COMMUNAUSM, INDIV!DUALISM, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MODERNITY: A COMPARISON OFIKl-BBUTZ' AND MOSHAV MEMBERS ON THE GVERALL MODERN‘ITY AND DOGMAUSM SCALES Yhesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHGAN STATE UNIVERSITY YERACHMEEL KUGEL 1970 ‘ r . t, *K' Ilffflkzéiil’ ; Michigan 5‘ ate i Univcr Inkeles QM Scale Results. . . . . A3 Rokeach Dogmatism Scale . . . . . 60 Inkeles and Rokeach Scales . . . . 7“ iv SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . Limitations of the Study . Suggestions for Further Research. . LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Moshav—kibbutz differences. . . . . . . l6 2. Biographical responses of kibbutz and moshav members. . . . . . . . . . 28 3. Median test of significance of difference between total OM Scale scores of kibbutz and mosfiav members. . . . . . 35 A. Biographical questions significantly related to OM Scale scores. . . . . 38 5. Median test of significance of difference between Dogmatism Scale scores of kibbutz and moshav members. . . . . . 39 6. Biographical questions significantly related to Dogmatism Scale scores . . . Al 7. Product—moment correlations coefficients (a) between OM Scale and Dogmatism Scale scores for kibbutz and moshav sub— —samples, and total sample . . . . . . . A2 8- Kibbutz and moshav member scores on the OM Scale items used in the present Study. 0 o I o o o c I o o ’45 9- Percentage of kibbutz and moshav members characterized by biographical factors positively associated with OM Scale scores . . . . . . . . A8 10. Chi square test of significance of difference between responses of kibbutz and moshav members to specific QM Scale items. . . . . . . . . . A9 11. Source, population, sex, sample size, and means of 60 samples of Dogmatism Scale scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 vi Page .Kibbutz and moshav member scores on the Dogmatism Scale items used in the present study . . . . . . . . . 66 Percentage of kibbutz and moshav members characterized by biographical factors negatively associated with Dogmatism Scale scores . . . . . . . . . 68 Chi square test of significance of differ- ence between responses of kibbutz and moshav members to specific Dogmatism Scale items. . . . . . . . . . 71 vii LIST OF CHARTS Page .f:fin Inkeles modernity themes tapped by the L “' QM Scale items used in the present StUdy o a o o I u a a I o I o 36 The modernity of kibbutz 1g. moshav members in terms of Inkeles project themes - a u o o I o s o o o 37 The modernity of kibbutz lg. moshav members in terms of Rokeach dogmatism themes . . . . . . . . . . . A0 viii LIST OF APPENDICES Page [9:7A—l. Questionnaire (in Hebrew) . . . . ‘. 92 JSCA-Z. Questionnaire (in English). . . . . 10A -}3i Categories Used in the Analysis of the 'v Study's Biographical Variables . . '120 ' Short Form Tests . . . . . . . . 12A Modernity Cuts for QM Scale Items Used in Present Study . . . . . . . 125 A Brief Description of the Median Test. 126 Responses of Kibbutz and Moshav Members to Biography Items in Questionnaire. 127 Responses of Kibbutz and Moshav Members to QM Scale Items in Questionnaire . , 135 Responses of Kibbutz and Moshav Members ' to Dogmatism Scale Items in Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 1A2 'tiz‘wt' _. ' ' " . Mu..- ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ‘a psychological question, for modernity may be defined Alfierms of either discipline. The present study treats ' ”mtdeled on the West. Weber (1958), for example, C“§, urbanization, literacy. And so is Moore (1963), who believes it inevitable that under- developed countries will become totally western if they maintain the pace of modernization. Theories of economic development modeled on the West are called "unilinear" by Sen (1968). He means that such theories assume a "unilinear transformation of tra— ditional societies into western-type societies in tech- nology, values and norms, social organization and social relations" (p- 37)- But this is not so, he argues, citing many studies which, in his View, show that development is compatible with non-Western culture. He favors, there- fore, what he calls the "multilinear" approach, by which he means the assumption that "each society may follow one of numerous possibilities conditioned by time, locale, history and the uniqueness of its culture." In this "multilinear" perspective, modernization is likely to take a different form in every (non-western) case. Studies on absorption and development in Israel (Eisenstadt, 1956a, 1956b, 196A) tend to support Sen's View. They show that "opposite" traditional and modern institutional patterns are not so opposite as supposed-— that not only can they co—exist under certain conditions, but that they may even reinforce each other in the process 0? Change and development. Another Israeli study supports Sen's view--a report by WEIntraub (1969) on the use of the concepts "traditional" and "modern" in rural sociological research 1!] Israel. "Traditional" in Weintraub's framework is the eqtflyalent of "non—western" in the present discussion, 01’ of Gemeinschaft in Toennies' terms; and "modern" is tiie equivalent of "western," or Gesellschaft. Weintraub rrejects this dichotomizing and proposes instead that non- weastern, traditional Gemeinschaft societies be analyzed ir1 terms of the following four kinds of elements: (a) Predispositions or traditions which can . . . be mobilized for development. . . . (b) Predispo- sitions or traditions which are irrelevant to, or unimportant for the main goals of development, and in particular for the creation of a growing econ- omy and a stable community. . . . (c) Elements which might impede the development and moderniza- tion process, but which can be "attacked" or altered with relative "impunity." d Finally, traditions actually likely to slow down development, and which must be handled with great care, lest their premature destruction do damage. The integration of the traditional primary group is this kind of factor (pp. 33-35). The thrust of Weintraub's paper is that "tradition" (TNDn—westernness, Gemeinschaft-quality) as such is not necessarily opposed to development——that it can facilitate anC1 become a part of the modern condition. A "modern" S°<:1ety, in other words, need not be a western—style so<31ety. What, then,of communalism--as embodied, e.g., in the’ Israeli "kibbutz" (Hebrew for "group")? Certainly °°nununalism and what Weintraub means by "the traditional pridnary group" have much to do with each other. Does this mearlthat communalism is one of those traditions "likely i vIV ‘7er 1' . to slow down development, and which must be handled with great care"? This is what his individualistic perspective might lead the typical western social scientist to think. With his tendency to think that economic development re- quires adoption of western cultural traits, the typical western social scientist would probably expect little progress from the kibbutz as an economic unit. But Melman's (1969) recent study suggests otherwise. Melman (1969) compared six urban factories with six matched kibbutz factories (matched with respect to indus- try, product, markets, raw materials, technology), and found the kibbutz factories to be higher in (a) produc- tivity per capita investment (over A0 per cent), (b) out- Dut per man (over 20 per cent), and (c) net profit per pro- duction worker (over 30 per cent), although equal in administration cost.l Melman interprets his data to mean lMelman's data are not completely unprecedented. Ac- cording to an unpublished report issued by the American Council for the Behavioral Sciences in the Kibbutz Manage- 1Rent and Social Research Center, the rate of exports of kibbutz factory production averages 1A% in comparison to .55 shown in industrial statistics for the State of Israel. Frmm 19A8, the year of independence, the kibbutzim in- creased their industrial production by 6A% as compared to 41% shown in Israeli industry. In the past year the kib- butzim have increased their yearly industrial production by 15% as compared to A.6% for the State of Israel. The kibbutzim are producing 12% of the gross national product of the farms and industry (excluding services) While they comprise only about A% of the entire population. This means that every member in the kibbutz contributes three-fold as much as the average Israeli citizen to the gross national product. The rate of growth in economic con— tribution to the gross national product is the highest of Whole sectors of Israel and is increasing yearly by 10%. (a) that the mystique of technology is contradicted, (b) that cooperative decision—making is a workable method of industrial production, and (c) that there is something amiss with conventional knowledge in economics and in— dustrial management, since such knowledge would not have predicted equal or greater efficiency in the cooperative, in contrast to the managerially—controlled, enterprise. He concludes: The findings of this comparative study suggest that social scientists, and others engaged in research on organization, ought to explore the problems of cooperative vs. managerial decision-making within various economies and cultural contests, as well as in laboratory and field experiments. Diverse approaches to these problems, exploring the vari- ability of performance of diverse modes of organi- zation, should add to knowledge and have operational importance——in so far as variation in organization can produce meaningful differences in economic efficiency, or enlarge the available array of options for viable social organization (p. 35). It is with the background of Melman's findings and in the SIDirit of his concluding statement that the present study is undertaken. Purpose The purpose of the present study is to continue on tale psychological side the comparison of the Israeli kib— blrtz with less communalistic social structures. The Melman data. mean that the kibbutz may be no less economically "KNiern than the rest of Israel. But what about psychologi- 9L1 modernity? Are the members of Israeli kibbutzim as E§Xchologica11y modern as other IsraeliS? At this point it is necessary to go into the definition of "psychologi- cal modernity." The Definition of Psychological Modernity The present study defines psychological modernity in two ways——a high score on Inkeles' QM (overall modernity) Scale and a low score on Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale. The Inkeles OM Scale Inkeles (1966) distinguishes between societal and in— dividual modernity as follows: As used to describe a society, "modern" generally means a national state characterized by complex traits including: urbanization, high level of education, industrialization, extensive mechaniza- tion . . . and the like. When applied to indivi- duals it refers to a set of attitudes, values, and the ways of feeling and acting, presumably of the sort either generated by or required for effec— tive participation in modern sociegy. In this report [on the QM Scale] we deal only with indi- V vidual modernity, that is, with a socio-psychological rather than an exclusively sociological problem (p. 353; italics added). Individual modernity, which is what the QM_Scale nleasures, Inkeles defines in terms of the following elements: readiness for new experience and . . . openness to innovation and change. . . . disposition to form or hold opinions over a large number of the prob— lems and issues that arise not only in his imme- diate environment but also outside it. . orientation to the opinion realm more democratic. . . . oriented to the present or the future, rather than to the past. . . . accepts fixed hours, i.e., schedules. . . . punctual, regular, and orderly. . . . oriented toward and involved in planning and organizing and believes in it as a way of I’L—A.. handling life. . . . believes that man can learn . . . to dominate his environment in order to advance his own purposes and goals. . . . confi— dence that his world is calculable. . . . aware— ness of the dignity of others. . . . faith in science and technology. . . . believer in . . . distributive justice (pp. lAl—lAA). Thus, a high score on the QM Scale indicates (according to Inkeles) high aptitude for adjustment to modern industrial society, e.g., being a productive factory worker, an ef— fective citizen in his community, a satisfied and satis- fying spouse and parent. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale Although nobody to the writer's knowledge has re- lated Rokeach's concept of dogmatism to the concept of psychological modernity, there are at least five reasons for doing so: 1. There is some evidence that members of more traditional ("conservative," "fundamentalist," "orthodox") P61igious groups are more dogmatic than members of more mOdern ("liberal," "progressive," "reform") religious groups (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 109-131; Bohr, 1968; Gilmore, 1969). 2. There is some evidence that church members 227 faVOrably oriented to modernizing ("updating") change in religious doctrine, practice, and organization are more d°Smatic than members who are favorably oriented (Di Renzo, 1967a). 3. There is some evidence that people unfavorably “sec-tn .. . . oriented to "modernistic" treatment of "traditional" authorities——e.g., irreverent treatment of national ad- ministrative leadership-—are more dogmatic than people who are favorably oriented (Rosenman, 1967). A. There is some evidence that dogmatism and fatalism are positively correlated (Rogers, 1969, p. 285), and fatalism is often a part of the definition of traditional- ism. Kahl (1968), e.g., says that "almost all observers have stressed this component [fatalism XE- activism] as central to the contrast between the rural and the indus— trial value-systems" (p. 18). 5. According to Rokeach (1960), his Scale's primary , purpose is to measure "openness or closedness of belief systems," and he adds, "Because of the way we have defined Opened and closed . . . the scale should also serve to measure general authoritarianism and general intolerance" (pp. 71-72). For Rokeach, then, a high scorer on his sCale may be described not only as generally "dogmatic" but also as generally "authoritarian," "closed-minded," or "intolerant." And not only for Rokeach. According to the latest review of the dogmatism scale literature, Dogmatism has been a fruitful concept, particularly as a generalized theory of authoritarianism. Re— search has demonstrated . . . that this authoritar- ianism is basically independent of ideological con- .tent (Vacchiano, Strauss, and Hochman, 1969, p. 269). The significance of this identity of "dogmatism" and "authoritarianism" is that some students of social change include "authoritarianism" in their definition of "tradi- tionalism," or in their instrument for measuring it. Examples are Doob (1967, pp. A19-A20), Kahl (1968, p. 33), and Williamson (1968, p. 326). All of them borrow from the California E Scale, and one (Williamson) even borrows from the Dogmatism Scale. What, then,are the specific traditionalism—modernism implications of a low score on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale? "Low dogmatics" should be more open to difference than "high dogmatics"——difference in attitude, belief, Opinion, value; difference in action, behavior, doing, living; difference in things and difference in people. , "Low dogmatics" should be more ready to judge ideas on their own merits, rather than on their personal, historical, hierarchical source or connection. Likewise, they should be more ready to Judge individuals on their own accom— plishment, achievement, performance, rather than on their ascribed characteristics (caste, class, family, race, sex, e130.). If not more creative themselves, therefore, "low degmatics" should at least be more adaptive to the cre- ativity of others, even of others not in their own environ- ment, such as in Rogers' (1969) definition of innovative- ness——"the degree to which an individual is earlier than others in his social system to adopt new ideas" (p. 56). 'vvwvv rtvr.‘ ' 10 f For Rogers, "adopting new technological ideas is 4’31...“ _ certainly the heart of the modernization process" (p. 56). Whether it is or not, openness to new ideas (of all kinds) is the heart of what in the present study is meant by individual modernity. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale should also be a measure of it. The Two Social Structures The present study compares the psychological modernity 0f kibbutz and moshav members. These two social structures are not opposites in traditionalism-modernism terms. The moshav is not an example of modernism; many structures in the world are more modernistic. Even in Israel probably arty city or large-scale business enterprise is more nubdernistic than the moshav. But there are few structures 111 the world more traditionalistic than the kibbutz. For example, when measured by Pelto's (1968) scale 017 "tight" gs. "loose" societies--an anthropological ver- Sixnlof the sociologist's traditionalism-modernism distinction-—the kibbutz scores "tighter" (i.e., more traditional) than the majority of the other twenty societies in Pelto's sample (many of which would commonly be con- sidered "primitive"). Only two societies are clearly "tighter" than the kibbutz—~the North American Hutterites and the Arizona Hano. 11 Another version of traditionalism-modernism is Redfield's (19A?) "folk" Xi- "modern urban" society2—- and again, the kibbutz is seen close to the traditionalist ("folk") pole. Indeed, Spiro (195A) says that when Redfield (19A?) wrote the following about the "folk" society, it "could have been . . . with the kibbutz in mind, so accurately does it describe the socio-psychological basis of kibbutz culture" (p. 8A5): The members of the folk society have a strong sense of belonging together. The group . . . see their own resemblances and feel correspondingly united. Communicating intimately with each other, each has a strong claim on the sympathies of the others. . the personal and intimate life of the child in the family is extended, in the folk society, into the social world of the adult . . . It is not merely that relations in such a society are personal; it is also that they are familial. . . . the result is a group of people among whom prevail the personal and categorized relationships that characterize families as we know them, and in which the patterns of kinship tend to be extended outward from the group of genealogically connected individuals into the whole society. The kin are the type persons for all experience (pp. 297, 301). SDiro (195A) also invokes Toennies' Gemeinschaft— Gesellschaft distinction——another version of traditionalism— mOdernism (see footnote 2)—-to make the point of the 2That it can be interpreted as another version is Supported by Sen—(1968, p. 6) and Weintraub (1969). Thus the latter writes: "Few sociological ideas have had such a DOWerful appeal for . . . comparative social analysis as the concepts of traditional and modern. . . . Of course, tPaditional-modern conceptualizations have differed widely in their focus, their range and their theoretical sophisti- cation. There are thus 'grand' theories . . . among them being classical ones such as . . . Toennies' Gemeinschaft 32d gesellschaft, Redfield's folk-urban model . . .” , - 35. W’— 12 tradltionalism of the kibbutz: "In short, the kibbutz constitutes a gemeinschaft. . . . its ties are kin ties without the biological tie of kinship" (p. 8A5). And he does it again when he writes his Kibbutz: Venture in Utopia: The kibbutz is a gemeinschaft, not only because of its small size and the opportunity this affords for the frequency and intimacy of interaction. . [but] rather, because it functions as if it were united by bonds of kinship, as if it were a lineage or a large extended family. In their own eyes, as well as in the eyes of the outside observer, the [kibbutzniks] constitute a family, psychologically speaking, bound by ties of common residence, common experiences, a common past and a common fate, and mutual aid——a11 the ties which bind a family—-as well as a common ideology. The kibbutz, like the shtetl, presents a "picture (which) is less of the family as a segment of the community than of the community as an extension of the family" (1963, pp. 90—91). Sen (1968) does not deal with Israel; but in terms Of his summary of the characteristics of "ideal traditional" and "ideal modern" societies, kibbutz society, although definitely a mixture, would be rated more traditional than modern. Its traditionalism would lie in such Sen elements as its group-ii. self—orientation; particularism Kg. Universalism; change-resistance (in ideology—related areas) ZE- change-proneness; ambitiousness for group yg. for Self; mental and social isolation ZE- (what Lerner and R0Sers mean by) empathy and cosmopoliteness; group domi— nation over behavior Kg. individual decision-making; rural XE- urban setting; affective, face—to-face, totalistic XE- affeotively—neutral, impersonal, segmentalistic social 13 relations; prejudice XE- openness toward racial and reli- gious outsiders;3 bulk of employment in agriculture, mining, quarrying, fishing and hunting 15. manufacturing industries, commerce transport, construction and service; and inter- personal contact yg. mass media as major communication channel. Finally, there is Rozner's (1969) paper, which lists four major social features and values of the kibbutz, all of which are also characteristic of traditionalistic social structures: (1) The size of a kibbutz unit is relatively small and there is an identity between the ecological, social, and economic units. (2) The social rela- tions within the kibbutz are to a great extent pri- mary relations and the range of their formalization is very limited. (3) An important part of the kibbutz values is based on particularistic princi- ples-—the personal, specific attitude toward each individual. (A) The social control mechanism is based more on principles of the informal public opinion than on sets of rules directed by univer— salistic principles (p. 1) In short, although "traditionalism," like "folk SOCjJEty," "Gemeinschaft," etc., is only an ideal-type cOncept, and therefore fully descriptive of no actually exiSting (or historical) social structure, nevertheless, it Eseems justifiable to use the kibbutz as an example \__—_ 3For example: "Although the ideology of the kibbutz stPesses international and inter—racial brotherhood, the attitudes of some of the [kibbutzniks] as expressed in their bggfitbpersonal relations with non—Jews and non-Israelis do r‘ay much prejudice. The wife of the newly—arrived lifitflar, e.g., was a gentile, and the [kibbutzniks] neither p. igsher nor attempted to accept her" (Spiro, 1963, K Wm «- 1A of a traditionalistic structure. That it falls short of the ideal-type goes without saying. That it is not the most traditionalistic of existing social structures is also conceded. But that it is 933 of the most tradition- alistic--this seems a reasonable claim and is, in fact, one of the premises of the present study. What of the moshav? It was stated above that it is not an example of modernism. It is not EEEE different from the kibbutz. According to Rabin (1965), for example: There are many similarities between this type of village and the kibbutz. They are both based pri- marily on an agricultural economy; there is also a good deal of similarity in the human material among the founders of both types of settlements. The similarities are in country of origin, educa- tional level, idealism and in a great many of their national and political values and attitudes. It is also interesting to note that not an inconsiderable number of moshav farmers and officials are former kibbutz members. A sprinkling of children who spent some time in a kibbutz may also be found in this type of settlement (p. 69). In fact, Weintraub (1969) actually refers to the moshav as a Gemeinschaft: Such a moshav is a form of settlement which em- bodies an equitable division of the means of pro- duction (chiefly in respect to the size, quality and distribution of plots [ten acres per farm, on the average], water resources and capitaliza- tion). . . The various families which constitute a small, gathered community of about a hundred units, are to be bound into a tightly knit Gemeinschaft; this Gemeinschaft embodies close social interaction, and mutual help and responsibility, while it is sustained by a binding, elaborate network of agri- cultural, credit, supply and marketing services, and by a corporate municipal government (pp. 37-38). 15 But Weintraub does indicate the likelihood and legitimacy of some individualistic economic striving: However, the equality is not mechanical but one of life chances. Indeed, the villages constitute an intensive market—oriented economy. Within the limitations placed by overall planning, the utmost development and utilization of the means of pro- duction is both a national duty and an individual realization. At the same time, maximization of production, while giving some scope to the more enterprising and the more skilled,is not to be the cause of either clear social differentiation in the village or of a consumption—oriented way of life (pp- 37—38). He seems to be implying that it is the nature of the moshav to stimulate entrepreneurial impulses, to provide an outlet for the need for economic achievement. Certainly Rabin (1965) got such an impression of moshav farmers; he found them to be "in many ways, individualistic and even fiercely competitive": The moshav is a cooperative type of settlement, but not a communal one like the kibbutz. It consists of a group of individual land holders with similar amounts of acreage who, with the aid of members of their own family, cultivate their land, raise crops, harvest and reap the profits. These farmers are hard—working and industrious and, in many ways, individualistic and even fiercely competitive (p. 69)- The moshav, then, though traditionalistic in large degree, is also significantly modernistic. It is more like an agricultural community of Western Europe or the United States or Canada than a kibbutz is. Whereas the mOShav overlaps both the kibbutz and the typical Western farm community, the kibbutz overlaps only the moshav. It Seems a reasonable claim, in short, that the moshav is 16 more modernistic than the kibbutz——and this, in fact, is another promise or the present study. The moshav is more modernistic because of its competitive, individualistic vs. collectivistic, communalistic orientation; its profit gs. welfare motivation; its homo economicus gs. h9g2 communitas ideology; etc. Table 1 summarizes some of the main differences be- tween the moshav and the kibbutz. TABLE l.——Moshav-kibbutz differences. Moshav Kibbutz Working of land, etc. Family Collective Purchase of household Individual Mainly collective and personal supplies Purchase of agricultural Cooperative Collective equipment, seeds, etc. Marketing of produce Cooperative Collective Housing Family Adults: Individual Children: Collective Care of children Family Collective Source: "Facts about Israel," Israeli Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 1961, p. 1. It may be seen that although the moshav is not as indivi- dualistic as it might be, the kibbutz could scarcely be more collectivistic. l7 Hypotheses If the kibbutz is more traditionalistic than the moshav, or the moshav more modernistic than the kibbutz, then kubbutz members ought to score lower on the Inkeles QM Scale and higher on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Thus, where the Inkeles items are concerned, kib— butz members ought to show themselves to be lEEE ready for new experience, innovation, change; less disposed to have opinions on matters lying in the outside world; less democratic in their opinions; less oriented to the future; less punctual, regular, and orderly; legs oriented to planning and organizing; lSEE confident that man can master nature, that human behavior is calculable, that science and technology are the answer to mankind's prob— lems; lEEE aware of the dignity of others; and less a believer in distributive Justice. They ought to show themselves, in short, to be less able to adjust to modern industrial society. And where the Rokeach items are concerned, the kib— butz members ought to show themselves to be more authori- tarian, closeminded, intolerant--i.e., (l) more unfavor- able, unfriendly, unreceptive to different attitudes, beliefs, opinions, values, ways of life; (2) more prone to JUdge ideas on their personal, historical, hierarchical Course or connection-~and people likewise (i.e., on their ascribed status)--rather than on their own merits; and 18 (5) more prone to themselves reproduce the past and to resist the departures from it of others.” On the other hand, there is the Melman finding of superior productivity in the kibbutz factories (vis—a—vis urban). This could mean an unexpected degree of modernity in kibbutz members. Also, there are modernistic aspects of kibbutz ideology and/or life that have not been mentioned (e.g., sexual equality). And, of course, the very fact that there were kibbutz factories that Melman could study is testimony to the adaptability and flexibility of kib- butzniks.5 The main hypothesis of this study, therefore, is that kibbutz members are no less modern than moshav members-- “This is all entailed in what Spiro (1963) means when he says that his kibbutz is "actually a 'religious' com— munity, in the technical meaning of that word. . . . The 'religious' character of Kiryat Yedidim . . . is probably its essential characteristic. . . . After living seven years in Kiryat Yedidim, its veterinarian (not a member) decided to move to a cooperative agricultural village (moshav). 'I am simply tired of living with sectarians,‘ he said, 'and Just want to live with farmers.'" 5 Even Spiro's (1963) "extremist" kibbutz had acquired a factory between his two visits (1951 and 1962): "The realization in Kiryat Yedidim that agriculture cannot re- main the sole occupational interest, not-—it should be added--the only source of kibbutz income, is shown in its new factory. This, for Kiryat Yedidim, is a radical de- Parture from its traditional stance concerning industriali- zation. Although some kibbutzim had already introduced various types of industry even prior to my 1951 study, Kiryat Yedidim had resisted this trend as inimical to some or its important values. Today its factory is not only an economic success but, in providing comfortable work for its older members, it also constitutes a partial contribu- Eion to the solution of one of the problems of aging" P- xiv). 19 specifically, that kibbutz members will score at least as high on the Inkeles QM Scale as moshav members, and at least as low on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. A secondary hypothesis of the study is that the Inkeles and Rokeach scales will correlate significantly with each other. Overview This chapter has stated the general theoretical back- ground for the present study, its specific purpose, its definition of individual modernity, its "experimental" and "control" social structures, and its hypotheses. Chapter II presents the study's methodology, Chapter III, the study's results, Chapter IV, a discussion of the results, and Chapter V, a summary and conclusions, including limitations of the study and suggestions for further re- search. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The design of the study called for (1) the prepara- tion of a questionnaire containing biographical, Inkeles, and Rokeach items, (2) the administration of the question— naire to members of one kibbutz and one matched moshav, and (3) the analysis of the questionnaire data. Composition of the ngstionnaire (Appendix A) The questionnaire includes 3” biographical items, 30 from Inkeles' modernity research, and 20 from the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale. Biographical Items The 3” biographical items (see Appendix A) deal with age, sex, education, occupation, origin, exposure to urban life, military experience, and parents' education and occupation. Inkeles OM Scale Itgms The 30 Inkeles items were chosen from among the 159 items that comprised the bulk of his project's interview sChedule (Smith and Inkeles, 1966, p. 358). The 159 com- Drise three subsets: 119 that deal with "attitudes, values, and opinions"; 23 that are "tests of information or verbal 20 F" 21 fluency"; and 17 that are "measures of self-reported be- havior." 'I‘hh 30 items chosen for the present study came mostly from the first subset; i.e., they were mostly at— titudinal items. This subset of 119 attitudinal items is what Inkeles calls the "Long Form of the over—all modernity score," or simply, the "Long Form QM." 'From this Long Form, Inkeles generated four short forms. Each short form constituted, in effect, a validity test of the 119 attitudinal items; only the "fittest" items survived. But because these short forms were not short enough (all of them exceeded 30 items), Inkeles constructed a fifth short form, 10 items long, composed only of items that appeared on every one of the preceding short forms, and selected in addi— tion for balanced coverage of the modernity themes.l' 1"Using these standards we worked toward a final list of not more than 10 items which we designate Short Form 5. Since this brief attitudinal modernity scale is the final distillate of our successive efforts, and we hope it will be widely used, we present in Chart II the exact wording of the questions. . . . [We feel] that this scale maximizes the range of material covered within the limits of size and the objective criteria we have established. In terms of area or topic covered, it includes religion, Strangers, change, mass media, birth control, education, the family, science, and government. The particular rela- tionships the questions treat are almost as diverse, in— eluding, man and God, native and foreigner, self and infor- mation media, man and wife, boy and school, man and know- ledge, citizen and government, and official and public Office. The particular qualities or personal attributes dealt with include openness to new people, acceptance of new ideas and practices, trust, aspiration, efficacy and ciVic mindedness or political activism. Even if it seems immodest to say so, we do not see how one could do better Within the limits we imposed" (Smith and Inkeles, 1966, D- 371). 22 To these 10 attitudinal items comprising Short Form 5, were added two informational and two behavioral items (also rigorously selected), thus yielding Short Form 6, the last and, for Inkeles EE.§$~: the best of the several short forms——indeed, "a highly serviceable start toward devising the 'ultimate' measure of individual modernity" (p. 376).2 Of the 1“ items that comprise Short Form 6, 13 are included in the 30 used in the present study. The 17 addi— tional items, all attitudinal, were chosen to give special coverage to themes of particular interest to the present study. So as not to seriously dilute the validity standard achieved in Short Form 5, only items that performed well in the first four short forms were used. (See Appendix A for each of the 30 items and Appendix C for data on their short form performance.) 2"This is no ordinary stoppage we offer, since it has the virtue of having questions which have run an exceptional gauntlet of tests by both the item and criterion method of selection in six countries. It is broadly based, catholic in conception to weigh not only attitudes but behavior and information levels. It represents the Long Form OM even better than did Form 5 . . . In reliability, Form 6 is also superior . . . With the presentation of Short Form 6 in Chart II, we complete our formal assignment to devise a theoretically broad, empirically tight, administratively simple measure of individual modernity which has been widely tested cross-nationally and can be used with little or no adaptation under all field conditions in either research or practical work which requires one to judge the modern— ity of individuals or groups in developing countries" (Smith and Inkeles, 1966, p. 376). 23 Hokeach Dogmatism Scale Items The 20 Rokeach items (see Appendix A) were selected from the #0 that comprise the standard form (Form B) of his Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960, pp. 73-80). They were selected both for their prima facie relevance to psycho- logical modernity and their anticipated effectiveness in the kibbutz and/or moshav situation. In Rokeach's analysis, they represent the following main themes: (1) accentuation of differences between the belief and the disbelief sys- tems, (2) coexistence of contradictions within the belief system, (3) beliefs regarding the aloneness, isolation, and helplessness of man, (A) beliefs about self—adequacy and inadequacy (need for martyrdom), (5) self-aggrandize— ment as a defense against self-inadequacy (concern with power and status), (6) authoritarianism, (7) intolerance (toward the renegade and the disbeliever), (8) tendency to make a party-line change, and (9) narrowing (i.e., selective avoidance of contact with facts, events, etc., incongruent with one's belief-disbelief system). These nine themes constitute almost three-quarters of the themes represented by the standard form. As for reliability, it may be mentioned that the 20 items include seven of the ten that comprise Schulze's (1962) short form, and 11 of the 20 that comprise Troldahl and Powell's (1965) short form. 2U Pretesting and Scoring the Questionnaire Pretesting The Inkeles items were already available (by re- quest) in Hebrew translation because Israel was one of the six nations in the Inkeles sample. The biographical and Rokeach items were translated by the present writer. In its fully Hebrew form,the questionnaire was then pretested on 2D Israelis at Michigan State University (mostly stu- dents and spouses, a few older children). This pretest form solicited comments regarding problems the respondent had while filling it out. Interviews on the questionnaire were held with five of the respondents fluent in both Hebrew and English. They were asked for the English translation of the biographical and Rokeach items. In a few cases, the proferred English translation differed significantly from the original English. Help in re-translating these items into Hebrew was obtained from an American professor at Michigan State University who has done research in both languages. Scoring The Inkeles and Rokeach items were scored in the standard fashion for each. In the Inkeles case, this meant using the "modernity cuts" (i.e., the determinations of "traditional" gs, "modern" responses) devised specifically for, and on the [‘0 \J] 3 basis of, the responses of the Israeli subsample. It also meant computing an average modernity score for each respondent based only on the number of items he answered. (See Appendix D for the "modernity cuts" for each of the 30 Inkeles items.) In the Rokeach case, this meant a choice of the fol- lowing six responses to each of the Dogmatism Scale items, which are in the form of opinion statements: Agree Very Much (scored 7), Agree on the Whole (6), Agree a Little (5), Disagree a Little (3), Disagree on the Whole (2), and Disagree Very Much (1). Since all statements are of a dogmatic opinion, the higher the agreement and score, the greater the respondent's dogmatism. In the pre-test, a few respondents did not answer every item. It was de- cided, therefore, to compute an average dogmatism score for each respondent (as in the Inkeles case), rather than simply sum the items for a total dogmatism score (as Rokeach had done in his original research). 3"Each item was dichotomized as close to the median as possible, but this was done separately for each country. [Footnotez This means that the summary scale score cannot be used to compare individuals from different countries. This could be done only if the same absolute cutting point were used in all countries. . . .] One part of the dichot- omy was classified as the 'modern' answer, the other as the 'traditional.‘ Traditional answers were scored 1, modern 2, so that the minimum [total] score was in effect 1.00 and the maximum 2.00, a result given us forthwith by a basic computer operation which averaged the answers a man gave to all 119 [attitudinal] questions" (Smith and lnkeles, 1966, pp. 360-361). 26 Selection of Kibbutz and Moshav A kibbutz and matching moshav were sought which were about the same size and had been founded about the same time. In addition, the following individual member vari- ables guided the search: (1) age, (2) education, (3) national origin, (A) political party affiliation, (5) present occupation (i.e., agriculture XE’ industry), and (6) urban exposure. The final selections were not very satisfactory but were the best available. In addition, there was the prob- lem of low moshav response rate (see below), necessitating the use of a total of three "moshavim."u The Kibbutz The kibbutz selected for this study, established in the early 1950's, is located in the Judaean mountains. It is a little below average in size. Its major occupation is agriculture. Unlike many kibbutzim, this one does not have a factory of any sort. It is not considered to be one of the more economically successful or wealthy kib- butzim. Ige Moshavim The three moshavim used in this study are all con- sidered veteran, "established" communities, having been —_ “Hebrew plural for "moshav." The Hebrew plural for "kibbutz" is "kibbutzim." 27 founded during the 1930's. All are medium—sized and none has any major industry. Two of the three sss considered to be among the more economically successful or wealthy moshavim. (The other, like the kibbutz used in the study, is considered to be ordinary in this respect.) Two of the three moshavim are located within a few miles of urban communities (one in the "Ashkelon" region, the other in the "Shfela" coastal plain), whereas the third, like the kib— butz, is in a rural area (the Yizre'el valley region). Comparison of Memberships Members of the three moshavim are similar to each other in age, education, national origin, political party affiliation, present occupation, and urban exposure, i.e., in all the individual member variables that guided the selection of a "control" moshav. As may be seen in Table 2, the members of the three moshavim are, generally speaking, more similar to each other than they are to the members of the kibbutz. Ideally, they would be homogeneous with the kibbutz members. Administration of the Questionnaire Data collection in Israel was coordinated by a member of the Ministry of Education also on the faculty of Hebrew University. He gave the questionnaires to teachers in the kibbutz and moshavim and collected them upon completion of the administration. ND 0: TABLE 2.--Biographical responses of kibbutz and moshav members. Biographical Kibbutz Moshav#l Moshav#2 Moshav#3 Questions (%) (%) (%) (%) 1. Age 34 or under 81 41 H3 50 over 3“ 19 57 56 50 2. Sex male 39 U7 39 52 female U3 U8 U3 23 3. Education under 10 years 26 38 56 23 10-12 years 53 36 35 NB over 12 years 21 26 U 17 14. Father's education 10 years or less 33 60 “8 48 over 10 years 55 34 22 17 53. Mother's education 10 years or less U7 57 7M U3 over 10 years 43 31 l3 l7 6. Respondent's occupation Agricultural I 28 34 30 52 Professional 15 26 0 9 Other 39 28 U8 26 7- Time in present occupation 7 years or less 5U 22 22 17 cover 7 years 30 66 52 52 \ NOtNes: Most of the completed questionnaires contained one C”? more omitted items. Consequently, most of the entries fYDr a given question do not add up to 100%. CDnestionnaire items 11-15, 19-20, 23, and 31-33 are omflxed flflam this table and all statistical analyses because the ITESponse was too uniform to yield meaningful categories. TABLE 2.--Continued. iiographical Kibbutz Moshav#1 Moshav#2 Moshav#3 Questions (%) (%) (%) (%) 8. Respondent hired or self-enployed Yes 0 36 13 22 No 79 48 56 61 9. Respondent's father hired or self- employed Yes 33 26 35 A No AT 58 M3 78 10. ReSpondent's mother hired or self- employed Yes 17 1U 17 0 No 66 7M 61 82 16. Respondent's esti— mation of his oc- cupational expertise Low “3 45 35 52 High 36 40 39 26 17. Father's past occupation Agriculture 19 M8 30 56 Professional 26 22 17 30 Other 51 17 50 u 18- .MOther's past occupation Housekeeper M7 50 7M 70 (3ther 32 U3 17 30 21- Iiespondent's origin 'Lsrael 81 58 52 56 (3ther 16 36 39 38 TABLE 2.--Continued. 30 biographical Kibbutz Moshav#l Moshav#2 Moshav#3 questions (%) (%) (%) (%) 22. Respondent's military service None (yet) 26 36 52 U3 Voluntary unit U3 20 7 35 Non—voluntary unit 28 38 13 22 2U. Respondent's special military experience Some 10 28 35 39 None 88 66 61 56 25. Outside working experience None U7 53 56 61 Some UU U0 35 35 26. Outside learning eXporience None U1 U3 52 70 Some 38 U5 26 13 27. Outside living experience (moshav member in kibbutz) None 2 U7 65 “3 Some 3 32 26 52 28. Outside living experience (kibbutz member in moshav) None 73 0 0 0 Some 20 0 0 U 31 TABLE 2.--Continued. biographical Kibbutz Moshav#l Moshav#2 Moshav#3 Questions (%) (%) (%) (%) 29. Urban exposure (small .sraeli city) None U3 72 56 70 Some 38 2U 22 17 30. Urban exposure (big Israeli city) None U3 58 56 65 Some 52 U2 26 26 3U. Frequency of city visiting under twice a month 65 U3 U8 U8 at least twice a month 32 52 52 18 The administration itself had been preplanned by teachers in each of the units, who made use of high school students (seniors were to be preferred). Each student was assigned 5-10 houses to which they were to distribute questionnaires, and then collect them. A Sabbath weekend was chosen to enhance response rate. One questionnaire was distributed to each house (family) in each unit. Ideally, there would be a 100 per cent response (in terms of houses or families). Minimum age for completing a questionnaire was 1U. There were no other requirements. The response rate for the kibbutz was 98 per cent, 1.0., 53 of 55 housing units. The response rate for the (first) moshav was about 22 per cent, thus requiring the selection of another moshav. For the second moshav it was not much better (about 30 per cent)——requiring the selection of still another moshav. For the third moshav the percentage of usable questionnaires was higher than the first two com- bined:‘ about 72 per cent. Because the biographical data for the members of the three moshavim were very similar, it was decided to pool the three moshav samples. Analysis of the Data The main hypothesis of the study is that kibbutz members are no less modern than moshav members. Since individual modernity in this study is operationally defined in terms of scores on the Inkeles and Rokeach scales, the main analysis will be in terms of difference between the groups in their scores on the two scales. lnkeles OM Scale There will be three kinds of analysis of the Inkeles QM Scale data. The first analysis will be of total scores for the two kinds of respondent. It is hypothesized that the 33 average total score for moshav members will not be higher (more modern) than for kibbutz members. The second analysis will be of part—scores, accord- ing to the themes that Inkeles has Specified for his scale items (Smith and Inkeles, 1966, p. 35U). Thus, the kib- butz and moshav respondents will be compared in terms of such themes as Citizens Political Reference Groups, Edu- cational Aspirations, Efficacy and Opportunity in Life Chances, Efficacy of Science and Medicine, Extended Kin— ship Obligations, Family Size, and Kinship Obligation to Parental Authority. The third analysis will be of the relation of Inkeles items to biographical items, the purpose here being to identify factors that might bias the kibbutz or moshav toward a higher or lower score than the other. Bokeach Dogmatism Scale Analysis here will be the same as of the OM Scale—— i.e total scores, part-scores (thematic analysis), and ' 9 biographical items. Egg Two Scales Together The Inkeles and Rokeach Scales will be tested for Correlation (as hypothesized in Chapter I). Except for this (product moment) correlation, all testing for Significant relationships in the dissertation will be with the Median Test or Chi Square. (See Appendix E.) CHAPTER III RESULTS The results of the study will be presented in three sections, each dealing with one of the study's three hypo— theses--(l) that the kibbutz members would score at least as high as the moshav members on the Inkeles QM Scale, (2) that the kibbutz members would score at least as low as the moshav members on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and (3) that the Inkeles and Rokeach scales would correlate significantly with each other. Inkeles OM Scale There are three kinds of QM Scale data to report: (1) total scores for kibbutz vs, moshav members, (2) part—scores (theme—scores) for kibbutz XE- moshav members, and (3) relation to biographical items. Kibbutz vs. Moshav: Total Scores As may be seen in Table 3, the individual test scores of kibbutz and moshav members, while favoring the latter, are not significantly different (x2 = .812). LU J: 35 'PAHLE 3.-—Modian test of significance of difference between total QM Scale scores of kibbutz and moshav members. Kibbutz w Moshav 7 2 P frequency b frequency X lelow median 29 55 U9 U7 At or above . 812 N o median 2U U5 55 53 Total 53 100 llU lOO Kibbutz vs. Moshav: Thematic Analysis Chart 1 shows the 20 modernity themes tapped by the 30 OM Scale items used in the present study.1 Of these 20 themes, kibbutz and moshav members differed significantly2 on seven. Thus, kibbutz members were more modern on Efficacy and Opportunity in Life Chances, and Efficacy of Science and Medicine (.02 level taken together). Moshav members were more modern in Educational and Occupational Aspirations (.01 level taken together), Consumer Values (.10), Mass Media Valuation (.10), and Openness to New Experience-People (.05). These results are summarized in Chart 2. 1This is out of a total of 33 themes specified by Smith and Inkeles (1966, p. 35U). 2In the present study, a probability level of .10 Or below is considered to be significant. 36 CHART l.—-Inkeles modernity themes tapped by the OM Scale items used in the present study. $28388: Descriptive Title of Theme Code As Specified in Inkeles PrOJect AC Political Activism AS(l) Educational Aspirations AS(2) Occupational Aspirations CH Change Perception and Valuation CI Citizens Political Reference Groups 00(2) Consumer Values EE(2) Efficacy and Opportunity in Life Chances EF(3) Efficacy of Science and Medicine FS(1) Family Size—Attitudes FS(2) Family Size—Birth Control OO(1) Growth of Opinion Awareness KO(l) Extended Kinship Obligations KO(2) Kinship Obligation to Parental Authority MM Mass Media Valuation NE(2) Openness to New Experience—People PL Planning Valuation RE(2) Religious-Secular Orientation TI Time (Punctuality) Valuation TS Technical Skill Valuation WR(l) Women's Rights Source: David Horton Smith and Alex Inkeles, "The QM. Scale: A Comparative Socio-Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity," Sociometry, 29 (1966), 35“. 37 CHART 2.--The modernity of kibbutz gs. moshav members in terms of Inkeles project themes. More Modern Inkeles Project Theme Kibbutz Moshav Consumer Values .10 level Education and Occupational Aspirations .01 level Efficacy and Opportunity in Life Chances-- Efficacy of Science and Medicine .02 level Mass Media Valuation .10 level Openness to New Experience-People .05 level Relation to Biographical Items 0f the 3U biographical items, six appeared to be related to QM Scale scores. Those items showing a signi- ficant difference (though none at more than the .10 level) were: (1) age, (2) sex, (3) type of employment (hired gs. self-employed), (U) special military experience, (5) urban exposure (residence in big Israeli city), and (6) frequency of visiting the city. Thus, the more modern were the older, the males, the hired, those with Q2 special military GXperience, the former big city dweller, and the frequent City visitor. These results are summarized in Table U. 38 TABLE U.——Biographica1 questions significantly related to QM Scale scores. Biographical 2 P Higher QM Scale Question X Score 1. Age 3.U71 .10 Older 2. Sex 2.91U .10 Male 8. Hired or self- employed 2.813 .10 Hired 2U. Special military experience 3.807 .10 None 30. Urban exposure (big Israeli city) 6.809 .10 Some 3U. Frequency of city visiting 3.159 .10 High Rokeach Dogmatism Scale There are three kinds of Dogmatism Scale data to report: (1) total scores for kibbutz XE: moshav members, (2) part-scores (theme-scores) for kibbutz XE: moshav members, and (3) relation to biographical items. Kibbutz vs. Moshav: Total Scores As may be seen in Table 5, the difference between total individual scores of bibbutz and moshav members is statistically significant (.05 level). It favors the kibbutz members in the sense that it shows them to be less dogmatic than the moshav members. 39 TABLE 5.——Median test of significance of difference between Dogmatism Scale scores of kibbutz and moshav members. Kibbutz % Moshav % 2 P frequency frequency X Below median 32 60 U3 U1 At or 5.096 .05 above median 21 U0 61 59 Total 53 100 10U 100 Kibbutz vs. Moshav: Thematic Analysis As stated earlier, the 20 Dogmatism Scale items used in the present study tap nine of the main themes in Rokeach's analysis of dogmatism (see page 23). When the kibbutz and moshav members were compared on the subsets of one or more Dogmatism Scale items tapping each of these nine themes, a significant difference was found in five cases (six if the two Authoritarianism themes are counted separately). In every one of these five cases, the dif- ference favored the kibbutz members, in that they were the less dogmatic, hence more modern, respondents. Probability levels were .01 for Intolerance (Toward the Renegade) and Coexistence of Contradictions, .05 for Self-Aggrandize- ment, and .10 for Authoritarianism (Beliefs in Positive and Negative Authority), Authoritarianism (Belief in U0 the Cause), and Accentuation of Differences. Chart 3 sum— marizes the results. CHART 3.—-The modernity of kibbutz vs. moshav members in terms of Rokeach dogmatism themes. More Modern Rokeach Dogmatism Theme Kibbutz Moshav Accentuation of Differences Between the Belief and Disbelief Systems (Dogmatism Scale #1) .10 level Coexistence of Contradictions Within the Belief System (Dogmatism Scale #6) .01 level Self-Aggrandizement as a Defense Against Self— Inadequacy (Concern with Power and Status) (Dogmatism Scale #25, 26, 27) .05 level Authoritarianism: Beliefs in Positive and Negative Authority (Dogmatism Scale #35, 36) .10 level Authoritarianism: Belief in the Cause (Dogmatism Scale #38, 39, U1, U3) .10 level Intolerance: Toward the Renegade (Dogmatism Scale #US, “5, ”7) .01 level Relation to Biographical Items Of the 3U biographical items, three proved to be significantly related to Dogmatism Scale scores--military U1 experience, outside learning experience, and urban ex— posure (residence in big Israeli city). Thus, the less dogmatic, hence more modern, were those who had served in a non-voluntary military unit, those who had attended school outside their present structure (kibbutz or moshav), and those who had lived in a big city. These results are summarized in Table 6. TABLE 6.--Biographical questions significantly related to Dogmatism Scale scores. 'U Biographical _ P Lower Dogmatism Question X Scale Score 23. Military Non-voluntary experience U.829 .10 unit 26. Outside learning experience 6.U93 .05 Some 30. Urban ex— posure (big Israeli city) 7.020 .01 Some Inkeles and Rokeach Scales Product-moment correlation coefficients were com- puted for the 53 kibbutz members, the 10U moshav members, and the total sample. The negative coefficients, as may be seen in Table 7, indicate a statistically significant correlation between the two scales in the hypothesized direction. That is, there was a slight tendency for the hirhcr scorers on one scale to be the lower scorers on the other. This is what the hypothesis called for, in that individual modernity, as conceptualized in the present study, expresses itself in a high score on the QM Scale and a low score on the Dogmatism Scale. TABLE 7.——Product—moment correlation coefficients (3) between QM Scale and Dogmatism Scale scores for kibbutz and moshav sub-samples, and total sample. Subjects N 3 P* Kibbutz 53 -.28 .02 Moshav 10U -.13 .10 Total sample 157 -.17 .02 *One-tail test. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION OF RESULTS This chapter follows the format of the preceding chapter. This, it discusses, first, the Inkeles QM Scale results; second, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale results; and, third, the Inkeles—Rokeach correlation results. Inkeles 0M Scale Results There are three kinds of QM Scale results to dis- cuss: (l) the non-significant difference in total scores between the kibbutz and moshav members (see pp. 3U—35); (2) the mixed results of the thematic analysis (pp. 35-37); and (3) the relation to the six biographical items (pp. 37- 38). Kibbutz vs. Moshav: Total Scores As hypothesized, the kibbutz members‘ scores were not significantly different (thus, no less modern) from the moshav members'. But how modern are the moshav members? It was pointed out earlier that the moshav cannot be taken as an example of modernistic social structure--that whatever modernism it possesses is strictly relative to the unusual traditionalism of the U3 UU kibbutz. Still, one would like to know how modern the mnshav members are, to get some idea of the Significance (>1‘ lit?j rig; i133. rn(»ci€3I‘r1. According to Smith and Inkeles (1966), the QM Long Form "proved to have much the same characteristics in all the countries in mean (about 1.5U), in median (1.55), in range (about 1.20 to 1.80). . . " (p. 362). The countries were Argentina, Chile, India, Israel, Nigeria, and Pakis- tan. The subjects were 5,500 males between the ages of 18 and 32, 70 per cent of whom were urban industrial workers and another 15 per cent of whom held nonindustrial Jobs. The mean for the moshav respondents in the present study is 1.67, the median 1.69, and the range l.U2 to 1.9U.l Table 8 shows the frequency distribution for the moshav and kibbutz members. The moshav members, then, would 1These statistics, and all others in the present study dealing with the QM Scale score of individuals, are based on only 26 of the 30 OM Scale items used in the questionnaire. The other fdur items (numbers 12, 1U, 20, and 23 in the questionnaire) were radically modified ver- sions of the QM Scale items. Because of the radical modification, and the desire to maintain comparability with the Inkeles data, they were excluded from all indi- vidual member computations. Had they been included, they would not have altered the basic finding, for they showed the same equality of modernity in the kibbutz and moshav members. For example, whereas 7U per cent of the kibbutz members is. 6U per cent of the moshav members knew the identity of Pierre Trudeau (an informational item scored for modernity), 27 per cent of the moshav members KE- 19 per cent of the kibbutz members felt themselves capable of a profession requiring university training (an aspira- tional item scored for modernity). See Table 10 (p. U9) for a test of the kibbutz-moshav difference on the Trudeau item. M5 seem to be more modernistic than these 5,500 young male workers from the six countries sampled by the Inkeles project, including Israel itself. TABLE 8.—-Kibbutz and moshav member scores on the QM Scale items used in the present study. Score* Kibbutz Moshav l.U0-1.U9 0 5 1.50-1.59 8 18 1.60-1.69 21 31 1.70-1.79 19 U2 1.80-1.89 5 6 1.90-1.99 O 2 N53 NIOU *Based on 26 items, as explained in footnote 1, present chapter. To be as modernistic as the moshav members,2 then, is to be more modernistic than probably a sizeable portion of the world's population, especially the non-Western 2The corresponding statistics for the kibbutz mem— bers are 1.68, 1.67, and 1.5U to 1.86. U6 world. If this is true of the kibbutz members, then there would seem to be some basis for either (1) review- ing the classification of the kibbutz as "traditional," Gemeinschaft," "folk," etc., or (2) raising the question whether such social structure is incompatible with modernistic consciousness and behavior as measured by the QM Scale, i.e., with what Inkeles (1966) means by the "attitudes, values, and the ways of feeling and acting of the sort either generated by or required for effective participation in modern society" (p. 353). Certainly kibbutz members participate effectively in kibbutz society; and kibbutzim participate effectively in Israeli society; and Israel participates effectively in wgrld society. But would kibbutz members participate effectively in whatever Inkeles means by modern society? If the present study's kibbutz members are representative, then the answer might be more affirmative than conven- tional modernization theory would lead one to think. Age the kibbutz members representative? Perhaps (I) certain biographical factors correlate positively with QM Scale scores, (2) this kibbutz happens to be over-endowed with them, and (3) the study's three moshavim are under—endowed. Suppose, for example, that college education, industrial work experience, and urban residence correlate positively with QM Scale scores, and that this particular kibbutz has a larger prOportion of members 1| '/ with such factors in their biography than the three moshavim. Would this not yield a misleading picture of the modernity of kibbutz members vis-a-vis moshav members? Nothing to the writer's knowledge has been pub- lished yet on correlates of QM Scale performance; so an effort was made to check out the foregoing possibility using the data of the study itself. As was reported in Chapter 111 (pp. 37-38), six biographical factors did show some slight positive association with QM Scale scores-- older age, male sex, hired employment, no special military experience, big city residence, and frequent city visit- ing (all at the .10 level). How do the study's kibbutz and three moshavim compare in these respects? Is the kibbutz at an advantage? Table 9 presents the relevant data. It shows that any advantage due to biographical factors is distributed equally between the kibbutz and the three moshavim; and if 222 equally, then more in favor of the moshavim. The lack of significant kibbutz-moshav difference in total QM Scale scores, therefore, may not be attributed to biographical factors favoring the kib- butz. Kibbutz vs. Moshav: Thematic Analysis Kibbutz members, it will be recalled, were found to be more modern on the two Efficacy themes taken together, Efficacy and Opportunity in Life Chances and Efficacy of U8 TABLE 9.-—Percentage of kibbutz and moshav members char— acterized by biographical factors positively associated with QM Scale scores. Biographical Factors Kibbutz Moshav Positively Assocaited Members Members gg 80:18 with QM Scale Scores % % van age Age: over 3U years 19 56 Moshav Sex: male ‘ U6 U0 Kibbutz Employment: hired 0 28 Moshav No special military experience 26 U1 Moshav Some urban exposure (big Israeli city) 52 35 Kibbutz High frequency of city visiting 32 51 Moshav Science and Medicine; whereas the moshav members were more modern on (1) the two Aspirations themes taken together, Educational Aspirations and Occupational Aspirations, (2) Consumer Values, (3) Mass Media Valuation, and (U) Open- ness to New Experience-People (see pp. 35-37). Of these differences, the most significant statistically were the kibbutz members' superiority on the Efficacy themes taken together (.02) and the moshav members' superiority on the Aspirations themes taken together (.01). A little light on certain of these results can be cast by data regarding responses to specific items rather than to theme groupings. Table 10 is comprised of the U9 pcmsw oazonm HmfiOHmmo >m£moz Ho. mms.s ecoscsm>ow m coaufipod mmocz :HIHO mm cofiwfiaos pcmpmmmfio mo >m£moz Ho. moa.m ems mo wcfixcfinp ocmpmsmoca :Imz mm psomgm .mw mpmm Npsepfix Ho. mam.HH :0 mesmeee names museums mumm ma cosoaazo sow >mnmoz Ho. omm.s mcHHoocom mo pesosm oosfiwoa Ham< m emceemom pomhopm madam pcommpm mo csoooz m x . ucopcoo mmfioxcH ca opfimcsoapmoza CH whoa m smnesz EwuH smoEsz EmpH .mEmpH mamom.mm oamfioomm o» msobEmE >m£mofi one Nbdhhfix no momCOQmms coospob mocmsommao mo mocmofiMficmfim mo pmop phenom figoll.oa mqmsmmmm em on mocmnmmmfio qsopmmppcfi nose szpsfim mo. mm:.m oos co cofipmsmfioe >3 mm mmcoawmm *AQ Enomv wamom knapm pcmmmhm mambo: a x pcmpcoo Emfiumemoa Ca mo mLHmQCOHpmmSG mmoz m meEsz EopH Ca ampesz EmpH .mEmpfi mamom Ewfipmfiwoa owmfiomom 0p mpmnEmE >m£moe paw unapowx go monsoomms cmmSpwo mocmhmmmflp mo mocmOfiMchfim mo ummp mnmzdm Hzoll.:a mqm