contrary to pOpular belief, large system broadcasters show-
ed evidence of being more collectivity-oriented than small
system broadcasters. In addition, broadcasters located in
stations that were group owned or in stations owned by
newspapers or by press-related organizations tended to evi-
dence higher levels of collectivity orientation than broad-

casters located in stations that were independently owned.

203

Corresponding to the above considerations of system
size are certain conclusions concerning the factor of sta-
tion type. A review of the relation of station type to
system size was presented in the preceding chapter. What
alone needs to be emphasized here is the finding that re-
gardless of the size of the system, excluding medium sized
stations, television broadcasters exhibited marked differ-
ences from radio broadcasters in role-orientation, and
that these differences were supportive of the results ob-
tained from the study of system size.

Television broadcasters were more collectivity-
oriented, or service-centered, than radio broadcasters and
generally more affectivity-oriented, or peOple-centered.
Television broadcasters also appeared to be more goal-
centered and less job-centered than radio broadcasters,
tending toward greater utilitarianism and less instrumen-
talism.

Broadcasters occupying different positions within
the system also showed different orientations to role de-
pending upon their locations. Television station managers,
sales managers, program directors and news directors, on
the average, scored higher on affectivity than their coun-
terparts in radio. With the exception of sales managers,
television broadcasters also tended to be less job—centered
than radio broadcasters. In addition, television sales

managers and television news directors tended to be less

204

individualistic, or self-centered, than radio sales managers
and radio news directors.

It is interesting to speculate why television
broadcasters differ from radio broadcasters in role-orien-
tations to the extent indicated. As suggested earlier,
television stations for the most part are located in larger
markets and are larger in size than radio stations. Tel-
evision station personnel are, in addition, frequently more
experienced and tend to have higher levels of education.
The simple combination of these factors, therefore, might
have been sufficient to produce the level of differences
noted between the role-orientations of television and those
of radio broadcasters.

Although the interaction of these variables may
account for station type influence on role-orientation, a
great deal of additional research will be required before
anything along these lines can be firmly established. At
present it can only be suggested that type of station has
a significant and frequently determining influence on role-
orientation, often beyond that assigned to system size
independently.

The third study prOposition, identified as the
reference-group identification proposition, was generally
not supported by the data. Broadcasters who related to
one or another of several reference-group types did not

exhibit, as a consequence of their relationship, the

205

predicted role-orientations. This is not to suggest, how-
ever, that the concept of the reference-group lacks meaning
when applied to the study of role in systems of mass com-
munication. The patterns of identification obtained by
factoring the various influence-groups scaled in Part III
of the study questionnaire are too clearly in support of
earlier research to allow so summary a judgment to be made
at this time.

The view that broadcasters perceive various groups
as meaningful reference types was credibly demonstrated.
The reference types defined, moreover, are consistent with
findings of previous research concerning the contrast be-
tween "within-system" and "out-of—system" identifications.
The results of the present investigation, then, appear
quite valid in this important request. What could not be
demonstrated was the influence that identifications of this
order have on the broadcaster's role-orientation.

The contrast between the Career-Set factor, an ob-
viously cosmopolite reference-group identification, and
the Primary-Group factor, which is more in keeping with the
localite concept, is particularly interesting and deserving
of further investigation. The significant relationship
between level of education and the Career-Set factor is
also quite suggestive, as is the relationship between sys-
tem tenure and the Primary-Group factor. Of equal interest,
too, is the clear relation between station type and exper-

ience and the Rule-Set (or Power-Set) factor.

Tum

 

206

The fact that the N.A.B. leadership, a group most
commonly viewed as having a professionalizing influence in
broadcasting, factored as a Rule-Set item rather than as a
Career-Set item is deserving of special note. The latter,
logically, is more in keeping with the norms of profession-
alism as traditionally defined. On the basis of these
results it seems in order, perhaps, to suggest a reassess-
ment of the potential of the N.A.B. to "professionalize"
broadcasting.

A number of other incidental results should be men-
tioned in conclusion. Many of these items have greater
descriptive value than basic theoretic relevance, but this
does not detract from their importance. Of primary in-
terest is the influence of education on the role-orienta—
tion of the broadcaster. Although the results of the tests
on education, taken on the whole, are not altogether clear,
it was conclusively demonstrated that education is signif-
icantly and positively related to the factor of altruism.

If altruism is one of the distinguishing character-
istics of professionalism, as is often implied, then the
emphasis upon higher education for broadcasters is quite
important. A trend in the direction of increased levels
of education, over time, might in fact be interpreted as

a trend toward increased professionalism in broadcasting.

THC.

 

207

The concept of professionalism, of course, was not
directly an element in the development of the broadcaster
role-orientation study. However, several of the results
obtained from the study relate to this important subject.
To an extent, this consideration was inevitable, due in
part to the dichotomous nature of the pattern-variable
formulation and the tendency of various researchers--Blau
and Scott, for example--to associate one side or the other
of the "dilemmas of choice" with professional behavior in
an organizational setting.

The two pattern-variables which could logically be
related to the orientation factors identified in the study
were affective-neutrality versus affectivity and collec-
tivity-orientation versus self-orientation. Both of these
variables, moreover, can be tied directly to the general
concept of professionalism.

It is interesting to observe that while the direc-
tion of collectivity-orientation (Orientation Factor IV)
was quite in keeping with what could be expected, the di-
rection of affectivity (Orientation Factor II) was counter
to what could be expected. In effect, the present study
supports the view that broadcasting is a mixed system so
far as these defined professional values are concerned.
Affectivity in orientation to role, rather than affective-
neutrality, tends to vary inversely with a collectivity-

orientation in broadcasting. What this implies is not

208

clear at this point, but it can be suggested that unless,
or until, these two factors are more nearly in agreement,
professionalism as a general pattern in broadcasting is

likely to remain a moot issue.

Recommendations for Further Study

The results obtained from the role-orientation
study of the American broadcaster are, perhaps, more sug-
gestive than conclusive. Although the study offers some
new insight into the role-orientation of mass communica-
tors, its greatest value may be in the implications it
has for further research. Although it appeared to confirm
that there are relations between role-orientations and
role-behaviors, the study suggests the need (1) to delin-
eate further the matter of role-orientation itself through
work with additional objects of orientation and the refine-
ment of procedures and instruments, and (2) to focus di-
rectly upon the central elements of role-behavior per gs,
particularly with reference to those behavior patterns that
have a clearly defined relationship with system output.

It may also be possible in future studies of this
type to relate the individual's role-orientations to fac-
tors of managerial style. Several patterns of behavior,
for example, have, over time, become identified with dif-
ferent styles of management. It has also been suggested

that each style of management results in certain forms of

209

accommodation to the system on the parts of actors located
in the system. The inter-play between managerial style and
various forms of accommodation, moreover, can be said to
produce determinable consequences in the form of differing
levels of productivity, morale, motivation and personnel
turnover. An investigation of the extent to which these
factors are operable in broadcasting, or in other systems
of mass communication, and the degree to which they may be
linked to role-orientations might be of great value.

There is also some need to define in specific terms
the contents and sources of the so-called "sent role,"
those messages received by occupants of designated system-
positions which incorporate role-expectations. Future
studies should focus upon this aspect of the problem as
well.

Another area of possible investigation relates to
the concept of the reference-group. Additional study
should be directed to this specific concern for the purpose
of answering the questions raised by the factor analysis
of the designated reference-groups in the present study.

There appears also to be a need to define clearly
the nature of the feedback links in the social-action model
conceptualized. Attention should be directed, for example,
to the consequences of action, not only in terms of system-
output, but also in terms of certain internal concerns.

What impact, for instance, do the behaviors resulting from

L...

210

the broadcasters' role-orientations have upon the develop-
ing content of the "sent roles?" What, in addition, is the
likely effect on the individual broadcaster of forced com-
pliance with modes of behavior which are required by sig—
nificant "system others" but which may be in conflict with
the broadcaster's own role-orientation?

Studies should be undertaken to supply the answers
to these and other related questions. Such studies, should
also be undertaken with a regard for the general aspects of
behavioral theory and with a view to constructing systematic
approaches to the study of the role of the mass communicator.

Attempts should also be made to gather data by
means of the focused interview in addition to the use of
the mail questionnaire. Advantages and limitations are
associated with each approach. For this reason both meth-
ods should be employed in concert and efforts should be

made to interrelate the results.

 

TH“

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

211

APPENDIX A

STUDY PARTICIPATION REQUEST FORMS

212

 

THE!

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY msr LANSING - MICHIGAN 43323

 

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION 0 CABLE: COMLIDBPT

March 2M, 1967

The Department of Communication at Michigan State University, in conjunc-
tion with the Department of Television and Radio, is currently seeking to gather
information on the occupational role of the American broadcaster. In view of
the recognized importance of the television and radio media in today's changing
world, such information is deemed to be of special significance.

Because of the great expense involved in gathering information of the type
required by normal interview methods, it has been decided to employ a mail ques-
tionnaire for the purpose of this study. As you no doubt know from your own
experience, however, information gathered by this means is likely to be quite
misleading unless some special care is taken to insure the overall representa-
tiveness of the sample. For this reason, then, we are endeavoring in advance
to secure your personal cooperation in this undertaking. We are hopeful that
you will be able to participate in the study with us. The time required for
you to complete the questionnaire will be less than thirty minutes. The infor-
mation received from you, moreover, will be treated as completely confidential.

Please indicate on the enclosed card your willingness to assist us in this
project. When received by us we will forward to you the actual study form for
completion at your convenience.

I repeat, in order to insure the reliability of the information gathered
by this means, we need very much to secure your cooperation, since you are a
member of the select sample group of some 300 broadcasters chosen especially
to participate in this study.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald C. Beckwith,

Research Associate
GCB/lj

THE.-

 

 

 

 

 

FIRST CLASS
Permit No. 178
East Lansing. Mich.

 

 

 

 

BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
HoPoatagaStanplmnl-fladhuutadlmu

 

 

Postage Will Be Paid By

THE AMERICAN BROADCASTER STUDY PROJECT
P. O. Box 652
East Lansing, Michiqan 40823

Att: G. C. Beckwith
Research Assnciatn

AMERICAN BROADCASTER STUDY PROJECT

Department of Communication
Michigan State University

Gentlemen :

In reply to your recent request: I (am) (am not) willing and able
to assist you in your current study of the occupational role of the
American broadcaster.

 

(Signed)
Code No

 

 

(Station)

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48323

 

COLLEGE OP COMMUNICATION ARTS 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION - CABLE: COMB/[DEPT

Dear Broadcaster:

Recently you received an invitation from us to participate in a sig-
nificant new study of the occupational role of the American broadcaster.
Since we have not yet heard from you regarding your participation in this
study, we are taking this opportunity to once again call your attention to
the importance of the undertaking and to your possible role in it.

As we pointed out before, your name was selected by means of certain
controlled sampling procedures from a listing of all known broadcasters in
positions similar to your own, a fact that makes your personal participa—
tion highly desirable. In addition, this particular study, for the first
time, attempts to provide a complete understanding of the real role of the
American broadcaster, a fact that will likely have wide implications for
future programs of professional broadcasting education in this country.

While you are certainly under no direct obligation to assist us in
this project, we think nonetheless that you will want to do so in order
to insure the overall completeness and accuracy of the resulting data.

As manager, newsman, programmer or salesman, your assistance is very
much needed. So may we invite you once again to complete the enclosed
reply card, indicating your willingness to act as a professional subject
in the American Broadcaster Study Project, and return it to us at once.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Hideya Kumata,
Project Director,
Department of

Communication
AMERICAN BROADCASTER STUDY PROJECT
Michigan State University Prof. Leo Martin,
P.O. Box 652 Project Advisor,
East Lansing, Michigan h8823 Department of Tele—

vision and Radio

encl- Mr. G. c. Beckwith,
Research Associate

 

THE.

 

 

AMERICAN BROADCASTER STUDY PROJECT
Department of Communication
Michigan State University

Dear Broadcaster:

Thank you for your willingness to participate in the
study of the American broadcaster now being conducted by
this department. I am certain that your assistance will
help insure the overall reliability of the information
gained from our investigation.

The study questionnaire is attached. It is self-
explanatory and should present no difficulty.

When you have completed the questionnaire, place it
in the enclosed envelope and return it at once to the
American Broadcaster Study Project, Box 652, East Lansing,
Michigan. No postage will be required.

If you have any comments or questions concerning the
project or the interpretation of the results, please let
me know.

Once again, thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald C. Beckwith,
Research Associate

GCB/ll

Enclosure

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BASI' LANSING . MICHIGAN 48323

 

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS - DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION 0 CABLE: COMIIDEPT

May S. 196?

Dear Broadcaster:

As a participant in the American Broadcaster Study Project you were
recently sent a confidential questionnaire which was to serve as the
basis for a preliminary analysis of certain aspects of the broadcaster's
occupational role.

Inasmuch as we have not yet received your completed questionnaire,
it is possible that our mailing to you was either misdirected or delayed.
We are therefore enclosing a second copy of the questionnaire for your
use if necessary.

Please understand that it is quite important that we hear from you
soon, if at all possible. In order for us to make full use of the univer-
sity data processing facilities, it will be necessary to submit all of our
available returns to coding and analysis within the near future.

Thank you once again for your consideration and helpful cooperation.

Without the aid of many broadcasters such as yourself this study could
not have reached its present stage of near completion.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald C. Beckwith,
Research Associate

American Broadcaster Study Project
P.0. Box 652
East Lansing, Michigan h8823

encl.

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48325

 

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION - CABLE: COMMDEPT

May 25, 1967

Dear Broadcaster:

This is to let you know that the American Broadcaster Study Project is

now entering its final stages. It is expected in fact that we will be

able to submit all available data for computer analysis within the next
ten days or so, at which time all of the questionnaires which.‘we have

on hand will be destroyed, along with all other records of identifica-

tion of project participants.

However, there is still time for you to complete your questionnaire, if
you have not already done so, and count yourself among those broadcasters
who have seen this project through to its conclusion.

May we look forward to receiving your completed questionnaire within the
next few days?

Incidentally, if you wish to receive a copy of the study project's final

report, please let us know when you return your questionnaire. We will
be more than happy to comply with your request.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald C. Beckwith,
Research Associate

American Broadcaster Study Project

P.O. BOX 652
East Lansing, Michigan h8823

GCB/ll

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48323

 

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION ARTS 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION 0 CABLE: COMJIDEPT

May 8, 1967

Dear Broadcaster:

As we recently brought to light in a survey of the professional litera-
ture, comparatively little is known today regarding the occupational role of
the American broadcaster. This is true despite the very great importance of
the radio and television media in our fast changing society.

In order to correct this oversight and provide the modern student of
professional broadcasting with a more realistic and factually accurate picture
of the broadcaster than has here before been available, a national study is
now being conducted by this department, in association with the Department of
Television and Radio.

You are now being asked to assist us in this important undertaking.
While you are certainly under no direct obligation to do so, we think that
you will nonetheless want to do so in order to insure the overall completeness
and accuracy of the resulting data. In fact, as manager, newsman, programmer
or salesman your personal participating in this project is very much needed
for this very reason.

The actual time required for you to complete the attached questionnaire
will be something less than thirty minutes. Your personal responses will, of
course, remain quite confidential.

When you have completed the questionnaire, place it in the enclosed enve-
lOpe and return it at once to the American Broadcaster Study Project, Box 652,
East Lansing, Michigan. No postage will be required.

If you have any comments or questions concerning the project itself or
the results, please let us know. We will endeavor to provide you with what—
ever information you request, including a copy of the final report when com-
pleted.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Gerald C. Beckwith,
Research Associate

‘mMflican 13roadcaster Study Project
P° 0- Box 652

EastlanSjLng, Michigan h8823

(mcl,

APPENDIX B

RULES OF ORDER FOR SAMPLE SELECTION

220

221

RULES OF ORDER FOR SAMPLE SELECTION

Employing the following procedures, a sample of American
broadcasters will be drawn from listing published in the

most recent BROADCASTING YEARBOOK (1967).

I. Having determined the actual number of AM radio sta-
tions on the air, as indicated in the BROADCASTING
YEARBOOK, enter a table of random numbers, by random
process. The number "hit" will serve as a beginning
point in the listing of radio stations contained in
the yearbook.

00 - 09 Begin with first station listed
10 - l9 Begin with second station listed
20 - 29 Begin with third station listed
30 - 39 Begin with fourth station listed
40 - 49 Begin with fifth station listed
50 - 59 Begin with sixth station listed
60 - 69 Begin with seventh station listed
70 - 79 Begin with eighth station listed
80 - 89 Begin with ninth station listed
90 — 99 Begin with tenth station listed

From the beginning point in the Yearbook listings, select

every nth. station (n = 10).

Having selected a given radio station as one to be contained

in the sample of radio stations by this process, select in

rotation order,the named person holding the position to be
sampled.

Position A: Station Manager

Position B: Program Director

Position C: Sales Manager
Position D: News Director

222

Selection of named person or station may be varied accord-

ing to the following rules of order:

1.

In cases of duplication, e.g., when person listed
as station manager, is listed as station manager
for more than one station--as may happen with
closely connected chain Operations--move to the
next station in order and repeat process.

In cases in which a "non-commercial" station is
hit, move to the next station in order and repeat
process.

In cases in which a commercial station has ac-
tually been on the air less than one year, move
to the next station in order and repeat process.

Avoid all count of FM radio stations, even if
listed separately.

In cases in which both a General Manager and a
Manager is listed, select one or the other in
alternate order.

In cases in which "corporate officers" are listed,
rather than conventional station management titles,
select most apprOpriate name. If selection cannot
be made on this basis, proceed to next station in
order and repeat process.

In cases in which both corporate officers and sta-
tion management titles are listed, select from
list of management titles.

In those cases in which desired position is not
listed (e.g., News Director), proceed to next sta-
tion in order and repeat process.

In cases such as those indicated in #8 above,
check to make certain that function itself is not
covered by other title, such as substitution of
Production Manager for Program Director, or Pro-
gram Manager for Program Director, Public Affairs
Director for News Director, etc. Remember the
title is not being sampled, only the function nor-
mally associated with the title.

 

II.

223

With reference to television: Having determined the
actual number of TV stations on the air (commercial
only), enter a table of random numbers, by random
process, and repeat procedures listed above with ref-
erence to AM radio stations, with the following addi-
tions and/or revisions.

1. From the beginning point in the Yearbook listings
of TV stations, select every nth. station. (n = 3)

2. Avoid selections of UHF television stations in
so-called "mixed markets."

3. Always favor TV station Manager, or similarly
Specified roles, over General Manager role, when
such relates to both Radio and TV properties.

4. In the event a combination station is "hit," that
is, a station listing General Manager over both
Operations without separate listing of TV and
Radio Managers, use General Manager as selected
position.

5. Avoid selection Of Television Station if such is
"sister station" of previously selected radio
station.

APPENDIX C

STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE

224

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIII

AMERICAN BROADCASTER

CONFIDENTIAL

MANAGEMENT SURVEY

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Code NO. I

We are interested in learning more about the occupational role of the American broadcaster. As a Ienber
of the national sample you are asked to help in this important undertaking by completing the fern and
questionnaire attached. Your responses will be employed only for the particular purposes of this

study and will otherwise remain absolutely confidential. No identification is expected to be made of
yourself or of the station you represent, either in the final report or in any publication based upon
it.

PART I.

Index Items

1. What type station are you presently associated with?

a. Radio Station
b. Television Station
c. Radio and Television

2. Please indicate your present position in broadcasting. If you position involves duties normally
associated with more than one of the following, please rank titles in order of importance (1-2-3)
with reference to the actual duties performed.

a. General Manager d. Sales Manager
b. Station Manager e. News Director
c. Program Director f. Other (Please

 

Specify)

 

3. Please check the type schools which you have attended and circle the actual number of years in
attendance in each instance.

 

 

a. _High School, 1 2 3 u

b. _____Iechnical or Vocational School, 1 2 3 u

c. _____pollege or University, 1 2 3 u

d. _____Graduate or Professional School, 1 2 3 u

e. _____pther (Please Specify“

, l 2 3 u
a. What is your present age?
5. Sex? Male Female
PART II

Instructions

A number of statements appear on the pages that follow which are said to characterize various aspects

of the broadcaster's occupational role. In each case two opposing statements have been listed on either
end of a scale of relative measure. You are asked to indicate in each instance which of the statements
presented seems to best Characterize how the situation described is actually viewed by the broadcaster.

 

EXAMPLE

Statement A Statement B

 

Because Of the great amount of pressure involved in
the broadcaster's job, it is expected that anyone
occupying such a position be relatively young.

Because of the great amount of responsibility
involved in the broadcaster's job, it is expected
that anyone occupying such a position be an older
and more mature person.

 

(3) (2) (l)

 

(l) (2) (3)

 

 

PART II

A. If you agree with Statement A, indicate your agreement by checking the most appropriate place on the
left side of the scale. Place "3" implies that you "agree absolutely" with the statement as presented.
Place "2" implies that you "agree very much" with the statement and place "1" that you simply "tend

to agree."

8. If you find yourself in agreement with Statement 8, indicate your agreement (and the strength of
agreement) by checking the most appropriate place on the right side of the scale. As above, place
"3" implies that you "agree absolutely" with the statement as presented, place "2" that you "agree
very much" and place "1" that you simply "tend to agree" with the statement.

C. Please respond to each item in the list following even if you feel that neither of the statements
paired in any given case is particularly appropriate to the situation. This is important.

 

D. If you feel that both statements presented in any given case are appropriate to the situation please
make a choice anyway by indicating which of the statements paired seems to be most appropriate.

 

E. Do not check any scale more than once. It will be impossible to score any scale so marked.

Statement A

1. In hiring or setting employment policy, the
broadcaster is expected to stipulate that only
the individual's capacity to perform his or
her duties properly, according to station
requirements, is a legitimate basis for
giving or withholding employment. In a word,
technical proficiency is the only important
criteria for employment in broadcasting.

Statement 8

In hiring or setting employment policy, the
broadcaster is expected to look beyond the
individual's apparent capacity or skill. He

is expected also to be concerned with how the
person is likely to fit into the community,
with whether he is or is not a good family man,
with his attitudes, values and beliefs, his
credit rating and a hundred and one other
personal considerations.

 

(3) (2) (l)

2. Not excluding the special case of the sus-
taining program, it is expected that the
broadcaster give as much time and attention
to the development and promotion of one
program or time segment as another.

(1) (2) (3)

Not excluding the special case of the sus-
taining program, it is expected that certain
programs or time segments on the broadcaster's
schedule will be of greater importance than
others and that the broadcaster will plan his
time and allot his resources accordingly.

 

(3) (2) (l)

3. The broadcaster's definition of the concept
community is expected to be broadly conceived,
even to the point of involving the most
general views of the greater society and
the national interest.

(1) (2) (3)

The broadcaster's definition of the concept
community is expected to be more or less limited
to a consideration of the particular views,
values and interests of his special service
area.

 

(3) (2) (l)

u. The only real obligation a broadcaster
owes his client is to do his very best
to satisfy that client's specific
advertising needs, as defined by
contract or agreement.

(1) (2) (3)

In general the broadcaster owes those Obligations
to his client, personal or otherwise, which
may, within limits, be required to insure a
continuation of their business relationship.

 

(3) C2) (1)

5. In broadcasting, authority is vested more
generally in the person than in the office.
This means that station activities tend
not to be defined specifically in terms
of recognized and accepted rules of order
so much as to reflect the particular will a
and character of management.

(1) (2) (3)

In broadcasting, authority is vested more in
the office than in the person. Station
activities, therefore, are usually defined

in terms of rather Specific duties and respon-
sibilities, rights and Obligations, and rules
of order which are not subject to change on
the basis of the personal whims of management.

 

(3) (2) (1)

(l) (2) (3)

PART II

10.

11.

Statement A

In all dealings with his client, the broadcaster

is expected to maintain a policy of full disclosure;
that is, he is expected to be completely open with
the client when informing him of the relative
advantages and limitations of his station as an
advertising medium for the client's particular
products or services.

Statement 3

The broadcaster's aim is expected always to be
to sell the prospective client on the unique
merits of his station as an effective adverb-
tising medium. His role is not that of an
advisor or counselor. If making an important
sale requires that he be not too specific with
regard to certain types of information, a sound
practice would be to avoid the discussion.

 

 

(3) (2) (l)
The broadcaster is expected to hire highly
adaptable and interchangeable personnel,
persons with general skills who have the
capacity of fitting into almost any situ-
ation and performing in a creditable, if
not always a distinguished, manner.

Persons of this type are called generalists.

(l) (2) (3)

The broadcaster is expected to hire whenever-
possible, highly trained and specialised
personnel, persons who possess rather special.
skills and knowledge which qualify them uniquely
to perform the specific functions to which they
may be assigned but which may tend to limit their
general utility value. Persons of this type

are called specialists.

 

(3) (2) (1)
Management performance over time can best
be evaluated in terms of profit and loss
statements, ratings and similar Objective

considerations.

(1) (2) (3)

Management performance over time can best be
evaluated in terms of a station's relative
standing in the community, its status of
leadership, public approval and similar

qualitative considerations.

 

 

 

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)
The broadcaster is expected to maintain The broadcaster is expected not to allow his
business relations only with those personal feelings with regard to the client or-
clients for whom he has high respect the client's product or service to affect his
and personal esteem. judgments one way or another.

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

It is expected that all segments of It is expected that certain segments of the

the broadcasting audience will be of broadcasting audience will always be of greater-
equal importance to the broadcaster importance to the broadcaster than others, fin!
and therefore deserving of equal one reason or another, and therefore more
attention and consideration from his deserving of his attention and consideration.
point of view. (SO far as the planning
and development of program sources is
concerned.)

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

In making purchasing agreements, the
broadcaster is expected to deal only with
those concerns which are able to supply the
highest quality goods or services at the
lowest prices consistent with station
requirements, regardless of source or
location or such personal considerations

as friendship with or relationship to

the seller.

In making purchasing agreements, the broad-
caster is expected to use his buying power to
attract new business to the station or me a

means of continuing old business. He is there-
fore expected to buy locally when at all possible
and to buy primarily from station advertisers,

at a slight disadvantage, if necessary.

 

(3) (2) (l)

(l) (2) (3)

 

 

PART II

12.

13.

1Q.

15.

16.

17.

10.

Statement A

It is expected that the broadcaster will

be primarily interested in the production
of exciting and original local advertising:
that is, in producing commercial spots that
will attract attention and sustained
interest as well as critical acclaim.

Statement 8

It is expected that the broadcaster concentrate
all his efforts on the production of local
advertising that will increase client sales and
profits, without any special regard for Spot
originality or other strictly qualitative
measures. Performance is all that counts.

 

(3) (2) (1)

Although there are many private, or personal,
aspects to his job, the broadcaster is expected
to be most concerned with its public
character. His relations with the public, in
fact, are expected to be of a type quite similar

to those of a politician or of a public official.

(1) (2) (3)

Although there are many public aspects to his
job, the broadcaster is expected to act as if

his is essentially a private role like that of
any other businessman. His "performance",
therefore, is usually guided more by the specific
demands of the situation than by any overriding
concern with his "public image."

 

(3) (2) (1)

It is expected that the broadcaster be
strongly committed to his own programing
efforts. He would not be honest with him-
self or with his audience if he were to allow
anything on the air that he would object to
personally.

(I) (2) (3)

It is expected that the broadcaster make his
decisions on programming without regard to any
measure of personal concern or interest. He

is expected instead to remain personally detached
and non-comitted when it comes to determining
what is to go on the air.

 

(3) ‘ (2) (1)

In performing his job the broadcaster
usually expects to be evaluated in terms
of his relative contribution to the good
and well-being of the general community.
His job takes its primary meaning from
the concept of the public interest.

(1) (2) (3)

In performing his job the broadcaster fully
expects to be evaluated in terms of his relative
contribution to the well-being of the industry
and the good of the economy. His job is one
that takes its primary meaning from the general
concept of the free enterprise system and the
open marketplace.

 

(3) (2) (l)

The personal life of a station employee

is expected not to be of concern to a
broadcaster so long as it does not directly
reflect discredit on the station or otherwise
interfere with the individual's ability to
perform his assigned duties in an acceptable
manner.

(1) (2) (3)

As a staff member of a broadcasting station,

the individual is believed at all times to be

"in the public eye," and cannot avoid identifying
the station with his activities as a result.
Therefore it is expected that the personal life

of the station employee will bs_the proper concern
of the broadcaster.

 

(3) (2) (l)

The broadcaster who is most apt to do the
best job in his conduct of station relations
may be described as rather cool, formal and
somewhat impersonal. Such a man will, for
the most part, hold himself aloof from his
staff both on the job and off.

(1) (2) (3)

The broadcaster who is most apt to do the best
job in his conduct of station relations may

be described as warm, friendly and personable.
Such a man will usually maintain rather close
relations with his staff both on the job and
off.

 

(3) (2) (1)

In the selection of individual programs or in
the selection of station formats, the broad-
caster's primary concern is expected always
to be in terms of the program or format's
capacity to attract advertiser interest.

(1) (2) (3)

In the selection of individual programs or in

the selection of station formats, the broad-
caster's primary concern is expected always to
be in terms of the program or format's capacity
to actually satisfy the interest of the audience.

 

(3) (2) (l)

(l) (2) (3)

PART II

Statement A

19. The broadcaster's primary need is for a
sense of accomplishment, something which
can best be drawn from the satisfaction
of knowing that he is doing the best job
possible under any given circumstance.
Technical competency is its own reward
so far as the broadcaster is concerned.

(3) (2) (l)

20. The broadcaster is expected always to
select program themes on the basis of
general value, merit and importance,
themes which deal with some of the
real, human problems of the day, even
if controversial or unpopular.

Statement 8

Most broadcasters have an inherent need for
feeling important and wanted and their work
allows them unique Opportunities for gratifying
these particular needs. The satisfaction of
having done a good job is usually not enough
for such a man. He must also experience the
warmth of personal acceptance and the feeling
that people recognise and appreciate his work
and 'alue his special worth as a person.

(1) (2) (3)

The broadcaster is expected to select program
themes with reference to the particular values
of the community actually being served, even
if this should mean going easy on certain
controversial issues or unpopular topics.

 

(3) (2) (l)

21. Because of the rather unique, personal
nature of broadcasting, management-
staff relations must often be based upon
somewhat subjective considerations, or
at least upon factors other than strict
performance. What a person is, as a
person, is often more important to a
station than what he does or seems
capable of doing an the job.

(1) (2) (3)

In broadcasting, as in most other businesses,
management is expected to base all decisions
affecting personnel entirely on conditions of
performance, with reference to some objective
standard of behavior, for example, or some
other criteria of productivity or efficiency.
that a person is, as a pencil, is an interim].
consideration.

 

(3) (2) (l)

22. The broadcaster is expected to relate
to each member of his staff as a pro-
fessional colleague, one with whom he
shares certain unique perspectives,
ideals and special compentencies.
Such a relationship is also likely to
stress shared authority and joint
responsibility.

(1) (2) (3)

The broadcaster is expected to relate to each
member of his staff in the formal manner of

an employer-employee or boss-worker association.
His is the position of decision maker, while

the subordinate's position is more that of
implementation or execution of the decisions
made.

 

(3) (2) (l)

23. The broadcaster's primary concern for any
particular program on his schedule must
always be in terms of its inherent merit,
value or quality, as a program, independ-
ently of any special purpose which it may
otherwise serve.

(l) (2) (3)

The only concern which the broadcaster is
obliged to have for any particular program

on his schedule is whether or not it achieves
its intended purpose, in the delivery of
audience, the sale of products or what have
you.

 

(3) (2) - (1)

2n. From a business point of view, the broad-
caster is expected generally to provide
some special consideration to certain of
his clients; for example, those who
advertise favored products, who maintain
larger than average accounts or who require
less direct service.

(1) (2) (3)

As a matter of principle, the broadcaster is
expected always to treat all of his clients
with equal degrees of consideration, regardless
of the special characteristics of the client,
service or product or the otherwise closeness
of the client-broadcaster relationship.

 

(3) (2) (l)

(l) (2) (3)

 

 

_. ,.,——- q.- M

PART II

25.

25.

27.

2..

29.

30.

Statement A

The broadcaster's measure of an audience for
any particular program is expected always to
be in terms of certain general qualities,
such as whether or not his listeners or
viewers are of a particular desired type.

He is expected to take satisfaction from

the knowledge that certain kinds of persons
tuned in, regardless of the actual numbers
involved.

M1

The broadcaster's measure of an audience for
any particular program is expected always to
be in terms of how many persons did or did not
tune-in. His satisfaction will come from the
knowledge that a particular program outdrew
its competition for the time period involved,
regardless of the nature or composition of the
audience in general.

 

(3) (2) (l)

The broadcaster is expected to take a great
deal of pride and personal satisfaction in
his staff, to feel strongly about each man's
unique contribution to the station and to
demonstrate his feelings and regard openly
whenever possible.

(1) (2) (3)

The broadcaster is not expected to openly
acknowledge any special feeling for or dependence
upon any individual member of his staff, no
matter how important, and only indirectly his
regard for the staff as a whole. He is expected
to maintain his reserve.

 

(3) (2) (1)

It is expected that the broadcaster will
assume personal responsibility for selling
each member of his staff on the idea of
profitability, with the end in view of
having this basic and central concept
order their thought and action on a day
to day basis.

(1) (2) (3)

While the broadcaster is expected not to sell
the idea of profitability short, he is nonethe-
less expected to place the concept in a proper
balance with other, more basic, principles

and motives, such as public service, program
originality, and so forth.

 

(3) (2) (l)

The broadcaster is expected to maintain a
special kind of affection for the audience
he serves, a feeling close to that of love.
At least he is required to have a sense of
being quite close to the audience and of
being dependent upon its good favor.

(l) (2) (3)

So far as his relationship with the audience

is concerned, the broadcaster is expected to
carry out his responsibilities with as much of

a sense of detachment as possible. A sense of
objectivity or of affective neutrality, is an
essential characteristic of the broadcaster role.

 

(3) (2) (1)

In this day and age it is expected that the
broadcaster take a leadership role in
developing and maintaining basic standards
of fair employment. Prospective employees
have the right to expect to be judged
exclusively on the basis of set performance
criteria and without regard for such factors
as race, religion, creed, sex or what have
you.

(3) (2) (l)

The broadcaster is expected to recognize that
the advertiser-client has but a single purpose,
that of maximizing sales and profits, and that
his purchase of broadcasting time is intended
as a means of achieving this goal. Therefore,
the broadcaster is expected to make such ad-
justments in his programming commitments as
may be required to satisfy the main objective
of the advertiser-client.

(l) (2) (3)

While recognising the value of the principle

of "fair employment," it is nonetheless expected
that the broadcaster take a somewhat broader view
of the situation. The broadcaster's objective

is the development of a smooth working organiza-
tional team, something which can only be achieved
by hiring those persons who will be most apt to
fit in with the existing character of the station.

(1) (2) (3)

The broadcaster is expected to take a hard line
with his various advertiser-clients, at least
relatively so, in apposition to the view that
his medium is simply an extension of the adver-
tiser's marketing plan. He is expected to
advocate the view that the client share in the
broadcaster's own public service commitments,
by, in part at least, supporting the programming
goals designed for the station.

 

(3) (2) (l)

(l) (2) (3)

mu II 7

Statement A Statement 3
31. A good broadcaster is inevitably a father A broadcaster is required to be a good employer
figure to his staff. To be a good father, only. His understanding and considerateness
whether to his children or to his associates, may or may not be needed, depending upon the
it is expected that he be understanding and situation. As for relating warmly to his staff
considerate, but above all that he relate . . . this is simply an irrelevant consideration.

warmly to other people.

e 0 e as 0 e e
e e e as e s e

 

 

(3) (2) (l) (1) (2) (3)

32. Today's most successful broadcasters are Today's most successful broadcasters tend to
usually men who do not consider a station's develop programs having rather specialized
public service obligations apart from their purposes and appeal. Such broadcasters do
regular programming efforts. Such broad- not usually mix programs by form or type.
casters attempt rather to integrate elements Programs of a public service nature, for example,
of this nature in all their programming. A may be created and given fair placement on the
program characterized as entertainment, for schedule, as will programs intended to entertain
example, may be designed to satisfy certain and to sell, but the one type is not intended to
public service commitments as well. satisfy the purpose of the other.

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

33. The broadcaster most generally expects to be Hhile the broadcaster generally expects that
loved, admired and respected on a personal his work will be accepted and appreciated by
basis by the public for his work as a the public, from a professional point of view
broadcaster. he does not expect, need or want personal

admiration or attention.

 

 

 

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

3“- It is expected that the broadcaster It is not expected that the broadcaster PCP-
terminate any account on his station if and sonally judge or 9V31U8t° the prOducts or
when he loses personal confidence in the services offered t° th° public by th' GdVOP'
worth of the product or service being tiser. His responsibility in this regard extends
advertised only to the point of making the public aware of

' ’ the offer.
(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

35. The broadcaster is expected to treat each The broadcaster is expected to make a practice
member of his staff with complete impartiality, of being quite flexible when dealing with various
no matter what his professional status or members of his staff, treating each according
personal relationship to the broadcaster. to his particular needs, qualities or expectations.

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

36. In his approach to his job, it is expected In his approach to his job, it is expected and
that the broadcaster place company interests understood that the broadcaster will place his
and job-related responsibilities first above responsibility to his family above the interests
all else, including the personal needs and of the company. A dedicated family man, in fact,
interests of his family. A sense of complete is more apt to fulfill the demands and require-
dedication and loyalty to the job is an ments of the broadcaster role than any other.

absolute requirement of the broadcaster role.

 

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

37. It is generally expected that the broadcaster It is generally expected that the broadcaster
will define programming, whether network or will define programming, whether network or local,
local, as simply the over-all attraction OP in terms of potential service values only. The
hooker for the station . - - something to greater the program's appeal, or attraction, the
pull an audience of sufficient size or greater the station's potential service to the
composition to be appealing to prospective audience, by definition.

time buyers.

 

(3) (2) (l) (l) (2) (3)

PART II I

Statement A Statement 3
38. In relating himself to his staff it is In relating himself to his staff it is expected
expected that the broadcaster will think that the broadcaster will think primarily in
primarily in terms of the overall human terms of how each person might be used most
factor, of developing high levels of effectively to satisfy the special demands of
staff morale and personally satisfying his own job. His concern for the individual,
relationships. His concern for the then, is basically of an instrumental order.

individual, then, is not unlike a father's
concern for the welfare of one of his
children.

 

(3) (2) (l) (1) (2) (3)

PART III

 

 

To better enable us to properly place your particular responses to the scale items presented in Part II

of the questionnaire in perspective, it is necessary that we also tabulate the following items of
information. Your further cooperation in completing this part of the questionnaire, then, will be greatly
appreciated . Thank you.

 

l. Hhat position did you occupy immediately before assuming your present job?

 

2. In terms of your long range career objectives in broadcasting, what position do you aspire to?

 

3. How many years experience have you actually had in broadcasting?

 

u. How long have you been with your present employer?

 

5. How many years have you been in your present position?

 

6. How many times have you changed locations (or situations) within the past ten years?

 

7. Do you at present consider making a change in location (or situation) or do you think that you may
do so within the next two or three years?

Yes No

7A. If your answer to question "7" is "Yes", please indicate your reasons for considering a change
in the space below.

 

 

8. If you were offered a slightly better paying position outside of broadcasting at the present time,
do you think that you would be willing to make such a move?

Yes No

 

 

.A. Without considering salary, what factors might cause you to leave broadcasting for other fiedds?

 

PART III

9. Do you at present maintain in your own name any type memberships in organizations relating to
broadcasting, whether local, regional or national?

Yes No

 

9A. If your answer to question "9" is "Yes", please list the memberships actually held below.

 

 

QB. Are your membership fees to the above named organizations paid for in whole or in part by your
employer?

Yes No

 

 

10. Do you regularly attend meetings of your state broadcasting association?

Yes No

 

 

10A. Regional NAB meetings?

Yes No

 

 

108. National NAB meetings?

Yes No

 

 

ll. Have you attended the meetings of any other national, regional or state association relating to
broadcasting within the past two years? If so, please specify below.

 

 

llA. were you, in whole or in part, reimbursed for your expenses on such occasions by your employer?

Yes No

 

12. Have you ever held office in or served on a committee of any of the above named organisations?

Yes No

 

 

12A. If "Yes", please provide particulars below.

 

 

13. What is the size of the station in which you are presently working? Please indicate your answer
by specifying the approximate number of full time employees working for the station.

Less than 12 full time employees
12 - 2n full time employees
25 - us full time employees
50 - 7n full time employees
75 - 99 full time employees

100 or more full time empoyees

lu. What is the size of the market in which your station is located?
Less than 25,000 population
25,000 - 100,000 population
100,000 - 250,000 population
250,000 - 500,000 population
500,000 - 1,000,000 population

One million or more population

 

 

r

PART III 10

15.

16.

17.

II.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Does your station maintain NAB membership?

Yes No

 

 

Does your station maintain membership in your state association of broadcasting?

Yes No

 

 

Is your station a Radio and/or TV Code Subscriber?

Yes No

 

 

On the average, how would you rate your station's share of the market?
Excellent
Quite Good
About Average
Quite Poor
On the average, how would you rate your station's competition?
Very Strong
Strong
Moderate
Heak
From your own point of view, how would you rate your station's relative profitability?
Excellent
Quite Good
About Average
Quite Poor

From your own point of view, how would you rate your station's willingness and capacity to satisfy
community needs and interests?

Excellent
Quite Good
About Average
Quite Poor

As a broadcaster, to whom do you personally look for some indication as to how your particular job
should be performed -- that is, persons or groups that tend to set those standards of performance

with which you are most in agreement?

 

Considered Considered Considered
Very Somewhat Relatively
Important Important Unimportant

a. NAB Leadership
b. Listeners and/or Viewers

c. Hedia Critics and other
Professional Observers

d. Government, including the
FCC and Congress

e. Station Colleagues (Men
with whom you work)

f. Advertisers, Sponsors
and/or their Agents

g. Trade Publications, Editors
and Publishers

PART III

Station Management (and/or
Station Ownership)

Members of your own family
Other Broadcasters
Influential community
Leaders, Business or
Professional

Professional Groups and
Associations (RTNDA, IRTS,
BPA, etc.)

Friends and Associates, in
or out of Broadcasting

Broadcast Unions (APL-CIO)
Network Personnel

Others (Please Specify)

 

Considered
Very
Igpgrtant

Please Return To

 

AMERICAN BROADCASTER STUDY PROJECT

P. O. Box 652
East Lansing, Michigan ”8823
(Att: G. C. Beckwith)

Considered
Somewhat

Igpgrtant

 

Considhred
Relatimny

\ l

APPENDIX D

CORRELATION OF BACKGROUND, SYSTEM AND

TEST VARIABLES

237

238

 

00.H m0.0 mm.0l m0.0l HH.0I mN.0I 0m.0 0m.0| 0H.0 NH.0 00.0! 00.0I NH
00.H m0.0 hH.0 m0.0 vH.0I 00.0I H0.0I Nm.0l m~.0l m0.0| 0H.0 HH
00.H HH.0I 0H.0I 0H.0 NN.0 hH.0 HH.0I vH.0I 00.0 No.0 0H

00.H 0H.0 00.0I 50.0 00.0 ma.0l m0.0 00.01 m0.0 m

00.H hm.0l 0H.0I m0.0| «H.0I v0.0 va.0l hH.0 m

00.H hN.0I hN.0 0H.0 m0.0l mm.0 m0.0| h

00.H 0N.0I 00.0 no.0 N0.0I m0.0l 0

00.H mH.0I 0H.0I No.0 00.0I m

00.H no.0 No.0 H0.0I e

00.H 0H.0I 5H.0 m

00.H N0.0I N

00.H H

ea ma NH dd 0H m 0 h 0 m v m N H

 

 

wZOHadqmmmOU mddem¢> Emma 92¢ .Zmamwm .QZDomUMU<m

239

 

o0.0 00.0 0H.0I 00.0I 00.0 v0.0 H0.o 0H.0 NH.0I H0.ol bo.ol 0H.0I 00.0 H0.0 0N
No.0 00.0 00.0I 00.0I 00.0 00.0 0H.0I 00.0 mo.0l H0.0I 0H.o 0N.0 00.0 ma.0l «N
ma.0l 00.0! 00.0I HH.0I Ho.0 No.0l H0.0I 0H.o 00.0I H0.0I 00.0 NH.0 vH.0 Ho.0 MN
00.0I H0.0I H0.o H0.0I 00.0I No.0 00.0I Ho.0l 00.0 HH.0I NH.0 hH.0 Ho.ol 00.0 NN
0H.0 H0.0I 00.01 ea.0 H0.0 NH.0 ma.o 00.0I H0.o No.0 no.0l mo.ol No.0 00.0 HN
NH.0I oo.ol ma.o 00.0I 0o.oI mo.ol 0H.0I 00.0 00.0I 0H.0I no.0 00.0I H0.0I 0H.0I 0N
H0.0I 0N.0I 0H.0 00.0 0N.ol 00.0I N0.0I hH.0I 0H.0 0H.0I 00.0I 00.0! 00.0 «0.0! 0H
va.0 0H.0I HH.0 00.0 oa.ol mo.ol 00.0 0H.0I 00.0 No.0 0H.0I HH.0I No.0I H0.0 0H
Hm.ol 00.0 v0.0l Ho.ol Ho.ol 00.01 00.0! 00.0 H0.o no.0l 00.0 oa.o 00.0 NN.0I 5H
0v.o 00.0I 00.0I 0v.0 00.0 0H.o 00.0 H0.0 00.01 00.0 0H.0I 0N.0I 00.0I a0.ol 0H
00.0 vN.o Hm.0l no.0 0N.0 00.0 Ho.ol 0H.o 0N.0I 0N.o NH.0I 0H.0I 00.0I 00.0 0H
00.H 0H.o 00.0! N0.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0I NN.0 0N.0I 0N.0I H0.0 0N.0 «a

00.H om.0l MN.0I 0N.o No.0l 0H.0I 0N.o 0m.0l 00.0 00.0I 00.0! 00.0 NH.0 0H
ea 0H NH HA 0H 0 0 h 0 0 v m N H

 

 

.Aomscflucoov

mcowumaommoo manmflum> ummu can .Emumhm .ossoumxomm

240

 

0H.0 00.0 HH.0I 00.0 no.0 H0.0 0H.0 00.0I 00.0 00.0I 0H.0I no.0I 00.0 0o.o mm
00.0 00.0I 00.0I 00.0 00.0I no.0 0N.0 00.0I 00.0 No.0 o0.0| 0H.0 NH.oI om.0 nm
00.0I N0.0I H0.0 H0.0I 00.0 N0.0I 00.0I 00.0I N0.0I H0.oI oo.0 00.0 No.0 No.0 00
no.0! 0H.0I HH.0 o0.0 0H.0 00.0I 00.0I H0.0I 00.0 00.0 H0.0 0H.0I 00Lo NH.0I 00
00.0I 0H.0I 00.0 00.0I H0.0I H0.o 00.0I 00.0 o0.0 o0.ol o0.o H0.0I N0.0I HH.0I om
H0.0I No.0 00.0 N0.0I 00.0 oH.0 00.0 00.0 o0.o H0.0I H0.0I o0.ol 00.0I H0.0I mm
oo.0l 0H.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0I o0.0l no.0! NH.0 00.0I nH.0I n0.0I HN.0I Nm
o0.ol 00.0I N0.0I oo.0l 00.0 oo.0I HH.0I N0.0I 00.0I 00.0 00.0 0H.0I 0H.0 HH.0I Hm
oH.0I o0.0 N0.0I HH.0I 00.0 00.0 nH.0I o0.o 00.0I 00.0 00.0 oH.0I no.0 NN.0I om
HN.0 oo.o oH.0I 0N.0 00.0I no.0 nN.o mH.oI 00.0 0H.0I 00.0I 0N.0 0H.0I no.0 0N
NN.0 no.0 NH.0I NN.0 00.0I 00.0 0N.0 no.0l 00.0 MH.0I 00.0I NN.0 0H.0I nn.0 0N
o0.0l 00.0 00.0I 00.0I NH.o H0.0I 00.0I 00.0 00.0I N0.0I 00.0I 0H.0 0H.0I o0.0I nN
00.0 HH.0 00.0I 00.0! 00.0 HH.0 00.0 No.0 o0.0l no.0 H0.o oo.o mH.0I 00.0 0N
oH 0H NH HH 0H 0 0 n 0 0 o m N H

 

 

.AomscHumouo

mooHumHmnuoo mHQMHHm> umou can .Emumnm .ocsonmxomm

241

 

oN.01 00.0 00.01 00.0 0H.0 oH.0 00.01 00.01 0H.o H0.0 No.0 00.01 H0.01 00.01 N0
0H.01 0H.01 oH.01 0H.01 00.0 00.0 oH.0 oo.01 0H.0 00.01 00.0 00.0 o0.0 00.01 H0
0N.01 0H.01 0H.01 no.01 oN.0 oN.0 00.01 no.01 nH.0 No.01 00.01 oH.0 00.01 NH.01 00
on.0 NH.0 o0.0 00.01 00.01 H0.0 0H.0 0o.0 HN.01 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.01 0H.0 0N
oo.H oo.0 0H.o 00.0 NH.01 00.0 00.0 0H.0 0N.01 00.0 00.0 0N.01 H0.0 00.0 0N
oo.H 0o.0 0H.0 0H.o 0H.0 0H.0 nH.0 No.01 00.0 HH.01 nH.0 NH.01 00.01 nN
oo.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 no.0 n0.0 HN.0I oH.01 NH.01 o0.0 oo.0 oH.0 0N
oo.H oH.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 HH.01 No.0 o0.0 00.01 H0.01 00.0 0N
oo.H o0.0 No.0 HH.0 00.0 0H.01 00.01 o0.0 00.01 H0.01 oN
oo.H oo.0 00.0 00.0 NH.01 No.01 no.0 00.01 00.01 0N
oo.H 00.0 0H.0 No.01 00.01 No.0 No.01 00.0 NN
oo.H N0.0I 00.01 No.0 o0.0 00.0 00.0 HN
oo.H H0.0 H0.01 oo.01 H0.01 no.01 0N
oo.H 0N.0 No.0 oo.01 0H.01 0H
oo.H NN.01 0H.0 00.0 0H
oo.H 0o.01 00.01 nH
oo.H 00.0 0H
oo.H 0H
0N nN 0N 0N oN 0N NN HN 0N 0H 0H nH 0H 0H

 

 

AooooHuooov mcoHHMHoumoo wHQMHmm> pmmu one .EoumNm .onooumxomm

242

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.H HN.o 00.0 oo.01 00.0 no.0 oH.0: 0H.01 0H.01 oH.0 mm
oo.H 00.01 0H.01 oo.01 oo.0 HN.01 0H.01 0N.01 0o.0 n0
oo.H 0H.o 00.01 nH.0 0H.o 00.0 00.0 no.01 0m
oo.H 00.01 oo.0 mH.o 1no.o 0N.0 oH.01 mm
oo.H 00.01 00.01 oo.01 00.0 0N.0: o0
oo.H no.0 oo.01 HH.0 0N.0 mm
oo.H 0H.o om.o 0H.01 Nm
oo.H N0.o 0H.01 Hm
oo.H HN.ou om
oo.H mm
00 nm 00 00 om mm mm Hm om 0N
oo.0 00.01 no.0 No.01 0H.01 0H.01 00.0 0H.o NH.01 00.0 oo.0 NH.01 oo.0 oH.0 mm
H0.0 oo.0 0H.o No.0 oo.0 No.01 0H.o oH.0 0H.01 0o.0 No.01 no.01 00.01 oH.0 n0
0H.01 00.01 oo.01 00.01 no.0 00.0 00.0 no.01 No.01 0H.01 nH.01 No.0 oo.01 no.0 0m
0N.0: oo.0 No.01 0H.01 00.0 00.0 oo.0 no.01 H0.0 no.01 00.01 00.0 oo.01 00.01 mm
HN.01 HH.01 No.o1 00.01 oo.o1 NH.01 NH.01 H0.01 00.0 00.0 00.01 00.0 00.01 00.01 om
No.01 oo.0 oo.01 0H.01 oo.0 0H.o 00.0 No.0 No.01 no.0 oo.0 nH.0 NH.01 0H.01 mm
mm nN 0N 0N oN 0N NN HN 0N 0H 0H nH 0H 0H
AooscHuoouo mGOHumHmHHoo mHanmmb umou can .EmumNm .ocdommxomm

Background Variables

 

Variable Number

System Variables
Variable Number

1

2
21
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

 

 

Test Variables
Variable Number

13
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
27

 

 

243

KEY

Variable Identification

System Position

Role Function

Entreprenurship

High School Education
Technical-Vocational Education
College Education

Graduate or Professional Education
Other Education

Age

Sex

Experience

 

Variable Identification

 

Station Type

Geographical Location

Employer Support of Memberships
Employer Support of Activity
Station Size

Market Size

Station NAB Membership

Station State Association Membership
Station Radio/TV Code Subscriber
Station "Share of Market"
Station "Competition"

Station "Profitability"

Station "Service to Community"
Station Ownership

Network Affiliation

Variable Identification

 

Aspiration Level

Tenure in System

Tenure in Position

Mobility

Loyalty

Career Commitment

Membership Status

Attend NAB National Convention
Attend NAB Regional Convention
Attend State Association Convention
Attend "Other" Association Meetings
Activeness in Association Affairs

APPENDIX E

REFERENCE MEASURE: INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

244

245

 

 

oo.H 00.0 m0.0l No.0 h0.0l H0.0I v0.0l v0.0 N0.0I m0.0l v0.0! NH.0I 00.0I Hobo! >0.0I nH.0! 0H
oo.H V¢.0 NN.0 Nm.0 NH.0 0m.0 0H.0 HN.0 0H.0 HH.0 NN.0 wH.0 0N.0 v0.0 NN.0 ma
oo.H vN.0 nn.0 ma.0 NN.0 0H.0 0H.0 wN.0 0H.0 mN.0 NN.0 NN.0 oH.0 NN.0 vH
00.H 0m.0 mm.0 mm.0 mv.0 00.0 ma.0 NH.0 HN.0 m0.0 Hm.0 v0.0 MH.0 MH
oo.H Nm.0 mm.0 HH.0 HH.0 0m.0 no.0 «N.0 HN.0 Nm.0 50.0 mm.0 NH

oo.H 0N.0 NN.0 00.0 ¢0.0 0N.0 Nm.0 0H.0 NH.0 0N.0 NH.0 Ha

00.H 0N.0 NH.0 NN.0 NH.0 HN.0 H0.0 vm.0 m0.0 NH.0 0H

oo.H 0N.0 50.0 VN.0 vm.0 m0.0 NH.0 @0.0 00.0 m

oo.H 00.0 NH.0 mm.0 MH.0 50.0 m0.0| mH.0 0

oo.H vH.0 00.0 m0.0 hN.0 00.0I 0N.0 h

oo.H NH.0 00.0 00.0 vH.0 00.0 0

00.H NH.0 00.0 NH.0 00.0 m

00.H oH.0 mH.0 Hm.0 v

00.H N0.0I nH.0 m

oo.H No.0 N

00.H a

ma ma va ma NH AH 0H m 0 h m m w m N H

 

 

mZOHB<QmmmOU ZmBHImmBZH

"mmDmflmZ muzmmmmmm

 

Jill-l I'll-III

12.

13.

14.
15.

16.

246

KEY

NAB Leadership.
Listeners and/or Viewers

Media Critics and other Professional
Observers.

Government, including the FCC and
Congress.

Station Colleagues (Men with whom you
Work).

Advertisers, Sponsors and/or their
Agents.

Trade Publications, Editors and Pub-
lishers.

Station Management and/or Station
Ownership.

Members of your own Family.
Other Broadcasters.

Influential Community Leaders,
Business or Professional.

Professional Groups and Associations
(RTNDA, IRTS, BPA, etC.).

Friends and Associates, in or out of
Broadcasting.

Broadcast Unions (AFL—CIO).
Network Personnel.

Others (Please Specify).

APPENDIX F

ORIENTATION MEASURE:: INTER-ITEM CORRELATIONS

247

248

 

00.H NH.0 50.0 H0.0 No.0 v0.0 vH.0 00.0 50.0 HH.0 No.0 H0.0! 0H.0 MH
00.H m0.0l 5H.0I m0.0 5H.0 50.0 «N.0I ¢0.0I 0H.0 NH.0I 00.0I N0.0 NH
00.H H0.0I 00.0I m0.0| mH.0 ¢0.0I No.0 NH.0 00.0 50.0I NH.0 HH
00.H N0.0I 5H.0I N0.0I NN.0 v0.0 00.0 H0.0 vN.0 0H.0I 0H

00.H m0.0l N0.0 mH.0I 00.0I 00.0I v0.0 wH.0 HH.0I m

00.H N0.0I mH.0I 00.0I 00.0 00.0 NH.0I HH.0 0

00.H m0.0l NH.0 00.0 m0.0 00.0I H0.0 5

00.H 00.0 N0.0 v0.0 5H.0 0H.0I w

00.H m0.0| 00.0I m0.0 H0.0! m

00.H 50.0I 0H.0 0H.0 v

00.H v0.0 00.0I m

00.H 00.0I N

00.H H

mH vH MH NH HH 0H m 0 5 0 m w m N H

 

All!

 

 

 

mZOHfiddmmmOU EmEHImmBZH

«MMDm¢MS ZOHB<BZmHm0

249

 

H0.0I 00.0 vH.0I oH.0 00.0I 00.0I NH.0 00.0 00.0I nH.0! m0.0| N0.0 0H.01 N0.0I 0H.0I mN
0H.0 N0.0 m0.0l 50.0I 0H.0 5H.0 v0.0 vH.0I 00.0 0H.0 NH.0 H0.0I H0.0 mH.0 m0.0| vN
0H.0I 00.0I 50.0! 0N.0 mH.0I vH.0I H0.0 0H.0 @0.0I HN.0I m0.0 m0.0l HH.0I 0H.0I 0H.0 mN
NN.0! m0.0| oo.0 5H.0 N0.0I 0H.01 N0.0I 0H.0 00.0 MN.0I 00.0 00.0 m0.0| 00.0I m0.0l NN
0H.0I oo.0 50.0 00.0 00.0 @0.0| N0.0I 0N.0 NH.0 0H.0I v0.0 HH.0 H0.0 50.0I MH.0 HN
v0.0 NH.0 N0.0 0H.0I 0H.0 00.0 m0.0l 00.0! 00.0 mH.0 N0.0I NH.0 vH.0 00.0 H0.0I 0N
00.0 50.0 «0.0 0H.0 NN.0 NN.0 H0.0 mH.0I 00.0 HN.0 v0.0 0N.0 00.0 5H.0 H0.0 mH
0H.0 0H.0 H0.0 0H.0I m0.0 00.0 H0.0 NH.0I m0.0 vN.0 m0.0 m0.0l m0.0 0H.0 5H.0! 0H
00.0I No.0 v0.0 50.0 m0.0l NH.0I m0.0| NH.0 00.0 HH.0! 00.0I m0.0 m0.0l mH.0I m0.0 5H
50.0! mH.0 NN.0 50.0 HN.0 m0.0l v0.0 0H.0 H0.0! m0.0| 00.0 00.0 m0.0l N0.0 0N.0 0H
00.H v0.0l 0N.0I mH.0I m0.0 Nm.0 00.0 0N.0: N0.0 0H.0 50.0 m0.0 m0.0l mN.0 00.0I mH

00.H m0.0 NH.0 m0.0 00.0I mH.0 00.0 HH.0 50.0I H0.0! @0.0 m0.0l o0.0! NH.0 vH
mH vH MH NH HH 0H m 0 5 m m v m N H

 

 

RowsCHucoov mGOHUMHmHHoo

smufiuumucfl

“whommme GOHumucmHHO

250

 

v0.0! HN.0 m0.0| MN.0 m0.0 NH.0I m0.0 mH.0 mH.0 0m.0l 50.0 mH.0 00.0I m0.0l 0H.0 0m
0H.0 NH.0 N0.0I mH.0I 00.0 0H.0 m0.0| vN.0I 00.0 MN.0 N0.0 v0.0l m0.0 0H.0 HH.0I 5m
m0.0l 00.0 50.0I 00.0 m0.0l m0.0l 0H.0I 00.0 00.0 N0.0I N0.0I H0.0I 0H.0I N0.0 5H.0 0m
0H.0 N0.0 00.0 «H.0 HN.0 HH.0 00.0 «0.0 0H.0 0H.0 NH.0 00.0 H0.0! m0.0 v0.0l mm
00.0 m0.0 H0.0I c0.0 NH.0I No.0 0H.0 m0.0 NH.0I HH.0I m0.0| oo.0 00.0I 50.0 50.0 wm
m0.0l m0.0 00.0 m0.0l 5H.0 00.0 50.0I 00.0I 0N.0 v0.0 N0.0 5H.0 0H.0 HH.0 H0.0 mm
HH.0I H0.0 nH.0 50.0 N0.0 00.0 H0.0 00.0I v0.0l H0.0I HH.0 H0.0I m0.0| H0.0I 0H.0 Nm
00.0I m0.0 00.0 5H.0 00.0 0H.0I 50.0I m0.0 5H.0 5H.0I oH.0 0H.0 m0.0l 00.0I 00.0I Hm
NH.0 00.0 H0.0I vH.0I 00.0 H0.0I m0.0l 00.0I 00.0 mH.0I v0.0! m0.0| m0.0| 0H.0I 00.0I 0m
NH.0 0N.0 m0.0 00.0I 0N.0 oH.0 v0.0l 50.0! 0N.0 H0.0I 00.0I NH.0 00.0 m0.0 00.0I 0N
00.0I 0N.0 No.0 H0.0I 00.0 N0.0 00.0I m0.0 HN.0 00.0I m0.0 m0.0l m0.0 MH.0I N0.0 0N
mN.0 H0.0I 00.0I NH.0I H0.0I mH.0 0H.0I 0N.0I 0N.0 0m.0 NH.0 «0.0 00.0 0N.0 N0.0I 5N
00.0I N0.0 no.0 0H.0 0H.0I H0.0I 00.0I 00.0 m0.0l vH.0I m0.0l H0.0I m0.0l mH.0I NH.0 0N
mH vH MH NH HH 0H 0 0 5 m m w m N H

 

 

AomscHucouv mQOHuMHwHHoo

EoquumucH

”whommmE COHumucmHHo

251

 

 

 

H0.0! MN.0 50.0! 0N.0 00.0 N0.0 m0.0 mN.0 0H.0 m0.0l HN.0 v0.0 wN.0 00.0I Hm
0H.0 00.0I 0H.0 0H.0I wN.0I 0H.0 0N.0! HH.0I 00.0I 0N.0 v0.0 0N.0 NH.0I NH.0I 0m
00.H m0.0 m0.0 HH.0! nH.0I m0.0 mH.0I v0.0! ¢H.0 NN.0 vH.0 50.0 H0.0! NH.0 0N
00.H 00.0I 5N.0 m0.0 N0.0 m0.0 MH.0 mH.0 m0.0l 00.0 v0.0! 0H.0 m0.0 0N

00.H 0H.0I m0.0l 5H.0 0H.0I MH.0I 00.0I NN.0 00.0 0H.0 v0.0! 50.0I 5N

00.H 00.0 00.0I «N.0 0N.0 vH.0 vH.0I 50.0I 0H.0I Hm.0 50.0 0N

00.H 00.0I 0N.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0! NH.0I 00.0I «0.0I H0.0I mN

00.H NH.0I vH.0I m0.0 0H.0 0N.0 mN.0 00.0I 00.0I vN

00.H mH.0 50.0 HN.0! 5N.0I «H.0I 00.0 50.01 MN

00.H nH.0 wH.0I N0.0I 0H.0I 0H.0 v0.0 NN

00.H «0.0I 00.0 00.0 vH.0 NH.0 HN

00.H 0H.0 NH.0 NH.0I 00.0 0N

. 00.H 0H.0 00.0 00.0 0H

00.H H0.0 00.0I 0H

00.H m0.0 5H

00.H 0H

0N 0N 5N 0N mN vN MN NN HN 0N 0H 0H 5H oH \ll

HHHHHflflflfl”

AoossHucouV mGOHuMHmHuoo EmpHIumucH

umhfimmwg GOflHMHCwH
. .HO

252

 

 

 

 

00.H 0H.0I NH.0 vH.0 0H.0 0H.0 MH.0 m¢.0 vN.0I MM
00.H H0.0! 00.0 00.0I m0.0 00.0 00.0! 0N.0 5M
00.H MH.0 00.0 @0.0 v0.0! 0H.0 50.0: mm
00.H m0.0 0N.0 0H.0 00.0 0H.0 MM
00.H 00.0I m0.0 50.0 5H.0I VM
00.H v0.0 MN.0 0H.0 MM
00.H «0.0 50.0! NM
00.H MH.0I HM
00.H 0M
0M 5M 0M MM ¢M MM NM HM 0M
M0.0 MN.0 M0.0I 5N.0 MH.0 0H.0I MN.0 HN.0 NN.0 00.0 w0.0 0H.0I NM.0 00.0 MM
HH.0 50.0I 5N.0 MN.0I 0H.0I 5H.0 0N.0! 5H.0I 0H.0I MH.0 5H.0 0M.0 m0.0l MH.0I 5M
H0.0I 00.0 00.0! 0N.0 00.0 N0.0 w0.0 H0.0 H0.0 M0.0 H0.0I v0.0l 50.0 no.0 0M
HH.0 00.0 50.0I 0H.0 00.0 5H.0 00.0I 00.0 HN.0 MH.0 HH.0 00.0 m0.0 MH.0 MM
5H.0! M0.0I @0.0I 0M.0 0H.0 00.0I 00.0 00.0 H0.0I 0N.0I M0.0 00.0I m0.0 NH.0 vM
00.0 0N.0 00.0I M0.0 0H.0I 0H.0 00.0I 0H.0 00.0 #H.0 MM.0 vH.0 m0.0 00.0 MM
00.0I 00.0 H0.0 H0.0 0H.0 00.0I m0.0 0H.0 00.0 N0.0I HH.0 No.0 HH.0 N0.0 NM
0N 0N 5N 0N MN ¢N MN NN HN 0N 0H 0H 5H 0H

 

 

AooscHucouv chHudHOHHoU

.EmufltumusH

“whommoa COHumucmHuo

APPENDIX G

REFERENCE MEASURE: FACTOR LOADING MATRIX

253

254

 

oN.0 0H.o nn.0: 50.0: 00.0 NH.0I mm.o H0.0 00.0: 0H
Ho.H NH.0 vm.o m0.0| 5m.o MH.0 no.0 NH.0 mm.o mH
m0.H H0.0 mm.o NN.0: ¢N.o mo.o No.01 MH.0 H0.0 «H
oo.H oH.0: 0N.0: «H.o H0.0: 0N.0: mm.0 00.0: H0.0 MH
50.H 0H.01 mo.o: mN.o v0.0: oH.0: NH.0: on.0 m0.o NH
mH.H NH.0 0N.0: mH.o H0.0 ov.0l wH.ou 5m.0| mm.0 HH
0N.H 5H.0 nH.0 5H.0 mH.0| MH.0| mN.o oH.0 H0.0 0H
«N.H NN.0: oH.0: H0.0: mo.on wH.o H¢.o «v.0: NN.0 m
om.H 50.0 mo.o| HH.0 mo.o mm.o no.0 MNLOI mm.o m
om.H NH.0 mH.oI ov.o| 0N.0: 00.0 50.0 5v.0 Nv.o 5
Hv.H no.0 HH.0: M5.01 oH.0: 00.0I H0.0 mm.o: vm.o 0
Nm.H 00.0 00.0 0N.0 mo.o| nn.0 mo.ou Hv.0| mm.o m
mw.H mv.0| 0N.0I No.0: 5N.0 0H.o no.0: No.0: mm.o v
vm.H mv.ou 0N.0 wo.ou mo.on 0H.01 HN.0 NN.0 on.0 m
vo.m 0H.o 0N.0 m0.o| HH.0 mv.0| mv.o| m¢.on NH.0 N
0H.v 5H.0 mm.0| m0.o 00.0: nH.0 5¢.0| em.0 wv.0 H
mmsHm> cmmHm m 15 m m w m N H muouomm

 

 

meadz UZHQGOH moauflh

“MMDm¢m2 mozmmmmmm

255

i»...-

ia ‘Il

 

 

 

 

mm.o oo.0 NH.o no.ou oo.0 no.0- Ho.o OH.o o~.o- mH
Ho.H mo.o- mo.o- mo.o vv.o- HH.o No.o om.o- NN.0 mH
mo.H oo.0 mo.o- mH.o- mv.o mH.o- oo.o mo.o m~.o HH
oo.H km.o oH.o- HH.0 mo.o H~.o HH.o- no.0- mm.o MH
no.H oH.0- mm.o mm.o mH.o nH.o 0H.o nH.0 H0.0 NH
mH.H nH.0- Hm.o- vH.o- Ho.o- No.0 Hm.o Ho.o mo.o- HH
om.H HH.0 no.0 no.0 No.0- om.o- ~o.o- h~.o- Hm.o- OH
v~.H ~m.o- HH.0 mo.o- so.o- mH.o- HH.0- no.0- mm.o a
om.H Ho.o- mH.o- mH.o o~.o m~.o OH.o- nH.0- nn.0- m
mm.H no.0- o~.o- «O.O NH.o- oo.0- m~.o- HH.0 NH.o- n
HH.H mo.o mH.o NH.o oo.0 no.0 m~.o mH.o- oo.0- m
mm.H 0N.0 om.o HN.0- nH.0- mc.o- o~.o HH.0 mo.ou m
mG.H mo.o mo.o- oH.0 NH.0- mm.o- mo.o no.0 No.o- H
Hm.H mo.o- mo.o HN.0- vo.o- NN.0 mo.o mo.o- pm.o- m
Ho.m mo.o no.0 oo.0 Ho.o HH.o nH.0- no.0 HN.0- m
mH.H oo.o HH.0 mm.ou No.0 mo.o mH.o- Hm.o- mo.o H
mmsHm> :mmHm SH mH «H mH NH HH OH m muouomm
Aflmfidflflfiouv XHHHME UGHUMOH HOHUMM "whammmfi OOGOHOMOM

APPENDIX H

ORIENTATION MEASURE: FACTOR LOADING MATRIX

256

257

 

Nm.o 50.0: m0.0| NH.0 Nm.01 00.0 mN.o| 00.0: HH.0 Hm.o on.0: mH
mm.o m0.0 mH.o| mm.o NN.0 vH.0 HN.0 0N.0 NH.0 NH.0 «v.01 MH
.Nm.o 00.0 HH.0 HN.0 00.0I oH.0: 00.01 mN.0 NH.0 5N.0 mM.o 5H
oN.0 0N.0 HH.0 H0.0 NH.0 no.0 mH.0| mm.0| 0N.0: 0N.0 oH.0 0H
H0.H HH.0 H0.0: NN.0: no.0 0N.0: HH.0 5H.0: mv.o mo.0 mv.ou mH
mo.H 00.0 HN.0 HM.0 oo.0 vH.0I 5H.0 oH.0: 0H.0| NN.0 v0.0 «H
oo.H no.0 MN.0 vH.o mo.0 5v.0 MN.0I NH.0I mN.0| MN.0 00.0 MH
50.H NN.0: vH.on no.0 0N.0 NN.0 NN.0 50.0: 00.0 mo.0 mv.0 NH
MH.H H0.0: 50.0: 0N.0: no.0: mo.0| oo.0 No.0: mm.o| vv.o oH.0: HH
0N.H vN.0 50.0: MH.0| 00.0: 00.0: NH.0: NN.0: mm.o nH.0 mm.o: 0H
HN.H mN.0 No.0 0N.0 NN.0: HN.0 5v.o NN.0: MH.0 mo.o| H0.0: m
om.H nH.0 NN.0: vH.0 00.0 00.0: 50.0 oH.0: mm.ou oo.0 NH.0 m
0M.H oo.0: 0H.o NN.0: v0.0: no.0 0N.0 vN.o oo.0: om.o No.0: 5
Hv.H 50.0 No.0: oo.0 mN.o 50.0 Nm.o| H0.0 HH.0 No.0 mm.o| m
Nm.H 0N.0 mm.0| MN.0 mN.0 H0.0: v0.0 mH.o MH.o NH.0 mo.ou m
mm.H NN.0: mo.ou 0N.0: 00.0 NH.0I mm.0I H0.0: H0.0: vm.o 00.0 e
«m.H 50.0: MH.o mm.0| v0.0: 50.0I 0H.o 0H.0 mN.0I 50.0 oH.0: m
v0.m 0H.01 v0.0: oH.0 0H.01 00.0 mo.on on.0: Hm.o mo.o mm.ou N
mH.v MH.0| mm.o mo.o NH.0 «N.01 oH.0: 5m.o| MN.o| mH.0 HN.0 H
mmsHm> 0H m m 5 m m v m N H muouomm

cmmHm

 

 

mefidz UZHQdOH m080€m

"MMDmflmz ZOHBNBZmHmO

258

 

 

0N.0 MH.0! NH.0 M0.0 HH.0I MH.0I MN.0 M0.0I vN.0 «v.0 0m.0 MM
NM.0 00.0I MH.0 0N.0 MH.0 0H.0 vH.0 vH.0 MH.0 NH.0 mm.0l 5M
MM.0 MN.0I M0.0 HH.0 5M.0 Mv.0l M0.0I M0.0I MH.0 MH.0 MH.0 0M
MM.0 5H.0 MM.0I N0.0I Hv.0 MH.0 H0.0I 0H.0I NH.0 0¢.0 M0.0I MM
Hv.0 NH.0 No.0 0N.0 H0.0I 00.0I vH.0I 0M.0| Hv.0 M0.0I 0N.0 VM
v¢.0 HH.01 MH.0I M0.0 0N.0I 00.0 0H.0I 0N.0 o0.0 MM.0 HH.0I MM
mv.0 50.0 MM.0 0H.0 vH.0 HM.0 M0.0I No.0 vH.0 MH.0 HH.0 NM
mv.0 0N.0I H0.0 N0.0I MH.0I H0.0 N0.0I MN.0 0N.0 0¢.0 NM.0 HM
0m.0 VH.0I MH.0I vN.0 HN.0 M0.0I MH.0 0N.0 HN.0I 00.0 0v.0l 0M
NM.0 MH.0 H0.0 HN.0I 00.0I 0N.0I 0N.0 0H.0I NM.0I MM.0 HN.0I MN
vm.0 MM.0 MH.0 00.0I M0.0I NN.0I 00.0 MM.0 00.0 vv.0 NN.0 MN
5m.0 50.0! 0N.0 50.0! oH.0! H0.0 NN.0 00.0I vN.0 M0.0 M¢.0I 5N
H0.0 HN.0 00.0I vH.0 «H.0 5N.0I 5N.0I 00.0 0N.0 0N.0 HM.0 0N
MM.0 No.0 MN.0I vH.0I H0.0 MH.0 NM.0 5H.0! «M.0 MH.0I HM.0 MN
05.0 M0.0 0N.0I 0H.0I 0N.0 N0.0I 00.0 00.0 oH.0 0N.0 MM.0I «N
H5.0 N0.0I 00.0I HN.0I MH.0 00.0 ¢H.0 M0.0 ¢H.0 5H.0I ¢m.0 MN
V5.0 H0.0I HH.0: 00.0I MH.0: MH.0 HH.0! MH.0 0H.0 oH.0 vw.0 NN
05.0 0N.0 MN.0I N0.0 00.0 NH.0 00.0 50.0I «H.0I MM.0 0N.0 HN
00.0 HN.0I 00.0I H0.0 00.0I vH.0I MH.0 M0.0I MN.0I MN.0 MM.0: 0N
mmDHm> 0H m M 5 m m w M N H mHO#Omm
:mmHm

 

 

AconcHucouv xHuumE mcHoMOH

Houomm

“whommmfi cOHumucmHHo

259

 

 

 

 

NM.0 MH.0 No.0 NH.0I 00.0I N0.0I HH.01 H0.0I 00.0 0M.0 00.0 0H
MM.0 M0.0I 5H.0I 00.0I 0H.0 No.0 ¢N.0I HH.0I 50.0I MH.0 oH.0 0H
NM.0 MH.0 NH.0 MH.0 HH.0 0N.0 vN.0I 5H.0! 0H.0 MH.0I 0N.0 5H
00.0 NH.0I M0.0I v0.0 vH.0 ¢0.0I 5H.0I v0.0 N0.0I 00.0 MH.0! 0H
H0.H 0H.0I M0.0 00.0 00.0I MH.0 00.0I NH.0I MH.0 0N.0! H0.0I MH
M0.H H0.0 MH.0: No.0 MH.0 NM.0I 5H.0 0H.0I HH.0 HN.0 00.0I vH
00.H 00.0 H0.0 M0.0 5N.0 v0.0 HH.0 MN.0I 00.0I NH.0I 0N.0I MH
50.H 00.0I HM.0! 00.0 NH.0 0N.0 M0.0 MH.0I 00.0I 0N.0I MH.0I NH
MH.H M0.0I vN.0I 00.0 M0.0I MH.0 NN.0I MN.0 vM.0 HH.0 00.0I HH
0N.H 0N.0 MN.0I M0.0 N0.0I M0.0I HM.0 MN.0I No.0 HH.0I 50.0 0H
«N.H HM.0 0N.0 N0.0I H0.0I 00.0 HH.0I M0.0 v0.0l 0H.0I 0N.0I m
0M.H 0N.0I 00.0I NH.0I N0.0I 00.0: 00.0 MH.0I MN.0! H0.0I MN.0 M
0M.H 0H.0I 0N.0 N0.0I 00.0I NM.0 MH.0 MH.0: oH.0! «0.0! 0N.0I 5
Hv.H NH.0I 50.0 M0.0I HM.0 00.0 MH.0 0H.0I HH.0! HH.0 NH.0 m
Nm.H HH.0I M0.0 5H.0: 50.0 0M.0! MN.0! N0.0I NN.0I 00.0: 00.0 m
mm.H HH.0: 00.0 NH.0 0H.0 00.0 oH.0 vN.0I 00.0 M0.0I 0H.0 v
vm.H 0H.0I 0M.0: 0H.01 00.0 vH.0 50.0 MM.0 MN.0I 0N.0I M0.0 M
v0.M 50.0I H0.0 00.0I HM.0I vH.0I 50.0 00.0 MM.0I vH.0I 00.0I N
0H.v 00.0 H0.0I 5N.0 0N.0I 00.0 00.0: MH.0 MH.0I NH.0 vH.0 H
mmsHm> 0N 0H 0H 5H 0H MH vH MH NH HH muouomm
GmmHm
AUchHucOUV xHHumE MGHGMOH Houomm ”whammmfi GOHHMHGOHHO

260

 

NN.0 00.0I H0.0 N0.0I oo.0 no.0 00.0I NH.0 N0.0I HH.0I oH.0 mm
NM.0 50.0: 5N.0I v0.0: NN.0: M0.0I 00.0 00.0: M0.0 N0.0I mH.0 5M
MM.0 NN.0 M0.0 MH.0: 00.0I v0.0 MH.0 00.0 0N.0I No.0: HH.0| 0M
MM.0 v0.0: 00.0 HH.0: N0.0I MH.0 50.0 MH.0 0N.0 MM.0: No.0: mm
-Hv.0 mM.oI M0.0: M0.0 v0.0 H0.0: No.0: MH.0 wo.o mo.0 MH.0: HM
vv.0 vo.0| H0.01 HH.0 HH.0: M0.0I MH.0 50.0 mH.0| NN.0 HN.0: MM
mv.0 «0.0 M0.0 00.0I NN.0: m0.o NN.0 MM.0 HN.0 H0.0 NN.0 NM
NH.0 N0.0I 50.0: 0N.0I MH.0 oH.0: 0N.0: H0.0: H0.0: No.0 0H.01 HM
Nm.0 NH.0: HN.0 5N.0 NH.0: HN.0: H0.0: 50.0 v0.0 MH.0: HH.0: om
NM.0 MH.0 HH.0: HH.01 0H.01 MH.0: 00.0I 0N.0I HH.0 0H.01 5H.0 mN
vm.0 5H.0: no.0 NH.0 no.01 N0.0I HM.0 No.01 00.0 NN.0 MH.0: MN
5m.0 HH.0: No.0 eN.0 HN.0 oo.0 H0.0: NH.0 0m.0| 5H.0I 5N.0 5N
H0.0 m0.0 M0.0: NN.0 HH.0 0H.0| M0.0 «0.0 no.0 HN.0: 50.0: 0N
MM.0 00.0: v0.0 M0.0: vH.0 «0.0: HN.0 HH.0 oH.0 5N.0 HH.0 MN
oo.0 mN.o H0.0: MN.0 ¢0.0 M0.0 vN.0I HH.0 5N.0I 0N.0 MH.0: «N
H5.0 oH.0 MN.0: MN.0 M0.0: 50.0 HH.0 00.0 NN.01 oo.0 HH.0 MN
V5.0 m0.0 50.0: NH.0 5H.0| MH.0: oo.0: v0.0 oo.0 5N.0I H0.0: NN
05.0 50.0 mN.o M0.0I mH.0| no.0 «0.0: No.01 0N.0: 00.0 Nv.o HN
00.0 0H.0 HH.0 no.0 MM.0 HN.0: 0N.0 Hv.0 H0.0 VH.0| vH.0 0N
mmsHm> 0N NH 0H 5H 0H mH «H MH NH HH muouomm
cmMHm

 

 

HomscHucoov xHHumE mcHUmoH HOHUMM

u QHDmMOE COHHMHGOflHO

261

 

 

 

 

NM.0 H0.0 mo.o 50.0 MH.0: mo.o 00.0I 0H.o 0H.01 No.0 No.0 mH
NM.0 MH.0: NH.0I No.0: MH.0: 0H.0u M0.0: MH.0 MN.0 50.0 00.0 MH
NN.0 N0.0I no.0 No.0: NH.0 mH.0 5H.0 vH.o mo.0| .mo.o NN.0: 5H
oN.0 0H.0| no.0: No.0: oo.0: NN.0: oH.0 No.0 No.0: N0.0I ov.0| mH
H0.H no.0 m0.o| HH.0: NH.0I N0.0I NH.0I no.0 HH.0 mN.o m0.0| mH
mo.H mo.o No.0: v0.0 oo.0 H0.0 MH.0: M0.0I vN.0| oH.0 v0.0 vH
oo.H HH.0 00.0: 0H.0I oo.0 oH.0 H0.0 no.0: HM.0 No.0: NH.0 MH
50.H MH.0: 0N.0 mo.o 00.0 00.0: oH.0: 5H.0: MH.0: oo.0 No.0: NH
mH.H H0.0 NH.0: oH.0 wo.o| MH.0 50.0: H0.0: No.0 5H.0: oo.0: HH
0N.H mo.on No.0: m0.o MH.0: M0.0 om.o 0N.0: 00.0: «0.0 0H.o 0H
vN.H MH.0 H0.0: v0.0 5H.0: mo.o| oo.0: oH.0 M0.0I oo.0: v0.0 m
om.H HN.0 No.0 50.0 HN.0: 0N.0 NN.0 mo.o NH.0: No.0 mo.ou m
mm.H HH.0: mo.0| mo.o No.0 50.0 00.0 HH.0 H0.0: MN.0: HH.0 5
H¢.H 00.0: No.0 0M.0 No.0 oH.0 HM.0: «N.o MH.0: NH.0I 0H.01 m
Nm.H mo.o H0.0 HH.0: m0.0 ¢0.0| H0.0 NH.0 MH.0: 0H.0 oH.0 m
mm.H No.0 «0.0: HM.0: H0.0: H0.0: HH.0: 0H.o HH.0: No.0 mH.o v
vm.H mo.ou H0.0 0N.0: H0.0 No.0 HN.0: v0.0 M0.0: 00.0 00.0 .m
vo.m no.0: v0.0: HH.0 5N.0 NH.0 50.0: Ho.0| MN.0 NH.0 0N.0: N
0H.v NH.0 NH.0 No.0 50.0: N0.0I 5H.0: H0.0: HH.0 HH.0 00.0 H
mosHm> om mN 0N 5N 0N mN wN MN NN HN mnouomm
cmmHm
HomscHucouv xHuumE mcHUMOH Houomm “muommma COHumucmHHo

262

 

MN.0 M0.0I MN.0I MH.0 0H.0 N0.0I M0.0 «0.0I H0.0 HN.0 v0.0 MM
NM.0 MM.0 H0.0I M0.0I MH.0 v0.0l M0.0 H0.0! 00.0I 5N.0I H0.0I 5M
MM.0 M0.0I 50.0I MH40I MH.0I M0.0 00.0I 50.0 00.0 MN.0I M0.0I MM
MM.0 HN.0 M0.0 M0.0 50.0 0H.0I M0.0I M0.0 MH.0I M0.0 No.0 MM
H¢.0 MH.0I M0.0 M0.0 0H.0 M0.0 NH.0 HH.0 H0.0I MN.0I 5M.0 «M
vv.0 M0.0 NH.0 v0.0 M0.0 NM.0I HN.0 vH.0 H0.0I 50.0 0H.0I MM
M¢.0 5H.0I M0.0 M0.0I vH.0I vH.0 M0.0 N0.0I M0.0I MH.0 H0.0! NM
M¢.0 0H.0 MH.0 MH.0 MH.0I HH.0 N0.0I 5H.0I HN.0 M0.0 v0.0 HM
NM.0 HH.0I 50.0 M0.0 MH.0I 0H.0 H0.0 M0.0 M0.0 HH.0 M0.0 0M
NM.0 5H.0I VM.0 M0.0 M0.0 v0.0 v0.0 MN.0 vH.0 HH.0I 00.0 MN
M¢.0 00.0I M0.0 0H.0I H0.0I M0.0 M0.0I HH.0: v0.0 M0.0 HH.0I MN
5M.0 M0.0 0H.0 M0.0 HN.0: 50.0: No.0 vH.0I 50.0I MN.0I HH.0I 5N
HM.0 50.0 MH.0 v0.0 00.0I M0.0I MH.0: No.0 0H.0 v0.0! NH.0 MN
MM.0 50.0 MH.0 MH.0! H0.0 MH.0 v0.0l M0.0 MN.0 «H.0I MH.0! MN
MM.0 M0.0I No.0 MH.0: MH.0 0M.0 50.0 5H.0I 0N.0! H0.0I M0.0 «N
H5.0 M0.0 MH.0I M0.0 H0.0 H0.0I 50.0 H¢.0 M0.0 M0.0 M0.0 MN
v5.0 M0.0I MH.0I M0.0I. vH.0I ¢0.0 5H.0! M0.0 M0.0I MN.0I NN.0! NN
M5.0 50.0! M0.0I v0.0 M0.0 MH.0: 5H.0I MN.0I MH.0 MH.0I NH.0 HN
0M.0 M0.0I M0.0I H0.0 NH.0 v0.0a MH.0 N0.0I HH.0 v0.0 00.0 ON
mmaHm> 0M MN MN 5N MN MN wN MN NN HN muouomm
cOMHm

 

 

ApmssHucoov xHHumE MCHUmOH Houomm

"mnnmmwfi GOHumucmHHo

263

 

 

NM.0 M0.0 0H.0I M0.0 MM.0I M0.0 M0.0 5H.0 50.0 MH
MM.0 M0.0 0H.0I HH.0 M0.0 M0.0I MH.0 NH.0I M0.0I MH
NM.0 M0.0I M0.0 M0.0 0H.0 M0.0 0H.0 5H.0 0H.0 5H
MM.0 v0.0l v0.0! N0.0I M0.0I MH.0I NN.0I M0.0 H0.01 MH
H0.H M0.0I MN.0 H0.0I MH.0I NH.0 M0.0I 0H.0I HH.0 MH
M0.H MH.0I 50.0 MH.0: H0.0 v0.0! MH.0 No.0 MH.0 vH
M0.H M0.0 00.0I HH.0: 50.0I MH.0 No.0 M0.0I «0.0 MH
50.H M0.0 50.0 MH.0 50.0: HH.0 No.0 M0.0 v0.0l NH
MH.H M0.0 HH.0 N0.0I NH.0 No.0 MH.0 vH.0 MH.0I HH
0N.H H0.0 H0.0I 50.0 5H.0 M0.0I M0.0I NH.0 NH.0 0H
@N.H No.0 M0.0 MH.0 NH.0 H0.0I M0.0I No.0 MH.0I M
0M.H M0.0 M0.0 M0.0 M0.0 N0.0I 50.0 NH.0I v0.0: M
MM.H H0.0 H0.0 M0.0 50.0! MN.0I H0.0 H0.0I MN.0 5
Hv.H v0.0 M0.0 M0.0 NH.0 M0.0 5H.0! M0.0I H0.0I M
NM.H 50.0 M0.0 M0.0 M0.0 N0.0 0H.0 5H.0 v0.0! M
MM.H M0.0I M0.0I H0.0! MH.0 NH.0I v0.0l H0.0 5H.0 v
vM.H 00.0I H0.0 M0.0I M0.0 H0.0I 50.0I 0H.0 MH.0 M
«0.M v0.0: v0.01 H0.0! M0.0I 0H.0I MH.0 50.0 M0.0I N
MH.v No.0 M0.0I MH.0 HH.0 No.0 No.0 50.0! 0N.0 H
mmDHm> MM 5M MM MM MM MM NM HM muouomm
GOMHM

 

 

mescHucouv xHHumE MGHUmoH Houomm

umHHHmMOE COHn—anCOHHO

264

 

 

MN.0 MN.0 HH.0: NH.0I M0.0 M0.0 MH.0: M0.0: H0.0 MM
NM.0 50.0 M0.0 M0.0 M0.0I M0.0I MN.0: H0.0 50.0: 5M
MM.0 H0.0: M0.0 50.0: M0.0 oH.0 No.0 M0.0 50.01 MM
0M.0 NH.0I MN.0: N0.0I M0.0 M0.0 M0.0 v0.01 M0.0 MM
HM.0 M0.0I M0.0 M0.0 M0.0 MH.0 00.0I v0.0: N0.0I «M
vv.0 v0.0 5H.0 NH.0I MH.0 HH.0 M0.0 HH.0: M0.0 MM
MM.0 «0.0: HH.0 M0.0I N0.0I 0H.0I H0.0: oH.0: HH.0: NM
Mv.0 MN.0: M0.0 No.0 v0.0 HH.0: 5H.0: N0.0I v0.0 HM
NM.0 M0.0 No.0: 0H.0I v0.0 M0.0 5H.0: MN.0 H0.0 0M
NM.0 No.0 M0.0I M0.0I H0.0: M0.0 M0.0: vH.0I M0.0: MN
vM.o v0.0: MH.0: MH.0 H0.01 vH.0 M0.0I H0.0 HM.0: MN
5M.0 v0.01 M0.0I 5H.0: ¢0.0| 50.0 NH.0 H0.0 M0.0: 5N
HM.0 MH.0 M0.0 50.0: oH.0: MN.0I HH.0 M0.0 NH.01 MN
MM.0 NH.0 N0.0I No.0: M0.0 No.0 H0.01 NH.0 MN.0 MN
MM.0 No.0 00.0I M0.0: No.0: M0.0I M0.0I MH.0: 00.0 vN
H5.0 5H.0: No.0: 50.0: MH.0: No.0 0H.0I HH.0 50.0: MN
v5.0 H0.0: 00.0 M0.0 H0.0: M0.0 N0.0I MH.0I HH.0 NN
M5.0 50.0: MH.0 M0.0: No.0: M0.0 50.0: 0H.o H0.0: HN
0M.0 M0.0I oH.0 vN.0 MH.0: No.0 No.0 N0.0I M0.0I 0N
mmsHm> MM 5M MM MM «M MM NM HM muouomm
cmmHm

 

 

AcmscHucouv xHHumE MCHMMOH Houomm

"whammme GOHumucmHHo

APPENDIX I

REFERENCE MEASURE: ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

265

266

 

 

 

 

 

HH.0 oH.o- oo.o MH.0- -.o .wm.o 5
mm.o mH.o- mm.o oo.0 «mm.o- HH.o m
nm.o HH.0- .mm.o 5H.o- Hm.o- OH.o m
mm.o mo.o mo.o .mh.o- m~.o- 5o.o- e
ov.o mo.o mo.o- oo.0- No.0 .5G.o m
Hm.o oo.ou no.o- HN.0- «V5.o- HH.ou N
Hm.o MN.0- oo.0 .mm.o- No.0 om.o H
mmHuHHmcsasoo > >H HHH HH H muouomm
mm.o m5.o «5.0- v5.o- hm.o mmmwmmmm
no.o NH.o OH.o OH.o MH.0 wmmmwmmwowm
mozHo<0H moaomm omamaom “mmammmz mozmmmmmm

267

.mchmoH smHm.

 

 

om.o «mm.o 5o.oa mo.o «0.0 vo.on GH
mm.o mm.o mm.o mm.ou Ho.o .H¢.o MH
m¢.o 0N.0 HN.0 .me.on mo.ou H¢.o «H
om.o OH.o HN.0 MH.0 mm.ou .mm.o mH
MM.0 mo.on «0.0 mm.ou 5H.0- .mm.o NH
NM.0 No.0 MH.o HH.o- .H5.ou MN.0 HH
me.o No.0- HN.0 mo.o MH.0: .em.o OH
Hm.o NH.0 «mo.o MN.0 H~.ou MN.0 m

mm.o Ho.o .m5.o mm.o- HN.o Ho.on m

mmHuHHmcsesoo > >H HHH HH mnouomm

 

 

AcoscHucouv mmcHMmoH

Houomm Umumuon

“QHDmMOE OOCOHOMOM

APPENDIX J

ORIENTATION MEASURE: ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS

268

269

 

 

 

N¢.o mo.o nn.0 .ov.o NH.0- 5o.ou 50.0 mm.o NH
em.o 0H.o- mo.o OH.ou .oe.o MH.0- HH.0 «0.0- HH
nn.0 mo.o no.0 mo.o- oo.0 «O.O- Ho.o- .oo.o- OH
nH.0 mm.o- Ho.ou .Hm.o H0.0- oo.o, HH.0- mH.o- a
mm.o mo.o 5o.o- HH.o «o.ou 5m.o- mo.o .me.o m
mm.o mo.o- HH.o HH.o He.o mo.ou .me.o mc.o 5
me.o ho.o NN.0 .me.ou mH.o mo.o HN.0- MH.0- m
mH.o “O.O .oe.o oo.o mo.o Ho.o oo.0 mo.o- m
HH.0 mH.o- mo.o no.0 mo.o- .He.o- HH.0 on.0- v
m~.o .ov.ou HN.0- 5H.o- oH.0 Ho.o- HH.o oo.0- m
mm.o mo.o- mo.o HH.0 40.0- mo.o- oH.0- .mm.o- m
mm.o 5N.0 mo.o- mo.on mo.cu .Hm.o- No.0- HH.o H
mmHuHHmasaeoo .HH> H> > >H HHH HH H umnssz EmuH
oo.0 mm.o HM.0 em.o MM.0- 5M.0 oo.0- mmmwmmmm
«O.O vo.o mo.o no.0 mo.o 5o.o moaMHum> mo

50.0 mcoHuuomoum

 

MOZHQNOH moeudm QMB<BOM

"mMDmde ZOHfidezmHmo

270

 

Nm.O M0.0n m0.0n OH.O NN.O 5H.O 50.0: NOO.O: 5N
mm.O O0.0 O0.0| NH.O| mm.Ou OH.O: NOO.O M0.0 ON
MM.0 NH.0 NH.0 «NM.0 MN.0I 0H.0 H0.0 H0.0 MN
OM.O OH.O OH.O NO.OI 4mm.O O0.0 N0.0 mm.Ou ON
ON.O oN.O O0.0 5N.O mm.Ou OH.O OH.O «Om.O MN
Om.O OH.O: OH.O O0.0 Nm.Ou NO.OI NOO.O MH.O NN
MN.O N0.0 mN.O OH.O 50.0 NON.O| ON.O OH.O HN
ON.O O0.0| O0.0n MO.OI «HM.O NH.O| N0.0u MH.OI ON
NM.O ON.Ou HH.O OH.O: OH.O NN.OI Nm.O «Nm.Ou OH
O0.0 M0.0 MN.O O0.0| «O0.0 ON.O H0.0| MN.OI OH
ON.O M0.0 O0.0 MO.OI MH.O: O0.0 «O0.0 OH.O 5H
O0.0 O0.0 OH.O H0.0 N0.0: NOO.On 50.0u N0.0 OH
Hm.O 5N.O mH.Ou m0.0 MH.O OH.O M0.0u .O0.0| MH
mm.O OH.O MO.OI «O0.0 ON.O NN.O| HH.O «0.0 OH
O0.0 5N.Ou «OH.O OH.O: H0.0 ON.O: O0.0- MH.O NH
mmHuHHmnsasoo HH> H> > >H HHH HH H Hmnasz smuH

 

 

HomscHucoov mmchmoH

Houomm Mmpmuou

"whammmfi GOHumucmHHO

271

.mcHOmoq anm.

 

 

 

 

0M.0 MH.0 00.0I Hv.0 HH.0I MH.0I «MM.0 M0.0 MM
Nv.0 N0.0 NN.0 50.0I «Nv.0 MN.0 0H.0I MM.0I 5M
NM.0 «0M.0 M0.0I M0.0I H0.0 HH.01 0N.0 H0.0 MM
MM.0 MN.0 ¥0M.0 N0.0I MH.0 0N.0I 5H.0 MH.0! MM
0M.0 MN.0 N0.0 MH.0 «Mv.0l 5H.0I M0.0 MN.0I VM
5M.0 NN.0I 5H.0 MH.0I 0N.0 HH.0! *HM.0 NN.0I MM
MM.0 NH.0I «MM.0 50.0 HH.0I 00.0I M0.0 N0.0 NM
MM.0 H0.0 MH.0 M0.0 M0.0I 00.0I *5M.0 N0.0I HM
MM.0 H0.0 M0.0 MH.0I «vM.0 MH.0 MH.0! v0.0l 0M
wv.0 v0.0l 5H.0I MH.0 NHM.0 MM.0! 50.0 50.0I MN
Nv.0 NH.0 M0.0I M0.0I MH.0 M0.0 «HM.0 M0.0 MN
mmHuHHmcsaeoo HH> H> > >H HHH HH H Hmnesz smuH
HomscHucoov mmchmoH Houomm Mmumuou "augmmme coHumucmHuo

APPENDIX K

ORIENTATION MEASURE: ITEM MEANS AND

STANDARD DEVIATIONS

272

273

ORIENTATION MEASURE: ITEM MEANS AND
STANDARD DEVIATIONS

A

f

 

Item No. Sample Mean S.D.
1 Student Sample 2.81 1.65
Broadcaster Sample 1.98 1.29

2 Student Sample 2.50 1.32
Broadcaster Sample 2.60 1.90

3 Student Sample 3.78 1.97
Broadcaster Sample 4.28 2.10

4 Student Sample 3.83 1.95
Broadcaster Sample 3.50 2.15

5 Student Sample 3.50 1.85
Broadcaster Sample 3.81 1.99

6 Studen Sample 4.19 1.94
Broadcaster Sample 5.28 1.71

7 Student Sample 4.31 1.97
Broadcaster Sample 4.15 1.89

8 Student Sample 3.36 1.84
Broadcaster Sample 3.02 2.02

9 Student Sample 3.89 2.01
Broadcaster Sample 5.67 1.41

10 Student Sample 3.50 1.76
Broadcaster Sample 4.17 2.11

11 Student Sample 3.44 1.69
Broadcaster Sample 3.77 1.99

12 Student Sample 3.61 2.00
Broadcaster Sample 3.22 1.73

13 Student Sample 2.75 1.64
Broadcaster Sample 2.89 1.79

14 Student Sample 4.00 1.90
Broadcaster Sample 3.94 2.04

15 Student Sample 4.19 1.84
Broadcaster Sample 4.96 1.87

Orientation measure:

274

item means and standard deviation

 

 

 

(Continued)

Item No. Sample Mean S.D.
16 Student Sample 4.28 1.94
Broadcaster Sample 3.58 2.13

17 Student Sample 2.42 1.77
Broadcaster Sample 2.45 1.37

18 Student Sample 4.92 1.77
Broadcaster Sample 5.92 1.19

19 Student Sample 3.97 1.77
Broadcaster Sample 3.94 1.96

20 Student Sample 3.86 1.83
Broadcaster Sample 5.04 1.76

21 Student Sample 4.78 1.72
Broadcaster Sample 3.57 1.48

22 Student Sample 2.61 1.59
Broadcaster Sample 2.78 1.64

23 Student Sample 3.86 1.62
Broadcaster Sample 3.43 1.81

24 Student Sample 4.36 1.84
Broadcaster Sample 5.28 1.61

25 Student Sample 3.81 2.01
Broadcaster Sample 3.51 1.74

26 Student Sample 2.50 1.57
Broadcaster Sample 2.10 1.31

27 Student Sample 4.94 1.72
Broadcaster Sample 5.58 1.57

28 Student Sample 3.53 1.85
Broadcaster Sample 3.53 1.83

29 Student Sample 3.78 2.00
Broadcaster's Sample 3.94 2.23

Orientation measure:

275

item means and standard deviation

 

 

 

(Continued)

Item No. Sample Mean S.D.
30 Student Sample 3.75 1.69
Broadcaster Sample 5.02 1.57

31 Student Sample 2.94 1.65
Broadcaster Sample 3.20 1.65

32 Student Sample 3.28 1.84
Broadcaster Sample 3.14 1.87

33 Student Sample 4.64 1.78
Broadcaster Sample 4.64 1.77

34 Student Sample 3.00 1.75
Broadcaster Sample 2.92 1.74

35 Student Sample 3.00 1.60
Broadcaster Sample 3.04 1.86

36 Student Sample 2.58 1.59
Broadcaster Sample 3.29 1.78

37 Student Sample 3.58 1.67
Broadcaster Sample 5.12 1.56

38 Student Sample 3.81 1.82
Broadcaster Sample 3.35 1.62

 

Student Sample (N=38) consists of advanced under-

graduate and graduate students in courses in broadcast

management at Michigan State University who were included

in second pre-test of instrument in the fall of 1966.

Broadcaster Sample (N=247) consists of respondents

to national study in the Spring of 1967.

APPENDIX L

ORIENTATION MEASURE:

276

ITEM ANALYSIS

1i

277

ORIENTATION MEASURE:

KEY

1

ITEM ANALYSIS

 

 

Code

Variable Identification

Category Identification

 

S/P

ED

EXP

M/S

S/T

System Position

Level of Education

Level of Experience

Market Size

Station Type

0)
1)
2)
3)
4)

1)
2)

3)

"Other" Position2
Manager or Gen'l Manager
Sales Manager

Program Director

News Director

Less than College
Education

Less than Four Years
of College

Four or More Years of
College

10 Years or Less
11 - 20 Years
21 Years or More

Less than 100,000
Population

100,000 - 500,000
Population

More than 500,000
Population

Radio Station
Television Station
Radio-TV Station

 

1

differences are reported.

2

Owners and related positions.

Only those variables and items showing significant

"Other" positions include Corporate Officers, Station

278

 

 

F-Statisticl

 

Item No. Variable Categories Mean S.D. Sig.
1 S/P 0 2.29 2.14 3.74 .006
1 1.62 .79
2 2.29 1.43
3 2.00 1.21
4 2.36 1.74

M/S 1 1.70 1.14 7.48 .001
2 1.80 .94
3 2.40 1.60
2 M/S 1 3.22 2.19 6.36 .002
2 2.49 1.88
3 2.18 1.52
S/T 1 3.17 2.17 12.57 <.0005
2 1.90 1.31
3 2.18 1.45
3 S/T l 3.82 2.04 6.98 .001
2 4.54 2.15
3 5.00 2.00
4 S/P 0 4.00 2.38 3.35 .010
1 2.98 1.96
2 3.47 2.23
3 3.68 2.21
4 4.34 2.18
5 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
6 M/S 1 5.38 1.78 3.84 .023
2 5.58 1.63
3 4.89 1.68
7 S/P 0 4.29 1.70 2.98 .020
1 3.99 1.85
2 4.65 1.82
3 3.57 1.76
4 4.59 2.11
M/S l 3.08 1.73 19.19 <.0005
2 4.53 1.90
3 4.67 1.67
S/T l 3.58 1.87 12.53 <.0005
2 4.57 1.80
3 4.89 1.72

279

 

 

S.D.

F.Statistic1

 

Item No. Variable Categories Mean Sig.
8 ED 1 2.56 1.74 3.64 .028
2 2.71 2.08
3 3.33 2.05

EXP l 3.16 2.16 4.47 .012
2 3.26 2.04
3 2.35 1.70
9 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
10 ED 1 4.76 2.12 4.21 .016
2 4.41 2.15
3 3.83 2.05
EXP l 4.50 2.19 4.69 .010
2 3.77 2.11
3 4.65 1.92
M/S 1 4.64 2.16 4.61 .011
2 4.28 2.08
3 3.66 2.03
11 M/S 1 2.85 1.64 10.84 <.0005
2 3.60 2.07
3 4.71 1.78
S/T 1 3.01 1.67 22.78 <.0005
2 4.78 2.01
3 4.24 1.96
12 ED 1 2.70 1.61 3.20 .043
2 3.49 1.80
3 3.29 1.72
13 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
14 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
15 S/P 0 3.71 1.98 2.40 .050
1 4.78 1.92
2 4.94 1.98
3 4.91 1.89
4 5.61 1.48
16 ED 1 3.20 2.23 3.14 .045
2 3.22 2.12
3 3.89 2.06

280

 

 

 

Item No. Variable Categories Mean S.D. F-Statistic1 Sig.
M/S l 3.04 2.15 4.70 .010
2 3.56 2.20
3 4.06 1.94
17 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
18 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
19 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
20 S/P 0 5.00 1.53 2.78 .030
l 4.83 1.77
2 4.82 1.68
3 4.98 1.92
4 5.82 1.50
S/T l 4.71 1.80 4.53 .012
2 5.37 1.77
3 5.38 1.53
21 EXP 1 3.55 1.44 3.10 .047
2 3.76 1.51
3 3.18 1.43
M/S l 3.12 1.43 4.93 .008
2 3.72 1.48
3 3.79 1.47
22 EXP 1 2.69 1.58 3.32 .038
2 3.02 1.74
3 2.37 1.43
23 S/P 0 4.29 2.06 3.14 .020
1 3.28 1.87
2 3.41 1.62
3 4.06 1.90
4 2.91 1.60
24 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE OBSERVED
25 ED 1 3.92 2.01 3.23 .041
2 3.71 1.75
3 3.26 1.60
EXP 1 3.44 1.80 3.34 .037
2 3.76 1.78
3 3.07 1.54

281

 

 

F-Statisticl

 

Item No. Variable Categories Mean S.D. Sig.
26 S/P O 3.00 1.41 3.41 .010
1 1.88 1.12
2 2.55 1.70
3 1.89 1.03
4 2.18 1.39

EXP l 2.35 1.37 3.93 .021
2 2.16 1.47
3 1.72 .74
27 EXP 1 5.60 1.75 2.99 .050
2 5.38 1.66
3 5.98 1.07
28 S/P 0 3.14 1.86 2.96 .020
1 3.38 1.78
2 3.98 2.02
3 3.02 1.60
4 4.05 1.82
M/S 1 3.04 1.77 4.02 .019
2 3.80 1.81
3 3.69 1.84
S/T 1 3.04 1.75 9.89 <.0005
2 4.12 1.81
3 3.93 1.76
29 EXP l 3.37 2.19 3.68 .027
2 3.98 2.24
3 4.45 2.16
M/S l 3.36 2.19 5.95 .003
2 3.83 2.25
3 4.54 2.12
S/T 1 3.52 2.20 4.47 .012
2 4.31 2.22
3 4.42 2.18
30 S/P 0 3.71 1.89 4.37 .002
1 5.41 1.45
2 4.53 1.65
3 5.13 1:45
4 4.82 1.59

282

 

 

 

Item No. Variable Categories Mean S.D. F. Statistic1 Sig.
ED 1 4.54 1.91 3.26 .040
2 5.25 1.34
3 5.10 1.50
EXP 1 4.74 1.65 3.82 .023
2 4.94 1.57
3 5.48 1.40
31 EXP 1 3.35 1.52 3.21 .042
2 3.34 1.76
3 2.73 1.46
32 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
33 M/S 1 4.14 1.97 4.40 .013
2 4.84 1.65
3 4.87 1.64
S/T 1 4.25 1.84 6.27 .002
2 5.01 1.59
3 5.05 1.67
34 M/S 1 3.36 1.95 3.58 .029
2 2.80 1.73
3 2.67 1.52
35 S/P 0 3.71 2.29 2.49 .040
1 2.98 1.78
2 3.69 2.15
3 2.74 1.65
4 2.73 1.73
S/T 1 3.52 2.20 4.47 .012
2 4.31 2.22
3 4.42 2.18
30 S/P 0 3.71 1.89 4.37 .002
1 5.41 1.45
2 4.53 1.65
3 5.13 1.45
4 4.82 1.59
ED 1 4.54 1.91 3.26 .040
2 5.25 1.34
3 5.10 1.50

283

 

 

 

Item No. Variable Categories Mean S.D. F—Statistic1 Sig.
EXP 1 4.74 1.65 3.82 .023
2 4.94 1.57
3 5.48 1.40
31 EXP 1 3.35 1.52 3.21 .042
2 3.34 1.76
3 2.73 1.46
32 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
33 M/S l 4.14 1.97 4.40 .013
2 4.84 1.65
3 4.87 1.64
S/T 1 4.25 1.84 6.27 .002
2 5.01 1.59
3 5.05 1.67
34 M/S l 3.36 1.95 3.58 .029
2 2.80 1.73
3 2.67 1.52
35 S/P 0 3.71 2.29 2.49 .040
1 2.98 1.78
2 3.69 2.15
3 2.74 1.65
4 2.73 1.73
36 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED
37 EXP l 4.71 1.61 4.97 .008
2 5.10 1.57
3 5.58 1.36
S/T 1 5.35 1.51 2.99 .050
2 4.84 1.49
3 4.93 1.69
38 NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES OBSERVED

 

1Analysis of variance.

APPENDIX M

REFERENCE MEASURE: FACTOR SCORE COEFFICIENTS

284

285

 

 

 

 

 

MM.0 MM.0 MM.0I M5.0I MM.0 55m
0M.0 M0.0I H0.0! N0.0 M0.0I MH
MH.0 M0.0 MH.0! M0.0 HH.0 MH
50.0 M0.0 MH.0! H0.0 M0.0 vH
N0.0 M0.0 MH.0 MH.0I vN.0 MH
N0.0I M0.0I NH.0I M0.0I NN.0 NH
H0.0 H0.0 H0.0 5M.0! v0.0 HH
N0.0I N0.0 M0.0 N0.0I 0N.0 0H
«0.0 0M.0 HN.0 50.0! v0.0 M
N0.0 MM.0 MH.0I HN.0 NH.0I M
M0.0I v0.0! v0.0! NH.0 MH.0 5
M0.0I M0.0 M0.0 0H.0I H0.0I M
«0.0! MN.0 v0.0l M0.0I M0.0I M
v0.0 00.0I MM.0! M0.0I NH.0I w
H0.0 50.0I N0.0 M0.0 NN.0 M
N0.0 50.0I 0H.01 Nv.0l MH.0I N
50.0I M0.0I MN.0I M0.0 50.0 H

> >H HHH HH H Houomm

MBZmHUHmmmOU mmoum m090<m "MMDM<m2 mozmmmmmm

APPENDIX N

ORIENTATION MEASURE: FACTOR SCORE COEFFICIENTS

286

287

 

 

 

OH.O- NO.O OO.O- OO.O- NH.O- OH.O NN.O- OH
OO.O HH.O NO.O NH.O NH.O HO.O NO.O- OH
H0.0 NO.O- .OO.O- NO.O- NO.O NH.O NO.O 5H
OO.O OO.O .O.O- HO.O- OO.O- OO.O- HO.O- OH
5H.O OO.O- 5O.O NO.O OO.O HO.O- NN.O- mH
5O.O OO.O- 5H.O OH.O 5O.O- HO.O NO.O OH
NH.O- ON.O 5O.O- NO.O- NH.O- OO.O- OO.O NH
NO.O 5H.O OH.O HO.O OO.O- NO.O- OH.O NH
HO.O- OO.O- NO.O- HH.O NH.O- NO.O NO.O HH
NO.O OO.O- NO.O- OO.O- NO.O- HO.O- OH.O- OH
OH.O- NO.O- HO.O OO.O HO.O- OO.O- 5O.O- O
HO.O NO.O- NO.O OO.O NH.O- NO.O- HH.O O
NO.O- NO.O OO.O OH.O NO.O NH.O OO.O 5
5O.O NH.O 5H.O- OO.O- NO.O 5O.O- OH.O- O
N0.0 OH.O OO.O HO.O NO.O OO.O- HO.O- m
OO.O- HO.O- NO.O OO.O- OH.O- NO.O OO.O- O
OH.O- HH.O- OO.O- HO.O OO.O- OO.O HO.O m
NO.O- NO.O 5O.O 5O.O- OO.O- OO.O- ON.O- N
NH.O OO.O- OO.O- OO.O HN.O- OO.O: NO.O H
HH> H> > >H HHH HH H uouomm
mazmHonmmoo mmoom moaoOm ”mammamz oneOazmHmo

288

 

 

 

HO.O ON.H OO.O O5.O OO.H- 5H.H OO.H- sum
5O.O OO.O- HN.O OO.O- OO.O- NN.O OO.O- OO
OO.O OH.O HO.O HH.O OH.O HO.O- OO.O- 5O
ON.O OO.O- OO.O- OO.O OO.O- OO.O OO.O- OO
OH.O ON.O HO.O- OO.O OO.O: HO.O NO.O- Om
OO.O HO.O OO.O 5H.O- 5O.O- HO.O- OH.O- Om
NH.O- OO.O OO.O- OO.O HO.O- OH.O OOOO- Om
OO.O- ON.O NO.O OO.O- NO.O OO.O- HO.O NO
OO.O- OO.O OO.O OO.O- OO.O NN.O OO.O- HO
OO.O OO.O OO.O- 5H.O OO.O OO.O- OO.O OO
OO.O- HH.O- OO.O OH.O OH.O- HO.O OO.O ON
OO.O OO.O- OO.O- 5O.O OO.O OH.O OO.O ON
NO.O- NO.O- OO.O OO.O OO.O OO.O- HH.O- 5N
HN.O NO.O- NH.O- OH.O- HO.O- OH.O NO.O- ON
OO.O 5O.O ON.O 5O.O- OO.O NO.O- OO.O- ON
OO.O 5O.O HO.O OO.O NO.O OO.O OO.O- ON
OO.O OO.O OO.O 5O.O- OO.O HO.O OO.O ON
OO.O- OO.O OO.O- OO.O- NO.O OH.O NO.O NN
OO.O- 5O.O OO.O OO.O 5O.O- OO.O OO.O HN
HO.O OO.O- HO.O OH.O OO.O- OO.O OO.O- ON
HH> H> > >H HHH HH H Houomm

 

 

HomscHucouv mucmHOHmwwoo OHOQW Honomm

u OHHHMMOE COHHMUPHOHHHO

APPENDIX 0

REFERENCE MEASURE: ROSTER OF FACTOR SCORES

289

290

REFERENCE MEASURE: ROSTER OF FACTOR SCORES

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V
001 -0.12 0.96 0.41 0.48 -0.24
002 -1.35 -0.40 —0.18 -0.91 -O.13
003 1.41 1.37 0.46 0.94 -0.54
004 0.23 -1.18 1.23 -0.94 -0.21
005 -1.48 -0.25 0.00 0.22 -0.07
006 -0.53 -0.13 -0.12 0.52 -0.02
007 0.52 -0.85 -0.25 0.78 -0.38
008 -0.60 -0.87 1.33 0.79 -0.23
009 -0.07 —0.15 0.61 -0.20 —0.38
010 0.13 —0.49 -0.58 -1.41 -0.45
011 -1.32 0.09 -0.06 -1.29 —0.12
012 -0.14 -0.25 1.13 0.26 -0.24
013 -0.09 -0.35 0.89 0.05 -0.29
014 -0.49 0.90 -0.65 0.25 -0.54
015 -0.37 -1.08 1.04 1.08 -0.17
016 -0.27 0.76 —0.84 0.02 -0.33
017 0.91 -0.55 -0.98 0.23 -0.19
018 1.83 0.66 -0.06 0.87 -0.06
019 0.05 —0.47 -0.42 0.08 -0.23
020 —0.22 0.13 1.26 -0.03 -0.06
021 -1.18 0.38 0.34 0.22 -0.18
022 0.27 -0.54 0.09 0.39 0.19
023 0.04 —0.41 -0.34 0.09 —0.17
024 0.73 0.73 0.54 0.39 -0.22
025 0.29 —0.32 1.63 0.63 -0.17
026 -0.97 1.70 0.14 0.13 -0.28
027 0.43 -0.98 0.28 -0.93 -0.44
028 1.63 0.89 0.66 -0.61 -0.20

291

 

 

 

 

Reference measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)
Factor

Subject

Number I II III IV V
029 -0.27 -1.00 1.71 1.21 -0.21
030 0.38 0.05 -0.72 -0.69 -0.28
031 0.91 0.37 -0.55 -0.84 -0.40
032 -0.62 0.41 0.72 -0.47 -0.14
033 1.02 0.22 0.94 0.47 -0.02
034 -0.35 -0.33 0.91 0.46 -0.04
035 0.25 -0.82 -0.35 0.76 -0.36
036 -0.74 -0.13 -0.28 -0.03 -0.34
037 1.09 -0.12 -1.14 0.30 0.00
038 -0.75 0.34 0.10 -1.45 -0.26
039 -0.06 —0.74 0.23 0.53 -0.38
040 1.19 -0.70 -0.17 0.36 —0.02
041 -1.03 —0.40 -0.25 0.17 —0.42
042 —0.09 0.13 —0.24 0.07 -0.49
043 1.75 20.56 -1.09 0.26 —0.11
044 -0.54 -0.26 0.33 -1.47 -0.16
045 0.71 0.85 -0.41 0.36 -0.07
046 -0.58 0.26 —0.23 -l.58 -0.35
047 0.17 0.07 -0.77 -0.52 -0.14
048 -1.15 0.23 0.05 -0.02 -0.13
049 0.79 -0.64 -0.71 0.03 -0.22
050 -0.79 0.25 0.18 -1.33 -0.30
051 -2.99 1.07 0.29 -0.74 -0.22
052 1.88 -0.70 -1.15 0.43 0.17
053 -1.05 -0.03 0.11 0.54 -0.27
054 -1.13 0.25 -1.21 -0.03 -0.42
055 -0.01 -0.63 -0.50 -0.79 -0.34
056 -O.59 0.28 0.82 -0.99 -0.27
057 —0.69 -0.22 0.10 0.45 -0.23

292

Reference measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V
058 —0.48 -0.79 0.33 0.09 0.02
059 -0.29 —0.81 0.67 1.04 -0.31
062 0.06 0.12 0.78 0.28 -0.16
063 0.02 0.02 —1.23 0.62 0.32
064 -0.43 0.40 1.02 -0.78 -0.18
065 -1.28 -0.39 -l.08 —0.42 -0.24
066 -0.03 0.79 0.10 0.38 0.17
067 -0.18 —0.59 -0.65 0.17 -0.19
068 -0.63 -0.25 0.87 -1.24 -0.18
069 0.64 -0.52 -1.08 0.21 -0.17
070 -0.79 -0.27 0.41 -0.32 -0.29
071 -0.32 -0.91 0.03 1.09 0.08
072 -1.13 -0.43 0.26 0.26 -0.04
073 -1.32 -0.00 0.01 0.51 -0.24
074 0.58 -1.05 1.13 0.94 0.05
075 0.40 -1.29 1.01 -0.49 -0.20
076 —1.09 -1.72 -0.15 -3.48 —0.92
077 -0.15 -0.67 -0.17 0.42 -0.25
078 0.10 1.08 0.16 0.18 -0.49
079 0.99 1.14 0.96 -0.12 -0.33
080 -1.28 0.78 -0.59 0.25 -0.26
081 1.24 -0.87 0.37 1.04 0.06
082 -0.24 0.87 -1.09 0.15 -0.31
083 1.13 0.56 0.19 -0.87 0.03
084 -0.42 1.02 0.88 0.48 -0.12
085 -0.26 -0.17 -0.36 0.40 -0.29
086 0.31 1.29 0.39 -0.48 -0.43
087 -0.74 0.49 -0.13 0.26 -0.16

 

Reference measure:

293

roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V
088 0.62 -0.48 0.68 0.15 -0.18
089 -0.42 -0.72 —0.79 0.16 -0.02
090 -0.92 0.42 -0.24 -1.21 -0.23
091 0.57 -0.79 0.26 -1.53 -0.34
092 0.26 1.89 -0.18 -0.26 -0.29
093 0.46 -0.70 -0.10 -0.10 -0.33
094 -0.11 —0.08 -0.58 0.47 -0.07
095 -0.64 0.39 -0.13 -0.18 -0.26
096 —1.05 0.27 -l.05 -0.53 -0.23
097 1.45 0.11 -0.32 0.31 -0.05
098 0.79 -0.70 0.45 -0.01 -0.44
099 0.31 0.11 0.57 -0.03 -0.02
100 —0.34 0.47 -0.96 -1.06 -0.28
101 0.76 0.28 -1.29 0.30 -0.09
102 0.96 -O.55 -0.85 0.11 0.24
103 0.68 -0.34 0.33 0.59 0.01
104 -0.38 0.07 -1.35 0.21 -0.06
105 1.25 0.98 -0.82 -0.25 -0.13
106 -0.20 0.16 -0.62 0.33 —0.16
107 1.60 -0.56 -0.07 -0.76 -0.11
108 0.70 1.22 0.35 0.21 2.94
109 0.75 -0.08 0.40 0.94 0.15
110 0.75 0.05 —l.39 0.26 -0.03
111 0.37 0.28 0.60 0.20 -0.34
112 —0.13 -0.41 0.41 0.96 0.06
113 0.97 1.91 0.16 0.14 -0.22
114 -0.02 1.37 -0.06 -0.21 -0.07
115 0.12 0.31 -0.71 -0.66 -0.12
116 0.34 0.19 -0.09 -0.31 2.92

294

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V
117 -0.15 -1.04 -0.46 1.13 0.18
118 -0.69 0.95 0.03 -0.14 -0.25
119 0.82 -0.49 -1.66 0.63 0.33
120 —0.12 -0.17 0.38 0.06 -0.12
121 0.10 —0.68 -1.04 0.39 0.21
122 -0.97 0.63 -0.71 -0.15 0.31
123 1.10 -1.07 -0.60 1.24 0.57
124 -0.16 -0.65 -O.82 0.00 0.01
125 -0.64 -0.23 -0.48 -0.73 0.06
126 0.65 -0.25 0.52 0.06 -0.24
127 0.35 —1.19 0.13 -0.53 -0.09
128 -0.07 0.01 -0.67 -0.15 -0.31
129 1.00 -0.55 -0.51 0.64 -0.10
130 0.93 0.00 0.31 -1.20 -0.19
131 0.42 0.10 0.09 0.02 -0.08
132 -0.48 0.20 -0.37 -0.11 -0.21
133 0.16 -0.63 0.52 -0.60 -0.28
134 -O.l9 0.80 -0.25 0.46 0.05
135 -0.03 1.41 -1.12 -0.48 -0.12
136 —1.81 -1.63 1.86 1.33 -0.15
137 —0.36 0.39 1.18 -1.07 4.46
138 0.06 1.26 1.74 1.52 -0.05
139 -0.59 —0.04 -0.41 —O.38 -0.34
140 1.07 -1.22 -0.24 0.99 0.18
141 0.19 -O.14 0.24 0.42 -0.38
142 —0.47 0.18 1.08 0.51 -0.37
143 0.36 -0.14 -0.79 0.55 0.04
144 -0.29 -1.00 -0.66 0.09 -0.31
145 0.45 0.35 0.87 0.00 4.46
146 -0.21 0.17 -0.35 0.47 -0.16

295

 

 

 

 

Reference measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)
Factor

Subject

Number I II III IV V
147 -1.92 1.73 1.32 -0.73 -0.82
148 0.67 1.64 0.10 -1.18 —0.23
149 -0.90 -0.10 0.29 0.23 -0.26
150 -0.59 —0.99 1.38 -0.44 -0.15
151 -0.39 -0.32 0.18 —1.28 0.00
152 0.12 0.17 -0.75 -0.34 0.30
153 -0.21 -0.24 -0.40 0.32 -0.11
154 0.81 -O.22 1.17 1.24 0.46
155 0.24 -0.80 -0.12 0.53 —0.09
156 —0.17 -0.69 0.07 0.69 0.04
157 0.07 0.77 1.23 0.77 -0.00
158 -0.69 -0.56 0.09 0.32 -0.03
159 -0.51 0.20 -0.77 0.17 0.09
160 0.21 0.48 —1.26 -0.07 -0.14
161 0.16 1.46 -0.50 -0.05 0.03
162 0.75 0.74 0.04 0.81 -0.34
163 -0.94 0.01 -0.65 0.04 -0.24
164 -0.87 0.74 —0.26 0.86 0.22
165 0.85 -0.97 0.10 0.84 -0.09
166 0.34 1.03 -0.11 -0.26 -0.14
167 -0.79 0.10 -0.87 0.11 -0.03
168 —0.27 0.26 -0.48 -0.33 -0.19
169 0.64 -0.02 -0.76 0.46 0.07
170 -0.24 0.41 -0.88 -0.73 -0.24
171 -0.19 0.13 -0.05 -0.32 0.02
172 -0.24 0.20 -0.29 -0.02 -0.45
173 0.23 —0.34 0.21 0.37 -0.10
174 -1.18 -0.59 0.45 0.56 -0.59
175 0.58 —0.81 0.63 0.86 -0.34

Reference measure:

296

roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V
176 0.48 1.14 -0.30 0.10 -0.26
177 -2.99 -0.31 2.47 1.25 -0.44
178 -0.71 0.12 —0.27 -0.45 -0.27
179 0.07 -0.87 -0.17 0.41 -0.20
180 -0.02 -O.86 0.05 1.13 -0.06
181 -0.20 -0.11 0.19 -0.50 -0.40
182 -0.62 0.27 -0.48 1.10 -0.17
183 —0.69 -0.52 -1.15 -0.52 -0.30
184 1.52 -0.68 0.60 0.61 -O.37
185 1.47 -0.84 -0.80 0.60 0.25
186 0.55 -0.04 0.46 0.75 -0.42
187 0.27 0.05 0.49 0.58 -0.31
188 0.14 1.03 0.69 —0.08 4.59
189 1.26 -0.39 2.07 -0.14 -0.16
190 0.22 -0.81 -0.66 0.49 -0.14
191 0.44 -0.36 -0.18 -1.64 -0.19
192 1.04 0.26 -0.84 0.47 0.13
193 -0.73 0.09 -0.80 0.16 -0.08
194 0.93 -0.37 -0.27 -0.50 0.07
195 1.60 -0.13 -0.10 -0.87 0.12
196 0.83 -0.34 -0.34 0.56 —0.31
197 -0.10 —0.62 -0.92 -0.20 -0.29
198 -0.30 -0.92 0.38 —1.38 -0.20
199 0.46 —0.46 0.69 1.09 0.03
200 1.21 -0.37 1.26 -0.90 -0.17
201 0.64 1.71 0.]6 0.18 -0.45
202 -0.21 0.14 -0.30 -0.02 -0.47
203 —0.23 -0.26 0.59 0.26 0.05
204 0.01 0.30 1.45 -1.00 -0.23

Reference measure:

297

roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V
205 0.64 1.57 -0.34 0.51 -0.43
206 -0.68 0.13 -0.89 -0.37 -o.02
207 -0.87 2.27 0.96 0.45 -o.33
208 0.49 0.86 1.16 1.15 -o.17
209 -0.52 -0.54 -1.16 0.59 0.03
210 0.22 0.38 -0.30 -0.80 4.45
211 -0.17 1.98 -0.31 -0.63 -0.32
212 —1.58 0.15 -0.90 0.44 0.11
213 -1.39 0.56 -0.60 -0.75 —0.16
214 0.73 -0.83 0.81 0.13 0.16
215 -0.65 -0.44 1.15 0.69 -0.07
216 -o.39 -0.71 -0.04 0.02 -0.03
217 —0.68 -0.16 -0.48 0.18 -0.32
218 -1.26 0.50 0.33 1.12 -0.07
219 0.18 -0.40 -0.40 0.34 -0.25
220 1.99 1.07 0.72 -1.53 -0.04
221 0.12 0.07 —0.58 -0.64 -0.06
222 0.63 -o.51 -0.81 0.34 -0.16
223 -2.15 0.45 2.47 -4.68 -0.37
224 -1.31 0.01 -0.66 0.72 -0.18
225 0.25 -0.74 -1.19 0.58 0.37
226 0.53 —0.69 -0.35 0.31 -0.06
227 -0.74 -0.42 1.46 -0.19 4.41
228 2.00 -0.30 -1.76 0.38 0.20
229 -0.21 0.12 —0.06 -0.18 -0.14
230 0.07 -0.12 0.99 0.51 -0.32
231 1.21 -0.18 0.35 0.91 0.14
232 -0.21 -0.71 -0.35 0.41 -0.27

Reference measure:

298

roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor

Subject

Number I II III IV V
233 -0.71 -0.94 -0.43 0.64 -0.30
234 0.55 2.22 0.04 -0.25 -0.14
235 1.30 -1.00 0.26 1.01 0.22
236 0.24 1.44 0.35 0.82 -0.11
237 -1.19 -0.31 -0.90 -0.11 4.88
238 0.27 -0.46 0.76 -0.92 —0.33
239 0.26 —0.27 0.04 -0.74 -0.04
240 1.33 0.68 -0.68 0.58 -0.03
241 -0.89 -0.39 0.23 0.32 4.44
242 -0.69 1.01 0.29 0.08 -0.18
243 0.18 0.90 -1.14 0.14 -0.25
244 -0.24 -0.13 -0.67 -0.72 -0.28
245 -0.44 -0.34 -0.56 0.09 -0.10
246 -0.66 -0.46 —1.42 0.04 -0.15
247 -0.66 -0.46 -1.42 0.04 -0.15

 

APPENDIX P

ORIENTATION MEASURE: ROSTER OF FACTOR SCORES

299

ORIENTATION MEASURE:

300

ROSTER OF FACTOR SCORES

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
001 0.40 -0.68 1.04 -0.58 0.77 0.58 -0.16
002 -1.32 0.61 -1.30 2.05 0.44 0.83 0.88
003 -0.10 -1.50 1.23 0.90 0.56 -0.37 0.74
004 -0.28 -0.29 -0.08 0.37 -0.65 -0.21 -0.41
005 1.03 0.27 -0.45 —0.98 -0.56 -0.74 1.96
006 -0.13 0.32 -0.55 -0.27 0.32 -0.86 -0.54
007 -1.07 0.47 0.28 0.25 -0.83 -0.46 0.11
008 0.15 -0.60 1.11 -0.40 -0.43 -1.23 0.34
009 1.66 -1.20 -0.26 0.61 -0.56 1.03 —0.08
010 ~0.52 -0.13 1.07 -0.45 -0.13 0.21 -0.43
011 -0.75 -0.33 -0.72 -1.09 0.91 -0.12 0.87
012 -0.09 -0.32 0.33 -0.67 0.72 -0.27 -0.48
013 0.30 -0.66 0.43 0.07 -0.37 -0.47 0.56
014 -0.19 -0.30 0.26 -0.34 0.49 -0.51 0.81
015 —0.13 -0.37 1.50 -0.08 -0.47 1.06 -0.55
016 0.26 -0.53 0.41 0.16 -0.06 1.23 -0.34
017 -0.72 —1.47 0.27 0.33 0.14 2.05 -0.17
018 0.06 0.17 -0.98 -1.30 -0.74 -0.30 -1.12
019 1.24 0.39 0.23 —0.82 1.45 1.38 0.21
020 0.87 0.32 -2.19 0.58 -0.51 0.54 -0.07
021 -1.57 -0.02 -1.80 -1.18 -0.99 0.62 0.29
022 -0.53 1.08 -0.14 1.10 -0.82 -0.18 -0.01
023 -1.34 —0.79 1.09 0.33 0.78 -0.95 -0.06
024 -0.87 -0.20 0.72 0.69 -0.37 0.48 0.84
025 —1.47 0.76 -0.25 -0.72 -0.84 -0.25 -0.03
026 0.29 -0.64 —0.21 0.67 0.61 -0.29 0.85
027 0.94 -0.38 0.93 -0.68 0.11 1.13 0.21
028 0.42 0.36 -1.49 0.46 -l.64 -0.58 0.64
029 -1.00 —0.70 1.49 -0.18 -0.50 0.23 -0.61

301

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
030 0.08 1.04 -0.47 0.91 0.25 0.40 0.79
031 -0.33 1.14 -0.08 0.46 -0.30 0.65 —0.20
032 0.92 -0.69 -0.36 -0.09 -0.98 -0.25 0.01
033 0.78 -0.15 -1.01 0.28 -0.61 -0.30 -0.65
034 -0.18 1.24 0.69 0.14 -0.05 -0.90 -0.38
035 -0.00 -1.50 0.40 -0.72 0.38 -0.21 1.62
036 -1.15 -0.38 0.21 0.19 -0.61 0.27 -0.44
037 —1.15 -0.82 0.75 -0.96 -0.94 -0.13 -0.29
038 -0.44 -0.38 -0.28 -0.61 -0.31 -0.89 -0.02
039 -0.20 -0.31 -1.00 -1.15 0.69 —1.06 -0.12
040 0.24 -1.37 -0.48 0.93 1.69 0.16 -0.29
041 0.48 -1.11 0.83 -0.82 -0.56 0.53 0.53
042 0.72 -0.32 0.79 -0.67 -0.11 1.00 0.45
043 -2.29 -0.83 0.74 -0.17 -0.11 1.73 -0.98
044 -1.58 0.24 -1.54 1.05 —0.09 -0.33 0.21
045 0.65 -0.17 -1.14 -0.18 0.04 0.05 0.12
046 0.04 -0.46 0.15 -0.11 0.17 —0.12 0.98
047 0.17 -0.42 -0.55 -0.47 -0.15 -0.18 0.80
048 -0.49 1.39 0.43 1.08 0.24 -0.86 -0.31
049 -0.45 -0.23 -0.29 0.62 -0.38 0.21 —0.08
050 -1.99 —1.16 1.42 -O.15 —0.77 -0.45 -0.49
051 -0.87 -0.10 1.29 0.38 -0.31 -0.22 0.87
052 -1.69 0.85 -0.49 -1.20 0.09 -0.92 -1.05
053 0.59 -0.52 —0.90 -0.55 -0.00 -0.53 0.30
054 -1.44 -1.06 0.75 -0.41 0.54 -0.15 0.04
055 0.81 0.32 -0.01 0.01 -0.34 0.49 -0.06
056 1.29 -0.12 0.74 -0.41 —0.92 0.19 0.28
057 -0.22 1.18 0.37 0.74 -1.29 0.70 0.41
058 0.29 -0.65 0.54 -1.48 0.27 -0.36 0.09

302

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
059 1.13 0.11 -0.07 0.09 0.31 -0.13 -0.55
060 -1.01 0.52 -0.49 -0.21 -0.02 0.51 -0.52
061 -0.36 0.37 0.26 0.40 0.95 -0.87 0.69
062 -0.02 0.14 -0.20 -1.13 0.29 0.80 -0.35
063 -1.54 0.65 0.26 1.34 0.48 -0.89 -0.90
064 0.67 0.51 0.15 -0.90 -0.58 0.42 0.18
065 0.75 -0.92 0.69 0.86 0.83 -0.58 -0.08
066 -0.80 0.12 0.16 -0.37 -0.12 0.45 -0.36
067 0.07 0.29 1.38 1.21 1.13 1.36 1.09
068 -0.02 -0.78 -0.27 0.11 -0.22 0.39 0.87
069 0.95 -1.09 0.45 —0.32 —0.07 -0.31 -0.23
070 -0.64 1.08 -0.30 -0.51 0.17 -0.87 1.14
071 -0.88 -1.13 1.33 -0.43 0.36 0.26 -0.66
072 -1.17 0.47 0.85 -0.62 -0.03 -0.20 0.24
073 1.03 0.61 -0.23 0.79 -0.45 -0.02 -1.19
074 -1.24 -0.10 0.56 -0.05 0.95 -0.13 -1.04
075 -0.54 -1.71 -0.09 1.40 -0.45 0.04 -0.09
076 -1.00 0.44 0.31 0.17 -0.21 0.15 0.12
077 —0.15 -0.86 0.26 -0.50 -0.18 -0.23 -0.19
078 0.64 -0.44 0.87 -0.25 -l.69 0.79 0.82
079 -1.13 0.35 0.32 0.11 —1.08 -0.63 0.89
080 1.21 -0.52 0.06 0.04 0.00 —0.70 -1.06
081 0.28 -1.08 0.17 0.54 -0.61 0.26 —0.44
082 0.07 0.82 0.54 0.17 0.49 -0.26 -1.06
083 0.66 0.71 -0.45 -0.06 0.02 0.76 0.34
084 -0.15 -0.10 0.29 -0.59 -0.51 0.30 -0.67
085 0.84 -0.73 —0.40 -0.72 0.05 -0.47 -0.10
086 0.48 0.95 -0.84 —0.27 -0.05 -0.82 0.09
087 -0.35 —0.24 0.28 0.78 -2.29 0.50 1.13

303

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
088 1.32 -0.88 -0.36 —1.17 0.62 -0.15 -0.21
089 -1.08 -0.77 -0.02 -0.38 0.32 0.09 0.33
090 0.95 -0.20 0.14 -1.05 0.72 0.21 -0.43
091 0.43 -0.22 1.64 0.06 -1.21 0.30 -1.24
092 1.84 -0.50 -0.55 -0.84 1.70 0.79 -0.46
093 -0.32 1.45 -0.54 -0.56 0.08 0.37 0.34
094 -0.69 0.01 -0.25 -0.15 -0.19 0.44 -0.38
095 -0.78 -0.25 -0.30 -0.69 -0.31 0.03 0.53
096 -0.68 0.70 -0.48 0.52 0.49 -0.60 -0.10
097 0.11 0.85 -0.06 -0.44 -0.37 0.10 -0.63
098 0.11 0.96 -0.19 71.40 -1.05 -0.93 -0.09
099 0.28 -0.05 0.91 0.66 0.10 0.54 0.38
100 0.09 0.76 -2.46 -0.21 -0.09 0.47 1.24
101 -0.23 1.62 1.44 0.04 0.59 -0.20 -0.93
102 -0.23 1.23 0.25 -0.17 0.37 -0.80 1.06
103 0.48 -0.91 1.05 0.02 0.25 —0.73 0.44
104 —0.44 -1.10 0.23 0.90 0.07 0.18 -0.50
105 -0.21 -0.26 0.18 1.24 -0.35 -0.38 -0.25
106 —0.20 -0.01 0.14 1.08 0.37 -0.88 -0.98
107 0.06 0.96 -0.28 -0.62 0.57 0.11 -0.06
108 0.52 1.24 -1.01 0.60 0.43 0.52 -0.08
109 0.95 -0.97 -2.82 -0.96 0.62 -0.00 —0.49
110 -0.59 -O.15 0.39 0.68 0.82 -0.81 0.55
111 0.34 -0.30 1.49 0.78 0.43 -1.29 -0.22
112 0.61 -0.10 -0.22 0.03 -0.02 -1.22 -0.89
113 —0.63 —0.07 —0.42 0.97 -1.08 0.24 0.33
114 0.69 1.32 0.17 0.59 1.18 -0.10 -1.34
115 0.44 0.41 -1.00 -0.02 -0.45 -0.76 -0.32
116 -1.71 1.52 —O.58 0.52 0.60 0.75 0.93

 

304

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
117 -0.33 0.52 -0.54 0.58 0.44 -1.12 -0.60
118 0.97 -0.68 -1.61 -O.17 2.23 -1.78 1.23
119 0.45 -1.20 -0.28 0.90 0.14 -0.89 -0.73
120 0.85 0.69 1.72 0.42 1.01 -0.79 -0.83
121 -1.74 -0.77 0.55 0.23 -0.53 -0.79 -l.20
122 —0.31 1.12 0.71 -2.63 0.29 -1.77 1.02
123 0.22 -O.25 -0.34 0.52 0.43 0.21 0.93
124 0.25 -0.20 1.01 0.72 -0.15 -1.52 0.02
125 -O.30 0.86 -0.64 0.79 0.83 -0.51 1.32
126 0.84 2.14 0.16 —0.95 0.47 —0.24 0.50
127 -0.06 -0.12 0.95 1.93 -0.47 -0.10 —0.35
128 0.76 -0.57 0.04 -0.72 -0.65 0.88 0.87
129 0.84 0.73 0.32 0.67 2.02 0.26 -0.43
130 -0.43 0.33 -0.23 -0.30 0.07 0.46 -0.55
131 0.68 0.10 0.12 -0.24 0.34 -0.04 0.27
132 0.10 -0.30 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.92 -1.56
133 0.42 -0.13 -0.47 0.21 -0.14 0.23 -0.18
134 0.93 1.97 -0.12 0.64 1.52 1.66 -0.84
135 1.35 0.33 -1.59 -0.85 0.07 -1.54 -0.03
136 0.58 0.80 0.11 0.97 -l.33 0.38 -1.67
137 0.23 0.23 -0.10 0.39 -0.51 —0.45 0.12
138 -0.12 0.78 -0.55 -0.67 -0.98 -0.34 —1.00
139 -1.46 1.41 -0.23 -0.27 -l.02 0.63 2.32
140 0.37 0.81 -O.15 1.33 1.53 0.88 -0.15
141 0.34 -1.48 0.78 -0.85 0.10 0.07 -0.44
142 1.60 1.25 0.44 0.36 -0.02 0.90 -0.76
143 -1.04 0.12 -0.47 —0.27 0.13 0.68 -0.38
144 -0.13 0.46 -0.93 -0.30 -0.81 -0.32 0.47
145 0.13 0.16 0.05 0.74 -0.73 0.40 0.86

305

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
146 0.57 0.81 0.86 -2.12 -0.52 -0.80 1.00
147 -0.07 0.31 0.06 -0.42 -0.95 -0.06 0.40
148 1.56 0.93 0.32 -0.60 0.43 0.38 0.88
149 0.12 1.71 -0.18 0.28 0.69 0.34 -0.44
150 —0.20 -1.80 -0.08 1.77 -0.30 -0.17 0.97
151 0.00 -0.17 0.15 0.18 -0.95 0.13 0.27
152 -1.21 0.12 -0.21 1.64 -0.12 0.10 -0.03
153 0.65 -1.04 —0.04 0.36 -0.62 -0.91 0.86
154 0.31 -0.57 0.06 0.50 -0.26 -0.59 0.40
155 0.25 —0.56 -0.67 -0.05 -1.45 0.38 -0.64
156 -0.39 0.17 0.03 0.38 -0.35 -0.24 -0.06
157 0.74 -0.19 -0.18 0.88 0.55 0.29 -0.38
158 0.90 -0.98 -0.41 0.57 -0.57 —0.59 -l.l7
159 0.66 —0.23 -0.16 0.56 0.03 -0.72 -0.38
160 0.40 -0.01 -1.03 0.84 0.25 0.62 -0.11
161 0.53 0.44 -0.18 -0.17 0.00 0.72 0.67
162 —0.38 0.36 0.56 -0.93 0.23 1.00 1.03
163 -0.56 -0.41 -0.36 0.72 -0.98 -0.93 0.53
164 -0.66 0.70 -0.71 -0.15 -0.23 -0.02 -1.50
165 0.16 -0.10 0.43 0.09 -1.00 0.44 -0.18
166 1.14 1.45 0.58 -O.96 0.27 1.30 0.44
167 0.23 0.06 '-0.52 -0.83 0.59 -0.06 -0.60
168 0.88 -0.79 -0.63 -0.96 0.35 0.82 -0.40
169 0.91 1.25 0.31 —0.28 -0.35 -l.62 -0.69
170 -0.74 -0.18 -0.60 -0.48 0.54 0.39 0.64
171 -0.50 -0.14 -0.05 -0.12 0.19 0.86 -1.14
172 0.54 -0.59 -0.95 -0.26 -0.17 -0.69 1.18
173 -0.53 -0.85 -0.41 10.5 -0.30 0.34 -0.01
174 -0.74 0.23 -0.73 -0.24 0.10 0.47 0.12

 

306

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
175 -1.43 -1.60 0.55 -0.38 0.28 -0.76 -0.29
176 0.53 1.03 0.18 -0.20 0.31 0.11 0.15
177 0.15 -0.65 -0.06 0.63 0.67 0.02 -1.09
178 1.52 0.03 -0.29 -0.44 1.25 -0.52 -0.39
179 1.27 -0.10 1.85 -1.42 —1.00 0.52 -0.63
180 -1.16 -1.07 1.37 -0.80 0.36 0.20 -0.92
181 1.01 0.01 -0.42 0.18 0.41 -0.06 -0.29
182 0.71 —0.33 1.15 0.47 1.24 -0.26 0.62
183 -0.28 2.46 1.63 -2.81 1.53 0.18 1.31
184 0.06 -0.88 0.54 0.73 0.09 -1.01 -0.06
185 1.27 -0.68 1.05 -0.47 -0.51 -0.63 -0.99
186 0.03 0.91 0.85 -0.22 0.05 0.60 1.30
187 0.69 0.40 0.54 0.75 -1.04 -1.21 -0.48
188 0.61 0.25 -1.49 -0.56 -2.72 0.46 -1.34
189 -0.58 1.20 0.57 2.26 1.82 0.85 0.56
190 -1.50 0.34 0.70 -0.47 -0.38 -0.13 -0.67
191 -0.71 -0.49 0.51 1.06 0.19 -0.78 -0.57
192 0.26 1.03 -0.78 -0.32 -0.59 0.52 —0.96
193 0.52 0.74 0.11 0.40 -1.85 1.37 -1.66
194 0.24 -0.31 0.36 0.03 -0.08 0.10 0.34
195 -0.35 -1.19 -1.25 -2.15 0.49 -0.53 0.71
196 -1.24 -0.38 0.37 0.77 0.02 0.49 -0.50
197 -0.12 -0.05 -0.42 0.82 -1.59 1.12 -0.33
198 0.35 -0.32 0.08 0.07 -0.08 0.67 —0.16
199 -0.56 -0.18 -0.79 0.87 -1.02 0.61 0.13
200 0.11 2.98 0.16 -0.80 0.03 0.57 0.60
201 0.91 0.60 -0.53 0.22 -0.20 0.42 1.37
202 0.88 -0.22 0.02 -0.51 0.94 -0.80 -0.15
203 0.08 0.77 -0.49 0.20 -1.50 -0.05 -0.26

307

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor
Subject
Number I II III IV V VI VII
204 -0.46 0.03 0.10 -0.59 0.20 -1.08 0.01
205 0.29 -0.36 0.33 0.83 0.41 1.88 0.40
206 -1.09 -0.37 -0.73 0.21 0.86 1.87 0.04
207 1.12 2.24 0.07 —0.95 0.76 1.17 2.40
208 0.16 0.88 -0.18 -0.27 0.28 0.44 -1.34
209 -0.47 -0.12 1.06 -0.42 -0.11 0.03 0.11
210 0.14 0.48 0.68 0.11 -0.80 0.04 0.10
211 —1.34 0.48 -1.41 0.71 1.59 -0.44 0.47
212 -0.24 -1.10 -0.21 -0.50 0.28 -0.03 -0.13
213 0.48 -0.62 —1.16 —1.90 1.35 —1.34 -0.49
214 0.92 -0.61 0.38 0.36 0.18 -l.06 0.27
215 0.50 0.37 -0.46 -1.12 -0.10 -0.08 -0.35
216 -1.52 -0.30 0.75 0.08 0.09 -0.11 -0.68
217 -0.11 -0.41 -0.00 -1.02 0.50 -0.73 0.12
218 0.23 0.87 -1.12 -0.78 —0.67 0.35 0.49
219 -0.56 0.26 0.54 0.13 1.03 -0.08 40.19
220 -0.99 0.17 -0.78 -0.24 -1.43 -0.44 -0.09
221 -0.02 -1.02 0.55 -0.87 0.23 -0.39 -0.65
222 0.23 -0.70 0.53 0.64 —0.36 0.45 -0.29
223 -1.00 -0.92 0.21 -1.36 0.57 -0.50 0.54
224 -1.03 -0.28 -1.08 1.66 -0.42 -0.14. -0.53
225 -0.05 -0.37 -0.32 0.35 -0.75 -0.22 “0.23
226 -0.11 -0.59 1.49 1.17 —0.48 0.10 2222
227 0.96 0.38 -0.30 0.02 1.11 -0.08 -0.37
228 0.12 0.32 -0.36 0.68 -0.51 0.50 0.26
229 1.03 —0.84 0.34 0.30 0.95 -0.57 0.42
230 1.27 -0.54 0.44 0.48 —0.74 -0.89 0.30
231 0.69 —0.80 -0.77 -0.59 0.36 0.68 -0.32
232 -0.83 -0.43 0.50 0.20 0.28 -0.26 —O.98

308

Orientation measure: roster of factor scores (Continued)

 

 

 

 

Factor

Subject

Number I II III IV V VI VII
233 1.13 0.02 0.45 -0.87 -0.99 0.59 1.50
234 -0.55 2.16 -0.58 1.26 0.93 -0.77 0.59
235 1.19 -0.19 0.43 0.14 -0.41 —0.98 -0.23
236 1.31 0.89 —0.35 -0.34 0.29 0.01 -1.01
237 1.06 -0.64 -0.39 0.13 0.47 -0.09 -0.50
238 0.38 0.07 -0.25 -1.03 0.67 -0.85 0.42
239 —0.26 -2.33 -l.02 —0.51 1.67 1.95 0.46
240 -0.27 -0.20 -0.29 0.42 0.35 -0.96 0.47
241 -0.28 —1.05 1.51 -0.72 0.05 0.08 0.80
242 -0.44 -0.17 0.27 0.47 0.01 0.83 0.87
243 -1.05 0.47 0.38 0.43 -0.13 0.18 -0.76
244 -0.72 -0.72 -1.14« 1.62 -0.63 0.12 -0.18
245 0.45 -0.65 0.17 1.69 -0.49 -0.68 0.98
246 -1.92 0.79 -0.98 -0.29 1.63 1.96 -0.99
247 -0.60 0.12 -0.98 0.78 -0.05 -0.05 -0.20

 

APPENDIX Q

CHI-SQUARE RESULTS:: REFERENCE FACTORS SHOWN

AS DEPENDENT VARIABLES

309

 

H0.v u m n «««

310

 

 

 

 

 

N0.v H m u ««
M0.v u m n « "50M OOGMOHMHGMHM
ANO ...5OO.HH OOO.H OOO.H HOO.H ONH.O mumsvmuHao mnumum mHnmumnsmz
1N0 5OO.O H5O.H OOO.O OOO.H OON.O mumsvmano OuHmmoH non
LOO HHO.O «NOO.NH ONO.O OOO.N OOO.O mumavmuHso muscme amumam
mOHQMHHm> HOH>msmm
LOO NO5.O OO5.O OOO.O OOO.N HOO.H. mumswmuHao mHOmumczo aoHumuO
LOO ONH.O OOO.O OOO.N NON.O OO0.0 mumsvmuHso mOHm 06x06:
LOO O50.0 OO5.0 5OO.O OH0.0 500.H mumswmano aoHuOooH coHuOuO
LOO .OHO.HH OOO.5 .OOOO.NH OO0.0 OON.5 mumsvmano 0055 coHumpm
mmemHHm> Emummm
LOO HO5.O NOO.N «.HO5.NH O5O.H OOO.O mumsvmuHOo Hm>mH moquumdxm
LOO .O5O.OH NOO.N O50.0 OOH.O «ONO.O mumswmano H0>0H coHumonOm
LOO OOOOH OOO.N OOO.O ON5.O NOO.O mumswmano coHuoasmumHom
AOO «.OOO.OH ON5.O HO5.O 500.0 OOO.HH mumsvmquo aoHuHOoN awpmmm
mmHQMHum> Masonmxomm
OO gummumsHO>= =ummudsouo gummumHsmg .umm =00O muouumm
IMHMEHHm: lucmHHU: IHOOHMU: mocmummmm

 

 

mmadem¢> Bzmazmmma mfl 230mm mfiOBUfim mUmemmmm

”MBHDmmm mm<DOMIHmU

BIBLIOGRAPHY!

311

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allport, Gordon W., Pattern and Growth in Personality, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,I1961.

Bales, Robert F., "The Equilibrium Problem in Small Groups,"
Chap. IV, Working Papers in the_Theory of Action,
by T. Parsons, R. F. Bales and E. Shils, GIencoe,
Ill.: The Free Press, 1953, pp. 111-161.

Bales, Robert F., and Philip E. Slater, "Role Differentia-
tion in Small Decision-Making Groups," Chap. V,
Family Socialization and Interaction Process, by
T. Parsons and R. F. Bales, Glencoe, III.: The Free
Press, 1955, pp. 259-306.

 

Barnes, Louis B., Organizational Systems angEngineering
Groups: A Comparative Study of Two Technical Groups
in Industry, Boston: Harvardeniversity, Division
of Research, Graduate School of Business Adminis-
tration, 1960.

 

Berlo, David K., The Process of Communication, New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

Black, Max (ed.), The Social Theories of Talcott Parsons,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-HalI, Inc., I961.

Blau, Peter M., The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, Chicago: Univ.
of Chicago Press, 1955.

 

Blau, Peter M., and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations:
A ComparatiyeApproach, San Francisco: Chandler
Publishing Co., 1962.

 

Bogart, Leo, The A e of Television, New York: F. Ungar Pub.
Co., I956.

Bowen, Howard R., Social Responsibilities of the Business-
man, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953.

Bowen, Howard R., "Business Management: A Profession?" The
Annals, Vol. 297 (Jan., 1955), 112-117.

312

313

Bowen, Howard R., The Business Enterprise As a Subject for
Research, New York: Social Science Research Coun-
c1I, Pamphlet No. 11 (May, 1955).

Breen, Warren, "Social Control in the News Room," Mass
Communications: A Book_of Readings (2ed.), W.
Schramm, ed., Urbana, 111.: Univ. of Illinois
Press, 1960, 178-195.

 

Brim, Orville G., Jr. and Wheeler, Stanton, Socialization
after Childhood: Two Essays, New York: John WiIey
& Sons, Inc., 1966.

 

 

Carlson, Sune, Executive Behavior, Stockholm: Strombergs
Aktiebolag, 1951.

 

Carter, Roy E., Jr., "Field Methods in Communication Re-
search," Introduction to Mass Communication Re-
search, Edited by RaIph O. Nafziger and David W.
White, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University
Press, 1958, pp. 78-127.

Caplow, Theodore, and R. J. McGee, TheiAcademic Market-
place, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958.

Cogan, Morris L., "The Problem of Defining a Profession,"

Coutu, Walter, "Role-Playing vs. Role-Taking," American
Sociological Review, 16 (April, 1951), I80-187.

Dalton, Melville, Men Who Manage, New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1959.

 

Dahl, Robert A., Mason Haire and Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Social
Science Research on Business: Product and Poten-
tial, New York: Columbia UniV. Press, 1959.

 

Dansereau, Harry K., Orientations Toward Unionism: An Atti-
tudinal Study of a Local Union, Unpublished PH.D.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, Department
of Sociology and Anthropology, 1956.

 

Davis, Kingsley, Human Society, New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1949.

 

Donahew, Lewis, "Publishers and Their 'Influence' Groups,"
Journalismyguarterly, XXXXII:1 (Winter, 1965), 112-
113.

 

314

Eisenstadt, S. N., "Studies in Reference Group Behavior: 1,
Reference Norms and the Social Structure," Human
Relations, VII: 2 (1954), 191- 216.

 

Eisenstadt, S. N., Essays on Comparative Institutions, New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965.

English, H. B., and A. C. English, A Comprehensive Diction-
ary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms,
New York: Longmans, Green and Co.,41958.

 

Etzioni, Amitai, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organ-
izations, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

Fromm, Eric, Man for Himself, New York: Rinehart, 1947.
Foote, Nelson N., "Identification as the Basis for a Theory

of Motivation," American Sociological Review, XVI
(Feb. ’ 1951) ' 14-22.

 

Gans, Herbert J., "The Creator-Audience Relationship in the
Mass Media: An Analysis of Movie Making," Mass Cul-
ture, edited by Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning
WHite, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1959, 315- 324.

 

Gerth, Hans, and C. Wright Mills, Character and Social

Structure, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company,
1953.

 

Getzels, Jacob W., and E. Guba, "Role, Role Conflict and
Effectiveness," American Sociolggical Review, 19
(1954), 164-175.

 

Getzels, Jacob W., and E. Guba, "Role Conflict and Person-
ality," Journal of Personality, 24 (1955), 74-85.

Gieber, Walter, "Across the Desk: A Study of 16 Telegraph
. Editors," Journalism Quarterly, XXXIII (F'11,1956),
423- 432.

Gieber, Walter, "The Communicator of the News: A Study of
the Roles of Sources and Reporters," Social Forces,

 

Gieber, Walter and Johnson, Walter, "The City Hall 'Beat':
A Study of Reporter and Source Roles," Journalism
Quarterly, Vol. 38 (Summer, 1961), pp. 289-297.

315

Gilbert, D., and D. J. Levinson, "Role Performance, Ideol-
ogy and Personality in Mental Hospital Aides," in
M. Greenblatt, 2E. 31. (eds.) The Patient and the
Mental Hospital, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press,
1957.

 

 

Glock, Charles Y., Towards a Typology of Reli ious Orienta-
tion, New York: Bureau ofiApplied Social Research,
Columbia University, 1954.

Goode, William J., "Community within a Community: The Pro-
fessions," American Sociology Review, 22 (1957).

 

Gouldner, Alvin W., "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an
Analysis of Latent Social Roles," Administrative
Scienceguarterly, 2 (1957-1958), 291-353, 444-30.

Gouldner, Alvin W., "Organizational Analysis," in R. K.
Merton, L. Broom, and L. S. Cottrell, Jr., (eds.),
Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects, New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1959, 400-429.

Gottlieb, David, "Adult Socialization: A Discussion of the
Sociological Literature," Unpublished Paper, De-
partment of Sociology, Michigan State University,
1960.

Gross, Neal, Ward S. Mason and Alexander W. McEachern, Ex-
plorations in Role Analysis, New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.,—1958.

Gross, Neal, "The Sociology of Education," in Merton, Broom
and Cottrell (eds.), Sociolo Toda , New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1959, 128-152.

Grey, David L., and Gerald, J. Edward, "How the Newsman

Lives: A Self-Image Study," Paper presented at AEJ
Convention, Austin, Texas, 1964.

Golembiewski, Robert, Behavior and Organization, New York:
Rand McNally, 1962.

Guilford, J. P., Fundamental Statistics in P3 cholo and
Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., ESSE.

Gusfield, Joseph R., and David Riesman, "Faculty Culture
and Academic Careers: Some Sources of Innovation in

Higher Education," Sociology of Education, 37:4
(Summer, 1964), 281-305.

 

 

 

 

316

Haire, Mason, "Role Perceptions in Labor-Management Rela-
tions: An Experimental Approach," Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, VIII (Jan., 1955), 204-216.

 

Hartley, Eugene L., and Ruth E. Hartley, Fundamentals of
Social Psychology, New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1955.

 

Henry, William E., "The Business Executive: The Psychody-
namics of a Social Role," American Journal of Soc-
iology, 54 (Jan., 1949), 283-291.

 

Hyman, H. H., "The Psychology of Status," Archives of Psy-
chology, XXXVIII (1942), 15-.

 

Imse, Thomas P., The Professionalization of Business Man-
agement, New York: Vantage Press, 1962}

 

Inkeles, Alex, "Personality and Social Structure," in Mer-
ton, Broom and Cottrell (eds.), Sociology Today,
New York: Basic Books, 1959, 249-276.

Judd, Robert, "The Newspaper Reporter in a Suburban City,"
Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 38 (Winter, 1961), pp.
35-42.

Kluckhohn, Clyde, "Values and Value-Orientations in the
Theory of Action," in Talcott Parsons and Edward A.

Shils (eds.), Toward a General Theor of Action,
Boston: Harvard University Press, I§§I, 339-133.
Kluckhohn, Florence and Fred L. Strodtbeck, Variations in

Value Orientations, Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson
and Company, 1961.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research,
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1965.

 

Kahn, Robert L., Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J.
Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal, Organiza-
tional Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambig-
uity, New York: John Wiley &i§ons, Inc., 1964.

 

Lacognata, Angelo A., Role Expectations of University_Fac-
ulty and Students: A Social Psychological_Analysis,
Unpublished PHIBTDissertation, Michigan State
University, Department of Sociology and Anthropol-
ogy, 1962.

 

 

317

Larzarsfeld, Paul F., "The Logical and Mathematical Founda-
tion of Latent-Structure Analysis," Chapter 10,
Measurement and Prediction, Vol. IV, Studies in
Social Psychology in World War II (Sc1ence Ed1tions)
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966, pp. 362-
412.

 

 

Lasswell, Harold, "Communication Functions," in Lyman
Bryson (ed.), The Communication of Ideas, New York:
Harper and Brothers, i918.

Laulicht, Jerome, "Role Conflict, the Pattern Variable
Theory, and Scalogram Analysis," Social Forces,

Leavitt, Harold J. (ed. ), The Social Science of Organiza-
tions: Four Perspectives, Englewood CIiffs, N. J.: I
Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1933.

 

 

Lewis, David, Feedback in Mass Communication: Its Nature
and Use in Decision-Making, UnpublishédfPth. 318-
sertation, Michigan State University, Department of
Communication, 1966.

 

Linton, Ralph, The Cultural Back ground of Personality, New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1943.

Lonsdale, Richard C., "Maintaining the Organization in Dy-
namic Equilibrium," in Daniel E. Griffiths (ed.),
Behavioral Science and Educationaledministration,
The 63rd Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1964, 142-177.

Loomis, Charles P., Social Systems, Princeton, N. J.: D.
Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1960.

MacDonald, Donald, Organizational Orientation and Reader-
ship of Air Force Base Newspapers, Unpubl1shéd M. A.
Thesis, Michigan State University, Department of
Communication, 1961.

 

MacIver, Robert M., "The Social Significance of Profession-
al Ethics," The Annals, Vol. 297 (Jan., 1955),
118-124.

 

March, James G., and Herbert A. Simon, Or anizations, New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 193

March, James G. (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1965.

 

318

Mead, George Herbert, Mind, Self and Society, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1934.

 

Meadows, Paul, "Professional Behavior and Industrial Soci-
ety," Journal of Business, University of Chicago,

 

Mills, C. Wright, The Sociological Imagination, New York:
The Oxford University Press, 1959.

 

Misher, Elliot G., "Personality Characteristics and the
Resolution of Role Conflict," Public Opinion Quar-
terly, 17:3 (Spring, 1953), 115-135.

 

Merton, Robert K., and A. Kitt, "Contributions to the
Theory of Reference Group Behavior," in R. K.
Merton and P. F. Lazarsfeld (eds.), Studies in
the Scope and Method onghe American Soldier,
Giencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1950, 42-53, 69.

 

 

Merton, Robert K., Social Theory_and Social Structure,
Glencoe, I11.: The Free Press,i1957.

 

Merton, Robert K., Gray, Ailsa P., Hockey, Barbara and
Selvin, Hanan C. (eds.), Reader in Bureaucracy,
New York: The Free Press, 1952.

 

Morris, Charles W., Varieties of Human Values, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1956.

 

National Association of Broadcasters, People in Broadcast-
ing, Prepared in cooperation with the Association
for Professional Broadcasting Education, Washington,
D. C.: National Association of Broadcasters, 1963.

 

 

National Association of Broadcasters, Suryey of Em lo ee
Turnover in Radio and Television Stations, 1964,
Washington, D. C.: National Association of Broad-
casters, 1965.

 

Neiman, Lionel J., and James W. Hughes, "The Problem of
the Concept of Role--A Re-Survey of the Literature,"
Social Forces, 30:2 (Dec., 1951), 141-149.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M., Social Psychology, New York: A Holt-
Dryden Book, Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1950.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M., "The Study of Consensus," in Merton,
Broom and Cottrell (eds.), Sociology Today, New
York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959, 277-292.

 

319

Ogilvy, David, Confessions of an Advertising Man, New York:
Dell Publishing, 1963.

Osgood, Charles E., Method and Theory in Experimental Psy:
cholo , New York: Oxford University Press, 1953,
pp. 395-412.

Parsons, Talcott, The Social System, Glencoe, Ill.: The
Free Press, 1951.

 

Parsons, Talcott and Edward A. Shils (eds.), Toward a Gen-
eral Theory of Action, Boston: Harvard University
Press, 1951.

 

Parsons, Talcott, Robert F. Bales and Edward Shils, Working
Papers in the Theory of Action, Glencoe, 111.: The
Free Press, i953.

 

Parsons, Talcott, Structure and Process in Modern Socie-
ties, Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1960 (ail

 

Parsons, Talcott, "Pattern Variables Revisited," American
Sociological Review, 25:4 (Aug., 1960), 467-483(5).

 

Powdermaker, Hortense, Hollywood: The Dream Factory, New
York: Little Brown and Company, 1950.

 

Presthus, Robert, The Organizational Society, New York:
Alfred A. KnOpf, Inc., 1962.

 

Reissman, Leonard, "A Study of Role Conceptions in Bureauc-
racy," Social Forces, 27:3 (March, 1949), 305-310.

Riley, M. W., R. Cohen, J. Toby, and J. W. Riley, Jr., "In-
terpersonal Orientations in Small Groups: A Consid-
eration of the Questionnaire Approach," American
Sociological Review, 19:6 (1954), 715-72 .

Riley, John W., Jr., and Matilda W. Riley, "Mass Communica-
tion and the Social System," in Merton, Broom and
Cottress (eds.), Sociology Today, New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1959, 537-578.

 

Rokeach, Milton, The Open and Closed Mind, New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

 

Rosten, Leo C., The Washington Correspondents, New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937.

 

Rosten, Leo C., Hollywood: The Movie Colony, the Movie
Makers, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1941.

320

Sarbin, Theodore R., "Role Theory," in Gardner Lindzey
(ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, Read-
ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.,
1954, 223-258.

Schein, Edgar H., Organizational Psychology, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.

Schramm, Wilbur, "How Communication Works," in Wilbur
Schramm (ed.), The Process and Effects of Mass
Communication, Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois
Press, 1955, 3—26.

 

Schramm, Wilbur, Responsibility in Mass Communication, New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1957.

Schutz, William, FIRO: A Three-Dimensional Theory of Inter-
personal Behavior, New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1958.

 

Simon, H. A., D. W. Smithburg and V. A. Thompson, Public
Administration, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950.

 

Simon, Herbert A., Administrative Behavior, New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1958.

Sherif, Muzafer and H. Cantril, The Psychologyvgf'Ego-
Involvements, New York: John Wiiey & Sons, 1947.

 

Sherif, Muzafer, "The Concept of Reference Groups in Human
Relations," in M. Sherif and M. O. Wilson (eds.),
Group Relations at the Crossroads, New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1953, 203-231.

Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Outline of Social
Ps cholo , Rev. ed., New York: Harper and Brothers,
1956.

Shibutani, Tamotsu, "Reference Groups as Perspectives,"
American Journal of Sociology, 60:6 (1955), 562-569.

Stouffer, Samuel A., and Jackson Toby, "Role Conflict and
Personality," in Talcott Parsons and Edward A.
Shils (eds.), Toward a General‘Theorygof Action,
Boston: Harvard University Press, 1951, 479-496.

Swanson, Charles E., The Mid—City Daily, Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1948.

Thompson, Victor A., Modern Organization: A General Theory,
New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961.

 

321

Turner, Ralph H., "Reference Groups of Future-Oriented
Men," Social Forces, 34:2 (Dec., 1955), 130-136.

 

Turner, Ralph H., "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint and Refer-
ence-Group Behavior," American Journal of Sociology,

 

Toby, Jackson, "Some Variables in Role Conflict Analysis,"
Social Forces, 30:3 (Mar., 1952), 323-327.

 

Tonnies, Ferdinand, Community and Society, Translated and
Edited by Charles P. Loomis, East Lansing: Michigan
State University Press, 1957.

 

Pool, Ithiel de Sola and Shulman, Irwin, "Newsmen's Fan-
tasies, Audiences, and Newswriting," Public Opinion
Qparterly, Vol. 23 (Summer, 1959), pp. 145-158.

 

Warden, Sandra A., The Local-Cosmopolitan Dimension of
Individual Value Orientation: A Study, Unpublished
M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, Department
of Sociology and Social Psychology, 1964.

 

 

Waisanen, F. B., "Self-Attitudes and Performance Expecta-
tions," The Soc. Quart., 3 (1962), 208-219.

 

Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,
Transiated by A. M. Henderson and TaiCott Parsons,
New York: The Free Press, 1964. (1947)

 

Williams, Robin M., Jr., st. 31., Friendship and Social
Values in a Suburban Community, University of
Oregon, 1956.

 

 

Winick, Charles E., "The Television Station Manager," Ad-
vanced Management Journal, 31:1 (Jan., 1966), 53-60.

 

White, David Manning, "The 'Gate Keeper': A Case Study in
the Selection of News," Journalism Quarterly, XXVII
(Fall, 1950), 383-390.

 

Yablonsky, Lewis, "An Operational Theory of Roles," Socio-
metry, 16:4 (1953), 349-354.