I .I.""I...1.1.... '...u'"' 1.... 1.1212. .... ....III2111 "'.'1". 55 .11: '.1'""' 1 : 'I'I-I‘ ...“1 .' “rind 1. .1 .. ""1: ;1"“ I “2 11 ..1 1.115 11.1%.”. - ,‘1'111..u...1'115-.I1 u11I 1“: r1 1.I 171'“ ...'. 121'9'2' 1 . 1 ‘3‘ ‘1"‘..‘...‘ '2 51."; . .. .1 .. ' ' 1:..1..1-. l.,. 111151.:1111 “T 1. .11 1 um"). 1-1.» .1111. .11....“ 131- 1.. 1.51;! mad ”1"" .12....25‘ . 32.2122: 15“.:2'31125‘2 . W . 1...:21'?’ 11 11251-112... 1 "5.1 1H r1 4.22533: ' 3,2: ‘ 1.223‘392 ‘1'1 "1"‘2 ”I?" . 1 1 .1 .711 “$2.11“! 3_5?‘£.'2'11‘11$I:"§.“"' " "1'52 21. ? I 11.21.”;11 ‘ $122121?“ .7944- .. "‘1‘” 11“ 1.1.1.91: .1 with. . 1 . .5..1’.1.’.‘.'. ..‘1‘.5’1‘3..,.2.‘ .. 11-7.“!1”: , 1145'.“ ll "1“ ‘11.?1‘i'1...1‘I. Mm“? AI ..2' 22".. J; .53.; .13.... hum'm .... 1. 1.1 '13|,‘ |"' t to a a nmh 511.21} 133.12 £2 2"“ a 1412:1171.- $.12 nilhhu‘ 4 I“: India: 1..mI..111w (21-1. 35?}. ‘..,..,.:"_L' ‘1. '.... 122.112” ‘ art-I4 5. 42w“ . 1 :1": :1; 2.3.“;ng :52. '2 3 (“1.1221 5'11“ ..- 153'???me ’12.. I”... 11.1,. -. $14.11.»... ...1 .. 3.11.11.14.13!“ .11- .u- 13 3‘}... 1, w: . “3,537 . I,., 315%: 52 ‘55:.1'22’3: I‘ll“ 42232322."?! ’y‘hllfnrgu 5' 33.32:“; . 555......32 11.1.. «51-3: manual 3,52. ' ~32 42:1”: .33"- 4*;‘55‘122.’ ‘ 2 52.13 2...": .“" .2322"? 2122‘5‘fmr" 11.222: ‘ . 5 12"} £023“ 1'" ~41? 2""..22 " 1 .... 3"”22' Nu I “ml-dew" Inna-61 4:.” $31? .H' III;2?.B..5 '2" 1.3333“ 311‘" III" .‘In 11II‘A511III32I:I141I 1. I 3.12” 11:35 ' .t 1' #21 33221.2: 1'33é'222.25.212£..fi$sm' . 22.21.2222 322‘ .1372;‘::.2'1'2'1...... 2222121521“ . .3222" 312932;": 2.1IIaII5a131I13fI22 1‘53 1 ." 1'. M'I 333;." U» man...“ . 3:535...» 5' “”7 ~32 . 5‘5 . :2. 3.33:5}. .1.r..~.& ' .513: '32:. a "'32:...“- r3525". .1 .3532" .2 -"" "-21.23 Kai‘u‘iffiww‘ ..." ,3;.1.: ”W2” :- MI" “ "$21 1 .1.- 531:1..1151‘: ".143? 43 f 0" II 1 IE; ..2‘”, 1.52.1.1“? .': ... .331... M o- 571 23:2“:‘2325: .. .1122“ J .a. I 1 1 2"1'1'13'11 J'Yéfi. 1.21211 'finurum1ma .' "331157.511. 3mm” 1 “.w% , ...... $1.15", “I 1W» .12 L1 MPH; $552 m-ou- M ”.12.. A“. Eiyfirm J 2"" 2- £53; 1" N “3%. " 1:51.11. ifmm .1» r2 . 7 3::. a. - - 1. -mflge...“ " 2 . ’1 {1 141'. .n‘ 521‘s”??? 2%“ 1% “.111 ‘ 1:1 This is to certify that the thesis entitled HETEROGENEITY OF THE MICRO-NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT RELATES TO SOCIAL STRUCTURE presented by EDWARD KARL KNAPP has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Sociology degree in Date January 6, 196 0-169 «..e ...-s an...“ fl LIBRARY L} s Michig; “' \tatc .. L; 1.; s;."-"' l 1 “3 :_. f I h ‘5 'n--'.- ABSTRACT HETEROGENEITY OF THE MICRO-NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT RELATES TO SOCIAL STRUCTURE By Edward K. Knapp The residence in the United States is changing both in terms of the individual structure and the neighborhood positioning of groups of structures. This results in value breaks between contiguous houses. It presents an abrupt departure from the traditional development of communities where clear grouping as to house values is realized. While social aspects of the usual American neighborhood have been studied, however, this new complex has not. This disserta- tion examines several dimensions of social interaction within this new milieu and in contrast to the old. In the delineation of suitable research sites, the Micro-Neighborhood technique of Judith T. Shuval was employed} This permitted an identification of specific neighborhoods as Heterogeneous, Homogeneous, or Neutral regarding the indepen- dent variable. In all, 117 depth interviews were obtained. The theoretical frame was constructed, utilizing the thinking of George C. Homans who maintained that "persons who interact with one another frequently are more like one another in their activities than they are like other persons with whom they interact less frequently."2 Against this expecta- tion, the interactional variables of (l) complexity of inter- action, (2) social distance, and (3) satisfaction with Edward K. Knapp neighbors were examined. The social-class aspect of the Romans hypothesis appeared germane to this thesis due to its commonality with house value. This is discussed via several citations from the literature as well as a limited analysis from the data of the study. The findings generally supported a condition of "no change" when residents of mixed-valued housing were located as immediate abutters as compared with abutters in similarly valued dwellings. This relationship maintained throughout the testing of a series of possible intervening variables. This finding, then, because of the social-class connection, suggests that the social milieu remains constant and is not associated with variation in the class mix in the neighbor- hood housing milieu. It must quickly be added, however, that the extraction of the sample is not random and general- ization potential is thereby limited. 0n the other hand, the methodology developed permits the results to be stated with considerable conviction and provides a tested procedure for replication among other family groupings and geographical sites. 1Judith T. Shuval, "The Micro-Neighborhood: An Approach to Ecological Patterns of Ethnic-Groups," Social Problems, IX (1962), 272—280. 2George C. Homans, The Human Grou (New York: Har- court, Brace & World, Inc., 19 0 , p. 1 . HETEROGENEITY OF THE MICRO—NEIGHBORHOOD AS IT RELATES TO SOCIAL INTERACTION By Edward K. Knapp A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge the guidance provided by the advisory committee generally as well as contributions made by individuals. Dr. Duane L. Gibson, Chairman of the committee, peri- odically provided intensive and very helpful personal direc- tion. Dr. John Useem in 1961 and again in 196A encouraged me to proceed with the Ph.D. in spite of my age, family demands, and other apparent limitations. Dr. J. Allan Beegle was extremely helpful in organizing my course work in a way that was compatible with the requirements of Michigan State Uni- versity as well as my interests. Dr. Grafton D. Trout, Jr., through his classroom teaching, made Urban Sociology an excit- ing topic and, in reviewing an early draft of the thesis, was willing to suggest drastic but appropriate changes. Profes- sor Myles G. Boylan directed me to helpful references in Urban Planning and supplied a sympathetic ear when I felt confused. Professor Winifred I. Eastwood and Dean Marion A. Niederpruem of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, did everything legally possible to provide me with the necessary leave time and field study opportunity. Mrs. C. R. Holden, also of Amherst, did a truly professional job of typing the dissertation. Finally, my wife Monica earned much of the needed money and was a constant source of encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS AC KNOMENMENTS Q 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O i 1 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O I 0 O O O O O O Q C D 0 iv LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O C C C O O O O O O O O I v11 Chapter III III. IV. V. INTRODUCTION AND THEORY FORMULATION . . . . . . 1 Introduction Theory Formulation RELEVANT LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Introduction Housing in the United States The Sociological Housing Literature Summary RESEARCH DESIGN 0 o e o o o o o a e e o o e e e 33 Introduction Identification and Operationalization of Major Variables Selection of Research Site General Characteristics of the Research Site The Sample Data Collection ANALYS I 3 OF DATA 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O C S 1 General Characteristics Characteristics Involving Abutters House Value and Social Class Methodology Regarding Support for Hypotheses The Hypotheses Things They Discussed Together Intervening (Test) Variables SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O C O O O I O O O O O O O O 1.21 BIBLIOGRAPIIY O O O O O O O C I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 171‘ LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Items Judged Important as Status Symbols . . . . 28 2. House Value Complex-—Abutters in Relation to Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3. Intensity of Heterogeneity--A Continuum . . . . 38 h. Criteria for Extracting Interview Sites from Heterogeneity Continuum . . . . . . . . . . . h8 5. Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SO 6. House Value as Extracted from Assessors‘ ROGOI‘dS e o e o o o o e o c e e o e o e o o o 53 7. Residential Tenure of Respondent and Abutting Neighbors—-Percentage in Each Tenure Category 5h 8. Head of Household Among Respondents (Principal Income Producer) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SS 9. National Background of Respondent and Husband . 56 10. Percentage Distribution of Education Completed-- Head of Household-~Hollingshead Categories . . S7 11. Percentage Distribution--Occupation--Head of HousehOld‘-H01lingShead Index I e o o o o a e 58 12. Percentage Distribution—~Children of Respondent by Sex and Placement in School . . . . . . . . 59 13. Percentage Distribution--Respondents' Social- Class Grouping--Hollingshead Index . . . . . . 60 1h. Percentage Distribution-—Age Relationship-— Respondent to Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . 61 15. Percentage Distribution—~Abutting Neighbors' Children by Sex and Placement in School . . . 62 16. Percentage Distribution—~0ccupational Class of Abutting Neighbors--Hollingshead Index . . 63 iv Table 17. 18. 190 20. 21. 22. 230 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Ownership of Dog by Respondent and Abutting Neighbors O O O O I I O I I I O I O O I I O 0 Common Religious Faith Between Respondent and Abutting Wives O O O O O O O O O O Q 0 O 0 0 0 Incidence of Prior Friendship Between Respondent and Abutting Neighbors . . . . . . House Value--Social-Class Relationship . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Affirmative Replies to Questions Regarding Joint Activity with Abutting Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Occasion for Most Recent Conversation with Neighbor . . . . . . Percentage Distribution of Topics Discussed with Abutting Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . Incidence of and Discussions of Children Between Respondents and Abutters . . . . . . . Median Scores of Discussion Topics as Determined by Student and Other Groups . . . . . . . . . Complexity Position of Topics-~Ascending Order . Percentage Distribution of Topics of Respondent- Neighbor Discussions Viewed in Relation to Complexity Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marginal Frequencies of Eight-Item Guttman Sequence for One Neighbor . . . . . . . . . . Coefficients of Reproducibility Obtained from Guttman Scaling of Social Distance Responses . Marginal Frequencies of Six-Item Guttman Sequence as Related to Neighbor Right and Neighbor Left . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Levels of Guttman Scale Item Reproducibility by Right and Left Neighbor . . . . . . . . . . Median Scores of Respondents in Relation to the Social Distance Between Respondents and Abutters O O O Q l O O l O 0 I O O Q I I O O O Page 6b. 65 65 69 77 80 81 81 86 86 87 89 9O 92 93 9h Table 33- 31+- 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. vi Page Percentage Responses to "Satisfaction with Neighbors" Series of Questions--Asked of Neighbor A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Percentage Responses to "Satisfaction with Neighbors" Series of Questions--Asked of N6 1 ghb or B O O O I . O C O O C C 0 O O . O I I 99 Lambda Values Obtained Regarding Association of House-Value Relationship with "Satisfaction with Neighbors" Series of Questions . . . . . 100 Percentage Distribution of Physical Barriers and Facilitating Conditions Between Respondent and Neighboring Homes . . . . . . . 103 Percentage Distribution Common House-Value Level Between Respondent and Neighbors . . . . 105 Percentage Distribution of Respondents Among Three Social Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Lambda Results Obtained in the Analysis of Association Between Heterogeneity and Social Interaction when Controlling for Specified Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page I. Property Assessment and Building Record . . . 116 II. Pilot Study--Residential Housing Research-- Greenfield, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . 119 III. Letter to Massachusetts Real Estate Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 IV. Letter to Real Estate Personnel . . . . . . . 133 V. Greenfield Research-—General Interviews-- February 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 VI. Residential Housing Research—-Greenfield, Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 VII. Complexity Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 VIII. Guttman's Coefficient of Predictability o . . o . . e 1?“ vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND THEORY FORMULATION Introduction This thesis stems from an interest in a current phe- nomenon; 1.6., new housing in the United States is shifting from homogeneity of structures to wide differentials of size and values of individual units within common small communi- tigg. The social relationships that develop within the ggggl homogeneous neighborhoods have been subjected to some formal study--the question of what changes in social relationships result when this more heterogeneous "value interface" is realized remains largely unanswered. It is the focus of this research. The dimensions identified above--house value and neighborhood social interaction--are of interest in two pointedly different spheres: housing and sociology. In one case, the primary concerns are physical and, in the other, human. They have been infrequently examined together in the residential setting. A striking indication of this condition is found in the contents of The Uses of Sociology where extremely few references are made to the housing sphere. The lack of joint examination has resulted in little 1Paul F. Lazarsfeld et al. (eds.), The Uses of Soci- ology (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967). l established theory and none that would bear specifically on the "house value-social interaction" nexus. This dissertation, then, addresses itself to a com- parative analysis in what Shuval calls the "micro-neighbor- hoodJ'of the relationship that obtains when families living in similar and differently valued houses live immediately 1 next to each other. Theory Formulation The following series of statements with appropriate supporting comments and documentation specifies the process by which the theory was elaborated. Residential Housing in thg_United States Exists in Clusters of Similarly Valggerwellingg This statement may be confirmed by simple observa- tion. For many years, the expansion of the housing plant in the United States has been by "developments" or "tracts"-- sizable areas of similarly priced and appearing dwellings. Shelter periodicals,in providing guidance to the house con- struction industry, base their recommendations on the assump- tion that a number of very similar units will be built in a contiguous area. Perhaps the most frequently mentioned name in this connection is Levitt, who has built large-scale developments on Long Island, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and more recently in France. Their New Jersey "Levittown" 1Judith T. Shuval, "The Micro-Neighborhood: An Approach to Ecological Patterns of Ethnic Groups," Social Problems, IX (1962), 272-280. was the site for Herbert J. Gans' participant observer study, The Levittowners, which bears on this study.1 Deliberate departures from the practice of construct- ing residences in tracts are relatively few and of recent origin. This condition, however, does occur occasionally by chance rather than by design. A declining neighborhood of a central city, for example. may present a mixture of values among the residential units. This. however, is unplanned and is too transitory and structurally inconsistent for the purposes of this research. Currently, Attggpts Are Being Directed Toward a Systgmgtic Mix of Housing Values A recent issue of House and Home, a popular builders' magazine, states: "The importance of the planned unit devel- opment lies in its avoidance of the two principal curses of the good old reliable subdivision: unrelieved rows of houses and a stratified community."2 "Stratified" as used here is assumed to imply residents of a common social class. .It is expected that such a population would own homes of similar values. This idea is developed more fully in the sections which follow. The establishment of new communities, such as the "new town" of Columbia, Maryland, includes an attempt to bring lower- and higher-valued housing into close proximity. Here the residential complex will provide the extremes of 1Herbert J. Gans, The Levittowners (New York: Random House, Inc., 1967). 2"Housing's Market Revolution," House and Home, Janu- ary, 1968, pp. h9-59. modest-size apartments along with ten-acre "gentlemen estates." In the town of Amherst, Massachusetts, a developer is combining middle-priced apartments with low- and high- 1 priced, single-family dwellings. This is accomplished within one small community-~"Echo Hill." Part III of "The Cities" documentary, viewed on TV on June 26, 1968, showed the idea of a variety of income levels 2 within a single residential complex. In providing an indication that increased heteroge- neity in adjacent house values was conscious and by design, it was hoped that a public comment by an authority might be cited. A statement by Robert C. Weaver points in this direc- tion: Social diversity is another heritage that must be preserved. There is no place in the cities of our future for ghettos of any kind. . . . In their place must be built citigs open to all Americans whatever their differences. John W. Dyckman, in a discussion of programs for national urban policy, states: The third program for immediate implementation should be aimed at the reduction of the class differences which now split metropolitan areas. There is a plethora of high priority items in this category. Foremost on the list is destruction of the barrier which contains non- white population in the inner ring of the metropolitan 1"The Scaled-down PUD Could Be a Milestone in Small— Project Planning," House and Home. July. 1966. pp. 6h-71. 2Program sponsored by The Institute of Life Insurance, Park Avenue, New York. 3Robert C. Weaver, The Urban Com lex (Garden City. N.Y.: Doubleday Co., Inc., 196K), p. 39. area. Federal and state policies and all available levers must be used to open suburban areas to nonwhites. Some of the same value-laden thinking may be found in the forced integration of Negro and white children via bus- sing arrangements. It is apparently felt that close proxim- ity of the minority and majority racial groups in school (that they come from residences of wide value difference could be easily demonstrated) is beneficial. Just as devel- opers of housing tracts may sense desirable results from a neighborhood of mixed house values. the principal benefit regarding racial proximity appears to be an increase in accep— tance. Dean and Rosen conclude, for example: Our research data show that for most people there is a consistently negative relationship between intergroup contact and intergroup prejudice. . . .This result holds not only for majority group prejudices but also for minority group prejudices against the majority group. It holds for youth as well as for adults. In the Cor- nell University studies it is confirmed in 1h different research surveys involving about 6,000 persons. Also, Homans, in discussing social interaction men— tions "an increased frequency leading to more favorable senti- ment."3 He further suggests that the basis on which this might be true is where "a man is free to break off interaction A with another." 188m Bass Whrner. Jr.. Planning for a Nation of Cities (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 19 l. p. to. 2John P. Dean and Alex Rosen. Manual for Inter rou Relations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933;, p. 3George C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961). p. 1 3. h Ibid.. p. 187. Developers, in attempting neighborhood house value heterogeneity, are probably first influenced by hoped-for profits--with any lessening of prejudice or sentiment in some lesser position. Whatever the motive, there is empiri- cal evidence that such a shift in housing is beginning. It seems highly desirable that sociology as a discipline obtains information regarding the probable social outcome. Optional Approaches to an Apprqppiate Tagggy With the broad variables of interest identified, two routes to theory development were possible: (1) observe practical conditions and, based upon these impressions, take a position regarding the expected social interaction under specified house value configurations or (2) search existing sociological theories with the hope that a sufficient paral— lel to the phenomenon of interest would be found. If this condition were realized, it would permit the research to begin at a more advanced point. A theory of Professor George Homans did provide the reference sought under point (2) above. It is used in part as the theoretical test framework for this study. In applying the Romans theory against a "housing milieu." certain assumptions are made. These concern the pertinence of small-group theory and the degree of corre- spondence between house value and social class. These assump- tions are discussed in the following section. Ordinarily, ngial Interaction Takes Place Within, Mgre Thgn Between, People of Residential Housing Value Classes This expectation stems from the George Homans hypothe- sis which states: "The more nearly equal in social rank a number of men are, the more frequently they will interact with one another."1 In the same source this concept is stated in slightly different language: "Persons who interact with one another frequently are more like one another in their activities than they are like other persons with whom they interact less frequently."2 The above extractions are from small~group theory. Consideration of such concepts in an analysis of neighborhood phenomenon appears justified, since Homans describes a small- group relationship as: "Persons who communicate with one another often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others, not at second hand through other people, but face to face."3 Another definition supporting the above position is: "The minimum characteristics on the basis of which groups are objectively determinable is that there is a continuity of social interaction."u Michael Olmsted describes a group as follows: "A group. then, may be defined as a plurality of individuals who 1George C. Homans, The Human Grou (New York: Har- court, Brace & World, Inc., 19 0 , p. 1 . 21bid., p. 135. 31bid., p. 1 “Donald W. Olmsted, Social Groups, Roles and Leader— ship (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1961) p. 13. are in contact with one another, who take one another into account, and who are aware of some significant commonality."1 These descriptions of small-group characteristics, when considered in relation to the characteristics of Ameri- can neighborhoods, appear to have much common ground. This thesis then assumes that neighborhood social interaction is the same basic activity as is studied under the "small group" rubric in the sociological literature. In a further bridging of the Homans concept to the housing milieu, it is necessary to equate "social rank“ with house value. The following extractions discuss the use of a house value dimension in a determination of social class. W. Lloyd Warner‘s 180 (Index of Status Characteris- tics),2 contains four characteristics that are pertinent. House Type was included with a weighting of 3.0 out of 12.0 points and Dwelling Area, a weighting of 2.0 out of 12.0. As used, both reflect the value dimension. These were validated against his Evaluative Participation Method with the follow- ing correlations: House Type r = .85 and Dwelling Area r = .82. Stanley A. Hetzler‘s findings in correlating Social Class and Position with Residential Area and Dwelling Unit extend from .39 to .Sh--all within a "moderate" classifica- tion: lMichael s. Olmsted, The Small Group (New York: Ran- dom House, 1959), p. 21. 2W. Lloyd Warner, Marshia Meeker, and Kenneth Ells, Social Class in America (Chicago: Science Research Assoc., I9hql. pp. 121-136; 9 Hetzler Correlation Coefficients (Pearsonian Method) Scale Item Social Class Social Position Residential Area .Sh .h6 Dwelling Unit .u7 .39 The information obtained regarding "house and neighborhood were rated in terms of appearance, material condition, and apparent value." F. Stuart Chapin's social status (living room) scale determines social status using 2311 items within the physical residence.2 Among these were quality of wood flooring, type of lighting, and incidence of fireplace--a11 items that influence the value of the house. The Sewell farm socioeconomic status scale uses fourteen items, among which three are directly concerned with the value of the dwelling per so.3 These are lighting facilities, running water, and construction of house (masonry or frame). Raymond w; Mack in 1951 specifically attempted a determination of the validity of the use of housing as an 1Stanley A. Hetzler, "An Investigation of the Dis- tinctiveness of Social Classes," American Sociological Review, XVIII (October, 1953). I95. 2F. Stuart Chapin, ContemporaryAmerican Institutions (New York: Harper Bros., 19357, pp. 373-397. 3William H. Sewell, "A Short Form of the Farm Family Socip-economic Status Scale," Rural Sociology, VIII (June, 19h3 . 10 index of social class.1 He considered constructions, depre- ciation, and location, relating these to three levels of social class--upper, middle, and lower and used raters for the determination of social class. His data regarding house value closely approximate the information routinely obtained by Massachusetts assessors2 and his resulting correlations are exceptionally high. This is considered in detail in the analysis portion of this dissertation. These citations appear to show successfully a strong relationship between social rank and the valuation of the residence. Although this research proceeds on the assumption that this relationship exists, an attempt at confirmation is included as part of the analysis. The Theory The major variables have now been identified as the house value complex and social interaction. The relationship is to follow the general expectation of the Homan‘s hypothe- sis. Concisely stated, the theory from which test hypotheses will be derived is as follows: People residing in similarly valued dwellings will engage in levels of social interaction exceeding_that of people residing in unlike valued dwellingg when both groups are examined in a condition of close regi- dential proximity (the micro-neighborhood). 1Raymond W. Mack, "Housing as an Index of Social Class," Social Forces, XXIX (May, 1951), 391-h00. 2The commonly used data sheet is included as Appen- dix I. Further, it is the form used in the site of this research. CHAPTER II RELEVANT LITERATURE Introduction New residential housing units in the United States are being constructed at an increasing rate. Further, there are indications that this rate will be raised drastically during the coming decade. Among these new units, certain physical innovations are apparent-~particularly in regard to heterogeneity of neighborhood house valuations. This research effort attempts to suggest sociological implications regarding the design of these structures and their spatial arrangements. In the following pages writings regarding housing in general, as well as the more specific area of the sociology of housing, is cited. Housing in thgiUnited States Some one to one and one-half million residential units are being constructed in the United States annually.l Projections of need greatly surpass this figure, frequently suggesting twice this amount. Even modest estimates regu- larly exceed the new units actually provided each year. In a speech at the Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors at Chicago on June 15, 1968, Robert C. Weaver, then Secretary of Housing 1"Starts were running at a rate of 1.5 million late in 1967, their highest level in two years." House and Home, January, 1968, p. R7. 11 l2 and Urban Development, claimed: The task of the next decade is this: --To provide hous- ing for a Nation in which new household formations alone will require lh.5 million new units. --To replace several million units that will be lost from the housing supply because of population changes, mi ration and mar- ket changes. --To replace or rebuild 5. million units now substandard and now occupied, and 12 million more that become substandard out of the 30 million units already more than 30 years old. . . . The President has given us these goals: --The construction of 26.2 mil- lion new housing units in the next decade. That is a big order when compared to lh.h million units built in the past ten years. The interest of the research reported here concerns the quality of these units from a social milieu standpoint, although the need for a higher rate of unit formation injects a note of urgency to the topic. Requests for a national housing breakthrough are made continuously.1 The housing decision-makers must concern themselves with the question: What kind of shelter establishment should be encouraged in this country? If citizens were of one mold, the answer would be relatively simple; but there are diverse types and--most important to this study-~a portion of their social interaction occurs within the residential community. New housing in the United States has taken a variety of forms. In past years, developments or tracts have pro- duced so many dwellings identical as to value and often as to appearance that they are sometimes identified as "boxes on the hillsides." The monotony of this scene has been made 1An example is a request for two and one-half million new housing units each year as one of the ten points in the AFL-CIO plan for solving the "urban crisis." The American Federalist, October, 1967. 13 the object of ridicule in a popular song.1 More recently a trend toward diversity has been evidenced, an extreme in this direction being the new town of Columbia, Maryland, where apartment buildings are in close proximity to "gentle- men's estates."2 Wherever such housing variations existed in previous eras, it was largely by chance rather than by design. In calculatingly providing such a mixture in resi- dential housing, developers evidently hope to meet the pur- chase interests of some families and the rental interests of others. Such diversity of construction would appear to arise from a belief by businessmen-developers as to what home seek- ers think will maximize the enjoyment of their home and com- munity life. The degree of variability of houses, as to value, has been affected not only by the decisions of developers but also by the planners. These comprise a professional urban group and many lay advisory systems. It appears that the professionals dominate. They prefer clean precise defini- tions of usage and favor zoning, both commercial and residen- tial, that produces a high degree of uniformity. Although there would be general agreement that clearly antagonistic uses should be kept separated, such fixed-use determinations sometimes result in a single use in a very narrow sense. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment 1"Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds. 21h a conversation with Emile Hanslin (Developer of New Seabury on Cape Cod, Mass.), he stated that he knew of more than eighty such "New Town" efforts in the making in the United States. 1h Officials (NAHRO), in a recent three-point program, refer to such extreme positions as "contraints upon urban progress."1 It is to an examination of the consequences of these differ- ing positions with regard to social interaction that this thesis addresses itself. A brief look at the modern American community than indicates two postures in housing development: 1. Diversity in attempting variation in a contiguous section. This is exhibited in varied house types, sizes, lot sizes, economic valuation, etc. 2. Similarity among the above factors from house to house in a continuous manner throughout a given area. The zoning influence is strongly felt here; i.e., dictating lot size, concurrently dictates house size. This, in turn, sug- gests family size and, with the cost dimension, finally the socioeconomic level. The Sociological Housing Literature In reading sociological reports regarding housing, an interesting paradox appears. There is pointed urging to attempt research in this area and, at the same time, a pau- city of such effort. Louis Wirth, in indicating the desir- ability of work in housing, states: "Housing is a social activity. As such, sociology has something to learn from it 2 and it constitutes a subject matter for sociological study." 1Journal of Housing, October, 1967, p. 501. 2Louis Wirth, "Housing as a Field of Sociological Research," American Sociological Review, XII (April, 19h7), 137-1u3. "‘ 15 Robert K. Merton, in the same vein, said, "The social psychology of housing has a short inglorious past and, I believe, a long productive future."1 In a more recent publi- cation, Charles Abrams summed up the importance of housing in the social situation, stating, "Housing is not only shelter but part of the fabric of neighborhood life and of the whole social milieu."2 The nonscientific, popular literature on this subject is of tremendous quantity and frequently exhibits considerable insight. It has perhaps to a degree substituted for more rigorous investigation. A recent work regarding the social aspects of American cities discusses this point directly: There is much popular literature expounding the effects of urban living on the "personality" of modern man. Most of the accounts are speculative, and they are 3 rarely stated in a manner amenable to empirical test. Although the amount of research on the social aspects of housing is not as great as had been hoped for by Wirth and Merton, there are a number of items that bear wholly or in part on the substance of this study. They are examined under the following categories: 1. The impact of physical residential forms on social 1Robert K. Merton, "The Social Psychology of Housing,‘ in Current Trends in Social Psychology, ed. by Wayne Dennis (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, l9h8), p. 163. 2Charles Abrams, Man's Struggle for Shelter in an -—-—. Urbanizing werlg,(Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, T55h7, p. vi. 3Jeffory K. Hadden and Edger F. Borgatta, Social Characteristics of American Cities (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965I, p- 3. 16 interaction. 2. The general level of social relationships currently existing within the residential community. 3. Home ownership and the social residential milieu. h. The residential dwelling as symbolism. 5. Social interaction in the residential dwelling milieu. The Impact of Physical Residgntial Forms 22 Social Interactigg A classical example of this relationship is Louis Wirth‘s essay, "Urbanism as a Way of Life."1 His character— ization of the city argues for the physical atmosphere as one of the influencing factors in the development of social struc- ture. Since Professor Wirth's comprehensive statement, there have been a number of specific examinations of his position regarding the urban milieu, most of them confined, however, to a more limited area than the "city" as a whole. Among the more scientific investigations of this phe- nomenon is Leon Festinger‘s work at Westgate, a veterans' housing establishment at the Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology.2 In summarizing this research, he states: In a community of people who are homogeneous with respect to the many factors which determine the development of friendships, the physical factors arising from the arrangement of houses are major determinants of what friendships will develop and what social groupings create 1Louis Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology, XLIV (July, 1938), 1-2h. aLeon Festinger et a1., Social Pressures in Informal Grou s: A Stud of Human Factors in Housin (Stanford, Cali¥.: Stanford University Press, l§§05, p. 151. 17 channels of communication for the flow of information and opinions. Standards for attitudes and behavior rele- vant to the functioning of the social group develop, with resulting uniformity among the members of the group. Festinger's research, although dealing with a highly restricted geographical area, does again show the impact of physical arrangements on social interaction. Robert K. Merton,also examining the idea of the effect of physical plant on social relationships, has asked in regard to the increasing number of high-rise apartments: "To what extent is it the case that when housing authorities decide for fiscal reasons to build housing developments sky- ward rather than spread them outward in free standing dwell- ings, they significantly influence the personality formation of the numerous children who grow up there?"1 This is, of course, a psychological effect; however, the bridge to the sociological appears short. After posing this question, Merton states: Questions of this order, seeking to relate the internal ecology of the dwelling unit to the socialization of the personality, are questions upon which many have strong opinions and few have the requisite facts. . . The house and the family in it are unavoidably bound up with the neighborhood and the community in which they are found. The planners, who sometimes are accused of being physically rather than socially oriented, do recognize the interconnection. This is pointedly expressed by a planner who states: "Psychological tensions, juvenile delinquency, adult crime, loneliness, and hostility cannot be directly lMerton, "The Social Psychology of Housing," 18 measured by a housing layout, but the connection between people's social relations and the spaces in which they take place is experienced every day."1 An early attempt to test the effect of residential facilities on social relationships using the classical exper~ imental design was conducted some twenty years ago by Chapin.2 He wanted to determine if the social relations of the slum family were improved by rehousing in a model public—housing project. This research was conducted in Minneapolis, Minne- sota, in a district called Summer Field Homes. Briefly, he found gains (over the control group) with regard to social participation as well as social status, conditions of the furnishings of the living room, and a condition called "use- crowded." Support for the idea that the physical aspects of the immediate residential community affect social structure comes, in part, from a fundamental concept in sociology--that of the "ecological complex."3 Here the Poo-E-T variables--popula- tion, social organization, environment, and technology-~are described as interacting. This construct is commonly applied in descriptions of broad population areas. It seems lThomas McNulty and Mary S. Fawcett, "Studies for a Visual Community," Journal of the American Instituteigf Plan- ners, XXIII 2?. S. Chapin, "An Experiment on the Social Effects of Good Housing," American Sociological Review, V (December, l9h0), 868-879. 3Otis D. Duncan and Leo F. Sehnore, "Cultural, Behav- ioral, and Ecological Perspectives in the Study of Social Organization," American Journal of Sociology, LXV (September, 1959), 136- 19 plausible, however, to expect that the workings of this con- cept might apply equally to the very limited area of com- munity and neighborhood. A work that is widely quoted in descriptions of social interaction resulting from the physical arrangements in suburban areas of the United States is William H. Whyte's The Organization Man. He claims: In suburbia friendship has become almost predictable. Despite the fact that a person can pick and choose from a vast number of people to make friends with, such things as the placement of a stoop or the direction of a street often have more to do with determining who is friends with whom. . . . Given a few physical clues about the area, you can come close to determining what could be called its flow of "social traffic," and once you have determined this, you may come up with an unset- tlingly accurate diagnosis of who is in the gang and who isn't. S. Riemer, in discussing floor plans, claims that "good home design requires planning for adequate circulation between the individual rooms which is almost impossible with- out a detailed sociological analysis of the routine of family life."2 Presumably, poorly planned circulation design would affect the routine of family life from a sociological point of View. It would be unfair in this sampling of evidence if it was not indicated that some responsible writers would place little emphasis on the physical residential plant as a 1William H. Whyte, Jr., The Or anization Man (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 19 . DP. 3 -3 . 2Svend Riemer, "Villagers in Metropolis,‘ in Readings in Sociology, ed. by Edgar A. Schuler, Thomas F. Hoult Duane L. Gibson, and Wilber B. Bookover (3rd ed.; New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1967), pp. 539-Sh1. 20 pertinent variable in social structural development. The widely used text in urban sociology--Urban Society by Noel P. Gist and Sylvia F. Fave-~does not find substantial evidence for the above position: There is indeed an impressive volume of data which do indicate a relationship between substandard housing and various "pathologies." The conclusion is sometimes drawn, therefore, that substandard housing tends to pro- duce "problem people." But there seems to be no sub- stantial evidence that housing per 36 determines problems of behavior and personality; it is only one of many interrelated factors or conditions-~social, psycho- logical, cultural, physical-~which have to be taken into consideration. Herbert J. Gans, in his recent examination of Levit- town, concludes that the origin of the community is deter- 2 mined by events after the fact and not by prior planning. He felt that the lives of the people in Levittown were shaped by other lives-~not by the physical plant. He not only would focus on the people rather than things as the important influence but also felt that the new community is shaped by the values which the people bring with them. His findings indicate that all other influences are small. It should be pointed out, however, that Gans' study was based upon par- ticipant observation—~and not supported by a highly systematic gathering of data. The view of Edward P. Eichler might be considered somewhat representative of the scholar-practitioner in rela- tion to this question. (Eichler is a lecturer in Urban Eco— nomics, Stanford University and the University of California, 1Noe1 P. Gist and Sylvia 1". Fave, Urban Society (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1965), p. 563. aGans, The Levittownerg, p. 305. 21 Berkeley and also Vice President of Eichler Homes, Inc., at San Francisco.) In a recent speech, he said, "I can find no reason to believe that such new communities as Irvine, Foster City and Eldorado Hills in California are likely to make any substantial change in the social, cultural or political lives of those who live or work in them." If Mr. Eichler is correct, new housing in the United States might be of any convenient variety-~high-rise, “boxes on hillsides," or Victorian mansions-~the net social differ- ential would be slight. This research examined here, of course, leans toward the ideas expressed earlier and assumes the importance of the physical variable. A final reference among the negative positions con- cerns variables providing situations conducive to the devel- opment of exceptional individuals. This study was conducted among hh9 adolescents from midwest private secondary schools.2 Intelligence was measured by I.Q. tests and crea- tivity by several constructed tests. It was found that the family environment as related to education, occupation, reading interests, friends, etc.--§g§_housing--were the per- tinent variables. The question can still be raised as to what degree the housing milieu influenced the production of the motivating influences mentioned above. 1Edward P. Eichler in a speech delivered to the Ameri- can Home Economics Association, 57th Annual Meeting, San Fran- cisco, California, June 28, 1966. 2Jacob W} Getzels, "Family Environment and Cognitive Style: A Study of the Sources of Highly Intelligent and of Highly Creative Adolescents," American Sociological Review, XXVI (June, 1961), 351-359. 22 The General Level of Social Relationshi s Currently Existigg Within the Hesidential Community This research concerns the social and the physical as examined within the dwelling environment. If, in fact, not very much social activity is experienced here, this effort becomes somewhat empty as it is not very productive to examine the characteristics of something that exists in a marginal condition. Much has been written on this topic, and some reference seems appropriate. The decline of the close interrelationships that once existed is described by Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle: Neighborhoods which once were "communities of fate" in that all shared good and bad fortune no longer are bound by the same ties. In rural America, the neighborhoods and other locality groups are increasingly assuming the aspects of the Gesellschaft. This position-~that of a decline of social interconnectedness --is a general effect, again stated as follows: One of the chief theses of this book is that the older rural Gemeinschaft-like society is losing its functional diffuseness, its particularism, its familism power, and its effectivity in personal relations as the Gesellschaft-like society begins to have primacy. Tech- nology and bureaucracy have changed rural locality groups and families, so that even if only farmers lived in rural areas, social-cultural linkage would have been achieved between city and country. But in most of the regions of the United States, the cities have spilled over into the countryside, so that in many states the rural-nogfarm population outnumbers the rural-farm population. A reasonable question then might be: If, in fact, urban Americao-and the Leonie-Beegle comments appear to place much of this country in a similar category-~has lost much of 1Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, Rural Soci- olo : The Strata of Chan e (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: rent ce- a , nc., , p. 35. 21bid., p. use. 23 its Gemeinschaft atmosphere, is there some replacement? Several authors do feel that within the new Gesellschaft atmosphere there are characteristics that bear a resemblance to the Gemeinschaft. Roland L. warren mentions the interest in a deliber- ate attempt to build back the Gemeinschaft tradition: "And among city planners and urban sociologists there rages a con- stant controversy over the extent to which city planning should attempt to incorporate the goal of restoring in the urban neighborhood an emphasis on locality-based participa- tion."1 Next, he points to a probable replacement direction that pervades: "The locality is no longer the important reference group that it once was, and people tend to identify themselves with various interest groups with which they are functionally much more closely interrelated than with their neighbors."2 Another view which contains something of the above is that of simply an extension of the neighborhood and, pre- sumably, the Gemeinschaft traditional characteristics. In an analysis of the functioning of neighboring for the middle- class male, Ruth and Jehn Useem and Duane L. Gibson state: "In the present trend toward large, residential settlements of persons similar in social and economic status and living in homes of comparable size and arrangements, the neighbor- hood can be composed of thousands of residents and coincide 1Roland L. warren, The Community in America (Chicago: Rand McNally & 00., 1963), p. 62. 21bid. 2h with a section, development, subdivision, school district, political entity, etc."1 This seems to suggest the persis- tence of the intense, residential, social relationship but with an expanded geographical arena. Scott Greer deals with the topic of distance in social action and injects a class differential: “The lower the occupational and educational level, the smaller the scale of an individual's participation . . . the radius of his interaction is shorter."2 Herbert Gans suggests that the level of social inter- action bears a relation to the heterogeneity of the popula- tion. He feels that the variation among the individuals cre- ates small groupings, and it is here that the more traditional interaction is occurring.3 Scott Greer echoes this position: ”In the familistic neighborhoods, however, life style and the relationships among the sites force inter-household communi- cation and allow neighborhood organization."u He also makes the point that one cannot escape from social interaction in the residential milieu: "Surrounding households are impor- tant and inescapable parts of any given household's environ- 5 ment." 1Ruth 3111 Useem, John Useem, and Duane L. Gibson, "The Function of Neighboring for the Middle Class Male," Human Organization, XIX 2Scott Greer, The Emerging City (New York: Free Press, 1962), p. 127. 3Gans, The Levittowners, p. th. “Greer, The Emerging_City, p. 112. 51b1d., p. 111. 25 All the above seems to say that the close clanlike social contacts of some time age may be somewhat reduced in modern America but a substantial quantity remains. Home Ownership and the Social Residential Milieu Today in the United States, home ownership has reached a high level with something over 60 percent of the families owning. Very recently, during the past two years, an interest in apartment dwelling has assumed increased pro- portions. An article in the July, 1968, House and Home maga— zine is entitled "Apartments Grab A3% of Market Despite Money Worries." In spite of this trend, today Americans are owners of one-family homes. From a social standpoint, the one- family home with its traditional front and back yards and setback to either side provides a rather constant ecological setting. This, taken with the social-psychological effect of ownership, should provide a very determinate unit for analysis. Something of the psychological impact of ownership is contained in a statement by James V. Cunningham: "Man is most 'found' is most secure and steady when he is building his own community, making decisions, assuming responsibili- ties."1 This position does smack of the "hard-work" Protes- tant ethic which is being challenged by today's hippie 1James V. Cunningham, The Resurgent Neighborhood (Notre Dame, Indiana: Tides Publishers, Inc., 1965), p. 207. 26 generation. It, however, appears to be a regular part of the American one-family, owned-home scene. Erving Goffman suggests the home as the "front" or setting for drama.1 His comments suggest that a major por- tion of the “self" action occurs within the home. T. Caplow, in a study of home ownership and location preferences,2 provides several findings that help describe the home-ownership attitudes. The group comprising the sam- ple numbered some 57h families and their feelings were: 1. Home ownership was favored. 2. Home owners were more satisfied than tenants. 3. There was more dissatisfaction with age and size of dwelling than location. h. More preference for decentralized location than near— ness to work. 5. No relationship between attitude responses and educa- tional level of the family head. A frequent argument for home ownership is something called pride of ownership. This certainly exists and along with it is the potential for doing something about dissatis- faction; i.e., the owner has more control than the tenant. This control factor extends to the social context as well as the physical. lErving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New Yerk: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1959), p. 22. 2T. Caplow, "Home Ownership and Location Preference in a Minneapolis Sample," American Sociological Review, XIII (December, l9h8), 725-730. 27 The Residential Dwelling as Symbolism In the status hierarchy of things possessed, the home has always had a central position. At times such things as automobiles and boats take the spotlight, but the home seems to persist as a dominant status symbol. ‘ W. Lloyd Warner in much of his work included house type and dwelling area type as important parts of the social class measuring sticks that he constructed (EP & 180). One of his statements relating to this inclusion is: "The houses of Americans are valued by them not only as utilities but because they are outward symbols of the social status of those who occupy them." William H. Form and Gregory P. Stone approached this question directly in a formal research design and found that housing is, indeed, used as a criterion of status in strati- fying the urbanite.2 They employed twelve indices, among which are two that relate directly to our interest as shown in Table 1. In Chapter IV reference will be made to a work by Raymond W. Mack in which he shows rather conclusively that not only is housing a common status symbol but also that it may be accepted as a single indicator of class position.3 1W. Lloyd warner et al., Democracy in Jonesville (New York: Harper & Row, 19h95. p. 39. 2William H. Form and Gregory P. Stone, "Urbanism, Anonymity, and Status Symbolism," American Journal of Soci- ology, LXII (March, 1957), Sou-51h. 3Raymond W. Mack, "Housing as an Index of Social Class," Social Forces, XXIX (May, 1951), 391-h00. 28 TABLE l.--Items Judged Important as Status Symbols Class Level Upper Middle Lower All Type of House 81.2% 7u.s% 78.6% 77.6% Type of Neighborhood 53.1% h3.1% 57.1% so.u% Social Interaction in the Residential Dwelling_Milieu A number of studies have focused upon the residential atmosphere as it relates to mate selection. Although this at first appears as one step removed from our interest, it does seem to follow that social interaction does precede mate selection. If that interaction occurs in a home neighbor- hood, the conditions of that environment may exert an influ- ence. Among these studies, A. C. Clarke found that the resi- dential ecology of the principles exerted an influence regard- ing mate selection.1 Again, J. S. Ellsworth in a study in Simsbury, Connecticut, had the same finding.2 Finally, R. M. Keller, in a study primarily directed to the relationship of age and occupation, did find that the residential propinquity 3 factor was at work. 1A. C. Clarke, "An Examination of the Operation of Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Mate Selection," Ameri- can Sociological Review, XVII (February, 1952), 17-22. 2J. S. Ellsworth, Jr., "The Relation of Population Density to Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Marriage Selection," American Sociological Review, XIII (August, l9h8), hhh-th- 3R. M. Koller, "Residential Propinquity of White Mates 29 An easy assumption is that any placement of residences in a fairly limited grouping will result in social interac- tion, and a resultant feeling of some unity among the partici- pants. The weakness of such an assumption is apparent from a study by C. Kilbourn and M. Lantis in which Vanport, a city near Portland, Oregon, was studied regarding tenant instabil- ity.1 These data were gathered during World War II (l9u3-hh) in a war housing project. In this urban concentration of 9,500 families, some 100 were leaving each day. The authors were interested in pinpointing why this was happening. Their findings summed up to this population center being simply a housing project-—not a community. There certainly was social interaction, but it did not lead to ties that would produce anything of a Gemeinschaft feeling among the residents. A repeated theme in the sociological housing litera— ture is that neighboring does not cross social class lines. This is noted by Svend Riemer in "Villagers in Metropolis" where he claims that neighboring does not occur among the status groups.2 He further states that information regarding neighboring is lacking. Much of this status~oriented inter- est in the neighboring question assumes delineations of status at Marriage in Relation to Age and Occupation of Males, Columbus, Ohio," American Sociological Review, XIII (October, 19h8), 613-616. 1C. Kilbourn and M. Lantis, "Elements of Tenant Insta- bility in a War Housin Project," American Sociological Review (February, l9h6 , 57-66. 2Riemer, "Villagers in Metropolis," pp. 539—5hl. 3O groupings. The pertinent question seems to be what really happens at the periphery where a resident of one status finds himself immediately next door to one of another status. This question becomes a central concern in the research portion of this study. In a study in Bet Mazmil in Israel in a housing com- munity, Judith T. Shuval found a strong ethnic influence in the neighboring milieu.1 The data were gathered in 1953 and included 806 interviews. It was found that casual neighbor- ing was a function of both respondent's class position and ethnic membership. Here we have the intervening variable of country of origin. It should be noted that her study site contained an extreme mixture of numerous ethnic groups. This would be atypical of housing areas in the United States where this occurs in a greatly reduced form as second- and third- generation descendants. Much has been written regarding the social interac— tion that occurs in the suburbs as contrasted to the rural or city portions of the country. Aida K. Tomeh looked at this zonal variable and found that participation in informal groups did increase as the areas became more representative of suburbia.2 She also confirmed that participation is facilitated when persons of similar characteristics live in 1Judith T. Shuval, "Class and Ethnic Correlates of Casual Neighboring," American Sociological Review, XXI (August . 1956). 1153-135. 2Aida K. Tomeh, "Informal Group Participation and Residential Patterns," American Journal of Sociology, LXX 31 the same area. Summary This chapter has indicated some of the ways in which sociologists and others have examined and viewed United States residential housing. Two things about these activi- ties and resulting descriptions are particularly pertinent to this research: 1. They repeatedly support the conclusion that the resi- dential milieu harbors a rich content of human primary group (socigiggical) phenomena. A primary group requisite is expressed by George C. Homans as "persons who communicate with one another often over a span of time, and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others, not at second hand through other people, but face to face."1 This is also expressed by Michael S. Olmsted: "A group, then, may be defined as a plurality of individuals who are in contact with one another, who take one another into account, and who are aware of some significant commonal- ity."2 Much has been written on the previous pages regarding social interaction, and Donald W. Olmsted has ranked this as the fundamental aspect upon which group existence is depen- dent: "The minimum characteristic on the basis of which groups are objectively determinable is that there is a 1George C. Homans, The Human Grogp (New York: Har- court, Brace and World, Inc., 1950), p. 1. 2Olmsted, The Small Group, p. 21. 32 continuity of social interaction."1 2. Observations and descriptions stem mostly from studies of a singge area--usua11y an examination of persons within a very limited contiguous region selected via a ran- dom sample or more frequently some less scientific extrac- tion. These points are important to establish here, as the subsequent efforts of this research assume a sociolpgical potential in the neighborhood milieu and employ analytical techniques that are of considerable contrast to those dis- cussed. 1Donald W. Olmsted, Socigl Groups, Roles, and Leader- shi : An Introduction to the Concepts (East Lansing: ‘Insti- Eute for—Community‘Development and Services, Michigan State University, 1961), p. 13. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction Since this investigation is to a degree breaking new ground, the design objective was to discover as much as pos- sible regarding the phenomenon, while retaining a high degree of methodological rigor. Limitations of time and funding prevented replication in additional geographical areas and/or with groups with differing characteristics. With this in mind, it was planned to isolate deliberatply data-collecting sites that represented cases of interest. The alternative would be to select randomly. A random approach would impose a sample minimum considerably in excess of the available resources. With a highly focused design, it was expected that findings would be very conclusive for theggroup involved, and that subsequent research efforts could build effectively on this base. With these considerations in mind, Greenfield, Massachusetts, was selected as the geographical area and a sizable list of desired respondent characteristics was prepared. These are considered in detail in the sections which follow. This research effort was preceded by a study which has been subsequently labeled a "pilot." It includes some of the same information and exposed several weak areas that were 33 31+ strengthened in the main study. Among these was an initial interest in "frequency of interaction." The pilot study revealed that this was a weak dimension, as the quality fac- tor is omitted. For example, a simple greeting "hello" is an item of social interaction but may hardly be grouped with a counting of "visiting," "shopping together," etc. This meant a useful view of frequency of interaction required a careful analysis of the Quality of the interaction. A report of the pilot study is included as Appendix II and is referred to at appropriate points in this text. Identification and O erationalization of Major Variables lpdependent Variablgg; These gaggg_variables were contrasting in their appearance and thereby easy to identify. One condition-~that of neighborhood groupings of similarly priced homes-~18 very common. Most relatively new (twenty to thirty years) devel- opment or tract-type housing in the United States is of this type. The second condition--that of mixed-valued housing in a limited neighborhood setting--proved impossible to locate. As has been explained, these have pgp_been built by design and exist only in transitory and fragmentory situations. Several were noted in the central cities of Boston and Spring- field, Massachusetts, but possessed characteristics that made 1These conditions (the independent variables) will be discussed under the terms of Homogeneous and Heterpgeneous. These will identify groupings of similarly and unlike valued homes in the same limited neighborhood. 35 than unacceptable. In continuing this search, it was noted that the best approximation to the Heterogeneous condition was adjacent islands of varied Hggggeneous housing. In general, the residents of such an "island" would identify with the social milieu of the island and not of the larger and "mixed" dimension. Further, it seemed possible that those living on the perimeter of the islands would have oppor- tunity for interaction with people of differently valued housing--in fact, as much opportunity as interaction with the island Homogeneous group. Since, then, Heterogeneous housing experience existed at the perimeter of the island, it seemed desirable (and methodologically acceptable) to utilize this site as the heterogeneous representation. Professor*Grafton Trout suggested the use of a technique very compatible with this interest-~the Micro-Neighborhood technique of Judith T. Shuval.1 Essentially, this examines phenomena in a setting of pgigg of dwelling units. This technique is used to a high degree in the design of this research. After accepting this procedure, it was necessary to identify, within the research community,2 the specific Micro- Neighborhoods for data collection. The community chosen had some 6,000 properties, and a visit with the Chairman of the Board of Assessors gained the needed permission to view the 1shuval, "The Micro-Neighborhood." 2The basis for the selection of Greenfield, Massachu- setts, and general characteristics of the town are discussed later in this section. 36 assessors' records. It might be noted that a town chairman from a different community was approached for the Pilot Study and a flat refusal was received. It is believed that this was a direct reflection regarding the condition of the records. An outside agency had never been employed to update the assessments. In the case of Greenfield, such a reevaluation had been made in 1962-63, and the records had been kept cur- rent since that time. With permission granted to view the records, desk space was Obtained in the assessors‘ office and each of the record cards was read. A copy of the record card is included as Appendix I. At this point it became necessary to establish cri- teria for delineating those trios which would be labeled Homogeneous and Heterogeneous. An arbitrary decision was made as follows: Homogeneous neighborhoods would have 3223. abutting neighbors possessing assessed valuations of their properties within 10 percent of the respondent's (the respon— dent always being the central home of the trio), and Hetero- geneous neighborhoods would have one or more abutting neigh- bors with assessed valuations falling no percent above or below that of the respondent. In addition, any situation falling between the extremes just described would be labeled Neutral. In combining the various Homogeneous, Heterogeneous, and Neutral subcharacteristics, sixteen possibilities are realized. These are presented in contingency form as Table 2. In order to arrange these categories in an appropriate 37 TABLE 2.--House Value Complex--Abutters in Relation to Respondent Y HO Neutral HE (Above) HE (Below) H0 HO HO HO N H0 HE (A) HO HE (E) Neutral N HO N N N HE (A) N HE (B) HE(Above) HE(A) H0 HE(A) N HE(A) HE(A) HE(A) HE(B) HE(Below). HE(B) HO HE(B) N HE(B) HE(A) HE(B) HE(B) aDefinition of terms used in table: HO - "Homogeneous"--lO percent or less differential in assessment from that of respondent. (Data extracted from assessors' office records. Reevaluation performed during 1962-63.) N - "Neutral"--11-39 percent differential. HE - "Heterogeneous"--h0 percent or more differential. condition for sampling, a continuum of Intensity of Hetero- geneity was prepared. This is presented as Table 3 and also lists the numbers of cases for each grouping. The total extractions from assessors' records was 91h. Each of these was listed in detail on a 3x5 card to facilitate the sampling manipulations. Dependent Variables The theory broadly states Social Interaction as the variable to be explained. Three aspects of such interaction are used. These are: Level of Social Interaction, Social Distance, and Satisfaction with Neighbors. It is recognized that there are numerous other dimensions to the broad 38 TABLE 3.--Intensity of Heterogeneity--A Continuum Greater \— ==r ~£e Lesser HE(A) HE(B)a HO N HO HO(A) N HO(A) HE(A) HE(A) HO HO N HE(A) HO HE(A) N HE(B) HE(A) N HO HE(B) so HO(B) N’ 30(3) 30(3) HO HE(B) N HE(B) 3b 187 135 226 26 I u3 28 20 35 5 1&7 9 1n 6 9 21 8 187 282 226 6h 113 3h aSee Table 2 for definition of terms. bPotential data-collecting sites. phenomenon, and many of these are pertinent for research effort. Again, the limitations of time and funding required that a limited part of the phenomenon be viewed. The Level of Social Interaction involves what is done together, and what is discussed together with the abutting neighbors. In looking at the kinds of topics and activities, an indirect indication as to freqpency of interaction is obtained, thereby providing a strong tie to the Roman hypoth- esis. Social Distance is the degree of acceptance and has been described frequently in the sociological literature, particularly in regard to questions of social interaction and racial differences. Satisfaction with Neighbors follows the Judith Shuval 39 design and to a degree overlaps the Social Distance dimen- sion. Intervening_Variables Several possible influencing variables were con- sidered in the following manner: Variables held constant by sample extraction: Type of Residence.--Only one-family structures were included. This applies to the respondent and both abutters. Location of Residence.--All were found within the Town of Greenfield, Massachusetts, and are "within" blocks; i.e., corner locations were omitted. Also each trio of homes is complete; i.e., there are no respondents having vacant lots adjoining their dwellings. Occupancy.e-All members of the trio of dwellings were currently occupied. Tenure of Occupancy.-~Respondent and both abutters had resided at their present location for three months or more. Home Ownership.--Respondent and/or wife must pres- ently own the dwelling. urban vs. Rural.-—Only urban dwellings are included. This was determined by the assessors' criteria which identi- fied outlying areas with an "R" on the records. Respondents must have been housewives between the ages of twenty and seventy years. Active Employment.--Respondent and/or spouse must no have been currently in the labor force. The reasoning in regard to the selection of the above cutting points in some cases is obvious; however, several were established as a result of experience in the pilot study. In particular, older and retired persons were generally not responsive. They enjoyed the visit of the interviewer but appeared to be uncritical of the environment. They answered questions mainly with a view toward making the visit pleasant. Variables held constant via analysis: Age of respondent as related to abutters. Incidence of physical barriers and facilities between buildings.--This interest was in direct response to the Fes- tinger work at Westgate.l Physical barriers considered were such things as trees, bushes, vines, walls, fences, out-buildings, differen- tial positioning of houses (both laterally and in elevation), and excessive distance between houses. Facilitating influ- ences included opposing exterior doors and/or driveways and recreational structures near the lot line. In addition, interviewers were asked to report "other" influences that they Observed. Family composition--particularly children of school age. Variables regarding house value-social class rela- tionship: 1Festinger et al., Social Pressures in Informal Groups. hl The family income level, occupation, and education of head of household were determined for the respondent fam- ily. Occupation only was Obtained for the two abutters. The Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position, published by August B. Hollingshead (1957) was used in establishing the class level of respondents. This particular device was selected as it does not include housing as a measurement dimension. This permitted comparison with other indicators using nonhousing ingredients. Selection of Research Site Greenfield, Massachusetts, was selected for several reasons. The value groupings of residences appeared to have a sufficient potential of Homogeneous and Heterogeneous sit- uations for test. This proved to be true when the actual sample extraction was made. This town was reevaluated during 1962-63, bringing all properties up to a 100 percent valua- tion at that time. This was accomplished by an outside pro- fessional evaluating firm (Cole-Layer-Trumble Company, 3535 Salem Avenue, Dayton, Ohio). Subsequently, the records have been updated regularly and maintained in excellent order. As an aside, the clerks in the assessors' office wanted to make a wager that this investigator could not find one record misfiled. This attitude reflects the pride the assessor staff has in the quality of their operation. The records were arranged in a convenient system for data extraction. They were divided into 177 neighborhood groups, with individual property data cards filed on a lot h2 number basis. With few exceptions, these followed sequen- tially along the side of a street, placing abutting parcels on adjacent cards. The general characteristics of the town might iden- tify it as a somewhat typical small, urban, New England com- munity. The section following discribes these items in detail. Although there was little interest in clearly estab- lishing the "typical" quality, Greenfield was attractive as a research site in not possessing a quality that would iden- tify it as "atypical." As has been previously stated, the phenomenon is of prime interest, rather than how it may occur in a particular community. A final attraction of Greenfield was its location in relation to the University of Massachu- setts—~only twenty minutes travel time by automobile. General Characteristics of the Research Site Greenfield, incorporated in 1753, is located in north- western Massachusetts, ninety-eight miles from Boston, 17h from New York City, thirty-seven from Springfield, nineteen from Brattleboro, Vermont, and 258 from Montreal, Canada. The town has an area of twenty-one square miles and is 300 feet above sea level. In 1686 Greenfield was the "Green River District" of the town of Deerfield; however, in 1753 it was granted its own charter from the Royal British Court. The ninety~two inhabitants of this frontier village were in constant fear of Indian attacks; after survival of the Indian depredations, there was a later period of hardship during the American #3 Revolution. Late in the eighteenth century, Greenfield became the head port on the Connecticut River at "Cheapside" Landing for all traffic in heavy goods to the west and north of the town; thus, Greenfield's growth was assured. By 1826 even better transportation was assured by the advent of steamboats, and before the nineteenth century, stage lines were being oper- ated both north, south, east, and west. Early in the nineteenth century, because of improved transportation, Greenfield, which had heretofore been pri- marily a farming community, began its industrial growth. Many small mills and factories sprang up at this period together with a number of inns and taverns to accommodate the many travelers. In 1811 Greenfield separated from Hampshire County and became the county seat of Franklin County. Established in 183a, the "Green River Works," Amer— ica's first cutlery, gave Greenfield a prominent place in world trade. With the coming of the railroad in 18h6, Green- field soon became an important rail center which position it continued to hold for over 100 years. Population.--The resident population of Greenfield numbers about 18,500; the working daytime population being in excess of 20,000. Franklin County citizens total about 60,000. According to the 1960 United States Census, the pop- ulatiOn was 17,690; in 1900 it was 7,929; and in 19uo it was 15,672. In 1960 the density was 82h persons per square mile. uh Native-born population is 93.3 percent. Predominate nation- alities in the town are of German, Irish, English, Polish, and French Canadian descent. Industrial.--There is a diversity of industry in Greenfield. Both subsidiaries of national firms and inde- pendent manufacturing contribute to the labor picture. Greenfield is the home of the machine tool and mechanics tool industries. It was here that the tap and die was invented and developed. (There are over fifty diversified industries employing over 6,000 men and 1,000 women, with a normal indus- trial payroll of over $20,000,000. Principal products are as follows: taps, dies, tapping machines, lumber, mechanics tools, paper boxes, wooden boxes, electronic components, fire nozzles, marking devices, steel stamps, engraving, mattresses, bamboo fishing poles, crushed stone castings, polishing machinery, snow shovels, rakes, silver tableware, toilet preparations, lawn tools, screw cutting tools, mailing machines, building materials, doors, sash, blinds, pipe tools,' screw plates, reamers, drills, directories and maps, etc. Apples, tobacco, potatoes, pickling cucumbers, and onions are the leading agricultural products of the district. Dairying is extensive and important to the county. Financia1.--Greenfield has five financial institu- tions, including one national bank, one trust company, two savings banks, and one cooperative bank. Total resources are in excess of $81,000,000. National and Trust Company deposits are over $32,000,000. The Savings and Cooperative deposits L15 are well over $hh,OO0,000. Greenfield is the financial cen- ter of Franklin County. The value of real estate in 1963 was set at $75,h09,858 and the tax rate was set at $35.00 per $1,000. A complete reappraisal was made in 1962-63 and 100 percent valuations were set up.1 Mercantile.--With major chain stores and many good specialty shops, Greenfield is the heart of the area's shop- ping. Retail sales in this "in-town Shopping Center" result in sales approximating $h6,000,000 a year. The retail trad- ing zone of the town extends into southern Vermont and New Hhmpshire and includes an estimated 75,000 persons. The wholesale trading zone covers approximately 150,000 persons. According to the 1963 Census of Business,there are 228 retail and thirty-six wholesale establishments in the town. Education.--The town has a new high school and voca- tional school. The parochial school has seventeen teachers with an enrollment of 680. The Greenfield Community College, established in 1962, offers a two-year program leading either to an Associate in Arts or to an Associate in Science Degree. The College offers majors in Nursing (RN), Executive Secretarial, Busi- ness Administration, and Liberal Arts. Transportation.--The Boston and Maine Railroad pro- vides passenger and freight service on its Springfield to White River Junction line, and freight service only on a line 1This point of particular importance to this research. h6 from Boston to Rotterdam, New York. The principal highways in Greenfield are U.S. Route 5, Interstate Route 91 north and south, and Route 2 east and west. U.S. Route 5 goes north into the State of Vermont, and on the south it passes through Northampton, Holyoke, Spring- field, and then proceeds into the State of Connecticut. Route 2 goes west over the Mohawk Trail through North Adams and into Troy, New York, while on the east it passes through Athol, Leominster, Littleton, and into the Greater Boston area. Interstate Route 91 from Connecticut to Vermont passes through Greenfield and has two exits there. Communications.—-The Greenfield Recorder-Gazette (Cir- culation 13,500) is the area's daily newspaper. The local radio station, WHAT-AM-FM, a CBS affiliate, carries area and national broadcasts throughout the county. Power and water.--Electrical power is supplied to the area by the Western Massachusetts Electric Company. Nat- ural gas is piped in by the Berkshire Gas Company. Town water facilities include reservoirs and pumping stations. Hospitals.--Two hospitals, both with active expansion plans, serve Franklin County. The community hospital, Frank- lin County Public Hospital in Greenfield, offers full medical services to the community and sponsors Educational Programs in X-ray, Laboratory, and Nursing. Government.--Greenfield has a limited town meeting form of government; the 256 members meet annually. A three- man Board of Selectmen meets weekly to decide the issues ’47 involved in managing town affairs. Being the county seat, Greenfield is also the center of county government, directed by three County Commissioners. The Sample It should be emphasized that there is nothing random in the efforts at sample extraction. To the degree that the word "sample" may connote a probability function, it is improperly used in this research design. Briefly, properties were identified as to their neighborhood complex, than arranged on a continuum of Heterogeneity in regard to this complex. Finally, interviewing sites were selected to repre- sent the middle and both extremes of the continuum. Table h indicates the precise designations of portions of the con- tinuum and their pgssible inclusion in the sample. In the case of the intensive and of the Heterogeneity continuum, 311 possible cases were utilized. To this degree a population or universe is being examined rather than a sample. Data Collection The Instrument In the development of suitable questions, two pre- liminary questionnaires were used. The first was addressed to twelve outstanding real estate developers throughout the state. The second was sent to all real estate people listed in the yellow pages of the Amherst, Massachusetts, telephone book--about seventy-five cases. Both of these efforts were helpful in moving toward clearer concept development, but not h8 TABLE h.--Criteria for Extracting Interview Sites from Heterogeneity Continuum Categories of Heterogeneitya H0 N, N HO HE(A) HE(A) HE(B) HE(B) Criteria Not used--due to small number potential (8) and possible neutralizing effect of extremes. Extraction extending from lowest assess- ment differential in both directions; i.e., start with "O" on both left and right, then "0" on one side and "1" on other, then "1" on both sides, etc. Not used--due to intermediate place- ment. Ideal neutrality would consist of both differentials at 25 percent (midway between lower limit 11 percent and upper limit of 39 percent). Extraction extend- ing in both directions from ideal in a similar manner to HO HO above. Not used--due to intermediate place- ment. Extraction extending down from highest differential percent on Heterogeneous side. Entire cell extracted due to small total (28). Not used--due to small number in cell (6). aIncreasing intensity as page is descended. of sufficient worth to discuss in detail in this paper. Copies of the instruments used are contained as Appendixes III and IV. Finally, a schedule regarding the basic study was developed, protested, revised, and placed in the field with the first interviews completed on May 1, 1967. This L19 effort was discontinued after thirty-eight schedules were completed. The subsequent analysis and report on this research became, for the purpose of this research, the Pilot Study, which was submitted to the advisory committee on June 15, 1967- After much revision and a series of intensive inter- views (reported as Appendix V), a new instrument was devel- oped, pretested, and placed in the field on April 3, 1968. This schedule is included as Appendix VI and proved to be very workable. All data were finally collected as of May 25, 1968. Diagrammatic Presentation of Research Design Table 5 indicates in concise form the elements of this design. Although this indicates the sequence of thought in the application of the plan, it is not suggestive of a cause-and-effect relationship. The analeis attempts to show associational relationships only. 50 stonewaoz sea: cofieoeeoaeom communfin Hofioom mofiufibfipe< Homeom coasoo nofiueonoumw deacon on weanwonaom moanoaae> ecovcomon unoahoamsm obfiue< ow< no name» ouuom nebwzomsom Hmasm .n> none: manhunnzo oascoanvhocmmseoo cofipeeoq came oecoeamom Gawueoaow ucoeaommom an eeoeeeoo eaem moanowpe> maficOpaOch .owe aoonom no coaeawne hafiwawocwamuncoHuwooasOo haaamm .owcfivafisn cesspon meofiassn Hoefimmna no coconwecH .ohoepsno on moveaoa em anomaoamoa no om< nwmhamm< no whom no pocfisoxm moanofine> wcfinobaoan .coHpm5He> ecosmmommo ew> ponwsaouop one omega .hpspa sou moanewneb unopnomopaa one seam“: Homoeoeaeom co passe osom one anode onopom cmwmom nonmemomau.m mqmH moan nsoz passe mamas snaeom noeaoe noon oases xeoasoeoomv HHH 62oz spares mamas aosm passe nooaoe neon oases “awoaosoaomv HH soaoom soaoom manna passe norm sooaoo neon oaaom 1.666 .noaaoeoaoomv H ilwm (AP. 0 .LM 3 m N H II. macho Aswan on 3oqmlnaowafinom smmnapnoo NquOHQSOo museum nonpo one uncoopm ha oodafiLOpoQ no nuance coflmnsomfin ho moaoem noaoo2n1.mm mgmde .aoaao mcfiocdoa on com ucooaoa o.ooH soocbo .haomouoo msoocoHHoomHz noose“: pcooaom o.ooH no names so omopcooaoa obwpoaasdoofiumaosaoo¢ m.am m.m a.ma m.o s.ea m.m a.ea o.e H.ma aeooeomoaooom eases o.ooH o.ooa o.wo m.sm o.ms H.mm 0.5: n.6m :.ma emonnooaoa o>wpoaosdee< m.mm s.a s.m m.e N.Hm m.m s.sa o.s s.ma Hoaosoz senses p.00 oo.ee o.mo 6.0m n.6s 6.mm 6.0m 0.3m 0.0m oomoenooaoa o>wuo~5£fioe< eo.mo a.m o.mH s.m m.mm o.H s.ma e.m em.em nnooaoonom aaoweooo masses nzoz seaoom norm passe passe seesaw neon oHHom nanncoaooaom scape: o InwdfimooaocHnHNJNMOdeoo HI odao>nonsom (Iv (llcllll 1") oaoom huwxoamsoo on coauoaom a“ oozoa> mnofimnsOnfin sonnwflozupaoocoamom mo newaoa mo soapSDwapnwn owopcoOAomuu.>N mqmde 88 probably quite linear. Hypothesis Number Two The social distance between neighbors in Hompgeneous housing will be less than that in Heterogeneous housipg. Social distance was measured by a Guttman sequence of eight questions. These were repeated to include both neighbors. Social distance has been measured frequently in social science research since the early work of Emory S. Bogardus in which an ordinal sequence of attitudinal positions is derived.1 A modification of the usual procedure was attempted in the study reported here, in that behavioral as well as attitudinal dimensions were included. It was assumed that action would be even more indicative of attitude, than an attitude as expressed by the respondent. 0f the eight questions, six were behavioral and only two attitudinal. The attitudinal questions were: (1) Do you wish that they would move away frommGreenfield? and (2) If the situation developed, and barring emergencies, would you be pleased to have them as members of your household? The inclusion of behavioral ques- tions was expected to raise the validity level; however, it also influenced the coefficient of reproducibility; i.e., a respondent may wish to invite a neighbor in for a visit (atti- tude) but for various reasons never has taken this action. Placing this response among a Guttman sequence may result in a condition of "error" lowering the coefficient of 1Emory S. Bogardus, "A Social Distance Scale," Soci- ology and Social Research, XXVII (January-February, 1933), 2 -271. 89 reproducibility. It was felt that the loss of reproducibility was worth the gain in validity. The data were computer-processed using a special com- puter program.1 A first run, using all eight items against one neighbor only, produced a marginal frequency of items as shown in Table 28. Obviously, several of the questions were TABLE 28.--Marginal Frequencies of Eight-Item Guttman Sequence for One Neighbor Question Response 1 Response 2 No Response 62 11k 113 115 115 31+ 112 #3 U1 NU‘lw N NF'WU'I. (I) NOOOOOOO CDNO‘VIF'WNH \1 (N = 117) not very discriminating. This was unexpected as an extensive amount of protesting was accomplished. In order to cope with this condition, it was decided to discard the two questions that approached "N"; i.e., Questions h and 5 in Table 28. With this modification accomplished, the data were submitted to a Guttman treatment utilizing the remaining six items and using the data for all cases; i.e., 117 regarding the neigh- bor to the right and 117 regarding the left. This produced output that had coefficients of reproducibility well into the IBMDOSS, Guttman Scale Number l--Version of January'np 1965, Health Sciences Computing Facility, University of Cali- fornia at Los Angeles. ‘ur. 90 required ninetieth percentile and usable for a social dis- tance determination. The results, however, fell slightly short of ideal requirements for a Guttman Scale. The details of the information obtained and its limitations are described below. The first step in Guttman processing (in the program used) was to obtain Cornell scores for each respondent. This is simply the value of the positive responses. It was also done by hand as part of the coding activity. In order to obtain all available use of the computation, a comparison between Cornell scores and Heterogeneity of the housing milieu was performed. This is reported along with the Guttman score comparison. After the Cornell scores were obtained, the respon- dents and their scale scores were ranked, with questions ordered in increasing frequency. Finally, scores were rear- ranged in the Guttman order with reproducibilities described in Table 29. TABLE 29.--Coefficients of Reproducibility Obtained from Guttman Scaling of Social Distance Responses —_- I _.;-' _- —— Coefficients Neighbor Aa Neighbor B Coefficient of Reproducibility 0.9u160 0.9h017 Minimal Maginal Reproducibility 0.78632 0.76638 8A and B indicate right- and left-hand abutting neigh- bors; however, no right °§119ft position of neighbors is intended as significant. In the case of the Guttman computa- tions, the arrangement of the data dictated the treatment of each neighbor separately. 91 In assessing the adequacy of a Guttman scale, the prime requirement is a coefficient of Reproducibility above 90_porcent. This is expressed by Sellitz et al. in stating: "Guttman and his co-workers have set .90 as the minimal repro- ducibility necessary for a series of items to be regarded as l approximating a perfect scale." Also Torgerson states: Rep is the primary criterion of scalability. Originally a Rep of 0.85 was arbitrarily selected as the dividing line separating scales from nonscales. More recently, a Rep of 0.90 or better has been taken as the standard. A value of Rep equal to 0.90 or more means that, of all of the responses of all of the subjects to all of the items, no more than 10 percent correspond to errors of repro- ducibility.2 Table 29 indicates that in both cases the Rep was .9h plus, thereby placing this response grouping well within the limits described by the above authors. This is very satis- factory, but it does not go quite far enough. In commenting on further checks that may be made, Torgerson states: The coefficient of Reproducibility has remained the pri- mary criterion. . . . Various auxiliary criteria listed below are mostly in the nature of checks to insure that the value of Rep actually obtained is not spuriously high. The following section indicates the five auxiliary criteria and the degree to which these results qualify. 1. Npmber_pf answer categories. For dichotomous item, ten are desired and, although eight were included in the 1Claire Sellitz at al., Rpsearch Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 375} 2Warren S. Torgerson, Theory and Methods of Scalipg_ (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965), p. 323. 3Ibid., pp. 323-32u. 92 instrument, only six were retained. This reduction limits the confidence that may be placed in Rep. 2. Range of mapginal frequencies. It is desired that few items have more than 80 percent of the subjects in the most popular category. The results of this scaling places individual questions as indicated in Table 30. TABLE 30.--Margina1 Frequencies of Six-Item Guttman Sequence as Related to Neighbor Right and Neighbor Left Q t‘ Neighbor Right Neighbor Left ues ion Response 1 Response 2 Response 1 Response 2 1 SS 62 53 6h 2 3 llh 9 106 3 h 112 7 110 u 82 31, 82 35 S S 111 u 113 6 71 113 63 51 Obviously, this check has been violated. In an attempt to reduce this condition, a series of combinations was attempted. The net effect of this effort was no improve- ment. Rather than describe these data in combined form, it was thought to be less confusing to remain with the six-item scale. 3. The pgttern of errors. Should be random. An exami- nation of the Guttman listings for each subject failed to show any repetitive sequence of errors. Randomness was main- tained. h. Ipem reproducibility. Should be 0.85 or more. Table 31 provides this information. 93 TABLE 3l.--Leve1s of Guttman Scale Item Reproducibility by Right and Left Neighbor W Nei hbor A Neigpbor B Error Reproduci- Error Reproduci- Level bility Level bility Question Number 13 88.9 10 81.2 17 9606 S S 5 0 99.2 99.2 100.0 O‘U'IFWNH N owwrm O\O\0\O\I\O ommmmw O O O O 0 0444mm (N = 117) In only two cases is the item reproducibility check level violated, and only one of these is substantial-- approaching 10 percent. 5. Imppovement. Each item should have more nonerror than error. The Guttman listing shows this requirement is easily met. In part, this condition is indicated by information sup- plied in regard to point h (Table 31). In summary, the Guttman scaling attempt for the dichotomous social distance questions yielded scales that were more than adequate regarding the coefficient of repro- ducibility as computed. In probing further the basis for the reproducibility level Obtained, some deficiency may be noted. This is largely in regard to the rangp of marginal frequen- siss- This research report now takes the position that, although the Guttman scaling has been less than ideal, the results are sufficient to continue further and examine the 9h class relationships as they pertain to social distance levels. The interest of this research is in a subject as he resides in a certain house-value milieu--not as he relates to a specific neighbor. As has been previously explained, the research site consists of micro-neighborhoods. With this interest in mind, the social distance information for the two abutters is new combined to yield a social distance position (Guttman) for each respondent. The combination is realized by computing the mean position between the two neighbors and then subjecting this to scalogram analysis among all respon- dents. When the above procedure is completed, the median Guttman scores (also Cornell scores) are included in Table 32. TABLE 32.--Median Scores of Respondents in Relation to the Social Distance Between Respondents and Abutters T‘ _.-I Class Relationship Median Cornell Median Guttman Homogeneous 5.1758 3.179 Neutral 5.222 2.750 Heterogeneous 5.136 . 3.333 All 5.306 3.139 aBoth Cornell and Guttman scores applied on a seven- point scale. Re Cornell score (only). there is an inverse relationship; i.e., Social Distance increases as values decrease. Since the above statistics pertain to parametric data, it is not appropriate to apply a test of significance or in other ways proceed in a manner that assumes certain parameters of some larger group. The median itself must be examined as the final indicator of the difference in social distance. 95 Among the medians above, the one of particular interest to this study is the Guttman Homo-Hetero. This shows a direc- tion of more social distance as a greater Heterogeneity is realized, thereby supporting the Roman position. There are, however, two conditions that must temper this observation: (1) the difference is moderate in size and (2) the dip regard- ing the Neutral position is suggestive of a curvilinear rela- tion. Hypothesis Number Three Satisfaction with neighbors (in the Shuval sense) of residents of Homogeneous housing will be greater than that of neighbors in Heterogeneous housing. The "Shuval sense" is expressed as "referring to residents' feelings concerning the general helpfulness of neighbors, disturbance from neighbors' children, and prefer- ence for a different type of neighbor."l To a degree, "satisfaction with neighbors" has already been examined in the previous section regarding social dis- tance. For example, the question, "Do you wish that they would move away from Greenfield?" certainly is indicative of satisfaction. It seems reasonable, however, that a genuine liking for a person (social distance) could be realized and still no desire to have him as a neighbor. It also seems conceivable (although less likely) that a dislike toward a person might exist and still he perform quite satisfactorily as a neighbor. Satisfaction must, of course, relate to the 1Shuval, The Micro-Neighborhood, p. 278. 96 expectations held by the subject. In this study it is assumed that expectations that people have for their neighbors are sufficiently uniform that they may be examined with profit, and that this dimension is suitable as one aspect of social interaction for the purposes of this research. Eleven questions were designed to test the respon- dent's satisfaction with his neighbors. They were repeated for each abutter and were asked as follows: 1. Are you on a first-name basis with these neighbors? 2. Can you give me their telephone number from memory? After asking if any visiting under emotional circum- stances had occurred, the respondent was asked: 3. In the situation just described, did you feel a social obligation in helping out? Then: u. If the situation were reversed, would they have felt the same way? (Here it was presumed that a sense of social obligation might imply satisfactory performance as a neigh- bor.) . After asking if borrowing from a neighbor had occurred, the respondent was asked: 5. Did you feel that the borrowing just described was appropriate--that you could freely ask for this item? and then: 6. If the situation were reversed, do you think that they would feel the same way? 7. Have you ever had a disagreement or quarrel with these neighbors? 97 8. If you needed serious advice about a personal prob- lem, would you consult with this neighbor? 9. If this neighbor needed serious advice about a per- sonal problem, would she consult with you? 10. If your auto broke down several blocks from here and you thought she might be available, would you call upon this neighbor for assistance? 11. If the situation were reversed, would she call upon you? The percentage responses to these questions are contained in Tables 33 and 3h. The data obtained are dichotomous and lacking in order, thus are nominal in character. The interest from an analytic standpoint was to describe any association between the independent variables of house—value complex and the satisfaction with neighbors questions just cited. The Lambda (Guttman's Coefficient of Predictibility)1 appeared to be a sufficient test for the purpose. The results are contained in Table 35 and are all of low Lambda values--the highest, "Auto trouble, respondent," being only 0.1298. Intervening (Test) Variables This section will show that a number of dimensions of expected intervening influence, when probed via one broad social interactional measure (Cornell score), failed in any substantial way to alter the direct findings of the previous sections. 1A brief discussion of the Lambda test is contained as Appendix VIII. 98 TABLE 33.--Percontage Responses to "Satisfaction with Neigh- bors" Series of Questions-~Asked of Neighbor A a Undecided Question Yes No Donlt Know N A L First name basis with neighbor 75.2 2h.8 00.0 117 Know telephone number from memory 26.7 71.6 01.7 116 Emotional visit-~feel social obligation h2.9 h2.9 lh.3 7 Social obligation feeling also felt by respondent 87.5 00.0 12.5 8 Neighbor's borrowing appropriate 100.0 00.0 00.0 23 Respondent's borrowing appropriate 95.7 00.0 0h.3 23 Quarreling 9.h 89.7 00.9 117 Neighbor seeks serious advice 2u.8 7u.h 00.9 117 Respondent seeks serious advice 26.5 67.5 06.0 117 Neighbor helps with auto 6h.1 35.9 00.0 117 Respondent helps with auto 66.7 32.5 00.9 117 8Complete questions stated on pp. 96-97. 99 TABLE 3h.--Percentage Responses to "Satisfaction with Neigh- bors" Series of Questions--Askod of Neighbor B a Undecided Question Yes No Don't Know First name basis with neighbor 76.1 23.9 00.0 117 Know telephone number from memory 19.8 80.2 00.0 116 Emotional visit--feel social Obligation 69.2 23.1 07.7 13 Social obligation feeling also felt by respondent 92.3 07.7 00.0 13 Neighbor's borrowing appropriate 9h.7 05.3 00.0 19 Respondent's borrowing appropriate 100.0 00.0 00.0 18 Quarreling 9.h 90.6 00.0 117 Neighbor seeks serious advice 25.6 73.5 00.9 117 Respondent seeks serious advice 30.8 65.8 03.h 117 Neighbor helps with auto 52.6 h6.6 00.9 116 Respondent helps with auto 58.6 h1.h 00.0 116 aComplete questions stated on pp. 96-97. 100 TABLE 35.--Lambda Values Obtained Regarding Association of House-value Relationship with "Satisfaction with Neighbors" Series of Questions a Lambda Value 3_ Question Neighbor A Neighbor B First-name basis with neighbor 0.0385 0.0000 Know telephone number from memory 0.06h8 0.071h Emotional visit--social obligation 0.0000 0.0116 Respondent feels social obligation 0.0119 0.03hl Neighbor's borrowing appropriate 0.1031 0.0hh9 Respondent‘s borrowing appropriate 0.1212 0.0532 Quarreling 0.0233 0.0538 Neighbor seeks serious advice 0.0577 0.0000 Respondent seeks serious advice 0.0175 0.0571 Auto trouble, neighbor 0.0259 0.0783 Auto trouble, respondent 0.0000 0.1298 aComplete questions stated 01'! pp 0 96-97 0 101 Methodology A review of the possible intervening variables pro- duced a list of eleven items. Among the interactional data obtained, the Cornell scores appeared to represent a wide portion of that spectrum. It was then arbitrarily decided to test the "Heterogeneity-House Value Complex" association, when controlling for each of the identified intervening vari- ables and utilizing the Cornell scores. In the interest of parsimony, it seemed appropriate to look at one-half of the available cases.1 This was possible as the data were obtained on a right- and left-neighbor basis,2 and there is no expectation that neighboring would yield to any right- handednoss-left-handednoss influence. Although the data used are ordinal in nature, the Lambda test appeared suffi- cient in a determination of intervention. The expectation was that any sizable "Lambda" could be subsequently reex- amined using a more discriminating test; i.e., at this point, only an indicator was needed and Lambda was adequate to this need. Next, each intervening variable is discussed and the test outcome stated. Physical barrier or facilitating,influence.--With 3 the Festinger work so clearly showing that physical 1The percentage distributions then may vary slightly as either all neighbors are under discussion or only one-half. 2Also referred to as neighbor "A" and neighbor "BF 3Festinger et al., Social Pressures in Informal Groups. 102 arrangements do influence social interaction, it was impera- tive that this dimension be carefully probed. A series of questions1 was asked of the interviewer, but with the sugges- tion that any unclear condition should be checked with the respondent. Among the physical barriers to social interac- tion specifically checked were obstruction of view of each other's houses due to trees, bushes, walls, solid fences, out-buildings, etc.; differential positioning of houses, either in angle on the lot or extremes of elevation; and excessive distance between houses (more than an estimated fifty feet). Facilitatipg conditions included driveways and doors positioned in such a way to be conducive to interac- tion; and recreational facilities such as swimming pool, pic- nic table, sandbox, swing, slide, barbecue, tennis court, etc., located near the lot line. In addition to the above check-list type of question, a separate question--0ther, please describe--was included. The "raw data" regarding these questions are contained in Table 36. In order to evaluate the information properly, it seemed desirable to combine these items into some single measure. With this in mind, a score was constructed by arbi- trarily assigning a "one plus" to the facilitating response, and a "one minus" to the barrier. (To eliminate negative scores, a "plus four" was added to each final score.) This assumes that the influences scored would be equal to each other in their effects. Another assumption of this scoring lSee pp. 3 and h of Interview Schedule, Appendix VI. 103 TABLE 36.--Percentage Distribution of Physical Barriers and Facilitating Conditions Between Respondent and Neighboring Homes Condition Percent Obstruction of view of houses due to trees, bushes, vines, wall, solid fence, out- buildings, etc. 13.2 Adjacent driveways and/or exterior doors--or alternating door and driveway 26.5 Differential positioning of houses--including lot elevation 7.7 Excess distance between homes--more than fifty feet 9.8 Recreational facility, swimming pool, picnic table, sandbox, swing, slides, barbecue, tennis court, etc., near the lot line 5.1 Other 2.6 (N = 231+) arrangement is that of face validity. This seemed reason- able as the items involved were physical and Obvious. The reliability aspect was checked via a sample field re-test. The separation among the "FacilityrBarrier" condition for test purposes was: Barrier, Neither Barrier Nor Facil- ity, and Facility. These yielded Lambdas of .2250, .2hl9, and .lh58, respectively. It should be noted that the Lambda obtained without a control was .071h. It then appears that an increase in predictibility between Heterogeneity and Social Interaction is realized when 32y of the controls just discussed are applied. The essential aspect in regard to the intervening effect, however, is the degree to which one 10h control condition provides an association (Lambda) as differ- ent from another of the same set. The widest separation in the Lambdas above is between the absence of barriers and facilities, and a facilitating condition; i.e., .2h19 and .lh58. The not difference is .0961. This is of a magnitude that in some 9.6 percent of the time one variable quantity can be predicted from knowing the other. This is hardly a large amount and is thereby discounted as an important inter- vening variable. (It is among the largest of the interven- ing influences examined as part of this research.) ‘Agg.--It was felt that similarity of age would inten- sify social interaction. Thus, the question was posed: Do you feel that these neighbors are in your age bracket? In 3h.2 percent of the cases the neighbor was considered as within the same bracket. In controlling for this variable, those of the same age produced a Lambda of .07h1; and those of different ago, .1300. The net difference (.0559) again, an extremely low level of association. House value.--The identification of respondents as residing in a Hetero, Neutral, or Homo value complex was based upon pprcentagp differentials in house values. An important question then is: If this percentage-based sepa- ration is applied only to houses of high, or only to houses of low value, would a difference in the Heterogeneity-Social Interaction relationship appear? When separated into high- 105 low value categories, the percentage breakdown shown in Table 37 is obtained. TABLE 37.--Percentage Distribution Common House-Value Level Between Respondent and Neighbors Level Percent Respondent and neighbor both have homes valued at under $1u,000 28.2 Respondent and neighbor both have homes valued at $1h,000 and over h7.9 Categories other than above 23.9 Total 100.0 (N = 117) The application of the Lambda test of association yielded a .1026 for the high-value group and .0857 for the low-value group. The net difference is then .0169. This small differential then indicates that the intervening influ- ence of differential value levels is almost nil. Ethnicipy.--An inquiry regarding "Same Nationality" of the respondent and the abutting neighbor produced 58.1 percent answering "yes" and 3h.6 percent, "no."' The Lambda results for both of those categories produced the same figure (.1333) indicating no measurable intervention influence from variation in ethnicity. Working wife.--An examination of the quality of interaction depends upon the prior occurrence of interaction. If the wife is away during the working day, the interaction 106 potential is greatly decreased. With this thinking in mind, a question regarding employment outside the home was posed. Results showed that h3.6 percent of the wives were employed. When Lambda was applied, a figure of .0938 was computed for the working group and .1111 for the nonworking segment. The differential here is .0173, indicating that the influence of this possible intervening variable is extremely slight. Children.--The depth interviews taken in anticipation of the construction of the schedule repeatedly emphasized the importance of children as a "catalyst" in neighborhood social interaction. The percentage division of this characteristic is as follows: both respondent and neighbor having children, no.2 percent; either respondent or neighbor having children, h6.2 percent; and neither respondent or neighbor having chil- dren, 13.7 percent (N = 117). A Lambda of .1111 was obtained when both had children; .101h, when only one member had chil- dren; and .1053, when neither had children. The largest dif- ferential here is between both-having and either-having and is .0097. From this it must be concluded that, for the dimensions measured by the Cornell scores, the incidence of children as an intervening variable was of little influence. This finding is certainly surprising and is suggestive of an area for further investigation. The key to an explanation perhaps lies within the specific eight questions producing the Cornell scores--none relating to children directly. ‘ng§,--Thero are many indications that America has become a nation of dog owners. This may be observed in the 107 amount of dog food in supermarkets, TV commercials, etc. It was, therefore, likely that many respondents and neighbors would own dogs. 0f the respondents, h3.6 percent (N = 117) answered in the affirmative. In the case of the pgighbor, the question inquired as to social interaction as a result of dog ownership and only 12.0 percent (N = 117) answered affir- matively. In spite of the disparity between these questions, the groups were combined for the purpose of applying the test of association. A Lambda of .0320 was Obtained when one or both had dogs and .1739 when neither had a dog. The differ- ential then is .1h19--the second largest intervening influ- ence found in this analysis. It must be noted, however, that this computation (and only this one) may be slightly spurious as unlike items were combined to produce the "have dog" sta- tistic. The level, however, is still low. Religion.--0f the respondents, 3h.2 percent (N = 117) said they had the same religious faith as the neighbor. When the Lambda test was applied, the net differential was .0318 (.0851 for same and .1169 for different religion). It must be concluded that for the specific group examined in this research, religion did ppp intervene to any sizable degree in the quality of social interaction. Tenure of residence.--Among the possible intervening 108 variables, this was included as perhaps the most prObable item. The breakdown examined was: under ten years as neigh- bors and ten years and over as neighbors. This produced a percentage distribution of 69.2 and 30.8. The Lambdas were .1h55 and .0238--difforential of .1217, thereby supporting the expectation. Apparently how long you are a neighbor does affect the quality of social interaction. Again, it must be noted that the impact is of a modest magnitude. Social class.--The percentage distribution, arranged on an arbitrary, three-level class separation, is indicated in Table 38. TABLE 38.--Percentage Distribution of Respondents Among Three Social Classes Class Percent High (Hollingshead I and II) 18.8 Medium (Hollingshead III) 29.1 Low (Hollingshead IV and V) 52.1 Total 100.0 (N = 117) The Lambda obtained for high social class is .2000, for medium is .0000, and for low is .lth, the maximum dif- ferential then being .2000. Although this is the highest Lambda differential Obtained and appears to refute a finding of "little class association with social interaction," it 109 again is a relatively low Lambda. (Friends before.--This should be a pertinent interven- ing influence; however, the number of cases in this category (seventeen) was too small to produce acceptable Lambda results. The effect of this variable than remains unknown-- the sample then characterized generally as people without prior friendships. Although none of the intervening variables just dis- cussed appears to offer any large impact upon the Heteroge- neity-Social Interaction phenomenon, in a combined arrange- ment they might exert such an influence. As a further step in analysis, this was considered but did not prove practica- ble as cell sizes became too small for realistic testing. This research effort then must state that the effect of the intervening variables is low when thoy are considered singly, but the effect of gombinations is unknown except that in this study combinations exist in very small numbers. As a confirming effort, a specific question related to social interaction was selected and all the previous con- trols were run against the Heterogeneity-Social Interaction-- "specific question association." The question selected was: "If your auto broke down several blocks from here and you thought she might be available, would you call upon this neighbor for assistance?" This question was selected as it includes both an attitudinal and a behavioral context, as do the Cornell scores. 0f the respondents, h1.0 percent (N = 117) answered 110 "yes" to this question. (As was done with the Cornell scores, the analysis is limited to one neighbor, thus the N of 117.) Table 39 indicates the Lambdas obtained using the above question in place of the Cornell scores. When compared with those derived using the Cornell scores, the Lambdas appear to confirm the Cornell results.1 Several differences require explanation and the following is offered. .Agg shows a greatly increased differential. This seems reasonable when calling for physical activity such as driving a car. Obviously, the older person may ggpp_to'be helpful but not by physically able. The respondent then would answer "no" to indicate that he would not call on this neighbor. Ethnicipy also shows a sharp increase and no reason can be found. It is difficult to believe that an ethnic dif- ference would restrict the willingness to ask for help in an emergency. The Cornell score shows no such finding but con- sistently is restricted to less traumatic situations. The Lambda again rises regarding the working wife. It might be expected that the working wife would be less known to the respondent, and hence more reluctance in call- ing upon her. A substantial rise in the case of incidence of chil- gppp_might be related to the availability to help when chil- dren must be looked after. The Cornell items relate to activities that may be planned, as against the "auto trouble" 175 1The combined Lambda for the "auto help" question is 0.0 O 111 TABLE 39.--Lambda Results Obtained in the Analysis of Association Between Heterogeneity and Social Interaction when Controlling for Specified Variables Intervening Variable Lambda Physical Relationship Between Houses of Respondent and Neighbor: Barrier .0000 Neither barrier or facility .0816 Facility .0000 Age: Same .1905 Different .0000 House-Value Level: High .0769 Low ~05h5 Ethnicity: Same . .1667 Different .0000 Working Wife: Works .1h58 Does not work .0606 Children: Both have .0870 Either one or other has .0536 Neither has .2500 Dog: One or both has .0333 Neither has .1905 Religion: Same .0313 Different .0690 Residential Tenure: 10 years or more (both) .0000 Under 10 years .1765 Social Class: High .0000 (Hollingshead) Medium. .0606 Low .08h7 (N = 117) 112 that is indefinite in time. The influence of the social-class differential declined greatly when the auto question was used. Generally, it seems reasonable to assume that emergencies cause class differences to relax. In the cases of house value, possession of dogs, £211? ggpp, and tenure of residence, the general relationships are similar to the Cornell score findings. Even if one were to accept the auto question as more representative of the poten- tial influence of the intervening variables, the Lambdas for them can hardly be considered large. Again, then, it must be concluded that the identified intervening variables are of slight consequence except as they may increase in impact when combined in individuals. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Residential house-value combinations and selected dimensions of social interaction are examined as the central concern of this research. The value dimension, not previ- ously a direct part of sociological theory formulation, was perceived as a correlate of social class. This suggested the George C. Homans' interaction hypothesis as pertinent; i.e., social classes interact more in an inward than an out- ward direction.l Edward 0. Lauman calls this the "like me" hypothesis.2 The positions just described were modified as the research exposed two limitations. First, the equating of house value and social class appeared, under analysis, as less than a perfect relationship. Although the literature generally supports the proposition that the value of the residence and the social class of the occupants are related, this research does not. It does not, however, provide evi- dence that the proposition is false. This research examines 1Homans, The Human Group. 2Edward O. Lauman, Prestige and Association in an Urban Communit (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs Merrill Co., Inc., 19667, p. Ii. 3Supra, p. 67. 113 11h a nonrandom, highly selected sample in one community and uses a purely Objective measure for the social-class designation-- the Hollingshead Two Factor Index. In the check of interven- ing variables, social class did produce the highest degree of association (.2000). Since the research is directly concerned with the house value complex, and the social-class connection is used as a bridge to the "like me" phenomenon, the independent variable of the study is maintained as house value and the social-class inference is left for the reader to accept or reject. House-value relationships are designated Homogeneous when both abutting neighbors have valuations within 10 per- cent of the respondent; Heterogeneous, when one or both abutters have valuations uO percent or more in difference from the respondent; and Neutral, for those falling in a central position. The second modification is in respect to a descrip- tion of frequency of social interaction. Originally, a sim- ple counting of social contacts appeared adequate to the testing procedure. The results of the pilot study, however, in exposing the great variation among neighborhood contacts strongly suggested an emphasis on the depth of this relation- ship. The frequency interest, then, is maintained but in a secondary position. 115 This study establishes several arbitrary categories of social interaction among neighbors. They extend from the contacts that are simply customs requiring little personal involvement to contacts made with considerable planning and determination. Any consolidation of such actions for count- ing purposes must reflect the relative importance of each act. This requires a weighting scheme, which is accomplished in relation to the complexity variable. It was not, however, extended to establish a purely mathematical count of neighbor contacts. With the above shifts accepted, the theory that evolved indicated the following relationship. Within the micro-neighborhood, as house values become less varied, the social interactional dimension of complexity of interaction, social distance, and satisfaction with neighbors will move in a positive direction; i.e., increased complexity, decreased social distance, and increased satisfaction. The testing of this theory was accomplished using a survey technique with an instrument of some seventy-four questions. Interview sites were chosen primarily in regard to their level of heterogeneity of house values. Beyond this, a number of respondent characteristics were held constant by selection in order to effect a high order of variable control. The analysis involved a series of statistical tests 1arge1y~~Guttman's Coefficient of Predictibility (Lambda) and Guttman's Scalogram Analysis. The actual computations were completed using the machine‘data-processing facilities 116 (CDC 3600) at the University of Massachusetts Computing Cen- ter. The common activities (Hypothesis One) on a simple frequency basis favored the Heterogeneous group (38.1 percent as compared with 26.7 percent for the Homogeneous group)1; i.e., people living in a mixed house-value micro-neighborhood had social contacts with immediate abutting neighbors more frequently than those in common-value micro-neighborhoods. This at first appears to refute the "like me" hypothesis; however, the complexity-level aspect and the recall problem mitigate against such an interpretation. In addition, there is the limitation for generalization produced by the nonrandom aspect of the sample. Probably a designation of "indicator" is all that may be implied. It should be noted, however, that, within the confines of the sites studied, this "indicator" is a hard finding. In viewing the complexity of the interaction, con- tacts were arbitrarily assigned to categories suggested by the responses. These were then rated as to complexity level and a comparison with the house-value complex made. A clear, but slight, direction was realized. This showed complexity rising with heterogeneity of the value complex. If an equat- ing of complexity and amount of contagt may be assumed, this again would be unsupportive of the "like me" hypothesis. The social distance (Hypothesis Two) analysis lSupra, p. 77 (Table 21). 11? suggested separation of the social classes; i.e., as hetero- geneity was realized, social distance increased. Again, the size of the indication was small. Here a caution must be injected in regard to the limitations of the methodology. The Guttman scaling employed appeared to be very appropriate but, in practice, was found to be something of a trap. It seemed a reasonable assignment to achieve a ten- or twelve- item.Guttman sequence that would meet the established criteria. In application, it was extremely difficult. The above finding, then, is based on a scaling attempt that, although of definite value, must be labeled as less than ideal in meeting the requirements for a Guttman scale. The satisfaction with neighbors (Hypothesis Three) dimension was examined by the use of eleven test questions. A Lambda test of association failed to discern any sizable difference among the house-value relationships. Among the three hypotheses, then, one points very slightly toward increased social contact as house-value hetero- geneity is realized; one points very slightly in the opposite direction; and the third is quite neutral. A general inter- pretation would suggest a finding of 92 difference. In an investigation relating physical environment with social activity, the possibility for intervening variables would be expected to be large. A consideration of these was made and a number held constant by sample selection. There were also ten additional items thought sufficiently pertinent that they were subjected to individual testing. This was 118 accomplished, again using the Lambda procedure. No inter- vening variable of sizable impact was noted. As has been previously mentioned, social class produced the greatest influence--.2000. When the generalized Lambda of .07lh (all intervening variables combined) is subtracted, an influence of some .1286 remains. This is certainly of a low level. The theory thus outlined then was examined in a highly focused design and found to be lacking; i.e., the expected differences did Egg occur. This then permits the conclusion that, within the specified sample group, variation in house value was not associated with variation in the three social interaction variables subjected to test. The design characteristics of this research permit the above statement to be made with considerable conviction. It should be noted that the findings per 36 have lit- tle generalization potential; i.e., by design, randomness was not realized. It does, however, point a direction for sig- nificant further study in an extension to other family group- ings and geographical locations. The common expectation, as indicated indirectly by the Homans' theory, is that the occupants of a neighborhood of mixed-valued housing would interact socially less than those in similarly valued housing. This research does not support this view and even provides a slight suggestion in the opposite direction. It must be again noted that a broad theory such as the "like me" hypothesis cannot be seriously challenged via a very limited study such as this. The 119 important question raised by this research is: "Does the 'like me' hypothesis fail under certain limited circumstances; i.e., within the micro-neighborhood setting?" Further, in fact, is a phenomenon of slight reverse effect noted; i.e., do heterogeneous housing values in a close neighborhood (phys- ically) override class separation as it is usually experienced and, in fact, produce increased class integration? Dean and Rosen cite the many findings that support the reduction of prejudice as a result of contact.1 Certainly, the micro—neighborhood is conducive to contact-~in spite of the reduction of neighborhood interaction generally. If then the "wall of prejudice" is leveled at this point, is there the opportunity for increasing social interaction? Gene, in suggesting something of an ideal, would have "selective homo- geneity at the block level and heterogeneity at the community level."2 Given a lack of prejudicial barriers, there are many differences that may prompt interaction. Ethnicity is certainly one dimension of difference that may evoke neighbor response. Also, differences in occupation, in art interest, ownership of certain material possessions, etc., may provide a basis for social exchange—~this to a degree a result of difference in social classli Man has always been of an inquiring mind-~as of this writing, Apollo 8 is circling the moon. This research 1Dean and Rosen, Manual for Intergroup Relations. 2Gans, The Levittowners, p. 172. 120 perhaps scratches the surface of a doorway to new experience within a modified neighborhood. Further research might replicate this effort in other geographical areas and on a larger scale-~this to determine the degree of generality that may be possible. In applying a larger test, it is important that the micro-neighborhood technique be retained as it serves as a device for previewing a social milieu in a yet- to-be-established community. This, of course, assumes that the conditions maintaining in the limited micro complex would also maintain in the new and more extended area. If, in looking at more cases, it can be determined that the usual class relationships are modified in the heterogeneous resi- dential value complex, community builders may have new and helpful directions for developing physical housing arrange- ments conducive to more desirable patterns of social inter- action. APPENDIX I PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND BUILDING RECORD 121 muzadam d nz ..(FOP o 4.2.0» n x w .oo. T oz: u:..<> 1.3.3 H x w oz. . u Eng .5 mmzu... Em mos... u... H5... ".05: mode 58 do. ...u. >205. :Ewo :2: :Ewo 31.29.". 58 oz. . ezassm a oz: m3; 4:? zockzuOmz. Cute”... 32.3.3. was; .30» 33:8 . oz: m3; 433 oz.zSUmo E ...o 0.55 3355...: oz_>o~Ez_ 8:: hUEhfin no alum... hwwzhm I $53.5 ...: €21 3;... «oh I moan. .Pm PZOKL IPlUwD .523 :5:le wU._._U_¢PUWI_N 02.44”” . ||ll|||.lll|) >241!“ 024 mzo_h Dz<.._ wm mh2w2w>omn=fi >zm<¢UOLOh mk ..<.ro.r 32.35950 m. In mo oz<.. 32.0» N m. 2 m. a. m. a. a. mum. mom. .u.m\<_ 2:... .mamo .5, ....ma ozoo 81$. ”.3 mafia ma: Czéauuo 28.-.53 - JOwQO m>zm m...» 0523... “:3” . , 02:3: oz 3.02:3 oooz. m34<> mama $53.. 05... 3.52.5 airman :33 out; 203304.5218 5.39.56 achuf £3me :2: 0275?. 20.5004 455.. >ramZOm . g . a , . A . . i . . V. . , . o (. .6 . . . . . . ..\ . .. o . .s . I . . . . . . t . . . 1 .. (I I . a . v. .. . u e o . . n . 1. i v .-. ... . . _ . . . . . c . 1 x . II N . .. x. . . x v . . . e \ a a \ . . \ 2 \ r . . . . e . . . .. . KY! \ x f , <~'. . n . . .. .\ ... ..d x. . a I o . .x . \ B . V. ,.. . ..- D. . ‘0‘ . .rbsl [kit .3 I..!nlu.l..v ‘. A . .. v I .r ..- .., H v w. . . . . s. V ... . e . ., 2 . \ ..., .., . .N. it 0 \v. . \ .. A u .- .. (I. . y. I V: 4 ;.. If. 6 - 3 n my , .. . . . A. ‘1 . .. 1‘ 6. .I- .. . . t . 4 0'. . . t p .ul ..L fl v! I n d u, . . s . . . . I .1. .. .7! A ‘0 . .. ._ x. . .. . _. ..d n.“ .... o w - . a . .l u ‘ C ‘ .e .-u ... . . ~ 1 I! K . . . ..n . a .. .1 a . o y I r 1 , ‘J . \ . . . . . 1 .. a . .. 7 . . a. . . A r 1 _ . \ o, . 1 v .1 .1 P14 \( .A-II- l . d , . I . t . . . ... . o o . . . a. .1 C t s . ) . .l. n» .. . .V ’). q s \ L w ~ I“ ‘(\ ,_ Q . .-l ,..l l‘!’ 71"“ \n. 1116 A. Recreational facility, swimming pool, picnic table, sandbox, swing, slides, bar-b-q , tennis court etc., near lot line. Facility right CD Cd 1 Col 24 Facility left (3 ca 1 Col 25 Ho facility Q Do not code Other - Please describe To right side Q Cd 1 Col 26 To left side ( :1) ca 1 (:61 27 None (3 Do not code ( Interviewer: Begin questioning of respondent with items on, next page - S. ) ‘n 3 . ' .‘ A ' \ j . V I" o 1 . » ' u. *‘-w—-;ey‘wwo m—r ‘V'fi .a- ......, 9 - 1 " - V ' ' V I V . ’ , . § 3; ~ 4- " I > r ,,v ‘ ~ ’. . ‘ V . . K x ,.' u O 5 ‘ _ .g- ,_ _ -. _ .. . , . , e to I. «1' ' " - 6 n .« ’ ,. , .-- vv fiv' .. -\ x ! g f 1, t. 1. . ' 1t8 Number What is their last mane? Home Have they lived there for three months or more? Yes R0 1’ “yes", low long have they Lived there? Under 1 year About 1 year About 2 years Ahmxt 3 years About ’- "ears he not an t 5“ Ceding.- . - ' 5. Shot is the house DEF-be?! tor the neighbor to our £3315 than we [are the street? Number Do not. cs. What is their last name? News Do not CL'..'-' - o u I - Have they lived there tame mourns or more? Yes L...) Do not cow a. CI) 253 "yes", How long have they lived there? Cd 1 Col Under 1 year (.3 1 fr. About 1 year (.3 2 About 2 years C...) 3 About 3 years D A About 4 years 0 5 p... 5-9 years K...) 6 10 yrs and over (...—.3? 7 6. What in the house number for the neighbor to our _1e£t when we face the street? in not 1:12“ (.a. - l|"_ . 1&9 6A. Coding {-11.15- ' '.. -— -- “I III-fluifiln'u - I--“. ‘1“‘l ' “‘— ' ' u " fmmrrL-Ie.-.zuw_' '—=—':.1‘.m-—'-¢‘f:-HJ-—.'Jflh'“ r -".'n .' . . l- .u.‘ 1". -.' - ' ?. when did you move inzo this xesideuce? Cd 1 Col 35 Less than 3 montho ago Ik>not code Under 1 year 1 In About 1 year ago About 2 years ago about 3 years ago About 4 years ago 5—9 years ago 00000000 10 years and over ;--< -- - — --.~—- . _._,,.. .._. (Interviewer: At this point you should have determined if the respondent meets the following criteria. If one does not, terminate the interview ~ otherwise continue with q 8. next page.) Criteria: Housewife - married and living with husband Bo not cefle In the age bracket 20 through 70 years ‘ She and/o: husband still in labor force ‘ They own their own home ~ this home. They and abutting neighbors resident for three months or more. Beopondento‘ and abetting neighbore' homes are all one family structures. 31 O . ‘ _ . , . . . - - . ‘ . 4 ¢ . . \ _ t . . ‘ , , - '1 I _ ‘ . ‘ - ‘. .7 ‘ .’ - '1. ‘ - ' .— l‘ , r LE Llildrcu are 1’ " . r“ ...1 q , nv—.‘y ‘\-.. 1‘¢\.-,,\. ,, ‘1. A... ..V\ .....l ‘uI-f srk ‘F‘I'"\l'-ou k: -‘o ..'.. -. " ' O 9 I " I) . ‘ ’ . . .1 - ‘ ""f f “’ “3,5'1 "$"W (.1 y“. """‘v;" '1 t "1' ‘v o l. t . w L\\.— J. 40-0 .-.L~u-'~-- o- ..v § 4 t} ”a ’. ‘ ‘ 5’ '9'.\ O. . O I- .‘1 " o a; . g o ' .. , . \ ..’ "o: u?" .'I{\’\..‘Ps ': , 5‘ PI“: :‘-,-“ru‘\ 33*: ~v;\.-g.-*H'\3 'Y.'fi.'§¢,‘-1 51:7.- 4. J .‘.J I: m. -»«., Ll"u~'|ylv «...»...n a“ v-L. \...‘o o. -o..\..a.o..-.o~o R'v‘t'..'\t {1 1v..or-¢'~f - ~ O D N " V o. O t o 4‘ f! 9“ " r! h‘.., "?3 "-‘."! (s’fv . :Ilrx ~¢‘ ('-'-'\ "\ {xv-V .51‘ ’- . "‘ ‘4 “r’n' ~‘so4. o'p/\ f-a : n , ‘uv— (\z‘ I‘ -"l"' A" ",3 ‘~- .x.- b:. v I -' 'u'~ h‘co '.. ..- .I » 4’...” .‘.‘~.. ‘ ‘0 -, 5"--. .'.0. ..’~-"‘— .....-— ‘.a‘..b....._’ a. \-\' 51.....‘I J. in , \~-4--.\-- I! ',.‘.~- 1-».- g , o .. .0 a . y (a '- A... . 4.»; -« ‘-'4v \ ..‘f'. A.. f.. as L.‘ 3 X I ‘..' A‘ ~ I " '- L"}{ I')-n‘ & 'r A ... .1 .. -45.~\,. ,. ‘ ..a .\ . ..\- . ‘1... o I -’ (‘ . _ ,- . 1..» s. .a—-5‘..a.v‘pcs -‘~ »\ .. .¢- A -.." .. ‘A .".-\‘ m .ywd' n 4. 3. ‘_..~ ‘ , , . w, ‘ -~im».’o-.q- c.1up.IV‘-.a«'t u Aurq‘y ”A ,~‘Ig< ~---. 47%,» .}"f~'.‘_“‘-"‘", - “~- 9—+::cA-.ruo .v,,._,.. a. .- ,-V.v-‘...-... u-u-'1* , ,o ‘ y. . .¢~_, -,- .—u . -vn,"_ r-.- -5 «m -_5,4, ..r ~ y... ‘V I; u§~ 'A4.-~‘.no~t orh-t..p-og.p« phl, 4- - fl ‘...,_~ ~u.¢v‘A-.‘.x~.:. «...-,-‘ ¢.V.'(N‘ ..- r-A. ‘4 "~.‘.A-I uw- .‘v-rr .-« .- ..- 'wrvr— .~:. .....‘p -."'.£.'l¢..i'-~,n{l.—‘«, (‘...“_$ mnl-‘w-i-nf‘v‘- 4‘4“» ' t-J‘dL .0“.‘.'4_‘A ... .-‘..-.§- Q'o .: 1....- u-‘-.‘.,--e~- b.‘“"“,l. _... 4, - sv‘"~~.~o——o. ‘VU‘O‘ ‘_..a--._'.g-r,_-‘ \- rw ..- V3\.'o_'.4 -.9 a- I,.-’Q"~vo.r,-Aw_o- ‘Iv-l-F'“ Iant.,’ ,w-,7,‘. «‘4\~‘.- . «‘7.»~\ ,. ‘-.r.. -‘-,.q_‘ .‘ in. v---O' ...;~--.~.ro. . .. F«¢./~-.q.‘*.-...x.- r.,4.. -.L- A,“ I 4.r:: 4‘ - .‘ -~ ~ ‘.1y‘:- —‘ I ..‘~ r ”‘74 ‘5‘..- n.~.- p.‘- u- -- L,~,-..-. 2 u.. 'd.\v.-a u‘q pg.“ .—u-_ -. v . v.‘ n ,m ...,g. ~ ,--a' J—-.-\--—p-N‘, I _. A ---. ...- _‘ ..- A .‘ ... .... A .-.. A "v v ... ‘r—-—— w. w— o. ...—... —— --—¢— ...;6- -.‘ .17“ w-ns -.-”l" v..- ..-—---..- .....p; ..m‘t! ’. .- 1.- ‘oQI 'I .1 «,3, M ‘ ‘ u 7A. 151 Coding only 9. Do you have a dog? Yes (1') Cd 1 «1% 1 \ No Q 2 1 \ \ If "yes", Please describe in what ways-this dog is a basis for contact between you and your neighbors - and if this does occur, how frequently. (Interviewer: Please identify the neighbor of reference.) - § 10. Who is the head of this household? (Interviewer: This is usually the principal income producer.) Cd 1 Col 47 ' Husband I 1 Wife 2 f Other 3 ‘ If "other" please explain. Coding only: Cd L 001 48 152 ~- ... ....— ~u— v—a-o- ~-.-.u"'- . ...—.—-.-—.-- ..- ”...—ma. -..... _—-.—.- p..- .. -s... ‘ 11.. What i,- thi' o~‘-'=Paa:1onni the: head of the: household? lit-u“ 1 Col . lo‘) I Occupation Gods 1:47 to " Hollingshead 2 (hesitate- new and address factor index sea! ; 6: of ominous _ _ enter at bottom 12- now much «hosting has the head of the household cognleted? ca 1 Col 50 3120a: 1:»? ref: Hollingsbe/xd 2 . factor ings: scale aflé fighter atlxbottou of peg: . Graduate Professional Training (completion 0 . G of a gunduato degree) ’ ,: . Standard College or :University Graduation C) I. 2 _ Partial College: Training 0 3 High School Graduates CD It Partial High School Q i 5 Junior High School Q E 6 Less “men Sewn Years of School 0 4‘ 7 (Interviewer: Reminder of this page for coding purposes only) e head 2 . o . Factor =- Occupation‘asm 1: Factor list 7 - Factor a Education 3 Factor "gt 4 - Index of Social Position , """m :Gd 1 co1_ 51 Social Class Rs 8 of uted Score I 11017 1 II 18~27 . . 2 III - , 284.3 ' ‘ i 3 IV ‘ I “'60 ' z I; V 61-777 5 s. 153 Coding only 13' If this home were offered for sale at the present time ca 1 Col 52 about'how much do you think is would 3611 for? under $10.000 § i 1 10-14 D 2 15-19 C3 3 20-24 D 4 25-34 Q 5 35-49 D 6 SO & over _ <::) 7 Don't know or refused to answer (::3 0 . Cd 1 Col 53 14} What do you think of as your national background? American ( U.So ) (::) 1 Other 5 ) 2 If ”g fiver”; iihat‘? ‘ . Cd 1 Col 54 15. What does your husband think of as his untional bockgrozggffi rican (00$. _1 Other C::) 2 If "other", What? (Interviewer: Ehe next series of questions pertain only to the immediate neighbor on the right as you face the street. Please see that the respondent has tho appropriate neighbor clearly in mindo) 16. So you feel that these neighbors are in your age bracket? Cd 1 Col 55 tea C. 3 1 Ho ( -—_:.:‘..~.. . M fl 1514 .1...” .. _. . 17- 23 your neighbors to 2131:: riot-at :z-ve children living; .4 at: home? ‘59:: C: as <3 If ='yoza“ ..---- Will you please give me their noses and school level? Bozo Indicate nymber Pro School @1nc1uding noraery and ktndergardea) C::::) Groomer School CD Junior High CD High School (:3 College (Living homo) (al.,-:3. 5.12.12 ‘ Fro School Grammar School Junior Eigh High School Cam) College {Living home} . (we) (interviewer: Please indicate if respondent was able to recall the names of the children - _ named all (::3 Blamed some 31:3 Renee none €::} 3 If "mos were recollod” "--....” ‘ 18. How did you learn the names of those children? Ways cm- "s-rga-ll'n: S'sdiug only Cd 1 001 5.7 Cdl Cal 521?. " ca 1 Col 39 C61 1 Col 60 3d 1 Col '33. 1 Col 62 1 Col C-E‘ ca Cd ca 1 Col 64 Cd'l Col 53 ca ' 1 Col 69 Cd 1 Col (.5: l 2 0 Bo not code; __=u-.-—_-=n.. 155. 7 3 {ionizing only n4...— .— ......— .. - ...--- . . -— 19' if 'm"""" ...—""‘W"‘““:; “at; s. “,5" does it provide a basis for (Ed 1 Col 63 contact: with them? ..., ' {tr-“=2, 'l I S I I ! i ? 'l E i . : I' : “ I; . as} I i _ 1‘ l' was {-..—‘2' ' 1 1 33a 3" : 2 If "yes", now? 3' 261. Are you on a first care boots: with; these navighbors? Cd 1 Go}. {‘5 Yea 4:? 1 3» 1:3 i 2 ._ l ._.._ .. 31. Are they relatives of yours or your husband? - 1 so 1 Col i=1) 1ch Cf) I 1 no C3 2 22. Are you and these might-org of tho some nationality? Cd 1 Col 2“. lies :3 1 :30 C3 2 If "no", where were they born? “Life ' no not :mz'e Eiusband _, lb not cos-1: 23. Is the religious faith: of the wife noxt door the some as yours? . 8d 1 Col ""1". Etc -3 a” 1 at 1:3 2 Don‘t Know £31- 3 If "yes", Do you attend the cam church? (H 1 891 Z":- Yes 1:: 1 Bo z 156 .-..-..-.....r ......I - 24. Were you friemiu before 4-31 1312;: 37".: or th-zzy mow-d here? fife: ,__ 3 P13 (: 3 25. Caz: you give me their telephona umber from mmry? Yes no 00 26. When was the lust titre you talked with your uezeighbor an the right? 'I; ' ~ .-,.'-. bouidg .- .. ..J Cd 1 601 1’55 G! 1 “10.1 7’62" Within weak “J 1 Week to math (:3 2 um: than month C: 3 27. Elm: was the occusieu for the above conversation? 62:5 } Col. '3'? 28. In this convex-setters with year neighbzar, what: were the aging: you talked about? Please give details. (:21 I. 331?. ., Topics including details - .amhuammuus. a..- :5». nan—a.“ 13. finding only 2?. what other things nous you éone together with this oeighbor durifig the goat month? Eucluic guy relaricoships involviog both or either hustand. Cd 1 Col 79 activities 30. Do the husbouos have common activities not involving tho wives? Cd l 801 80 30 2 If "yes”, please describe. Yea C: 1 I Q (Interviewer: Rho followiag group of questions are to part a 1 check list. These include questions 31-4oo If a specific ‘ relationship has been fully discussed in the answer: to the Start cq_gm Previouo questions, pleono skip that portion of the check questions. I 31. Do you and this neighbor shop together or for each other? Gd 2 601 S to; (::L l u: (:3 2 If "you" , please describoo i 32. no you one any recreational facility together, that So a J Gd 2 Sol b | \ Boron-Q, swimming pool, tennis court etc.? 205 C::) 1 a» s3 2 1f "yes" ” please descrihou UH:_ _ M ___ _” ._0__ _U ‘ ‘ 158 159 36. Ema you had occasion to borrow anything from this neighbor coding only during the past math? res Q ca g cm 12 to Q 2 If “yon", 913MB describe. Did you feel that the borrowing just described was appropriate - that you could freely 89k for this im’: ' ; 03d 2 601 13 - Yes Q I 1 .30. © 2 If the situation was. reversed do you think that they would } feel the some way? . cd 2 601 14 w ' is.” Q 1 150 (:3 2 37,1 luv. you ever had a disagreement or quarrel with these .A neighbors? Cd 2 Col 15 Von Q ‘ 1 ‘ _ «.50 Q 2 Executed Q 3 If "you", what was the nature of the disagroment or quarrel? __ 38. If you needed serious advice about a personal problem .would you consult with this neighbor? to 2 Col 16 Yes i Q I No © 2 If this has occur-zed, please explain. 160 ii to Coding only ----. .-a.4.._-w:.-u n ur...-a - III-uh."- 'I'd 39. [f tax: nosghbor needed sec9cuo advzto about a personal problem would aha consult with you? ; Cd 2 Col 1: Yes C::) I 1 No C-) 2 If this has occuito pitasu explain, 40” If your auto broke down several blocks from hero and you thoughttjhe might be available. would you till upon this neighbor for asaiutonce 7 Cd 2 Col 18 Yes (::3 1 lo ( ) 2 41” If the situation were reversed. would she call upon you? Cd 2 Col 19 You (::) 1 to CD 2 42. Planes respond either "you" or "no” to tho following questions restraing those neighbors, no you visit each othor on a "drop-in" basis? You (::3 no CZ.) 2 Cd 2 Col 20 l Do you With that they would move away from Greenfield? ~ Cd 2 Col 21 You (::3 1 so C.) 2 Do you say "hello“ to them? . Cd 2 Col 27 You C3 1 Ila CD 2 no you avoid hnlng soon in Dubllc with than? Cd 2 Col ?3 I'xr : ' P" ' 1 a"; 3— I=-' Ill 2 1 161 ‘1’ 4-2 CORT-5.12333 ~ 110 you avoid tall-".1113, with than? no you ever invite them to a planar: got together with other neighbors or frienulo? li'es E9 Bo you avoid visiting; with than? Yes we If the situation developed, and ';\::::I: 9.3 cz-zorgencieu, would you be pleased to how: than as KOD§JGES of your household? “Sea Ho 2 .- - - -- --- 3.15....4.-n (Coding apnea) Conwutstfpn m3 Social Diamante Score re neighbor to the right . Score 43. En get-«stall, hat-7 monu- you dun-tribe 3mm.- 2-rsclinga in reg-3rd to A44 in!!! this mighbor? Mailings ‘ 43A. What kind of work does this neighbor's husband (or ask re ‘ neighbor is spouse 16 not present) do? L- =E-rab'u5mI-lu'rm-b -..—-:= - _-- - -I-‘ - - .. : :.--..—.:. .-.-. u; .4“ . .. . . .. - . .&-l«-E mam..- .. . “mung n.-=.-.-..u.-..;—.-....==- :4.-.=-xz..== as ...;- Godi‘ng only Gd 2 Col 2!:- 1 2 6:1 2 €301 2‘5 1 2 (‘1 G.- 9" M C". 0 ...-a :3 I v- -_-o s: .'-.-; God .1 'NDaL 3.1. ('25 2 £03. £2! =:—.-: 3_—.:.:L:.IL-_=_-. ==:. -.-. 162 ‘ a" . ‘ t'; I .. \"O" ... ' . . . .- . ;‘- ‘1 l “ «,, - ‘rlfl’ ,,,. ~‘<,... L. .7. ‘.\ v ‘ x”. [-1 $- - .. . . i. o‘, x r. ' .‘V. . . ‘ - .l ‘ .. r ‘ . n ‘I .s ‘ - ‘--.~ ‘ J .. - u‘ . r ,‘ .. A- ~.- .‘ k ‘ - ‘ I 'I‘ .A ,, I I , ' < ’ ,‘ol‘ t‘ i ,. , . (. ..- a - . . . . ‘ ' .. . . . .. .. I . - ‘3. I ..u- .-.. . _' l“ ( ,_- .1 v. s :V‘ r' . 1 ‘ , 3,... .,I I [\r 1 "I .-. ‘fl 'J-VL I . p‘ . , .. 11‘... l u ,‘A .n . .24: J “ u‘,‘ . I Al‘- f c .‘ ‘ ~ .., “ A n . _ . , .1 - . ‘ 'I . . I , , ‘ t ' V ¢ . \ . .‘ ,~ 16h I'v . .— ‘1 . 7..-. ”Jr—r ,. \y, H “ no 16.6 - . .u I ~ .1 ‘3 é-x 53 t3:- wt..- tracts; ;iaclufia on; relationships involving both 23. Coding only 55. Ifixzz': other: 23:12:33.- nave ycu dom: togetfiwr with this or fishbor or either husband. 6d 2 Col 55 Activit ice, 59. So th husbands have common activities not involving the wives? Cd 2 Col 5? tbs <::D 1 130 C3 2 If “yea“, please describe. (Interviewer: The following group of questions are in part a check list. ’fnese include quotient 60-69. If a specific relationship has been fully diocuaeed in the answers to the previous questions, please skip that portion of the check questions.)- 60. Do you and this neighbor shop together or for each other? Cd 2 Col 58 Yes C3 1 No Q 2 If “yes“, please describe. 61. Do you use any recreational facility together, that is a Bar-B-Q. swimming pool, tennis court etc.,? Cd 2 Col 5‘;- ‘t’et- 11: I) an Lug» i If "yes", pleas-”i describe. ....» ___ __ -- on“. .--.-..n -.- -.-_.-_ m‘ln men.— 'WJdem-Ifla 1. a- 4n..tr:.:'=s-:-. Trmn- - . .:-r:al--rv.—=..’: ‘-'—=L"'.:"'\=‘!'.“. .-'.'_r..- :-.-.-::n.-.--- 167 23. Coding only 62. Do you get together for any comon hobby or special interest? 8d 2 Col 60 Yes Q 1 No CD 2 If "yes", please describe. 63. Are there any work-related contacts between your family and this family next door - such as pooling rides to work, or Cd 2 Col 61 employment in the some factory or office? Yes CD 1 to C) 2 If "yes", please explain. 6!». fies there been any visiting during the past month that was prompted by death, illness or ogher emotionally related condition? Cd 2 Col -' 62 Yes C) 1 No Q 2 If "yes". please describe. In the situation just described, did you feel a social obligation Cd 2 Col 63 in helping out? Yes Q 1 no (3 2 If "yes" Why did you feel socially obligated? if the situation was reversed, would they have felt the some way? Cd 2 Col 64 Yes CD '1 Ho Q 2 168 169 170 26. Coding only Q 21 continued - Do you avoid talking with them? Cd 2 Col 77 Yes C) 1 - No CD 2 Do you ever invite them to a planned get together with other neighbors or friends? Cd_2 Col 78 Yes ( 3 1 No C::) 2 Do you avoid visiting with them? Cd 2 Col 79 Yes <:::> 1 No CD 2 If the situation developed, and barring emergencies, would You be pleased to have them as members of your household? Cd 2 Col 80 Yes 1 No Q 2 ‘ Start ca 3 (Coding space) Computation of Social Distance Score re neighbor to the left. Score Cd 3 Col 5 72. In general, how would you describe your feelings in regard to thls neighbor? Cd 3 Col 6 Feelings 72A. “hat klnd of work does this neighbor:s husband (or ask re neighbor 1f spouse is not present) do? 171 27. Coding only (Interviewer: If you had any unanswered questions on pp 3 & 4, complete them now.) 73. (Interviewer: Use this space for any general comment made by the respondent and considered pertinent.) Cd 3 C01 7 74 (Interviewer: Use this space for any general comment you would like to make.) Cd 3 C01 8 END iETERVIEH APPENDIX VII COMPLEXITY RATINGS Sex: Male /_~“7 Female / 7 Age: Under 20 Yrs. / 7 ZO-hO / 7 Over hO L_] The following general topics are part of conversations be- tween neighbors and friends. In these ekchanges some discussions require more thinking than others. In your experience how would you rate the usual depth of thought involved? Topic Shallow'Thinking-—€>-Depth Thinking l 2 3 u 5 1. Gardening, Yard, Grass, House Repairs, Houseclean- ing, House in General 2. Shopping, Merchandise Costs, Clothes, Food 3. Illness, Death, health h. Sons & daughters, People living nearby, Educational facilities 5. Animal Pets o. ”Greetings” 7. Purchasing of items for Family Use. 8. Current Events, News, (Local and/or National) 9. Neighbors, Children, School I 172 173 Topic Shallow Thinking Depth Thinking 1 2 3 u S 10. "Hello,” "How are you?" Weather 11. Travel, automobile 12. Newspaper items, Radio announcements 13. Doctors, Hospitals Funerals lu. Flowers, House painting, Housework 15. Dogs and Cats 16. Trips, Automobile .-...Ml» whamahufiaummvnfiwnfiugfig niarunwflsmi! wifllnfimflmzumwflufw...h Hfl.r.......nuw.i.e.t-.w. ii. .wnJr, Wit 4 .. ..E u, APPENDIX VIII GUTTMAN‘S COEFFICIENT OF PREDICTABILITY (G, g, or Lambda) Use: Describing Association between Nominal Scales. Advantages: No restriction on number of classes in the scales. No unrealistic assumptions about the distribu— tion of the variables, and it is directly interpretable. Computing formula: ’/\ :Efr +ch‘(F\/‘+F(L) 2N - (Fr. + Fa) Where: rs = the maximum frequency occurring within a row f, = the maximum frequency occurring within a column FY = the maximum frequency occurring in a row total F9 = the maximum frequency occurring in a column total N = the number of cases Source: Linton C. Freeman, Elementary Applied Statistics (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 19657, pp. 71-78. 171+ BIBLIOGRAPHY Abrams, Charles. Man's Struggle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World. Cambridge: MIT Press, l96h. Abrams, R. H. ”Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Marriage Selection: Fifty Year Trends in Philadelphia." American Sociological Review, VIII (June, 19h3), 288-29u. Abu-Lughod, Janet. ”A Survey of Center-City Residents." Housing Choices and Housing Constraints, by N. Foote, J. Abu-Lughod, M. Foley and L. Winnick) New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960, pp. 387-hh7. Agan, Tessie, and Luchsinger, Elaine. The House, principles, resources, dynamics. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1965. Altshuler, Alan. The City Planning Process. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965. Bales, Robert F. Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge: Addison—Wesley Publishing Co., 1950. Banfield, Edward C., and Grodzins, Morton. gpvernment and Housing_in Metropolitan Areas. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1958. Bell, Wendell, and Boat, Marion D. "Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Social Relations.” American Journal of Sociology, LXII (January, 1957), 391-398. Berger, Bennett M. ”Suburbia and the American Dream." The Public Interest (Winter, 1966), pp. 80-92. Working Class Suburb. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960. Blake, R., Read, 0., Hedge, B., and Menton, J. "Housing Architecture and Social Interaction.” Sociometry, XIX (June, 1956), 133-139. Brunsman, H. G. ”Current Sources of Sociological Data in Housing.” American Sociological Review, XII (April, l9h7), 150-155. ....mflumn mum...“ -WFIWMH. .3 twiillfw Wkflhfiklflu, u, H .m. rum erx Hg, u. w’ ,.v. .. - t. 176 Caplow, T. ”Home Ownership and Location Preferences in a Minneapolis Sample.” American Sociological Review, XIII (December, l9u8), 725F730. , and Foreman, R. "Neighborhood Interaction in a Homogeneous Community.” American Sociological Review, XV (June, 1950), 357-366. Chapin, F. S. ”An Experiment on the Social Effects of Good Housing.” American Sociological Review, V (December, 19h0), 868-879. . ”New Methods of Sociological Research on Housing Problems.” American Sociological Review, XII April, 19u7), 1h3-lh9. , Johanson, C. A., and Johnson, A. L. ”Rental Rates and Crowding in Dwelling Units in Manhattan.” American Sociological Review, XV (February, 1950), 95-97. Clark, S. D. The Suburban Society. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965. Clarke, A. C. ”An Examination of the Operation of Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Mate Selection.” American Sociological Review, XVII (February, 1952), 17-22. Collison, Peter. ”Occupation, Education and Housing in an English City." American Journal of Sociology, LXVI (May, 1960), 508-597. Cunningham, James V. The Resurgent Neighborhood. Indiana: Tides Publishers, Inc., 1965. Danhof, R. H. ”The Accommodation and Integration of Con- flicting Cultures in a Newly Established Community." American Journal of Sociology, IX (July, l9h3), lh~23. Dean, John P. Home Ownership; Is It Sound? New York: Harper ’ & Bros., 19h5. . “Housing Design and Family Values.” Land Economics, XXIX (May, 1953), lBB—lhl. ”The Myths of Housing Reform." American Socio- logical Review, XIV (April, l9h9), 281—288. , and Rosen, Alex. Manual for Intergroup Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Dobriner, William N. Class in Suburbia. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963. . v 1 ..mm. thwlm Hubrfiuaflwwfihwafiflbhrmfiwfiam ..HYIHPHM. i . ..lNhthmnwm ”Janicruuwflut .... m “ruiqsziw. .w. .n§.b NW}. . . 177 ”Local and Cosmopolitan as Contemporary Suburban Character Types.” The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958. Duhl, Leonard J., ed. The Urban Condition. New York: Basic Books, 1963. Eichler, Edward P., and Kaplan, Marshall. The Community Builders. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967. Ellis, Robert A. "Social Stratification and Social Relations: An Empirical Test of the Disjunctiveness of Social Classes.” American Sociological Review, XXII (October, 1957)! 570 "57(35- Ellsworth, J. S., Jr. ”The Relation of Population Density to Residential Propinquity as a Factor in Marriage Selection.” American Sociological Review, XIII (August, 191487, ALA-EM? Farley, Reynolds. ”Suburban Persistence." American Socio- logical Reviefi, XXIX (December, 196A}: 38. Fava, Sylvia F. ”Contrasts in Neighboring New York City and a Suburban County.” The Suburbgn Community, Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958. . "Suburbanism as a May of Life." American Socipf logical Review, XXI (February, 1956), 3h-38. Fellin, Philip, and Litwak, Eugene. ”Neighborhood Cohesion Under Conditions of Mobility.” American Sociological Review, XXVIII (June, 1963), 36h—376. Festinger, Leon, et a1. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1950. , and Kelley, Harold H. Changing Attitudes Through Social Contact: An Experimental Study of a Housing Proiect. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1951. , Schachter, S., and Back, K. Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper & Bros., 1950. Form, William H. ”Status Stratification in a Planned Com— munity.” American Sociological Review, X (October, l9h5), 605-613. Reprintedgin The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958. 178 . ”Stratification in Low and Middle Income Housing Areas." Journal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 109-131. , and Stone, Gregory P. ”Urbanism.Anonymity, and Status Symbolism." American Journal of Sociology, LXII (March, 1957), 50h-51h. Freedman, R., et a1. Principles of Sociology. New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1956. Gans, Herbert J. ”The Balanced Community: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity in Residential Areas?” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVII (August, 1961), l76—IBH. . The Levittowners. New York: Random House, Inc., 1967. . ”Planning and Political Participation: A Study of Political Participation in a Planned New Town." Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XIX TWinter,‘I953), 3-9. . "Planning and Social Life: Friendship and Neighbor Relations in Suburban Communities.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, XXVII (May, 1961), 1.314,.‘lj40 o . ”The Sociology of New Towns.” Sociology and Social Research, XL (1956), 231-239. . ”Urbanism and Suburbenism as Ways of Life: A Re- Evaluation of Some Definitions.” Human Behavior and Social Processes. Edited by Arnold M. Rose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962. . The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Getzels, Jacob V. ”Family Environment and Cognitive Style: A Study of the Sources of Highly Intelligent and of Highly Creative Adolescents.” American Sociological Review, XXVI (June, 1961), 351-359. Gist, Noel P., and Fava, Sylvia F. Urban Society. 5th ed. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1965} Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor, 1959. Green, Elizabeth, et al., eds. Man and the Modern City. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1963. 179 Greer, Scott. The Emerging City. New York: Free Press, 1962. Hadden, Jeffery K., and Borgatta, Edgar F. Social Characteristics of American Cities. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965. Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966. . The Silent Langugge. New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1959. Handlin, Oscar. The American People in the 20th Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 195k. The Historian and the City. Edited by T. and John Burchard. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1963. Harris, Chauncy D. "Suburbs.” American Journal of Sociology, XLIX (July, 19h3-May, 19AM), l. iatt, Paul. ”The Relation of Ecological Location to Status Position and Ethnic Minorities." .gmerican Sociological Review, X (August, 19H5), h81—h85. Havighurst, Robert J., and Feigenbaum, Kenneth. ”Leisure and Life Style.” American Journal of Sociology, LXIV (January, 1959): 396-h0fl. Hetzler, Stanley A. ”An Investigation of the Distinctiveness of Social Classes.” American Sociological Review, XVIII (October, 1953), h93-h97. Hollingshead, August B. ”Selected Characteristics of Classes in a Middle Western Community." American Sociological Review, XII (August, 19h7), 385-395. Hymes, Dell. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper & Row, 196k. ”Housing's Market Revolution.” House and Home, January, 1968, pp. A9-59. Kilbourn, C., and Lantis, M. ”Elements of Tenant Instability in a War Housing Project.” American Sociological Review, XI (February, 19u6), 57-66. Holler, R. M. "Residential Propinquity of White Mates at Marriage in Relation to Age and Occupation of Males, Columbus, Ohio." American Sociological Review, XIII (October, 19H8), 613—616. Ktsanes, Thomas, and Reissman, Leonard. ”Suburbia: New Homes for Old Values.” Social Problems, VII (Winter, 1959), 187—19u0 180 Landecker, Werner S. "Class Crystallization and Its Urban Pattern.” Social Research, XXVII (1960), 308—320. Lenski, Gerhard E. ”Stratification.” Readings in Contemporary American Sociology. Edited by Joseph S. Roucek. Paterson, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1961. Liebeson, Stanley. ”Suburbs and Ethnic Residential Patterns." American Journal of Sociology, LXVII (May, 1962), 673-681. Lipset, Seymour. ”Political Sociology." Sociology Today, Edited by Robert K. Merton, et al. New York: Basic Books, 1959. , and Reinhard, Bendix. Social Mobility in Industrial Societ . Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. Loomis, Charles P., and Beegle, J. Allan. Rural Sociology: The Strategy of Change. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957. Mack, Raymond W. ”Housing As An Index of Social Class.” Social Forces, XXIX (May, 1951), 391-h00. McNulty, Thomas, and Fawcett, Mary S. ”Studies for a Visual Community.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, {XIII (1957), 76} Mann, Peter H. An Approach to Urban Sociology. New York: Humanities Press, 1965} Merton, Robert K. ”Selected Problems of Field Work in the Planned Community." American Sociological Review, XII (June, 19u7), BOA-312. . ”The Social Psychology of Housing.” Current Trends in Social Psychology. Edited by Wayne Dennis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 19u7. Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961. Olmsted, Michael S. The Small Group. New York: Random House, Inc., 1959. ”President's Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership.” Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932. Reynolds, Farley. ”Suburban Persistence.” American Socio- logical Review, XXIX (December, 196h7, 38} I .111 V3.1 . 181 Riemer, S. ”Maladjustment to the Family Home." American Sociological Review, X (October, 19h5), 6E2-6K8. . ”Sociological Perspective in Home Planning.” American Sociological Review, XII (April, 19u7), 155-159. __. "Sociological Theory of Home Adjustment.” American Sociological Review, VIII (June, l9h3), 272-2W3. Rodwin, Lloyd, ed. The Future Metropolis. New York: George Braziiler, 1961. Rose, A. M. ”Living Arrangements of Unattached Persons.” American Sociological Review, XII (August, l9h7), U294h35o Rosow, I. ”Home Ownership Motives." American Sociological Review, XIII (December, 19h8), 751-756. ”The Social Effects of the Physical Environment.” Journal of the Institute of Planners, XXVII (May, 1961), 127-133. Rossi, Peter H. Why Families Move. Glencoe: Illinois Free Press, 19551 Routh, J. W. ”A Program of Research in Housing.” American Sociological Review, VI (August, l9hl), 562-565. "The Scaled-Down PUD Could Be A Milestone In Small-Project Planning.” House and Home, July, 1966, pp. 6h-71. Schnore, Leo F. "Some Correlates of Urban Size: A Replica- ‘ American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (September, 1903)) 18§F193° Seeley, John R., Sim, R. Alexander, and Loosley, Elizabeth. Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban Life. New York: Basic Books, 1956. Selvin, Hannah C. ”The Interplay of Social Research and Social Policy in Housing.” gpurnal of Social Issues, VII (1951), 172-185. Sewell, William H., and Armer, J. Michael. ”Neighborhood Con- text and College Plans.” American Sociological Review, XXXI (April, 1966), 159—168} Shuval, Judith T. ”Class and Ethnic Correlates of Casual Neighboring.” American Sociological Review, XXI (August, 1956), H334h58- ,, t. A ,. .vgidlwwlrwh Err 9.. 182 . "The Micro-Neighborhood: An Approach to Ecological Patterns of Ethnic Groups." Social Problems, IX (Winter, 1962), 272-280. Smith, Joel, Form, William H., and Stone, Gregory P. ”Local Intimacy in a Middle-Sized City." American Journal of Sociology, LX (November, l95h), 277-28h. Stone, Gregory P., and Form, William H. ”Instabilities in Status: The Problem of Hierarchy in the Community Study of Status Arrangements.” American Sociological Review, XVIII (April, 1953), lh9-l62. Strauss, Anselm L. Images of the American City. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Sweetser, Frank L., Jr. ”A New Emphasis for Neighborhood Research.” American Sociological Review, VII (August, Thoma, Lucy, and Lindemann, Erich. ”Newcomers' Problems in a Suburban Community.” Journal of the American In— stitute of Planners, XXVII (August, 1961), 185ll93. Tomeh, Aida K. ”Informal Group Participation and Residential Patterns.” American Journal of Sociology, LXX (July, 196A), 28—35. Twichell, A. A. ”An Appraisal Method for Measuring the Quality of Housing.” American Sociological Review, XIII (l9u8), 278~287. Useem , Ruth Hill, Useem , John, and Gibson, Duane L. ”The Function of Neighboring for the Middle Class Male.” Human Organization, XIX (1960), 68-76. Wallin, Paul. ”A Gentleman Scale for Measuring Women‘s Neighborliness.” American Journal of Sociology, L (November, 1953), 2h3~2h6. Warner, Sam Bass, Jr., ed. Planning For A Nation Of Cities. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: The M.I.T. Press, 1966. Warner, W. Lloyd, et a1. Democracy in Jonesville. New York: Harper & Row, l9h9. , and Srole, Leo. The Social System of American Ethnic Groups. New Haven: Yale University Press, 19h5. Warren, Roland L. The Community in America. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1963. u :y . yrh11 .13. .4 n J‘ayli‘, (1‘1! 1. 183 Wattel, Harold. ”Levittown: A suburban Community." The Suburban Community. Edited by William M. Dobriner. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958. Weaver, Robert C. The Urban Complex: Human Values in Urban Life. Garden City, NTY.: ‘Doubleday & Co., Inc., 195E. Westie, Frank R., and Westie, Margaret L. "The Social Dis- tance Pyramid: Relationships Between Caste and Class." American Journal of Sociology, LXIII (September, 1957), 190-196. Whyte, William R., Jr. The Organization Man. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1956. Williams, Robin M., et a1. Strangers Next Door. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l96u. Wirth, L. "Housing as a Field of Sociological Research." American Sociological Review, XII (April, 19h7), 137—1h3. Wood, Robert C. Suburbig. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1959.