‘. A . a .w 5&5 3 i. I " 3 £ i :63! ABSTRACT STATUS INCONSISTENCY, SOCIAL MOBILITY, SELF, AND SOCIETY by Miles E. Simpson This study proposes a self-esteem theory to ac- count for the effects of status inconsistencies in (l) self-perceived autonomy; (2) authoritarianism; (3) ex— pectations for future life conditions; and (4) alienation, as manifested in a sense of powerlessness, normlessness and social isolation. Differential effects are hypothe- sized by cultural value orientation (achievement versus ascription). Two assumptions were employed to account for the effects of status inconsistencies: (1) Person takes into account the weightings of significant others; and (2) person maximizes his self-esteem by giving greater weight to status dimensions on which he ranks high and lower weight to those dimensions on which he ranks low. Assuming that ascriptive cultures give greater weight to ascribed statuses, and achievement-oriented cul- tures to achieved statuses, the self-evaluation of up- wardly mobile persons in ascriptive cultures differs from Miles E. Simpson the evaluations of others more than in achievement- oriented societies; therefore, upwardly mobile individ- uals in ascriptive cultures experience more interpersonal stress as expressed in normlessness and social isolation. We hypothesized that powerlessness, autonomy, expectation for future life conditions, and authoritarianism would be affected only by downward mobility and that these effects would be found in both achievement and ascrip- tively oriented cultures. The data were drawn from four of five nations used in the Five Nations Study (1963): United States, Japan, Costa Rica, and Mexico. The method of analysis was a two-way factorial analysis of variance (unweighted means analysis) with contrasts being made between mobile cells and static cells, with mobility expressed as a dis- crepancy between education and/or occupational status of subject and educational and/or occupational status of subject's socializer--commonly, subject's father. To accept an hypothesis that a particular cell shows a mobility effect, we used a criterion that the mobile cells show a significantly higher or lower mean, as the case may be, than either static cells. Despite methodological problems, we found evidence for mobility effects in the case of upward mobility and normlessness. While downward mobility effects occurred, they were not uniform across all nations. Miles E. Simpson We predicted differences between the more achievement- and ascriptively-oriented societies for level of authoritarianism, religiosity, participation in voluntary instrumental and expressive organizations, and self versus collectivity orientation. We found that our ascriptive societies, Costa Rica and Mexico, differed markedly from our achievement—oriented societies, the United States and Japan. We take this as evidence for the power of Parson's classification scheme. We also found higher levels of alienation, powerlessness, and normlessness in ascriptive societies. STATUS INCONSISTENCY, SOCIAL MOBILITY, SELF, AND SOCIETY by \ ‘ \ \ y'\ 2 Miles E. Simpson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S I owe debts to many individuals who have contrib- uted directly and indirectly to this dissertation. As the data for this dissertation came from the Five Nations Pro- ject, I owe major debt to its sponsors, the International Programs of Michigan State University, the United States Public Health.Service and the Agricultural Service of Michigan and to-its directors.and the many individuals who devoted time and effort providing quality.data under, at times, difficult circumstances. I owe a debt to William H. Form, chairman of the Sociology department, and to Hideya Kumata, director of the International Institute of Communications of Michigan State.University for funds and other resources. A second debt I owe to.my committee: to F. W. Waisanen, chairman, whose encouragement, insight and patience aided in the dissertation‘s completion and William H. Form,.Hideya Kumata, Eugene Jacobson.and Charles Loomis whose.insights sharpened the.study's focus. Lastly, I owe a personal debt to Alica Villaflor who aided my endeavors at critical points along the way and to my wife Joan, daughter Natalie and to many others: fellow.graduate students, friends, and typists for their patience and support. ii Chapter II. TABLE OF CONTENTS 'INTRODUCTION o o o o o 0 THE SELF IN SOCIETY . . Self Theory . . . . . "Status Consistency . PStatus Congruence" And Certitude . . . . Status Consistency an Individual . . . . ~Dynamics of Status . Social Structure . . Mobility . . . . . . Alienation . . . . . Authoritarianism . . Future Life Conditions THEORY AND HYPOTHESES . ‘Introduction . . . . =Status—Inconsistency Assumption (1) . . Assumption (2) . . Assumption (3) . . Ascriptive and Achievement Orientation . . . Social The ’The Consequences of Status Incon- sistency on the Individual Achievement and Ascriptive tings . . . . . . .Social Isolation . Powerlessness . . Normlessness . . . Autonomy . . . . . In Set- Expectations for Future Life Conditions . . Authoritarianism . iii Page l4 16 25 30 36 4O 59 61 63 63 64 64 66 67 71 76 77 77 78 79 80 80 Chapter METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States . . . . . . . . . . Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Costa Rica . . I . . . . . . . . . Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation of Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Prestige . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation of Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . Alienation Anomia, and Social Isolation . . . . . . . . . . . Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . Sense of Autonomy . . . . . . . . Future Life Conditions . . . . . . Methodological Issues in the Measure- ment of Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility . . . . . . . . . The Unweighted Mean Analysis . . . . Analysis (Schedule) . . . . . . . . . Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . Testing Basic Assumptions . . . . ‘ Background Information . . . . . . 'VStatus Inconsistency . . . . . . . RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Assumption-Achievement Versus Ascriptive Oriental Societies . . . . . . . . . . . . Background Information‘ . . . . . . . Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . . Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Expectations for Future Life Conditions . . . . . . . . Socio-Economic Variables . . . . . Cross-National Differences . . . . . Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powerlessness . . . . . . . . . . Normlessness . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 82 82 84 84 84 87 88 89 89 93 95 95 97 97 98 99 106 108 109 109 110 110 112 112 112 124 124 124 127 128 128 131 131 139 146 153 Chapter Social Isolation . . . . . Alienation Scale . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . «The Consequences of Status Incon- sistency Through Mobility . Alienation (Dean Scale) . . Powerlessness . . . . . . . Normlessness . . . . . . . . Social Isolation . . . . . . Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . Future Life Conditions . Authoritarianism . . . . . . Summary of Results . . . . . . Alienation (Dean Scale) . . Powerlessness . . . . . . . Normlessness . . . . . . . . Social Isolation . . . . . . Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . Future Life Conditions . . . Authoritarianism . . . . . . V. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Implications . . Achievement-Ascriptive Societies Alienation, Anomia and Culture Context. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . Page 160 160 173 174 174 179 187 191 191 202 207 121 213 215 215 217 217 218 218 219 219 220 222 239 Table 1. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. LIST OF TABLES Self More Important Than Political Party . . Self More Important Than the Community . . . Self More Important Than Work . . . . . . . Self More Important Than Country . . . . Self More Important Than Family . . . . . Authoritaritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . Participation in Voluntary Organizations . . Membership in Expressive Organization . . Social Organization More Important Than All Other Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of Religion . . . . . . . . . . . Dean Alienation Item-Sum of Remaining Items Correlation (Six Items) . . . . . . . Dean Alienation Item-Sum of Remaining Items Correlation (Five Items) . . . . . . Alienation Subscale Intercorrelations . . . Authoritarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . Autonomy Intercorrelation . . . . . . . . . Expectations for Future Life Conditions: r of Item to Sum of Other Items . . . . . . Independent Variables Intercorrelation . . . Independent Variables Intercorrelation (Product Movement Correlations) . . . . . . vi Page 113 114 115 115 117 118 119 122 122 123 124 125 126 126 127 128 129 130 Table Page 19. Association Between Independent Variable Given Three Levels . . . . . . . . . . . 131 20. Alienation: Costa Rica (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 175 21. Alienation: Mexico (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 177 22. Alienation: United States (Social Mobility--Ana1ysis of Variance) . . . . . 179 23. Alienation: Japan (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 181 24. Powerlessness: Costa Rica (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . . . 182 25. Powerlessness: Mexico (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 184 26. Powerlessness: United States (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . . . 186 27. Powerlessness: Japan (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 187 28. Normlessness: Costa Rica (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 188 29. Normlessness: Mexico (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 190 30. Normlessness: United States (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . . . 192 31. Normlessness: Japan (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 193 32. Social Isolation: Costa Rica (Social Mobility-~Analysis of Variance) . . . . . 195 33. Social Isolation: Mexico (Social Mobility--Ana1ysis of Variance) . . . . . 196 34. Autonomy: Costa Rica (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . 198 vii Table 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Autonomy: Mexico (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . Autonomy: United States (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . Autonomy: Japan (Social Mobility-- Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . Future Life Conditions: Costa Rica (Social Mobility--Ana1ysis of variance) 0 O I O O O O O O O O I O 0 Future Life Conditions: Mexico (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . Future Life Conditions: United States (Social Mobility—-Analysis of Variance) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Life Conditions: Japan (Social Mobility-~Ana1ysis of Variance) . . . Authoritarianism: Costa Rica (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . Authoritarianism: Mexico (Social Mobility-—Ana1ysis of Variance) . . . Authoritarianism: United States (Social Mobility--Ana1ysis of Variance) . . . Authoritarianism: Japan (Social Mobility--Analysis of Variance) . . . smary 0f Results 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 viii Page 199 200 201 203 204 205 206 208 209 210 211 212a Graph 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. LIST OF GRAPHS Page Authoritarianism: Occupation-Head of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Authoritarianism: Education - Head of HousehOld O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 133 Authoritarianism: Occupation - Socializer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Authoritarianism: Education - Socializer . 135 Authoritarianism: Achievement . . . . . . 136 Authoritarianism: Ascription . . . . . . . 137 Autonomy: Occupation-Socializer . . . . . 140 Autonomy: Occupation-Head of Household . . 141 Autonomy: Achievement . . . . . . . . . . 142 Autonomy: Ascription . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Autonomy: Education-Socializer . . . . . . 144 Autonomy: Education-Head of Household . . 145 Powerlessness: Occupation-Socializer . . . 147 Powerlessness: Occupation-Head of 4 Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Powerlessness: Education-Socializer . . . 149 Powerlessness: Education-Head of HousehOId O O I O O O O O O I O O O O O 150 Powerlessness: Achievement . . . . . . . . 151 Powerlessness: Ascription . . . . . . . . 152 Normlessness: Achievement . . . . . . . . 154 ix Graph Page 20. Normlessness: Occupation-Socializer . . . 155 21. Normlessness: Occupation-Head of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 22. Normlessness: Ascription . . . . . . . . 157 23. Normlessness: Education-Socializer . . . 158 24. Normlessness: Education-Head of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 25. Social Isolation: Education-Head of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 26. Social Isolation: Education-Socializer 162 27. Social Isolation: Occupation-Socializer 163 28. Social Isolation: Occupation—Head of Household . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 29. Social Isolation: Achievement . . . . 165 30. Social Isolation: Ascription . . . . . 166 31. Alienation: Education-Head of Household 167 32. Alienation: Education-Socializer . . . 168 33. Alienation: Occupation-Socializer . . . 169 34. Alienation: Occupation-Head of Household. 170 35. Alienation: Ascription . . . . . . . . 171 36. Alienation: Achievement . . . . . . . . 172 INTRODUCTION Recent research in social psychology has focused on the effects of cognitive consistency and inconsistency on individual behavior and personality. In general, in— consistencies, imbalance, or dissonance leads to behaviors designed to rectify the imbalance. On the societal level several researchers, Lenskil, Jacksonz, Goffman3, and Landecker4, have found evidence that certain inconsistencies in status variables have powerful effects on the indi- vidual's behavior. AUntil now only a small number of correlates, "stress," liberalism, desire for change in the power structure, and\§ocia1 isolation, have come under scrutiny, and these studies have dealt only with populations within the confines of the continental United States. This means the range and power of status consistency has yet to be tested; in fact, this research has just begun. //1G. E. Lenski, "Status Crystallization: A Non-Ver- tical Dimension of Social Status," American Sociological Review, 19 (1954), pp 405- 418; and G. E. Lenski, firSocial /NParticipation and Status Crystallization," American Socio- logical Review, 21 (1956), pp. 458- 464. \sz. F. Jackson, "Status Consistency and Symptomscfi Stress," American Sociological Review, 27 (1962), pp. 469-480. V 3I. W. Goffman, "Status Consistency and Preference .for Change in Power Distribution," American Sociological Re- view, 22 (1957), pp. 275-281. 1 Status inconsistencies appear regularly in an in- dustrial society. Poor scholars, rich garbage collectors, and politically powerful women represent types of inconsis- tency which are rather common. Yet, the frequency of such individuals vary from culture to culture, and the effects of various status inconsistencies may change with differ— ent cultures. f~ The most important object in an individual's life is his "self." He guards no other object more closely; he attends to changes in no other object's fortunes more inten- sely. Furthermore, the evaluation of the self provided the reference or anchor point to a vast number of other objects. In fact, the self is the single most important object in terms of evaluation. Summing up Freud's contribution to social science, Ernest Becker5 states, "Freud's real dis- coveries all centered upon the idea of self-esteem maintenance by the growing organism. In other words, his discoveries all point to one crucial fact; the basic predicate for human action is a qualitative feeling of self-value (p. 163). Furthermore, Becker goes on to say: ...The individual learns to constitute himself symbolically, as an object of primary value in a meaningful world. There is a further crucial \N4W. S. Landecker, "Class Crystallization and Class Consciousness," American Sociological Review, 22 (1957), pp. 219-229. 5Ernest Becker, The Revolution in Psychiatry, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1964. fact, attendant on this discovery, which it would be impossible to over stress; namely, that the vital sentiment of self-value is derived from symbols. The self-esteem is a locus composed of internalized social rules for behavior. A sense of self arises out of the context of inter— 7 Mead,8 and Frenchg), a context in acting selves (Cooley, which each person is aware of the other and himself, each evaluates the adequacies of the other and himself, and each exchanges demands and rewards. The self emerges out of the individual's awareness of his relationships to others. Through them he acquires the knowledge of what they expect from him and what performances led to what ends. Often others' demands will not be most consistent; furthermore, the individual finds that to a certain extent he can meet some demands and not others. Through these ex- periences he learns what he "really" is, as Opposed to what he is expected to be. In the process of assimilating the expectations of others and becoming aware of his strengths and weaknesses, the individual becomes aware of what he is 61bid., p. 163. 7C. H. Cooley, Human Nature and the Social Order, Rev. ed. (New York: C. Scribner and Sons, 1922)} 8G. H. Mead, Mind, Self, and Society (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956). 9John R. French, Self-Actualization and Utiliz- ation of Talent (Ann Arbor, Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1963). not. The formation of a self-concept depends on the nature of the social ethos in which it arises. High ex- pectations for performance may provide the grounds for high performance. According to Thomas B. Macaulay: ...Genius is subject to the same laws which regulate the production of cotton and molasses. The supply adjusts itself to the demand. The quantity may be diminished by restrictions, and multiplied by bounties.10 This position is supported by John Gardner'sll observation that the expectations for language learning in Low Lands children, compared to that of American children, is con- siderably greater with the result of the Low Lands child- ren becoming predominantly multilingual. In this study we examine status inconsistency, j through social mobility and its influence on the individ- i‘ual's perception of autonomy, his sense of alienation, norm- lessness, powerlessness anstocial isolation, authoritar- ianism, and his perception of his future life conditions. The status inconsistency effect depends on the definition given the particular inconsistency by the culture. For instance, in our achievement-oriented culture, upward 10Thomas B. Macaulay, "On the Athenian Orators," in Poems and Miscellaneous Writings (London, Longman, Green and Co., 1898), p. 340. 11John Gardner, Excellence (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1961). mobility is expected; in an ascriptive culture, Upward mobility is discouraged. Consequently, the use of cross- cultural data allows a look at the effects of status in- consistency in different cultural settings. CHAPTER I THE SELF IN SOCIETY Self Theory The self has been the focus of much theoretical and an emerging line of empirical research (Kuhn,l McPhail,2 Tucker3). As such the concept of self pro- vides a powerful construct to social psychology. Spec- ulation concerning the nature and importance of the self came to the American scene through William James and the psychology of Freud as the "ego." Nevertheless, the main impetus for "self theory" came through the efforts of symbolic interactionalists. The founders, Cooley4 and Meads, emphasized the examination of social behavior and motivation through the context of interacting selves. Here each individual in part has awareness of 1Manford Kuhn, "Major Trends in Symbolic Inter- action Theory in the Post Twenty-Five Years," Sociological Quarterly, 5 (Winter, 1964), pp. 61-81. 2S. Clark McPhail, Self Identification Within a Specific Context of Experience and Behavior, Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1965. 3Charles W. Tucker, Occupational Evaluation and Self Identification, Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D., Mich- igan State University, 1966. 4Cooley, passim. Mead, passim. himself and others, and each evaluates the behavior of himself and others and maximizes the level of his own "self-esteem." Furthermore, the primary source of knowledge about the self comes from "other's" reaction to the self. In any social situation, the individual has two tasks before him: the meeting of the other's expectations for him and the maximization of his own self—esteem. In order to do both he must have a notion of what is expected of him by the particular type of person he is dealing with. Also, he must know his performance limits. In essence, the indiv- idual has a set of attributes which are expected of him and a set of attributes which he possesses. To function in a human setting an individual needs a self-concept--or sub- jective self-concept which French and Miller define as "...that organization of qualities that the individual attrib- utes to himself."6 The self has appeared in many settings with many meanings--Sullivan's good-bad self, Goffman's presented self, Roger's actualized self, James' true self and Jung's persona. All of these uses, while representing important aspects of the self, do not describe the "self." Since each culture has 6J. R. P. French, Jr. and Danial R. Miller, "Identity and Motivation," in John R. French, Jr., Self Actualization and Utilization of Talent. (Ann Arbor, Michigan, Institute of Social Research, 1963). its own set of evaluative dimensions, a given constellation of personal attributes will yield a different "self." The attributes include objects owned, personal characteristics, and even desired characteristics and objects. To varying degrees, these attributes contribute to the person's self esteem. By altering his subjective evalu- ation of the attribute dimension so that his best status at- tributes are given more weight, the individual can maximize his self esteem. Consequently, the more flattering the attri- bute, the more important it is to the individual's self concept. Using the Twenty Statements Test, Tucker7 finds that men identify with their occupations (give occupational responses) in direct preportion to its prestige. In essence, the more important their occupation is to others, the more they define themselves in terms of it. In describing the self, French8 delineates sevéral types of identity. The first is self-identity (8.1.) which is synonymous with self-concept and results from the person's conception of himself as formed through the judgments of others. In essence, this is the subjective view of the self. Yet, the observer may not be the individual, and therefore there is at least one objective public identity (O.P.I.). French treats the objective public identity as the perception of the individ- uals primary reference group. In this research, I refer to the 7Tucker, passim. 8French, passim. objective public identity (O.P.I.) as an identity projected by any outside observer or group coming into contact with the individual. Furthermore, the other person may communicate only a portion of the objective public identity (O.P.I.). This French9 calls the communicated public identity (C.P.I.). Not included in French's analysis, but also important, is the communicated public identity. Here the individual system— atically screens personal information for public consumption"- this amounts to Goffman's presented self. French goes further; he subdivides subjective iden- tity into the actual, potential, aspired, and ideal selves. The actual self is the total pattern which is possible through the develOpment of his latent capacities, and the aspired self and ideal self are really indistinguishable. The aspired self represents the pattern of attributes the indiv- idual sees himself as attempting to attain, while the ideal self consists of the attributes "...he would impute to him- self were he to realize his ideals."lo Moving now to the key assumption, the individual con- stantly confronts the dilemma of maximizing "self-esteem" by bringing the ideal self and the subjective self into line, while in the process maintaining a good relationship with those around him. Working toward certain personal goals may 9French, Ibid., p. 18. 10110101., p. 22. 10 not conflict with the expectations of others for him, but, if it does, the person must either break off relations with the dissonant source, change the critical expectations of the dissonant source, or alter the "ideal self" such that striv- ing for it will not conflict with the expectations of others. Thus, the content of the "ideal self" and the self expect- ations of others have a profound effect on a person's per- formance. The origin of an individual's ideals becomes im— portant for the understanding of the self. They arise through the internalization of norms and goals communicated to the individual as either appropriate or desirable by groups suf- ficiently powerful to reinforce them. According to French, "...once an attribute, dimension, or object has been intern- alized, the person reacts to it as he does to the rest of The ideal self then consists of those attributes which the person would possess that maximize "self-esteem" and at the same time allows him to maintain a stable re- lationship with his group. The power of the group in the formation and the maintenance of the self is, of course, fundamental: "The individual possesses a self only in relationship to the other members of his social group; and the structure of his self expresses or reflects the general behavior pattern of lIbid., p. 23. 11 the social group to which he belongs, just as does the struc- ture of the self of every other individual belonging to this social group."12 Here, Mead places the self in a matrix of human interaction which determines what objects and attrib- utes are to be valued and to be avoided. The group valuédand norms form a standard of reference for the individual. French states that this is a quasiformal function. "Self evaluation is a function of P's subjective public evaluation weighted by the degree of reference power of each reference group or reference other."13 This places a heavy emphasis on the reference group and represents a position taken by Kuhn and McPartland,l'4 who suggest that the concept of self as a member of a group takes precedence over other self-concepts. StatUs Consistency The work that has been done on status consistency has at least two settings. Some studies have focused on the effects of inconsistencies in standard socio-economic rank- ings on personality, political behavior, social behavior, and psychosomatic illness, e.g., Jackson,1 Lenski,2 lzIbid., p. 24. l3Ibid. l4Manford Kuhn and Thomas McPortland, "An Empirical Investigation of Self Attitudes," American Sociological Re- view, Vol. 196 (Feb., 1954), pp. 68-76. 1E. F. Jackson, passim. 2Lenski (1954), passim., Lenski (1956), passim. 12 Landecker,3 Goffman,4 Miller,5 and Jackson and Burke;6 others have concentrated on more or less situational bound status variables and their inconsistencies on small group perform- ance: J..N- Adams and Exline and Ziller.8 Excepting the work of Homans9 and Sampson,10 little in the way of a sys- tematic consideration of status inconsistencies has emerged. Future research in this area will require more careful con- sideration.of the status variables, the nature of their as- sociated exceptions, and the specification of their conse- quences for a particular kind of status inconsistency. Prior to a detailed discussion of the literature, I will give a definition of some central concepts and out- line some basic issues. 3Landecker, passim. 4Goffman, passim. 5I. W. Miller, Modular Models: A Technique for Articulating Stratification and Personality Systems. Dis- sertatiOn, Michigan State University, UnpubliShed, 1964. \\v 6E. F. Jackson and P. J. Burke, "Status and Sym- toms of Stress: Additive and Interactive Effects," American Sociological Review, 30 (1966), pp. 556-564. EXV 7S. N. Adams, "Status Congruence as a Variable in Small Group Performance," Social Forces, Vol. 32 (1953), pp. 16-22. ‘\V 8R. V. Exline and R. O. Ziller, "Status Congru- ence and Interpersonal Conflict in Decision-Making Groups," Human Relations, 12 (1959), pp. 147-161. 9G. C. Homans, Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (New York: Harcourt, 1961). . \\J10E. E. Sampson, "Status Congruence and Cognitive Consistency," Sociometry, 26 (1963), pp. 142-162. l3 Goffman defines status consistency: ...as the extent to which an individual occupies ranks on relevant status dimensions that are de- fined as compatible with shared expectations. The status dimensions that are relevant may vary from group to group or situation to situation. They may be safety, affection, sex, soPhistication, rectitude, knowledge, power and the like. The attributes that define the dimensions and the indicators used to communicate an individual's rank or position on the dimension may likewise vary. In defining status consistency, Goffman emphasizes the im- portance of compatible shared expectations. This may appear to make status inconsistency akin to role conflict. But, there is a crucial difference. Status characteristics such as age, sex, and income are not necessarily roles; they can be attributes that may be determining factors in the range of roles a person may be expected to play. Basically status inconsistency involves a conflict of "evaluations" of the individual, whereas role conflict involves conflict- ing attributes of roles which in themselves are independent of the individual. Goffman, as does Homans,12 emphasizes the situational nature of status variables. Status dimensions may be local to one small sub-group or they may be applied to a whole culture. The degree to which the status inconsistency creates .a conflict in expectations may vary. No unified set of theorems exists to account for the observed phenomena. \ K? 11I. W. Goffman, "Status Consistency and Preference for Change in Power Distributions," American Sociological ReVieW, 22 (1957), p0 281. ’_, 12‘ “. Homans, passim. 14 "Status Congruence" and Social Certitude G. Homansl sees status congruence as a "reward" and status incongruence as a cost. Being congruent in terms of one's status provides "social certitude" in terms of how others will respond to one. On the other hand, "... if a person presents two incongruent stimuli to his companions, one of the stimuli suggests that he will reward (or punish) a different kind of behavior from what the other one does, and accordingly the companions may be in doubt over which kind to emit: they are getting two conflicting signals.2 According to Homans3 the individual incurs two types of cost in this situation: (1) the ambiguity of his position, and (2) being responded to on the basis of his lower status. Homans is not clear in describing the effects of "Ambiguity" but it seems to come about through others' avoiding interaction with the status inconsistent indiv- idual. Furthermore, there may be a tendency for a status inconsistent individual whose achieved status outranks his ascribed status to be a target for aggression. Homans deals with this only indirectly, noting that far more joking was noted in situations involving status inconsistent individuals (e.g., the women mechanic) and often the joking was 1 . Homans, paSSIm. 2Tbid., p. 250. 3 . Homans, paSSim. ... I 15 quite pointed. Of course, if the person is responded to on the basis of his lowest status rank and "rewarded" as such, he has incurred a loss. A factory worker from "a good family" who is responded to as a factory worker has lost a great deal of the "esteem" that would be afforded "good family." A "cost" overlooked by Homans and others is aggression directed toward the status inconsistent individual for violating the expectations others have for him. In the South, Negroes who attempt to break out of a lower class pattern of life find them- selves under attack. This aggression brings punishment often far worse than the cost of being a status consistent "Negro." We see this too when children of lower class families dare to compete academically and find themselves the target of aggression from their "betters" and the teachers. In other words, certain ascribed status variables, when incongruent with achieved status variables, may result in pressure to bring the achievements of the individual in line with his ascribed position. I argue that within a culture the prepotency of ascribed and achieved variables are an important variable in studying the means by which individuals attempt to reduce status inconsistency. If the sanctions for getting one's achieved status too far out of line with one's ascribed status are intense, status inconsistency may be changed by adjusting the achieved status to the ascribed status. On the other hand, if almost no serious costs exist for status inconsistency, then there will be a tendency to Optimize one's status by raising one's lowest status .. 16 Homans4 reports that in supermarkets, productivity in terms of cost Of labor per $100 Of sales was related to status inconsistency. Age, sex, social-economic status, and full or part-time employment were the status variables. Work ”checking out," requiring joint effort between superior position ("cashier") and subordinate position ("bundler") was an important source of friction. During peak hours, persons of varying rank would have to be brought "up front" to fill in resulting in a hodge-podge of relationships. Subsequently, it was found that employees preferred congruent status positions. Status Consistency and the Individual 5 Lenski began with the hypothesis: "Individuals charac- terized by a low degree of status crystallization (consistency) differ significantly in their political attitudes and behavior from individuals characterized by a high degree of status cry- ‘fhv‘. , AHHA _ stallization when status differences in the vertical dimension are controlled." The samples consisted of 749 respondents--all members of the labor force. The subjects were broken into a high crystallization group and low crystallization group, the line of division being a "naturafi_breaki" Liberal attitudes 'were determined by political affiliation based on voting record, stated party choice, and indicated position on a set of issues. 4Homans, p. 253. 5Lenski (1954) passim. 17 The four status dimensions wereaeducation,‘ethnic origin,3in- come, and“occupation. The findings confirmed the major hypo- thesis. Equally as important, certain types of status incon- 1 sistency related stronger to liberalism than others. The high group income or occupation and low ethnic status or a group with a high occupational status and low educational status showed a high percentage of democrats and more liberal ten- dencies; on the other hand, the high ethnic status and low income group had no more democrats than the status consis- tent group. Status inconsistency has a differential effect depending on the status variables. In this case a tentative explanation might be that high achieved status (by occupation or income), as Opposed to low ethnic status, has the person viewing his problems as be- ing outside himself in the "system." High ethnic status (as— cribed) and low achievement may be more readily perceived as personal failure. Lenski6 postulated that low status crystallization results in disturbing experiences in the interaction process which blocks the establishment of rewarding patterns of social interactions. These experiences will lead to a tendency to with— draw from social interaction. Low status crystallized individ- iuals were found (1) to participate less in voluntary relationships :than high crystallized persons, (2) to have more long-standing voluntary ties which have become inactive, and (3) to be less motivated to join an organization for reasons of sociability. 6Lenski, (1956), pp. cit., p. 459. 18 Landecker distinguished three types of status conscious- ness: class status consciousness; class structure consciousness; and class interest consciousness.7 Class status consciousness refers to behaviors which are oriented toward what is best for the person's class. All three were found more frequently in status inconsistent groups. In an attempt to assay the stress produced by status inconsistency, Jackson8 compared groups of status consistent and status inconsistent subjects in terms of psychOphysiological "stress" symptoms. The measure of "stress" consisted of a self report questionnaire covering a range of psychosomatic ailments. Jackson hypothesized psychosomatic stress to be a reaction to intrapunitive bodily-expressed reaction to interpersonal "stress." More interpersonal stress, hence psychosomatic stress was expected for the status inconsistent groups. The status variables used were occupation, education, and racial-ethnic backgrounds. The hypothesis held. More important, Jackson found that the type of status inconsistency differed in the amount of stress associated with them. For example, high ethnic status combined with either low occupational or educational status was related to a high symptom level, but low ethnic status and high occupational or educational status persons did not differ significantly from the -fi_ w... »—.--v« status consistent in rate of symptoms reported. Jackson advances 7Landecker, pp. cit., p. 219. 8Jackson, pp. cit., p. 469. 19 a hypothesis similar to Lenski's9 for the different reactions to the different types of status inconsistency. The high ethnic (ascribed status) low achievement individual most likely views his problems as personal failure and is more intra- punitive whereas the low ascribed, high achievement individual sees himself as a success and any "stress" in the outside world is due to the "system." Goffman employs the hypothesis that an inverse rela- tionship exists between the degree of status consistency and pre- ference for change in the distributions of power. To test this hypothesis, Goffman has people rank major institutions (i.e., federal government, universities, church, business, labor) in terms of power; he then had them ranked according to the way the individual thought they should be.10 The hypothesis held. There was an important incidental finding. The lowest status was more satisfied than the upper status with the way they saw the power structure. Goffman sees status inconsistent individuals "...sub- jected to inconsistent pressures by those with whom they interact: others cannot appropriately 'define' the inconsistent individual and anticipate his responses."11 This subjects the individual to conflicting demands and in the process he may incorporate conflict- ing view of himself. To relieve the situation, the individual has 9Lenski, (1954), passim. loGoffman, Op. cit., p. 275. llIbid., p. 275. 20 the alternatives of changing himself, changing the environment, or withdrawing. Landecker found (1) the community (Detroit) seems to constitute a class system to a limited degree, and (2) the highest stage seems to be most crystallized.12 This bears on the Homans'l3 notion that individuals attempt to "raise" their lower status (keeping up with or ahead of the Jones). Such a tendency would terminate in crystallized high status (prestigeful occupation, high income, good housing, good education for the children, high status religious affiliation, etc.). In other words, over several generations, outside of those with low ascribed status of race and ethnic origin (which is difficult for the individual to change), it is possible for families to maximize and crystallize their status. Miller14 presents a perplexing study. Advancing a "nodular theory," he attempts to show the non-linear effects created by status inconsistency or social class and its re- lationship to other variables. The first problem is the re- lationship between status consistency and social class. Miller15 presents a chart showing an increasing nonlinear function but nowhere was there an indication of its significance. The cor- relation coefficient Eta would be approPriate. 12Landecker, op. cit., p. 219. 3 . Homans, paSSim. l4Miller, passim. lsIbid., p. 187. 21 U) H P 6 C (D O O z I U) H U) '6 rd 2 O K: STATUS By superimposing the functions formed by other variables, it seems that the low points are different from the more consistent modes. The variables compared with integration vs. anxiety, lack of nervous symptoms, perceived evaluation by others, (5) occupa— tional aspirations, and (6) educational aspirations. The sample consisted of 340 high school boys, in Lenawee County. The status variables used were (1) religion, (2) father's occupation, (3) parental education, and (4) home quality. Here we have a differ- ent kind of effect. The children, not the parents, are influenced by their parents' status inconsistency. While not surprising, it does point to the complex ramifications status consistency can have. The preceeding studies focused on the effects of broad nearly universal status dimensions on individual personality and preferences; other uses of status consistency are possible. With— in a small group, more segmented status dimensions may become 22 important, having an effect not on the individual but on group performance. Subtle differences in pay between individuals doing essentially the same work, special privileges or sanctions, age, experience at a job, specialized skill or ability all of which may permit little differentiation in the total culture (a machanist making $2.50 per hour is roughly equivalent to a machinist making $2.60 per hour), but these differences can make for important differences in small groups. Stuart Adams compared status consistency with perform- ance and social compatibility of bomber crews. According to Adams "perfect group congruency is the condition in which in- dividuals within the group stand in exactly the same rank order in all effective status hierarchies in the group.16 Status con- sistency here is defined in terms of the interrelationship between members of a particular group. In the larger society, each in- dividual could be status consistent; yet within the group, they could be completely inconsistent. Both ratings of proficiency or performance and self reports of social compatibility (morale, friendship, confidence) were used. Social compatibility directly correlated with status consistency. The more consistent the status relations the greater the morale, friendship and confid- ence of the group. This relationship did not hold for productivity; instead, a nonlinear one emerged. Here, moderate status consistency related 16Adams, 92. cit., p. 1711. 23 to high production while low status consistency was accompanied by poorer performance but high status consistency showed the poorest performance. It is as if the high status consistent bomber crews were, by reason of their consistency, so much at eastgsocially that they spent most of their time enjoying each other's company rather than tending to business. Using Stog- dill's17 terminology, status inconsistent groups over-focus on "integration," neglecting production. Experimental manipulation of status variables to pro— ducO status consistency in a small group setting has been reported only once. Exline and Ziller18 manipulated status variables by assigning votes (power) and test scores (ability) publicly to a discussion group creating groups of varying status consistency. Using Bales' categories, the status consistent group showed (a) significantly more congeniality in the social situation, (b) more agreement in discussion, and (c) were characterized by less overlap in the prOportions of activity coded as giving suggestions and Opinion. In a study of the means by which small groups reduce status inconsistency (incongruence) and the effects of group suc- cess and failure, Burstein and Zajonc19 manipulated status l7Stogdill, Ralph M., Individual Behavior and Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959). 18 Exline, Ralph V., and Robert O. Ziller, Op. cit. 19Eugene Burnstein and Robert B. Zajonc, "The Effect of Group Success on the Reduction of Status Incongruence in Task Oriented Groups," Sociometry, Vol. 28 (Dec., 1965), pp. 349-362. 24 variables of small groups in a cooperative game. In the research Of Ziller et a1. groups with a history of continuously success- ful output and those with a history of intermittent success re- structured their hierarchies in order to reduce an incongruence in status ranks. Members experiencing large incongruencies, es- pecially when they possess the greatest control, tended to respond more rapidly to the need for optimal restructuring, except when this entailed their being severely downgraded. Sampson attempts to bridge status consistency and psychological balance theory. To arrive at such a position Sampson makes-four assumptions: 1. One of the basic requirements of individual and col- lective survival is a degree of coordination among the actions of two or more persons involved in any particular interaction situation. 2. Coordination requires anticipatory knowledge. 3. Anticipatory knowledge is acquired over time and develops into a model of their physical and social world. 4. The internal consistency or reliability of the model is important.20 Sampson21 as opposed to Lenski22 sees status consistency as having consequences only when expectations clash. When there is 20Sampson, Op. cit., p. 147. 21 . Sampson, paSSim. 22Lenski, (1956) passim. 25 a confusion of expectancies, the individual attempts to straighten 23 them out. This is a balancing process. Branden in a small group study found evidence for Sampson's position. The empirical studies on status consistency are few, the theory incomplete, yet the promise is great. The studies to date show complex relationships between different types of status variables and other sociological variables. Yet only a skeleton structure of hypotheses cover the differential relation— ships. To proceed with status consistency, a thorough examination of the assumptions and definition is required. Dynamics of Status Consistency When a person is status inconsistent, he suffers a loss. According to Sampson1 and Goffmanz, the person loses social certainty. In other words, for status inconsistent var- g iables to have behavioral or even cognitive consequences the , expectations associated with these variables must conflict. But : One cannot conclude that if two status variables have no con- flicting expectations associated with them, there will be no Consequences. Status involves "esteem" Homans' definition of "esteem" is clear in the following assertion: "...the greater the total reward in expressed social approval a man receives \ LK¥ . \u 23Arlene C. Branden, "Status Congruence and Expecta- tions," Sociometry, Vol. 23 (Sept., 1965), pp. 272-288. lSampson, passim. 2Goffman, passim. 26 from other members of his group, the higher is the esteem in which they hold him. . .Social approval is the reward. . ."3 Given a certain status level, a given amount of esteem is expected re- gardless of other behavioral consequences. Esteem is expressed in many ways relative to the culture but is generally accorded in the same manner regardless of the "status variables" invol- ved. In essence, if two status variables are inconsistent, then the level of esteem accorded them also conflicts. For an attribute of an individual to be a status var- iable, it must elicit social approval or disapproval; if it does not, it is not a status variable. Now, we can apply a balance model. The basic prOposition is that status inconsistency creates a basic ambiguity in regard to the amount of esteem to be accorded. This state Of affairs goes against a very basic and primitive principle in congnitive organization. In reference to this type of phenomenon, Homans says: "...perhaps what the psychologists call the 'halo—effect' was also at work here: a tendency for a favorable, or unfavorable judgment that a man makes of-another on one count to spill over and color the judgments he makes of him on other counts. Perhaps the phenomenon resulted from what we shall call in a later chapter 'status congruence.”4 Deviations from the expected "congruence" of status variables go against "natural" groupings of qualities. Princes are 3Homans, Op. cit., p. 147. 4Ibid., p. 160. 27 expected to be bright, informed and powerful, paupers slow, ignorant, and weak. Equally important, princes expect to remain princes while paupers can hope to become princes but expect to remain paupers. Hence, the person's frame of reference determines his satisfaction with the new state of affairs. Through studying the job satisfaction of manual laborers, Form and Geschwender5 compared the effects of inter- generational mobility on job satisfaction. According to the authors, if the father's or brother's occupation was higher than the subject's, they showed less job satisfaction. In other words, the accomplishments of ”significant others" shape the performance and social expectations of the "self." The functionalistic assumptions of Sampson have value at this point. First, "...the basic requirements of individual and collective survival...is a degree of co- ordination among the actions of two or more persons in- volved in any particular interaction situation. This as- sumption implied each individual necessarily depending on other individuals for his ownsurvival."6 Second, to facilitate this coordination, the individual requires "antiCipatory knowledge" of what others will do and how they will react in any given interaction situation; third, social \ 5William H. Form, and James A. Geschwender, "Social Reference Basis of Job Satisfaction: The Case of Manual gggkggs," American Sociological Review, Vol. 27 (1962), pp. — 7. 6 Sampson, Op. cit., p. 160. 28 experiences is the source of this knowledge; and fourth, a reliable model Of behavior will be employed rather than an unreliable model. In other words, a model for a person to pattern his behavior after or from which he accepts inform- ation as valid about the self must be seen as competent and reliable. But,.the main criterion for competence and re- liability must, in part,.be the amount of esteem the indiv- idual receives-from the community at large. To obtain the coordination of actives necessary for survival, an organization must have a hierarchy of duties and privileges. Positions within this hierarchy of neces— sity differ in desirability and therefore can be ranked from high to low. "Esteem" according to Homans represents the expressed total reward the individual receives from others, while status refers to the stimuli a man presents to others (and to himself). Due to the cognitive consis- tency principle, any loss of "esteem" due to another's re- sponse to a low status variable threatens in varying degrees the man's conception of his status in the hierarchy.7 In essence, for a status inconsistency to have consequences for the individual, the "other" (including a person's reaction to himself) has only to respond in terms of the individual's lowest status. In its present state, the inconsistency hypothesis 7Homans, op. cit., p. 153. 29 8 "dis- fits a balance theory framework.well. From Festinger's sonance theory" we will use the following modified hypotheses: 1. The amount of status consistency that can exist between any two elements is equal to the total resistance to change of the less resistant element. 2. The resistance to change is a function of the impor- tance of the element.to the.person's subjective self-concept and the amount of control the person has over the elements. i‘\\ 3. The presence of status inconsistency gives rise to pressures to reduce or eliminate it. The characteristics of the status variables now take on new importance. Ascribed variables are by definition re- sistant to change at the subjective level. But they can be varied in terms of their relevance for evaluation. Neverthe- less, where the ascribed attribute is Obvious, the character- istic consiséantly enters the situation. In American culture a Negro is inflexibly a Negro, whereas, a white with a low socio-economic background may change his name, put on a good suit, and change his language and life style. Furthermore, he may move to a new location, where an old definition of him is not known. The foremost characteristic of a society's status variables is the amount of control the individual has over his position on them. Within the social structure, the upper levels have the ‘\V 8L. Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1957). 30 power to differentially reinforce (give social approval to) the status attributes of those beneath them. This may be said of peers as well. Advancement may be blépked or aided by the efforts of those of high ascribed status to the point 9 found Of not allowing any new members- Ellis and Clayton that, while impetus for.college for "lower class" Stanford students came at first from their parents, in particular the mother, it was strongly supported by an upper or upper middle class person, Often bankers, ministers, and school principals, who took special interest in the child. These structural supports, as Ellis and Clayton call them, show the effects of the high evaluation of achievement on the encourage4 ment of status inconsistents. SOCIAL STRUCTURE Since TOnnies'1 Gemeinschaft-Gesellschaft, social scientists have searched for a basic continuum or conceptual system with which to meaningfully classify societies. Two such systems will be explored here: Parsons2 and Hsu.3 Parsons at- tempts tO delineate "value orientations" and group societies 9Robert A. Ellis and W. Clayton Lane, "Structural Supports for Upward Mobility," American Sociological Review, 28 (1963), pp. 748-756. 1F. T5nnies, Fundamental Concepts of Sociology, C. P. Loomis (Trans. and Suppl.), New York: American Book Co., 1940. 2TalcottParsons, The Social System (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951). . 3F. L. K. Hsu, Clan, Caste and Club (Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1961). 31 on this basis while Hsu classifies cultures in terms of the basic unit (dyads, e.g., husband-wife, father-son) on which societies' kinship structure is formed. Despite their radically different approaches, the two theorists concur on three out of four cate- gories in terms of which societies "hang together." It appears that the difference between the major advanced societies can be classified by several means indicating that they are organized as coherent systems. In viewing a culture, Parsons4 focuses on what he de- scribes as the value orientation which amounts to the "cognitive," "appreciative" and "moral" standards of a peOple. A value orientation, in essence, refers to the culturally defined stand- ards of situations and actions. .How a situation is defined, what elements are relevant, what is to be reinforcing, and what actions are appropriate, according to their point of view, all are governed by social convention. Parsons finds two value orientation dimensions on which societies can be classified: first, ascription-achievement and, secondly, universalism-particularism. Achievement refers to the valuing of the instrumental attainment of "goals" while as- cription refers to the evaluation of others and self in terms of object qualities such as color, height, and other social qualities beyond the control of the individual. Ascription ties into an adjustive orientation emphasizing expressiveness and more immediate 4 . Parsons, paSSim. 32 gratification of needs. The universalistic—particularistic dimension refers to the generality of standards and role ex- pectations. Parsons uses the term COgnitive orientation as Opposed to a cathetic orientation which "...is inherently par- ticularized to particular objects (mother, Uncle John) and ordered combinations of them."5 Examining the results of the combinations of these variables we find four cultural types: achievement-universal, achievement-particular, ascription-universal, and ascription- particular. Each orientation represents an ideal type and any extant society is relatively, i.e., universalistic or relatively achievement oriented. Ascription in one form or another occurs in any society. On the other hand, societies emphasizing as- cription have awarded esteem to lower status individuals (in India this has taken the form of the elevation of a whole caste) for the performances of services vital to the society (e.g., victory in war). The universalistic—achievement pattern orders peOple more on the basis of generalized rules relating to quality and performance in terms of one universal goal than with regard to the social characterisitics of the person. The prime focus of such a society is on goal-achievement and instrumental actions directed toward goal achievements. This orientation leads to or is associated with a pluralism Of goals united in direction. SIbid., p. 62. 33 In essence, an open system results in having no absolute view of the world. "The combination of achievement, interests, and cognitive primacies will mean that it is a dynamically develop- ing system, with an encouragement for initiative in defining new goals, within the acceptability range, and an interest in im- proving instrumental efficiency."6 This type of social struct- ure is best represented by the major industrial societies of the world. The particular-universal value orientation differs from the universal-ascription in that the former emphasizes achieving "secondary values." In describing Chinese culture, a prototype of this concept, Parsons states "...the relative weakness of universalism in the general value-orientation was associated with the fact that it has a diffuse rather than a specific achievement pattern, attaining 'superiority' rather than competence."7 Solidarity and the maintenance and integration of the social system, in particular the family, becomes the main focus of this society. In the same manner, in the particularistic- ascriptive societies, lack of concern for larger social interest allows authority to be established with little Opposition. The universalistic-ascription pattern can be found in 6Parsons, Ibid., p. 184. 7Ibid., p. 197. 34 societies marked by a strong emphasis on status without focusing on kinship or a narrowly defined community. Two examples of such a society are pre-war Germany and Soviet Russia; both, according to Parsons, ascribe positions through the unequal distribution of political power. In general, this type emphasizes a collectivistic orientation and has a strong tendency toward authoritarianism. The typologies of Parsons leave much to be desired. Achievement through technical competence is possible in Soviet Russia today as it was in pre-war Germany yesterday. In all, Parsons' typologies represent approximations, and no society appears to be in entirely perfect fit with the model. In contrast to Parsons' approach, Hsu has devised a conceptual scheme based on the way of life as expressed through kinship structure. The kinship system has importance for a society's thought and activities in two ways: one type of system enables "...the individuals reared in them to achieve their appropriate places in terms of sociability, security, and status with greater ease than do other kinship systems."8 On the other hand, a person may be encouraged to strive when people encourage him to do so. If those around him give him little reason to expect success, he will be less adventurous. Both reasons point to ascription versus achievement as a basic dimension. 8Hsu, Op. cit., p. 401. 35 To find a meaningful classification system of kin— ship structure, Hsu examined the eight basic relationships found in every kinship system: husband-wife, father-son, mother-son, mother-daughter, father-daughter, sister-sister, brother-brother, sister-brother. NO matter how extensive the kinship system and remote the relation (e.g., nephew-uncle) each relation is merely an extension of one of the basic eight. In examining a struc- ture, some relationships dominate others; in fact, in almost all societies one basic relationship dominates. By altering the importance of these relationships a society also alters the ex- pectation and responsibilities associated with them yielding an entirely different social system. The basic types are as follows: A. Mutual dependence among members of kin and community rooted in the father-son axis at the expense of all other relationships. B. Self-reliance on the part of the individual rooted in the supremacy of the husband-wife axis at the expense of all other relationships. C. Supernatural reliance which is found where the mother- son axis tends to have more primary importance over all other relationships. D. A degree of mutual dependence together with the emphasis on brother-brother axis and practically no worship Of the ancestors.9 91bid. 36 Hsu works out the consequences for each system in terms of religion, politics, arts, and industry. The rele- vance of this system to the main hypothesis of study would require much more exposition than.time or space allows here but will be worked out in detail later. Hsu's system has at least one consequence for status consistency. .Hsu sees the type C.pattern as particularly det- rimental to an achievement orientation. In part, this collab- orates Parson's contention that achievement orientation is not stressed in Latin America and.India. The father-son type (A) seems to be, in fact, also slightly disfavorable to mobility. Mobility To be status inconsistent in terms of ascription and achievement implies vertical mobility. High achievement in com- parison to low mobility implies upward mobility while the con- verse implies downward mobility. In describing mobility as the product movement correlation between generations, Svalastogal defines minimum (caste) as +1, and maximum (equilitarian) as 0. In.this framework, -1 represents an inversion every generation. Actual mobility in industrial societies falls into a range be- tween +.4 to +.45. While no figures are available, it would be assumed that most non-industrial societies have a much lower \U lKaare Svalastoga, "Social Differentiation," Handbook of Modern Sociology, ed. bngObert E. L. Faris, (Chicago: Rand Mc-Mally and Co., 1964). 37 mobility rate; in fact, the intergeneration correlation for a caste system such as India should approach +1. To determine a mobility rate (or the rate of change of the mobility rate) is easy, but to determine optimum mo- bility presents problems. "Optimum mobility" to Svalastoga '...presupposes a criterion variable, which when correlated with mobility, is maximized for a given mobility level."2 The level of maximum correlation then is by definition "Opti- mal mobility." Anderson, Brown and Bowman3 calculated the amount of mobility necessary to secure a perfect correspond- ence between social status and test intelligence. The result- ant rate fell somewhere between the rate of any extant society and the rate characterizing a society of equal chances. Unfortunately, the model of Optimum mobility rests on two shakey assumptions: first, that intelligence as pre- sently conceptualized is the natural continuum to underlie the "perfect" social structure; and secondly, present tests actually measure intelligence. Within the field of cognitive processes a strong emphasis on differential aptitudes has arisen. Controversy over the concept of intelligence and its many components analytical, verbal, quantitative, and Spatial abilities continues. Some evidence exists for the hypothesis 21bid., p. 550. 3C. A. Anderson, J. C. Brown, and J. J. Bowman, "Intelligence and Occupational Mobility," Journal of Political Economics, 60 (1952), pp. 218-239. 38 that differential abilities represent manifestations of a central factor modified by experience. Much evidence has been accumulated showing the powerful influence of environ- mental chance on 1.0. scores.4 To get at a more fundamental definition of Optimum mobility, we must develop a more sophisticated concept of 1.0. than exists today and more important, we must examine more carefully the qualities needed to fulfill roles at all levels of society. Employing the term "permeability," Svalastoga de- scribes societies in terms of the rate with which individuals change rank. Permeability or "vertical mobility" "...may range from a minimum, as when birth and death are the only legitimate modes of entrance and exit, to a maximum as when entrance and exit are completely independent of birth and death."5 Svalastoga divides societal permeability as follows: 1. Caste model: permeability zero. 2. Estate model: permeability very low, but not absent. 3. Class model: permeability about 40 percent. 4. Continuous model: permeability about 80 percent. 5. Eqalitarian model: permeability perfect (maximum). 4O. Klineberg, Negro Intelligence, and Selected Migrations (New York: Columbia.University Press, 1935). 5Svalastoga, Op. cit., p. 545. 39 A caste system operates best under conditions of "...(1) very slow technological change, (2) an economic surplus permitting fairly sizable differences among members in respect to power and wealth, and (3) rather small dif- ferences in terms of life chances (in particular as measured by net reproduction)."6 This state of affé}rs leads to a nearly perfect correlation of the four stratification variables. In essence, the most respected are the most powerful, the wealthiest, and the best educated. A caste system has extremely skewed power, income, and education distributions with most of the masses domin- ated by a powerful elite, with few in between. The estate models are today virtually extinct but were best represented by the European medieval society. The countries of Latin America best fit the class model and are also characterized by a high level of economic inequality. Thus, in Chile, 14 percent of the land holdings account for 68.2 percent of the farm area, and in Brazil, 1.5 percent account for 48.4 percent of the farm area.7 The caste, estate, and class models all have the characteristic of discrete status variables. This means that in all cases there tends to be an extreme degree of status 61bid., p. 540. 7R. A. Schumerhorn, Society and Power (New York: Random House, Inc., 1961), p. 47. 40 consistency and that ...any plural of persons is either equally placed or is obviously and sharply separated in status."8 It is not difficult to determine whether caste, estate, class, or continuous models relate to either achieve- ment or ascriptive.va1ue orientation. Caste societies definitely are ascriptive; so, are estate societies, but the class and continuous society are problems. Most likely class societies will have an ascriptive value orientation but if the technology is primitive, as in Towogawa, Japan, where pluralities competed, then a class society may be achievement oriented; and similarly an ascriptive society, such as Nazi Germany, may have a continuous distribution given a modern technology. Hence, we shall not classify our societies in terms Of mobility rates but instead use value -... “...-H..- -_. ~-. orientations as,a criterion. Alienation Many concepts mark the history of alienation: alienation, anomie, anomia, powerlessness, normlessness, social isolation, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement. This welter of terms makes for ambiguity; boundaries of each concept flow into another; different theorists use the same concept for different definitions while others use the same 8Svalastoga, Op. cit., p. 541. 41 definition for different terms. Still, the concepts are basic. Marx, the first theorist using alienation, saw mens' loss of the means and ends of production as leading to a "negative state of mind," alienation. Unfortunately, as Feuer1 points out, the con- cept arose as part of a protest against romantic individual- ism or against neo-capitalism. The term comes into play again during the thirties, among depression intellectuals and later among the "mass society" group. "...A polemical concept," as Feuer sees it, "...alienation is a dramatic metaphor which for reasons pe- culiar to intellectuals' experience has become their favorite root-metaphor for perceiving the social universe...and a pro- jection of the psychology of intellectuals disenchanted with themselves."2 Still the concept has coinage, in that when an individual loses control over his productive efforts and the products of production, his social perception and social behavior becomes distorted. From Durkheim's3 work on suicide comes the concept anomie, a term indicating a stressful social situation which lLewis Feuer, "What is Alienation? The Career of a Concept," Sociologypon Trial, eds. Maurice Stein and Arthor Vidich (Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963). 21bid., p. 127. 3Emile Durkheim, Suicide, trans. John A. Spaulding and George Simpson (New York: The Free Press, 1951). 42 may lead to suicide. While alienation stemmed from the individual's lack of power and control over things cen- tral to his.well being, i.e., the means and ends of pro- duction, anomie arises from: (1) a social state in which the society's norms and goals are no longer capable of exerting control over its members, (2) a situation when the individual, rather than the group, must determine his goals and how much effort he must expend, or (3) a situation where the individual cannot provide meaningful limits to his own desires and is thus doomed to a life of constant seeking without goal attainment. Operating from a hedonistic principle, Durkheim began with the assumption that..."Human activity naturally aspired beyond assignable limits and sets itself unattainable goals."4 Hence, control must come from without, that is, from society. In essence Durkheim focuses on the normative structure. Events precipitating an "anomic state" include loss in individual status, sudden wealth, and extreme upward or downward mobility. Each situation, according to this point of view, leads to a disrupting of normative order or the individual's own controlling mechanism. While Durk— heim's anomie describes society with conditions of chaos, the concept anomie refers to a subjective state experienced by the individual which leads to personal consequences. 4Ibid., p. 241. 43 Lack of meaning, lack of a clear, predictable means-ends scheme, also provides grounds for anomie. According to MacIver: ...Anomy signifies the state of mind of one who has been pulled up by his moral roots, who has no longer any standards, but only disconnected ‘urges, who has no longer any sense of continuity, of folk, or obligation.5 In particular, MacIver sees anomy as a malady most likely found in a democratic society, Let us look next at anomy, the other malady of democratic men that becomes most virulent in times of crises and turbulant change, the breakdown of the individual's sense of attachment to society, to all society. Anomy is not simply lawlessness. A gangster or a pirate or a mere law-evading rogue is not as such, indeed is not likely to be, anomic. He has his own code of law against61aw and is under strong sanctions to obey it. Lasswell presents, not necessarily a deviant position, but a different view. Anomie is a lack of identification on the part of the primary ego of the individual with a "self" that includes others. In a word, modern man suffers from psychic isolation. He feels alone, cut off, unwanted, not loved, invalid.7 This definition shifts to the notion of social isolation or psychic isolation not mentioning normlessness 5Robert M. MacIver, The Ramparts We Guard (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1950), p. 86. 61bid., p. 180. 7Harold D. Lasswell, "The Threat to Privacy," in Conflict of Loyalties, Robert M. MacIver, ed. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 32. 44 although if such a psychically isolated person existed he probablvaould experience normlessness. From thebeginnings established by Durkheim, Mer- ton generalizes the conditions under which anomie occurs. According to Merton,.anomie results from a discrepancy be- tween socially approved norms and goals (the cultural sys- tem) and the socially structured capacities of members to act in accord with them, the social system.8 Adaptations to the resulting "anomie" when expectation and means are out of line usually take the form of deviance; hence, the adap— tation takes the form of taking up new goals and/or means and if a sufficient number of people are in contact with each other, then they form a sub-group with a sub-culture. Applying his scheme to the American scene, Merton notes a discrepancy between the Horatio Alger ethic, "strive and succeed," and the capacity and resources of the lower class person, dimin- ished by the class system and in the Negro's case the caste system. He then points to the high rate of deviance in the lower group as evidence for the large number of lower class persons in deviant groups. We could extend this to include the high rate of deviance in the U.S. Of course as Brymer points out,.the individual must be exposed to cultural goals and hold them to be legitimate, hence, in part, internalize them, before he will seek these goals. This brings us to the 8Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc- ture (Revised, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957). 45 point that within any society different goals may be set for different segments of the population avoiding a discrepancy. Going beyond Merton's portrayal of the American conflict, Mizruchi points to an ends-means conflict not poverty results in anomie: We Americans have always assumed that unfettered social mobility is necessarily a desirable condition for all. During times of prosperity, mobility is not only merely attainable, but, also, forces itself upon the multitude. Few recognize the high cost that is paid in the form of striving toward un- realizable goals and its consequences in personal demoralization and despair. Increased Opportunity for success has its counterpart in increased oppor- tunity for failure. While Merton focuses on the class structure as blocking the opportunities of the lower class individual, Mizruchi finds difficulty in the socialization processes in the lower class and in its values. Socialization ‘break52down,'or better: 'Perhaps this very desperation, enhanced by early exposure to impulse and aggression, leads working 'class parents to pursue new goals with old techniques of discipline.' While accepting middleclass levels of aspiration, he has not yet internalized suffic- ‘iently the modes of response which makes standards readily available for himself or his children. He has still to learn to wait, to explain, and to give and withhold his affection as the reward and price 'of‘performance.10 In terms of values Mizruchi finds the middle class 9Ephraim H. Mizruchi, Success and Opportunity: A Study_of Anomie (New York: The Free Press, 1964). loIbid., p. 423. 46 perceiving the non-materialist economic sysbols as most im- portant. Class I II III IV V 69 57 51 37 29 42% non-material economic symbols 31 43 52 63 71 58% material economic symbols N (13) (19) (47) (81) (63) And this value orientation is reflected in their perception of the values of education in terms of instrumental values that is as a means to economic and material success versus being valued for social ends. Class I II III IV V T 91 72 55 51 44 52% Non-instrumental 9 28 45 54 56 48% Instrumental N (13) (19) (47) (81) (63) Hence the lower class symbols are success symbols contrasted with middle-class achievement symbols. Occupational pursuits in the lower-class, for example, "...are much more less likely to lead to achievement. Even the skilled technician has dif- ficulty thinking of his work in such terms, as does the clerk in the smge class (Class IV). In contrast, the engineer, the 47 scientist, or the small business owner who constantly speaks of "building" his business demonstrates a broader dimension of aSpiration.11 (Mizruchi's position on the differential value of education for the lower versus upper and middle class person) Briones and Waisanen find a similar pattern in Chile, when they examine the effects of education on the perception of education in materialistic and non-material- istic terms.12 H. Hyman agrees with Mizruchi that "...Part of the ideology of American life is that important positions are not simply inherited by virtue of the wealth of one's parents, but can be achieved. Such achievement, however, requires for most important positions considerable formal education."13 But Hyman sees that the lower class places less value on education which constitutes an aspect of a larger value system which would be detrimental to their advancement. In summary, American society has created a discrepancy "between a material success and failure to em- 14 phasize the means of attaining this goal." Mizruchi presents evidence to show that disparity llIbid., p. 423. 12Guillermo Briones and F. B. Waisanen, Educational Aspirations, Modernization and Urban Integration a paper read at the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Miami, 1966. 13Herbert Hyman (1953), p. 429. l4Mizruchi, pp. cit., p. 50. , (He -~ \ 48 between education and income increases anomie. This would support the idea that, when expectations set by education conflict with attainment, income (assuming individuals with high education have high economic goals) results in anomie. Unfortunately his data do not support his contention.15 Also, Meir and Bell (1959)]’.6 link anomie not only with alien- ation but also with downward mobility. In general, the con- cept anomia appears to relate negatively to social position in the United States: whether this holds up cross-nationally ‘lsMizruchi, op..cit., p. 102. Table I.--Income.and Anomie by Education Anomie - Grade School High School College Score Over 5000 Under Over 5000 Under Over 5000 Under 0 ll 8 27 24 51 34 1-2 42~' 31 54 44 41 34 38 47 61 19 32 8 32 100 100 100' 100 100 100 Chi Square: 3.21 Chi Square: 7.62 Chi Square: 16.99 p < .20 p < .03 p < .001 I will digress here to make a methodological point. Miz- ruchi hypothesized an interaction, claiming that the effects Of income and anomie are controlled by education. Unfortunately, Mizruchi neither took a chi square for the complete table nor subtracted out the main effects. If Table I includes equal n's, then we could construct Tables X1 and X2 as follows: 49 or cross culturally has yet to be tested. Some theorists define alienation as an uneasy feeling of not belonging; others define it as a series of TABLE X1 Education xl Anomie Anomie Education Grade School High School College 0 19.5 25.5 42.5 1-2 36.5 49.0 37.5 3-5 54.0 25.5 20.0 100 100 100 TABLE X2 Income x2 Anomie Anomie Income Over $5000 Under $5000 0 26.67 66 22 1-2 45.67 109 36.33 3-5 24.67 125 41.67 Both income and education relate directly to anomie in these tables; but without the frequencies, the significance cannot be stated. Most probably, when the chi square for these main ef- fects are extracted, the interaction would not be significant. Hence, Mizruchi only has evidence for the negative relationship between socio-economic variables and anomie. 16Dorothy L. Meier and Wendell Bell, "Anomia and Dif- ferential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals," American Sociological Review 24 (April, 1959), pp. 189- 207. 50 affective states. For instance Hajda states that ". . . it (alienation) is an expression of non-belonging or non—shar- ing, an uneasy awareness or perception of an unwelcome con— "17 This parallels Srole's conception of trast with others. anomie as the polar extreme on a continuum of belonging: "The two terms (Eunomia and Anomia) can be adOpted with some license to refer to the continuum of variation in the 'inte- gratedness' of the different social systems or subsystems, viewed as molar wholes. They can also be applied to the parallel continuum of variations seen from the 'microscopic' or molecular view of individuals as they are integrated in the total action fields of their inter-personal relationships "18 Nettler using a psychological in- and reference groups. side approach, defines alienation in terms of estrangement from society. Unfortunately, Nettles leaves us up in the air concerning whether the individual rejects his culture's norms or he simply walks around with unfriendly feelings. Seeman outlines five uses for alienation: (l) Powerlessness--The expectancy or probability held by the individual that his own behavior cannot determine the occurance of the outcomes, or reinforce- ment he seeks. (2) Normlessness--A high expectancy that socially l7Jan Hajda, "Alienation and Integration of Student Intellectuals," American Sociological Review, 26 (October, 1961), pp. 758-759. l8Leo Srole, "Social Integration and Certain Corol- laries: Eunomia and Anomia," American Sociological Review, 21 (December, 1956), pp. 709-712. 51 unapproved behaviors are required to achieve given goals. (3) Meaninglessness--The low expectancy that satisfactory predictions about the future outcome 'of-behavior-can be made. (4) Isolation-~The condition in which the per- son assigns low reward value to goals or beliefs that are typically highly valued in the given society. (5) ‘Selfeestrangement-- . . . the degree of dependence of the given behavior upon anticipated future rewards.19 How these interrelate and what conditions lead to their man- ifestation?< Seeman does not take this up. Browning, et a1.,20 discuss a developmental model of alienation where three elements, powerlessness, normlessness, and meaninglessness with the other two elements emerging in later stages. In turn‘Seemanz-l doubts the universality of their "stages." This exchange raises a key question: How do these elements interrelate and do they relate to a central concept of alienation? Must an individual evidence all or a certain number of the above characteristics to be classified as alien- 'ated or does just one "high score" put him in the category? We could be dealing with five isolated phenomena that should best be treated separately. The discussion needs empirical ' 19Melvin Seeman and John W. Evans, "Alienation and Learning A Hospital Setting," American Sociological Review, 27 (December, 1962), pp. 772-782. 20Charles J. Browning, M. F. Farmer, H. D. Kirk, G. D. Mitchell, "On the Meaning of Alienation," American Socio- logical Review, 26 (October, 1961), pp. 780-78. 21 Seeman.and Evans, passim. 52 evidence. Dwight Dean22.provides evidence on three of Seeman's terms: powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation. But, his definitions do not match Seeman's. While they agree on the definition of powerlessness, Dean and Seeman's normlessness.and social isolation take.on entirely different meanings. Dean's.normlessness refers to that aspect of Durkheim's anomie reflecting a lack of a strong normative structure. Here, the author.recognizes two forms: purpose- lessness, or MacIver's absence of values, and a conflict in values. Social isolation entails that aspect of Durkheim's anomie which refers to "...a feeling of separation from the "23. group. The scale resulting from the above definition shows an intercorrelation between all three scales which should be contrasted with the Neal and Rettig study. Using the Srole scale for.anomie.and two special scales for Seeman's powerlessness and normlessness, Neal and Rettig also find these scales loading on different factors indicating independence.24 We turn now to the issue, how does alienation arise?' Seeman formulates a social learning theory which he 22Dwight Dean, "Meaning and Measurement of Alienation," American Sociological Review, 26 (October, 1961), pp. 753- 758. 23Ibid., p. 755. 24Arthur G. Neal and Salomon Rettig, "Dimensions of Alienation Among Manual and Non-Manual Workers," American Sociological Review, 28 (August, 1965), pp. 599-608. 53 applies to various settings. In general, Seeman's main assumptions are that all behavior hinges on: (l)...the degree to which a person expects that the behavior will have a successful outcome and (2) the value of that success to the per- son to achieve it. If these factors are powerful, separately or together, the bahavior is not likely to occur. 5 Here payoff depends on the probabilities of Obtaining various outcomes weighted with their respective rewards. On the other hand, Atkinson and Feather, point to the other deter- minates, the probability of failure and the cost of different types of negative outcomes. Also, Seeman points to the degree to which the individual perceives success or failure being under his control as important. A person will definitely learn less from eXperiences he conceives to be determined by outsiders, or by chance, which he feels he cannot influence. At this point, Seeman turns on bureaucracy, charging it with fomenting the problems discussed here. Since the individual lacks a control over rewards plus the fact he encounters in- consistencies in expections, bureaucracy does not provide the learning necessary for social skills and Opportunities path to reach individual goals. Again, bureaucracy becomes the 25Melvin Seeman, "On the Meaning of Alienation," American Sociological Review, 24 (December, 1959), pp. 783- 791. 261bid., p. 784. 54 fall guy for social problems which could exist anywhere given Seeman's basic paradigm. Other formulations include Clark, who defines alienation in relative deprivation terms, and Waisanen, who poses alienation as a result of perceived discrepancy between social system and the individual. According to Clark, alienation "...must be a measure of the discrepancy between the power man believes he has, and what he believes he should have--his estrangement from his rightful role."27 This represents a considerable shift from the original Marx- ian formulation. Here, no matter how powerful the individ- ual, if he perceives his 'legitimate power as less than his actual' he experiences alienation. Waisanen postulates separate but overlapping sets of goals and norms for both the individual and the society. Utilizing Festinger's cog- nitive dissonance theory, Waisanen postulates (l) for the individuals three "general goals," elements which accrue to the person participating in the systems becoming a part Of his self system; that is, familiarity representing a knowledge of the system's rules, norms, and goals which al- lows for personal stability; (2) Operating social systems produce sentiments or affective ties with others, and (3) power or productivity for exchange within the system. 27John P. Clark, "Measuring Alienation Within a Social System," American Sociological Review, 24, (Dec., 1959), pp. 849—852. 28Fredrick B. Waisanen, "Stability, Alienation, and Change," Sociological Quarterly, 4 (Winter, 1963), pp. 18-32. 55 In turn, if familiarity does not develop, normlessness ensues; if a sense of power does not arise, powerlessness ensues, and if no affective ties result then social isolation ensues. Consequently, Waisanen contributes a tighter formu- lation of alienation articulating the individuals condition with that of the social system. After grappling with definitions, we will briefly look at some other correlates of anomia and alienation by their various measures. Again, since different operational instruments have been used to measure alienation, comparison between studies is difficult. While Srole29 finds 'anomie' related to authoritarianism and prejudice, and contends that anomie accounts for prejudice; Roberts and Rokeach, and Mc- 30 Dill show that anomia and authoritarianism account for pre- judice about equally. Also, Dean31 finds alienation related to authoritarianism. Other behavioral and attitudinal cor- relates include Simmons32 (Anomie-Srole Scales, and 29Leo Srole, "Social Integration and Certain Corol- laries: An Exploratory Study," American Sociological Review, 30 (December, 1956), p. 710. 30A. H. Roberts and M. Rokeach, "Anomie, Authori- tarianism, Prejudice: A Replication," American Journal of Soc- iology, 61 (January, 1956), pp. 355-358. Edward L. McDill, "Anomie, Authoritarianism, Prejudice and Socio-Economic Status: An Attempt at Clariffication," Social Forces, 39 (March, 1961), pp. 239-245. 31 Dean, pp. cit. 32J. L. Simmons, "Some Inter-Correlations Among 'Aheration' Measures," Social Forces, 44 (March, 1966), pp. 370- 372. 56 alienation-Dean scale), misanthrOpy, low self-esteem, dis- satisfaction, and attitude uncertainty, Angell33 (anomia) willingness to invade the privacy of others, and prejudice, Mcphaii34 35 (alienation-Dean Scales) and dogmatism, Rhode's (anomia) level of aspiration controlling for social-economic level--high anomia relating to high aspiration. In a massive study, McClosky and Schaar relates anomie alienation and a list of psychological variables, all indicating impairment of cognitive functioning: bewilderment, pessimism, satisfaction with life conditions, political cynicism, feeling of politi- cal impotence, intolerence of ambiguity, rigidity, obsessive- ness, inflexibility, manifest anxiety, stability disorgani- zation, bewilderment (Ego Strength), guilt, self-confidence, need inviolacy, status frustration, pessimism, political futility, dominance, social responsibility (Aggression): hos- tility, intolerance of human frailty, contempt for weakness, paranoia (extreme beliefs): totalitarianism, Fascist, Left Wing-Right Wing, and (Misanthropy): tolerance, faith in people, 33Robert C. Angell, "Preference for Moral Norms in Three Areas," American Journal of Sociology, 67 (May, 1962), pp. 650-660. 34Clark McPhail, "Dogmatism, Relegiosity and Alien- ation," Unpublished research report, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1962. 35Albert L. Rhodes, "Anomia, Aspiration and Status," Social Forces, 42 (May, 1964), pp. 434-440. 57 . . . . . . 36 . Ca1V1nism, elitism, and ethnocentrICism. Anomia as mea- sured by McClosky and Schaar's instrument relates to a host of scales measuring negative characteristics, but we must raise the question of causal direction. Does instructural variables lead to anomia and in turn anomia to the psycholog- ical variable or the psychological variables feed in to anomia? In terms of alienation and Dean's Scale components, all three scales showed weak correlation with structure var- iables: occupation, education, income, age, and community size. Still alienation and anomia need not be components of the same concepts; but, two different states having nega- tive consequences for the individual. Addressing himself to the roots of American anomie, Mizruchi sees for the lower classes a conflict between ex— pectations set by the American dream and the realities of their limited knowledge, consequently We Americans have always assumed that unfettered social mobility is necessarily a desirable con- dition for all. During times of prosperity, mobility is not only more attainable, but forces herself upon the multitude. Few recognize the high price that is paid in the form of striving toward unrecognizable goals and its consequences in personal demoralization and despair. Increased opportunity for success has its Sgunterpart in in- creased opportunity for failure. 6 . 3 Hubert McClusky and John H. Schaar, "Psychological Dimensions of Anomy," American Sociological Review, 301 (Feb., 1965), PP. 141-19. 37 Mizruchi, pp. cit., p. 98. 58 This contrasts with Brymer, who sees alienation as part of the world view of the lower class individual. All the above work has been done in the U.S. Now we must ask: Do no other cultures than the U.S. provide con- texts in which the three components of alienation covary? I contend that the dimensions are nearly independent. One can be powerless yet not be normless or isolated socially. In an ascriptive system without an emphasis on success, a poor man has his family, his traditional way of life shared by his fathers, and their fathers before them-~and, he has a community. Normlessness need not imply social isolation, or vice versa; housebound females may lack companionship but not experience normlessness or powerIessness. One can have power (hence not experience powerlessness) but experience normlessness, as in La Dolce Vita or the "Jet Set" syndrome. Hence powerlessness (traditional alienation) and normlessness (anomia) relate in the U;S. due to its value system. When examined in systems far removed from the U.S. culturally, the relationships between socio-economic variables and the components of alienation need not correlate. In terms of individual components, powerlessness, as one example, should relate not only to control over work activities, but, in general, to the control of means. That is, anything which reflects power, (e.g., occupation, income, or education,) should correlate with a sense of power. Cross culturally, powerlessness and socio-economic variables should 59 correlate. On the other hand, normlessness (anomia) and social isolation need not be related to socio-economic var- iables. In particularistic (as against universalistic) societies, be they achievement or ascription oriented, in— dividuals will be bound into a system of interpersonal re- lations regardless of the socio-economic level. In ascrip- tive (as against achievement) systems, movement from one walk of life to another places the individual in conflict with the social milieu. Turning now to other consequences of mobility, we assume that the more ascriptive a system, the more inter- personal power and authority will motivate its members. That is, where assignment determines position, the individual focuses on role relations and hence, interpersonal influence. Implied here is a notion that authoritarianism stems from the individual's value system and the extent to which the individual emphasizes ascription. Using the F scale, MacKennar and Anters found work- ing class, lower education groups to be exceptionally author- itarian.38 Also, Kornhauser, Sheppard, and Mayer found among auto workers that those with an eighth grade education or less were more authoritarian than those with eight or more years of education.39 38W. J. MacKennor and Anters, "Authoritarian- ism and Urban Stratification," American Journal of Sociology 1956, 61, pp. 610- 620. 39A. Kornhauser, H. L. Sheppard, and A. J. Mayer, When Labor Votes, New York, University Books, 1956. V Adi Fhs bI H\v fins «\h n is 60 Cohn and Carsch report similar findings for a German sam- 40 Authoritarianism relates directly to socio-economic ple. variables; it may be the world view of the uneducated in western industrial countries. Everett Hagen suggests the authoritarian ethic.or world view as characteristic of all uneducated peOple and represents a major stumbling block for development.41 Parsons discusses the authoritarian personality as evaluating social objects in terms of absolute standards; such standards provide a clean, uncomplicated system where princes are princes, paupers are paupers, fathers are fa- thers, and women are women. Changing one's role challenges the tenets of the systems. Authoritarians emphasize more than achieved statuses; further, they emphasize their high- est ascribed status. Status threat (that is, devaluation) should intensify authoritarianism. The downwardly mobile ‘person, over-valuing his ascribed status, will tend to value ‘ascriptive variables such as family, race, sex, etc., more than others in his culture. Hence, the downwardly mobile should reflect more authoritarianism than occupationally stable individuals in the same culture. Since other reviews cover the topic well (Brown, 40T. S. Cohn and H. Carsch, "Administration of the F Scale to a Sample of Germans," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 49 (1954), p. 47. . 41Everett Hagan, On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press, 1962). 61 1964,) this paper only briefly reviewed the question of authoritarianism.42 From E. R. Jaensch, "Der Gegentypus,"43 and Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality,44 a vast network Of studies has arisen and, as Roger Brown phrases it, created a “widening circle of covariation."45 From their nuclear concern with anti-Semitism, the authors Of the Authoritarian Personalipy found a cluster of covariates which seems to describe a rigid, intolerent, conventional, and power-oriented individual. The authoritarian factor covaries both with education and I.Q. ‘Christie estimates values between -.50 and -.60 for the several studies reporting correlations between I.Q. and F Scale scores.46 4'zRoger Brown, Social Psychology (New York: The Free Press, 1964). 43E. R. Jaensch, Der Gegentypus, Leipzig: Barth,“ 1938. 44T. W. Adorno, Else Frankel-Brunswick, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: -Harper, 1950). 45 . Brown, op. Cit. 46R. Christie, "Authoritarianism Re-Examined," in R. Christie and -Marie Jahoda (eds.), Studies in The Scppe and Method of the Authoritarian Personality (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1954). 62 Future Life Conditions Social mobility for better or worse brings about changes in life conditions with both speed, extent, and direction having a bearing on its outcome. Since such changes in life conditions are grounds for Optimism or pessimism, social mobility should influence a person's perception of his future life conditions. Cantril intro- duces the concept 'rising expectations' and uses it to predict revolutions. Basic by Cantrils sees objective life conditions rising linearly while expectations re- sponding to changes in objective life conditions rise 47 Consequently, we expect upwardly mobile geometrically. persons to have higher expectations for the future than status individuals and that downwardly mobile persons to have lower expectations than status individuals. 47Hadley Cantril, Patterns of Human Concern, (New Brunswik, N. J., Rutgers University Press, 1965). CHAPTER II Theogy and Hypotheses In the preceding chapter, we discussed literature pertinent to our main thesis, Eli! that peOple find discon- tinuities in status unrewarding and consistencies in status rewarding, and that the consequences for an inconsistency depend on the nature of the status variables involved. In the United States, where most status inconsistency studies have been done, the only type of status inconsistency that has had predictive value for the dependent variables used (e.g., social participation, psychosomatic illness), are in- consistencies between ascribed and achieved status. In the attempt to identify and interpret addition-- a1 consequences of status inconsistencies, we considered three classic dimensions of alienation: powerlessness, norm- lessness, and social isolation. Although each of these di- mensions represents a lack of concordance between the indiv- idual and the society, we concluded that alienation can best be defined only in terms of powerlessness. We equate norm- lessness with anomia, and social isolation is treated inde- pendently. We now will attempt to link status inconsistency with alienation (powerlessness), social isolation, normless- ness, sense of autonomy, authoritarianism, and perceived future life conditions. Moreover, this set of dependent 63 64 variables will be examined in four societies, two achieve- ment oriented (The United States and Japan), and two as- criptively oriented (Costa Rica and Mexico). Status Inconsistenpy There are several assumptions that aid in formu- lating a theory of status inconsistency. Approaching status inconsistency from the system developed by Zelditch and An- derson,1 a social system S can be conceptualized as consist- ing of units, ul, individuals or groups, each with some general standing or overall evaluation, R1, which is de- termined by some set of criteria dimensions, ranks (r1, r2, Since the ranks vary in importance, each has an rOOOr 3 k” associated weight: hence a set of weights (wl, wz, w3...wk) contributes to (R1). Consequently, Ri is a linear function of w r , that rests on the Assumption (1): k ki r .=R. . .+w i ki i wlrli+wlr1 2rZi+...+wk .Within system S there are i members and k criteria dimensions. Hence, a person's overall standing is deter- mined by adding the weighted standings on S's ranks. There- fore,.we have the Definition (1): A "rank" is any criterion with non-zero weight in S or any function of a combination of such values. \V lMorris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks," in J. Berger, M. Zelditch and B. Cohen, Sociological Theories in Progress (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966). 65 To simplify their analysis, Zelditch and Anderson2 give two boundary assumptions: (1) Members of (S) agree on the weights to be given criteria by which they evaluate themselves and others. -(2) .A member of.(S) has an overall evaluation of himself that is not less positive than the evaluations significant others have of him. While these boundary assumptions aid Zelditch and Anderson's model, the first boundary assumption presents problems for our theory and may represent an unnecessary oversimplification of social reality. A naive individual, who has some extremely valuable asset of which he is unaware, may not value himself as highly as others value him. But, given the knowledge of the standards others measure him by and what he can demand from them because of his talent, his standards change quickly. The second boundary condition presents no problem. The first boundary assumption is a major problem. Ministers, uneducated industrialists, feminists, Negroes, and other minorities do not all see the ranking system in the same way; but all may be members of the same social system. We agree that, when a disparity in evaluative standards be- comes obvious, or when it leads to contradictory expectations, a stress point is created in the social system; yet disparities 2Ibid., p. 249. 66 do exist and the members of social systems either accept the direct consequences or devise mechanisms for handling them, just as persons can devise means of reducing and avoiding the consequences of status inconsistencies. If we leave out the first assumption, we must de- scribe the forces influencing an individual and his evaluative system. To do so, we note that there is a force operating on Person to adapt the evaluative standards of Other, and the more contact with Others holding a particular evaluative standard and the greater the relative difference in social power between Person and Other, favoring Other, the greater the force Operating on Person. Both the ranks used and their weighting are subject to this force. ASSUMPTION (2): PERSON TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE WEIGHTINGS OF SIGNIFICANT OTHERS Another force Operates on Persons evaluative frame- work, his self esteem. Within a social encounter an indiv- idual maximizes his self esteem, and the selection and weighting of rank is no exception. When ambiguity surrounds a particular rank or different significant others hold dif- fering standards, the individual has the choice to accent- uate a particular rank or to play it down. He will place the rank in question according to his standing on it relative to his other ranks. So a contractor with a sixth-grade education and a high income will tend to evaluate himself and the social world more in terms of income, while a college professor making seven thousand a year would see the social 111%.. «(.L \. I: 67 world more in terms of education. We now come to our key assumption. 1 ASSUMPTION (3): PERSON MAXIMIZES HIS SELF ESTEEM BY GIVING GREATER WEIGHT TO STATUS DIMENSIONS ON WHICH HE RANKS HIGH AND LOWER WEIGHT TO THOSE DIMENSIONS ON WHICH HE RANKS LOW. French and Miller (1963) give a similar set of assumptions for determining self esteem: Assumption (1), the level of total self esteem is a direct function of the person's evaluation of his self and his attributes, weighted by their generality. (Gen- erality refers to the number of settings in which the self-attributes are relevant.) Assumption (2), the level of total self esteem is a direct function of the level of subjective public esteem for the various referent publics, with each of these publics weighted in accordance with its referent power. Assumption (3), the level of total self esteem is a direct function of the strength of the motive to maxi- mize self esteem. These assumptions differ from our assumptions in that (1) the present study has no measures of "motive to maximize self esteem," and (2) the present study assumes a relationship between an individual's position on a status dimension and his evaluation of the dimensions; that is, a person gives more weight to those status attributes on which he is high than to those on which he is low. Thus, an individual's weightings represent a complex 68 product of these two forces. When there is a great disparity between the ranks of Person and Other, Person will attribute a higher status to himself than to Other unless Other has a similar configuration. Among status-consisfléht individuals there will be a higher agreement on the rankings assigned to themselves and each other. This involves an inference that the status equilibrium of a society will be related to the degree of agreement on evaluative criteria and their weights. The general assertion that a person's status inconsistency determines the amount of stress he encounters is only par— tially correct; we can now see that the relative importance of the dimensions must be taken into account, particularly those dimensions on which Person is high. Depending on the extent to which Person has contact with others and on the extent to which he is dependent on them, he will be swayed by one or the other principle. If Person has a relatively isolated existence and can minimize contact with others who do not see him as he sees himself, or who are not in a posi- tion to heavily sanction him for his views, then Person will weigh his status variables such that they maximize his self- esteem. For example, a wealthy individual may not be pro- ductive or educated, but, being independent, he may isolate himself from educated and productive persons, and maintain his self-esteem through limiting his social contact to per- sons lower than he in income, education, and productivity. -In addition to closing his eyes to the outside world or "1 U) () f) f (17 69 limiting himself to friends as inconsistent as himself, Person can adapt by involvement in a deviant subsystem, in other words, a subsystem that has a locus and value system different from the main system's. We shall now.turn the paradigm around and look at how Person ranks Other rather than how Other ranks Person. First, when Person ranks Other he will not publicly lower his own status without receiving a commensurate reward; consequently he will employ the weighting system which he uses to evaluate himself and thus put stress on their en- counter. 'Hence, Person will assay the value of Other's good will and then relate his manifest assessment of Other to the value of his good will. In Homans' terms, if he feels that he does not receive rewards in prOportion to his investments he will react negatively to Other, i.e., show anger. In sum, status inconsistency produces conflicts be- tween how Person evaluates himself and others and how ' others evaluate him and themselves; hence, conflicts arise (in interpersonal expectatiOns. \ ‘ French provides two sub-hypotheses: (a) Self-evaluation is a function of P's subjective public evaluation weighted by the degree of referent ‘power of each reference group or reference other. (b) There is a tendency for personal attributes which are the most important to members Of a group in the perception and evaluation of other members to be high in generality for the group members. French also presents two sub-hypotheses linking roles and self-evaluation but our concern is with statuses, not roles. 70 (c) the higher the actual or anticipated success in fulfilling a role, the more the role's performance subsets, i.e., will be "self-relevant" and will be associated with self-attributes (e.g., role intern- alization). (d) if role behavior apply across situations, for ex- ample the medical doctor role, the generalization and strengths of the.corresponding self-attributes will be high, and therefore, self-evaluation will in large part be a function of those self-attributes. French does not address (and within the content Of his theory need not address) the question of how referent groups acquire importance for the individual. As the value orientation of an individual's group or society determines the dimensions used and their weight- ings, cultural context plays a major role in the effects of status inconsistency by regulating the conflict between variables. When significant reference groups impute little importance to a status variable, the inconsistent status variables will have little consequence for the in- dividual, but if society or a significant reference group 7 gives each of the two dimensions a heavy weighting, then 'the inconsistency has consequences. Similarly, if the system 1 gives a high weight to one dimension and a low one to the Othery then for peOple low on the highly rated dimension and high on the low dimension, a similar crisis arises, giVeui our status-maximizing hypothesis: the individual Values a status variable not valued by significant others. ourtheory goes one step beyond this simplified system: We take into consideration the perceived desirability of status inconsistency, in particular that produced by 71 mobility. Our research concern now relates to Parson's pat- tern variables. As we noted earlier, Parsons asserts that societies can be ordered according to the degree to which they value a person either for what he "does" (i.e., his performance), or for what he "is" (i.e., certain qualities mainly beyond his control). While societies fall along this achievement-ascription dimension and none is entirely achieve- ment or ascriptively oriented, they tend to differentially stress ascriptive statuses, i.e., sex, age, family, over achieved statuses, education, income, and occupation, or vice versa. In other words, there is a consistent tendency to rate individuals more in terms of either achieved statuses or ascribed statuses. If a society tends toward "ascription," the upwardly mobile individual faces a "serious" devaluation of his prized achieved statuses; if the society tends toward an achievement orientation, the downward mobile person faces devaluation of his highest statuses. In general, the status maximization hypothesis states that the status inconsistent individual tends to disregard the cultural evaluation of his "statuses".and he gives instead greater weight to his high statuses. Ascriptive and Achievement Orientation Before testing the hypotheses related to the theor— etical systems, we will test the assumptions of system pro- -perties, in particular, the assumptions concerning Parsons' 72 cultural value orientation. According to Parsons' value orientations dimen- sions, the United States is classified as universalistic, achievement oriented, Japan as particularistic (traditional) achievement oriented, and all Spanish-American countries as particularistic ascriptive cultures. While Parsons is clear on the four previous countries, he does not type Finland. Unfortunately, Parsons gives us no empirical evidence for his classifications nor criteria by which the classifications can be made; consequently, we must deduce propositions from the constructs given and devise tests of the systems. To begin with, one salient feature of an ascriptive system is a monolithic (authoritarian) evaluation system. By monolithic we mean the opposite of Parson's plurality of goals possessed by actors in an achievement oriented society; in ascriptive societies, goals are predetermined and assigned with roles and are not subject to change. As Zetterberg (1966) points out, an ascriptive system weakens motivation and makes Opportunity for change (by self- 5 initiated action) impossible or undesirable or both. This aspect of ascription leads to the hypothesis: 4Talcott Parsons, op. cit., pp. 182-191. 5HansL. Zetterberg, "On Motivation," Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol. 1, ed. by Berger, Zelditch and Anderson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966), pp. 124- 142. 73 (1) In an ascriptive society the self system is less important to the individual than the social institu- tions to which he belongs.6 We may directly Operationalize this hypothesis by asking the individual to compare the importance of so- cial institutions, political parties, community, family, country, and work, to the self. In the relative impor- tance of the institution to the self, the means for the ascriptively oriented cultures should be higher than for the achievement oriented ones. According to Parsons, an ascriptive society, particularly the universalistic ascriptive variety, fosters authoritarianism in that the nature of the value system is absolute and the duty of the members is to "see its truth." Furthermore, this authoritarianism takes the form of re- garding individuals as members of a group, imputing the quality of the group to the individual, that is, "stereo- typing" the individual.7 We agree with Parsons that the roots of the authoritarian tendency come from a heavy emphasis on status as the means of evaluation, with the provision 6This hypothesis, and the next seven, are not hypotheses stemming from the theoretical model. They have a preliminary function, yip, testing the tenability of the ascription-achievement dichotomy of the five national samples. 7Parsons (1951), op. cit. 74 in the universalistic ascriptive society it is possible to alter one's status by altering symbols. Parsons does not find authoritarianism in particularistic ascriptive soc- ieties, however; instead he sees the predominant mode as anti-authoritarian because the value orientation is ex- pressive. But authoritarianism almost by definition should result from an ascriptive system. Whether par- ticularistically or universally ascriptive, cultures must inculcate a value system emphasizing the legitimacy of the social order and must impute particular motivations to each status. Consequently we hypothesize: (2) The more ascriptive the society, the more its actors will emphasize adherence to rules and authority, as opposed to self-initiated action. Operationally: (2) reSponse to (c) "Children should be taught that there is only one correct way to do things." (3) The more ascriptive the society, the more its actors will emphasize stability in general. Operationally: (3) response to (d) "I like the kind of work that lets me do things about the same way from one week to the next." (4) The more ascriptive a culture, the more its actors will evidence authoritarian submission. Operationally: (4) response to (e) "Whatever we do, it is necessary that our leaders outline carefully what is to be done and exactly how to go about it." Another indicator of the ascription-achievement 75 dimension might be the degree of participation in voluntary associations. Because of "turn-over" of occupants of social positions and a plurality of goals, achievement oriented societies must devise ways of organizing actors having similar goals; the voluntary association is such a device. Given pluralism of goals, association along traditional lines will weaken; if the actor is to maximize his goals, he must integrate his efforts with others holding similar views. Doing so requires an organizational framework, where the actors' energies can be channeled and coordinated. Similarly, social contact should be more voluntary in an achievement-oriented culture and should follow a homo- geneity paradigm laid down by more common interest than common ancestry. Hence the hypotheses: (5) The actors in an achievement—oriented society will have more instrumental voluntary associations than would those in an ascriptive society. Hence this society will have more instrumental voluntary organizations. (6) The more achievement oriented the culture, the more voluntary social and fraternal associations the members will have. (7) The more achievement-oriented the society, the more important the social and fraternal aspects of voluntary association to the actor. We Operationalize these concepts by showing the relative frequency of membership and by the present preferring voluntary social associations over all 76 other forms of voluntary organizations. Lastly, we assume (with Parsons) that ascriptively— Oriented cultures have a strong religious base for their value system; hence, it is important that the religion be monolithic and centrally important. We hypothesize: (8) The more ascriptive the culture the more im- portant religion is in the life of its actors. Twoflitems test this prOposition: (l) Cantril ladder item indicating the degree of importance of religion in the person's life and (2) the person's response to the item, "I believe the world would be a better place if more people had the religious beliefs which I have." To test the assumption that Mexico and Costa Rica are best classified as ascriptive cultures and the United States and Japan as achievement oriented cultures, we will do a simple analysis of variance on each set of means after finding the combined means for the two ascriptiVe cultures. The Consequences of Status Inconsistency On The Individual in Achievement and Ascriptive Settings Earlier, we discussed present notions of alien- ation and the general conception of alienation as "multi— dimensional." We concluded that Seeman's dimensions, while supposedly representing manifestations of a central 77 dimension, alienation, actually represented conceptually independent,8 disaffective states which co-vary in the U. S. because of their relationships with socioeconomic variables; in other cultures these associations need not appear. Hence, a different set of hypotheses will be made for each of the dependent variables at issue, gig, powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation, Social Isolation The mechanism linking status inconsistency and social isolation does not differ from that linking status inconsistency and normlessness. WITHIN A MORE ASCRIPTIVELY-ORIENTED SOCIETY, UPWARD MOBILE INDIVIDUALS WILL EXPERIENCE MORE SOCIAL ISOLATION THAN STABLE INDIVIDUALS. WE DO NOT EXPECT TO FIND THIS RELATIONSHIP IN AN ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED SOCIETY. WITHIN BOTH ASCRIPTIVELY- AND ACHIEVEMENT- ORIENTED CULTURES, DOWNWARDLY MOBILE INDIVIDUALS WILL EX- PERIENCE MORE SOCIAL ISOLATION THAN STABLE INDIVIDUALS AT BOTH THEIR PRESENT LEVEL AND THEIR SOCIALIZER'S LEVEL. Powerlessness In regard to powerlessness, which we assume to be directly related to the relative social power the individual 8Seeman (1956), pp. cit. 78 perceives he has, there should be a direct relationship between actual power, income, education, or occupation and perceived power or its negative--a sense of powerlessness. WITHIN BOTH ACHIEVEMENT AND ASCRIPTIVELY ORIENTED CULTURES, THE HIGHER PERSON'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS THE MORE THE PERSON EXPERIENCES PERSONAL EFFICACY. WITHIN THE ASCRIPTIVE ORIENTED CULTURES, DOWNWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS WILL EXPERIENCE.MORE-POWERLESSNESS THAN NON-MOBILE PERSONS. The loss of power through downward social mobil- ity produces a displacement effect exaggerating the sense of powerlessness. Normlessness Status inconsistency can also bring about a sense of normlessness. If we assume certain status inconsisten- cies bring about conflicts in expectations and obligations, then we can hypothesize that, given a severe conflict, Person experiences normlessness. Consequently: WITHIN MORE ASCRIPTIVELY ORIENTED CULTURES, UPWARDLY MOBILE INDIVIDUALS WILL EXPERIENCE MORE NORMLESSNESS THAN WILL STABLE INDIVIDUALS. Because the system will respond less to achieved and more to ascribed statuses, the person finds that he confronts conflicting standards and eXpectations. Socially, he desires, and sees as just, social acceptance by those whose attainments equa1.his, but instead they respond to him according to past definitions that he cannot control. WE DO NOT EXPECT DOWNWARD MOBILITY TO AFFECT NORMLESSNESS 79 WITHIN AN ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED SOCIETY. WITHIN BOTH MORE ASCRIPTIVE AND MORE ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTED CULTURES, THE DOWNWARDLY MOBILE PERSON WILL EXPERIENCE MORE NORMLESSNESS THAN WILL STABLE INDIVIDUALS. Smelser's hypothesis that transitional societies will have higher levels of normlessness than modern societies due to the necessary upheaval through indus- trialization and urbanization will be tested here. Un- fortunately, we cannot differentiate between the effects of transition and the effects of value orientation. That is, the differences between our two transitional societies, both ascriptive (Costa Rica and Mexico), and our two modern societies both achievement oriented (the U. S. and Japan), cannot be adequately examined for this purpose. Autonomy If Person moves socially he experiences changes in the constraints society places on him. These constraints may be heavier, lighter, or of the same weight, but neverthe— less they change. Mobility should influence Person's perceived autonomy through relative deprivation Or abundance. Hence: IN ASCRIPTIVELY AND ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED CULTURES, AN UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSON WILL EXPERIENCE MORE AUTONOMY THAN STABLE INDIVIDUALS AT THEIR PRESENT LEVEL AND THOSE AT THE LEVEL FROM WHICH THE UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSON CAME. IN ASCRIPTIVELY- AND ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED CULTURES DOWNWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS WILL EXPERIENCE LESS AUTOMONY THAN 80 STABLE PERSONS AT THE PRESENT LEVEL AND AT THE LEVEL FROM WHICH THE-MOBILEWPERSON CAME. Expectations for Future Life Conditions (EFLC) Persons' expectations for the.future will parallel those of his.sense of autonomy. IN ASCRIPTIVELY AND ACHIEVEMENT-ORIENTED CULTURES, AN UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSON WILL EXPERIENCE HIGHER EFLC THAN STATIC.INDIVIDUALS AT HIS PRESENT LEVEL AND THOSE AT THE LEVEL.FROM WHICH THE UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSON CAME. IN ASCRIPTIVELY AND ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTED CULTURES, A DOWNWARDLY MOBILE PERSON WILL-EXPERIENCE LESS EFLC THAN STABLE PERSONS AT HIS PRESENT LEVELWAND-AT THE LEVEL FROM WHICH-THEWMOBILE PERSON CAME. Authoritarianism We view authoritarianism as a commitment to an ascriptive.va1ue orientation; hence, the greater the value of ascription to the individual, the greater the authori- tarianism will be. WITHIN BOTH ASCRIPTIVELY ORIENTED AND ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTED-CULTURES DOWNWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS WILL EXPRESS MORE AUTHORITARIAN ATTITUDES THAN EITHER STABLE OR UPWARDLY MOBILE PERSONS. In order to maximize his self-esteem, the downwardly mobile.person accentuates his ascribed statuses. In doing so, 81 he commits himself to the notion that one's position in life should not be changed by successes or failures. Competition between levels is denied and the ration- ality of authority accepted. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN Issues in Comparative Research Design and Analysis An important feature of this study is the direct comparison between four nations made possible by parallel measurements in each nation. Although this design allows for variations in cultural context, the small number of nations precludes using "society" or nation as a unit of analysis. Instead, we will use the individual as a unit of analysis and employ the nation as a treatment or control variable. Individuals living in the United States, while having diverse experiences, will have a reasonable chance of being exposed to common values, relatively common modes of socialization, and common beliefs. Thus, for this study, being a member of a society is analagous to an experimental treatment. Of course, membership in subgroups, strata, and classes will provide variations in the national or societal pictrue. Still, if the society has a common culture and its members share this culture to varying degrees, then differences among the values and attitudes of these soc- ieties can be studied by a direct comparison of aggregate data on these values and attitudes. In discussing the 82 83 uniformity of values and beliefs within societies, we are confronted by a question similar to the one of modal per- sonality raised in national character studies. Almond and Verba raise such a question: To what extent are political attitudes uniform?l In both instances we must ask: how consistent does a population.have to be to demonstrate a modal personality or uniform political attitude? We avoid this dilemma by looking at differences between the nation's means. This means that we treat a society as a pool of characteristics, values, attitudes, or beliefs, marked by the predominance of one or more particular types. In using cross-national data we confront the prob- lem of comparability. With attitude and Opinion scales and questionnaires, comparability has taken a stimulus form, and there are problems of comparable items and comparable interviewer behavior; but, with socio-economic variables, the problem becomes even more complex. Almond and Verba point out that, even after equating incomes based on their exchange value, the "values" of two identical incomes can differ depending on their social context.2 Education creates -similar if not more complex problems in that the quality and lGabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Cul- ture: Political Attitudepand Democracy in Fiye Nations, TPrinceton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963). 2Ibid. 84 character of education vary from country to country. Even with problems of this magnitude, and accepted that our measures are rough, we can gain considerable inform- ation by attempting to approach comparability. We will attempt to reach toward perfect comparability despite our inability to obtain it. Samples The sample was drawn for the Five Nation Study, a coordinated research project conducted in the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica, Finland, and Japan. Due to technical difficulties, we dropped the Finnish sample. United States General Public: This is an area probability sample of the U.S. General Public, age 21 or older. The findings are based on 1528 personal interviews. The sam- ple was selected in such a manner that, as a group, it constitutes a close approximation (within sampling tolerance) of the adult civilian population. The probability sampling went to the block level in the urban areas and to segments of townships in rural areas. After stratifying the nation geographically by size of community in order to insure conformity to the dis- tribution to the adult population, 143 different sampling 1The Finnish occupational data was coded through a classification scheme devised for Finland; hence, the Finnish datais not comparable with the other nations. 85 points were selected at random, with a probability of selection prOportional to pOpulation size. An additional 58 sampling points were drawn at random in the same manner from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado, doubling the sampling points drawn for these five states. Approximately 10 interviews were conducted at each sampling point with the exception of the sampling points in the five southwestern states in each of which five in- terviews were conducted. The interviewer had no choice whatsoever concerning the part of the city or country in which the interviews were to be conducted. Interviewers, by means of maps, started at an assigned point and were required to follow a specified set of directions. At each occupied dwelling unit, interviewers were instructed to select respondents by a prescribed method and by a male- female assignment. Also, since this sampling procedure is designed to approximate the adult civilian population (age 21 and older) living in private homes, those living on military reservations and in institutions are excluded. Mexico: Unlike the United States sample, this sample is a stratified rather than a national probability sample em- phasizing areas with a small unrepresentative rural sample: consequently the sample has an overwhelmingly urban bias. Urban Mexico: This is a stratified random sample of the peOple in the urban areas of Mexico, age 21 years or older. 86 The findings are based on 1126 personal interviews selected such that they constitute a close approximation to the adult pOpulation of Mexico living in urban areas of 2500 or more. The strata were as follows: 1. Cities of 2500 to 10,000 population. 2. Cities of 10,001 to 50,000 population. 3. Cities of 50,001 to 300,000 pOpulation. 4. Cities of more than 300,000 population. The number of interviews assigned to each stratum was in prOportion to the actual pOpulation, and each stratum was sampled separately. The cities were arranged geographically into six regions, reflecting broadly the country's major ethnic and cultural groupings. A minimum of one city per stratum was selected for each of the six zones in which cities of these different populations existed. After one city had been selected per area the remaining selections were at random. Within each city, block samples were drawn and a number of interviews (average 8) were assigned to each block. Rpgpl: This was a modified probability sample of 288 rural peOple, age 21 years or older. They were selected in such a manner that, as a group, they are "quite indicative of all the rural areas (in Mexico) in general." Because of access problems in more remote areas, a modified probability sample, one using substitutes for 87 refusals or continued absences, was felt sufficient to give indicative results. Here, the universe consisted of all adults residing in towns with pOpulations between 100 and 2500 inhabitants, located within 15 miles of any of the urban cities in the sample. At this point, the sampling proceeded as in the urban sample except that, when re- peated absence or refusals occurred, substitutes of the same sex and approximate age as the initially designated 'respondent were chosen. Costa Rican Sample: This national probability sample con- sisted of 1,180,803 persons distributed among 261 districts. Following stratification of the universe into (1) metropol—' itan, (2) urban, and (3) rural strata, sampling proceeded on a multi-stage basis for each stratum. For the metro- politan and urban strata, districts were considered primary sampling units, city blocks secondary, and dwelling units tertiary. In the event of refusal or unavailability of the subject after one call-back (in sample A), the interviewer moved to a substitute sample (B), designed by the same criteria. Sample B was to be employed after the inter- viewers made the required one call-back. In the event Of unavailability of the randomly-selected subject during the call-back, interviewers proceeded to the nearest dwelling unit in sample B. Within sample B, interviewers were required to make at least two call-backs. 88 The sample compares fairly well with data from the Costa Rican national census, although the sample in- dicated some bias in education by place of residence (i.e., remote rural segments of the sample have a somewhat higher educational level than can be reasonably expected). gpppp: The universe for Japan is all persons 20 years or Older, residing in two strata, metropolitan and rural. Selection of sample was made from the voter's list1 by the stratified three-stage random sampling method. The total population can be classified into metro- politan, urban and rural. The survey group, Yoran Kagabe Kyokai (Japan Social Research Institute), judged that 'only the metropolitan and rural strata to be appropriate for this study. They reasoned: metrOpOlitans are "progressive" and ruralists are conservative with the urban stratum being a transient state between these two strata.‘ The metropolitan samples came from loci with over 1,000,000 population while the rural samples were selected from the cities, towns, and villages having at least 60% farm households.2 The three-step sampling process is as follows: eighty Spots were scattered over Japan, forty in metrOpolises, 1In Japan, voter registration is both compulsory and universal. 2This peculiar line of reasoning reflects possible complexities in the structure of Japanese society. 89 forty in rural districts. The forty spots in metropolises are distributed into seven metropolises proportional to their populations. In forty rural spots are distributed into geographical blocks. From each sampling spot, twenty sample units were drawn; consequently, we have 1600 sample units in total. The expected refusal rate for Japan is approximately 35%; hence starting with 1600 sample points, 1,000 interviews could be cOmpleted. As it was 990 were completed. See Appendix I for tables of sampling blocks. 'Instrumentation of Independent Variables This study employs five independent variables: nations and their value orientations, education, head Of household:\occupation of head of household, education Of socializer, and occupation of socializer.. Of course, ed- ucation of head Of household and education of socializer; will be scored using the same community while occupation. of head of household and occupation of socializer also will employ the same classification system. "Occupation Prestige Fortunately, in terms of occupational prestige, the correlation between nations is high regardless of the economic development of the country. According to Coleman the observed correlations ". . . show striking uniformity of occupational prestige from country to country" and in 90 themselves ". . . constitute a regularity to be explained."1 But, as Hodge, Treiman, and Rossi point out, ". . . by and large prestige studies overrepresent the extremes of the occupational ladder. Hence, comparison among countries may produce high correlations simply because the extremes of the acceptance hierarchy are overrepresented and the middle, where disagreement seems most likely to occur, is poorlyrepresented."2 A. Inkeles and.P. Rossi found no major differ- ences between six industrial nations which support the "structuralist position" that ". .'. there is a relatively invariable hierarchy of prestige associated with the industrial system, even when it is placed in the context of larger social systems which are otherwise differentiated in important respects."3 For our study, we wish to go beyond the frequently used manual-non-manual dichotomy. While this distinction has lJameer. Coleman, Introduction to Mathematical Sociology (New York: The Free Press, 1964), p. 27. 2Robert W. Hodge, Donald J. Trieman, and Peter H. Rossi, "A Comparative Study of Occupational Prestige," in Class, Status, apd Power, edited by Reinhard Bendix and Seymore Martin Lipset TNew York: The Free Press, 1966), sec. edition. \\43A. Inkeles and P. Rossi, "National Comparison of Occupational Prestige," American Journal of Sociology, 16 (January, 1956), p. 339. 91 been widely used for mobility studies, G. Germani states that . . .manual-non-manual categorization, though very ‘useful for international comparisons, may grossly 'underestimate the extent of psychologically mean- -ingful mobility. The.rate of mobility certainly 'depends on the number and kind of categories em- ployed, separating the skilled from the unskilled workers, the rate of movement out of the unskilled includes, in many industrialized countries, a majority of the people- Moreover, there are in- dications that upward (or downward) short distance ‘mobility'may'be perceived and experienced as deeply important by the modal subjects. All told, the coarser the categorization of occu- pational prestige, the less effects of mobility can be ob- served; consequently, the ideal situation for us would be a complete occupational ranking system for each country. But no such classification system exists for Mexico and Costa Rica, and we can only guess the spread Of occupational ranks, the relative distance between the pres- tige of each category, and the amount of overlap between adjacent categories in these countries. Hodge, Treiman, and Rossi present evidence that, while there is overlap between white and blue collar occupations in the U.S., there is almost none in Brazil. Consequently, while the corre- lation between countries (in terms of the ranking Of occupa- tional prestige) may be high, systematic differences may 4Geno Germani, "Social And Political Consequences 'Of Mobility,” in Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, ed. by Smelser and Lipert: (Chicago: Aldine 'Publishing, 1966), PP. 364-394. 92 exist in the ranking of certain categories of occupations (i.e., white-blue collar). For this study, we will use a three-point level classification scheme: white collar, blue collar, skilled, and blue collar, unskilled. Again, when we confront cell size, intergenera- tional mobility is quite high in all countries and long- range downward mobility is very low.* This means that a relatively fine division creates a problem for inter- generational mobility studies. In fact, Duncan suggests a population of 8,000 for a detailed study of mobility, although for our purposes a sample of 1,000 should be adequate.5 See Appendix II for a detailed discussion of the mobility rates between the nations. At best we can have a breakdown of three levels and to do so we will first take into consideration the white collar-blue collar dichotomy, knowing that in terms Of income and responsibility the distributions overlap. Still, as Hodge, Treiman, and Rossi show and others point out, regardless of skill or contribution, the Latin American, Brazilian, blue collar worker rates lower in occupational prestige than white collar workers.6 5Otis Dudley Duncan, "Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Social Mobility," in Social Structure and Mobility in Economic Development, ed. by Smelser and Lipset (ChIgagO: Aldine), 1966. 6Robert W. Hodge, Donald J. Treiman, and Peter H. Rossi, op. cit. 93 In addition to the white collar-blue collar split, we will include a blue collar skilled and a blue collar unskilled distinction. We have the following classes: I. White Collar l. Professionals and Technicians 2. Managers, Officials, administrators, public ‘ officials, small proprietors and dealers 3. Office workers 4. Salesmen II. Blue Collar Skilled 1. Farmers (Big) and Farm Managers 2.‘ Craftsmen and factory workers '3.‘ Special workers as chauffers, technical ‘ 'assistants, etc. '4.‘ Service workers and similar III. Blue Collar Unskilled 1. 'Small farmer or renter, fisherman, hunters, ' ‘ lumbermen and similar 2. Miners, stone cutters and similar, manual and day laborers 3. Persons that haven't worked before, house- wives, students and others that have not worked (excluding without work or pensions) This breakdown allows both a meaningful division and suf- ficiently large n's in each cell including extreme downward mobility (I to III). Education Considering education cross culturally also creates problems. Vast differences exist between societies not only in mean differences but also in the nature of their distri- butions. For instance, the Finland sample has (not included in this study) no cases below seven years of education and 94 two-thirds of the sample have exactly seven years of educa- tion; yet only 9.9% of this sample went beyond the 9th grade. The U.S. population, by contrast, runs the gamut from illiterate, two years of education (4.4%) to college graduates (9.4%). Costa Rica has only 4.3% high school graduates and Mexico 7.2%, while Japan more resembles the United States with.38.5%-oftheJapanese sample having twelve years' education or more.. Disparities of this nature make comparisons-for differences of the absolute ‘ number of years between countries difficult. "Du 'to this wide variation.between our four na- tions both in terms of present distribution of education and the rate of change, education cannot be divided into four or more groupings without having small cell size problems. Besides the cell size problems, we must question the strict- additive effects of each additional unit (year) of education. Does the difference between 5-6 years equal the difference between 6-7 years? This becomes a particularly critical problem when considering the termination points for dif- ferent kinds of schooling, i.e. grade school, high school, technical school. The simple completing of graduation may have profound effect on the individual--giving credence to perform a role; consequently, grouping of educational levels should take into consideration the natural breaks in the educational heirarchy. We chose 0 to 5 years as our first grouping since in all four nations grade school ends at the sixth 95 grade. The next group begins at the sixth grade and extends to the eighth grade with the last group beginning at the ninth year. While crude in conception, the design allows for both direct comparison across nations and for sufficiently large cell sizes when education head of household is compared with education of socializer. 'Instrumentation of Dependent Variables In all, this study will examine seven dependent variables, the Dean Alienation scale, powerlessness, norm- lessness, social isolation, authoritarianism, perceived autonomy, perceived future life conditions, and perceived social success. Alienation, Anomia, and Social Isolation 'Several measures of alienation were looked at before the Dean Scale was chosen as the basis for measure- 'ment. Due to the length of the Dean Scale, 23 items, and the cost of large scale administration, a series of pre- liminary Guttman analyses1 were performed to assess the subscales' unidimensionality on special samples, and as an aid in selecting two items from each subscale which best discriminate between the thirds of the sample. In essence, six items, two from each subscale, were included in the final lThe Dean's Scale (up until this point) had not been subjected to a Guttman Scale Analysis. Consequently, the unidimensionality of the items was to be questioned. 96 protocol. The preliminary analysis consisted of three separ- ‘ate samples, an M.S.U. student sample (N=100), a sample of the Lansing, Michigan, adult population, and an analysis using subsamples from all the countries in the original Five Nations Study. The student sample, drawn from M.S.U. social psychology classes, consisted of sophomores, juniors, and seniors.' The students answered the full Dean scales (See Appendix III), with five possible response categories: strongly agree, slightly agree, don't know, slightly dis- agree, strongly disagree, after which these results were sub- jected to a Guttman scale analysis using the modified Wais- anen technique. The total scale fi.e., with the three sub- scales combined) did not scale, but when the subscales were subjected to Guttman analysis, each showed satisfactory co- efficients-of'reproducibility:. powerlessness, C.R.=.928, dropping items 1 and 3 (See Appendix III), normlessness, C.R.=.94, dropping items 5, 6, and 7 (See Appendix III); social isolation, C.R.=93, dropping items 5, 6, 7, and 8 (See Appendix II). The "scaleable items" were then ad- ministered to a sample of adults: these subjects were heads of households, in Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan; (2) persons in a technical training school in San Antonio, Texas, from South America and Central America, and mainly from Mexico; and (3) heads of households in Japan. Guttman scal- ing was carried out in an attempt to find items meeting the 97 scale criteria in all three samples. From the United states samples two items were selected which divided the sample into roughly thirds considering also item error. The items which meet this criteria were: Powerlessness (1) Sometimes I have the feeling that other peOple are using me. (2) There is little chance to get ahead in this life unless a man knows the right peOple. Normlessness (1) I often wonder what the meaning of life really is. (2) PeOple's ideas change so much that I wonder if we'll ever have anything to depend on. Social Isolation (1) Real friends are as easy as ever to find. (2) Sometimes I feel all alone in the world. Authoritarianism Authoritarianism was measured through five items described earlier in Chapter II, page 79. Sense of Autonomy This variable consists of two items using Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale. I intend the variable to measure the control an individual has over his life and as such represents a reversal of the powerlessness construct. It involves the extent to which the individual sees the Opportunity to do and more in the direction he chooses, which, in turn, involves the individual's present position and secondly, the direction 2 in which he wishes to go. The two items are: Here is a ladder. At the top of the ladder stands someone who has all the Opportunity and chances he wants to do anything he wants. Down at the bottom stands someone who can't do anything he wants to do. Where do you stand now? Here is a ladder. At the top stands someone who can do very much to make his life happier. At the bottom stands someone who can do very little to make his life happier. Where do you stand right now? Future Life Conditions This variable stems from a combination of Cantril Ladder Scale Items asking the Individual to assess his future. The first it asks for is an evaluation of total life con- ditions: Here is a picture of a ladder. Suppose at the top of the ladder stands a person who is living the best possible life and at the bottom stands a per- son who is living the worst possible life. What step do you think you will be on five years from now? The next asks about personal worries: ". . . Suppose at the top stands a person who is completely free from worries about the future. At the bottom stands a person with many worries about the future. Where do you think you will stand five years from now? Next, the individual considers his interpersonal influence: 2This construct is relative and predicated on the notion that the individual wants to change which involves his perception of what there is to want. 99 ". . . At the top stands a person who has little or no influence over others. At the bottom of the ladder is a person who has little or no influence over others. What step would you say you stood on 'five years ago? Finally, he indicates the degree to which he is liked: ". . . At the top stands a person who likes other :peOple very much and other people like him. At the bottom-of the ladder is a person who doesn't like other people and other people don't like him. What step would you say you stood on five years ago? In all, these items express the individual's expected well being.3 Methodolqgical Issue in the Measurement of Status Inconsistency and Social Mobility Our hypotheses concern status inconsistency pro- duced through social mobility. While this approach is a natural one, given our theoretical focus on disparities in achieved and ascribed statuses, it is also a reflec- tion of the trends of status inconsistency research. These trends are, in part, responses to the methodological issues surrounding "statistical interactions." This section pre- sents and evaluates the methodological issues surrounding status inconsistency and social mobility. When status inconsistency first became an object of research, investigators such as Lenski, Landecker, Miller, individual cog ' ive expression based on his references, his perceptions Of his legitimate position, and his per- ceived position. 3Unfortugately no absolute average exists, only the ‘\ \ 100 and Geswender,l conceived of it as an aggregate measure, the sum of deviations from an individual's mean status, in other words, a measure Of dispersion. Critics quickly pointed out that such a measure does not allow the inves- tigator to pin point the source of the effect of the sta— tus inconsistency: it could be that only one form of consistency results in an effect. Consequently, Jackson and Burke, Lenski, and Blalock suggested examining status variables two at a time to explore the interactions be- tween variables.2 Thus, the statistical interaction and its prediction became the focus of theoretical concern. As mentioned earlier, the most powerful status inconsistencies appeared between ascribed and achieved statuses, the typical measure of ascription being race and .\ \ “ethnicity and achievement, socio-economic status, income, occupation, and\3ducation. But, Jackson and Burke, and Bloombaum, suggest that "family status" as expressed through the socio-economic statuses of Person's socializer are im- portant ascriptive variables, and they conclude that social lLenski, (1954), op. cit.; Landecker, op. cit., Miller, pp. cit.; and Geswender, op. cit. \\Q 2Jackson and Burke, Op. cit.; Gerhard E. Lenski, [ "Comment," Public Opinion Quarterly, 28 (Summer, 1964), fiV pp. 326-330; H. M. Blalock, Jr., "Status Inconsistency, i1 'Social Mobility, and Structural Effects," American §pciological Review, 32 (October, 1967), pp. 750-801. 101 mobility leads to status inconsistency.3 Duncan points to two major problems in mobility studies: the first results from data collected at two different points in time. This analysis leads to the "proble 'of intergenerational overlaps; that is, if a twenty- 'year or even a thirty-year gap between generations is used, the same men can appear in both generations.4 This study does not encounter this problem, as our data are taken at one point in time and our problem concerns the consequences of mobility. The second problem results from misinterpret- ing the effects of mobility by treating it as a mean effort rather than as an interaction.5 The classic example of the "mobility fallacy" occurs in the study of fertility and mobility by Jerzy ‘ "I. 'Barent, who compares "upward," "downward," and "static" individuals in terms.of fertility.6 \\\\q _ . 3Jackson and Burke, Op. cit.; Bloombaum, Milton, "The Mobility Dimension in Status Consistency," Sociology ‘and Social Research, XLVIII (April, 1964), pp. 340-347. \\\’4Otis Dudley Duncan, "Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Social Mobility," Op. cit., p. 82. 5Ibid., p. 90. 6Jerzy Barent, "Fertility and Social Mobility," Population Studies, 5 (March, 1952), p. 250. \ \ 102 He found: Mobility Fertility (Barent) (Duncan) Calculated Upward 2.57 2.60 Static 2.73 2.76 Downward 3.01 2.94 Duncan points:out that Barent does not take specific failure into consideration, the main effects of his status variables and that he is predicting an interaction. When the same data are used to predict these means by combining the mar- 'ginals, the results do not exceed 0.07, a very small differ- ence and Duncan concludes that mobility produces...no dif- ferences in fertility that cannot be fully accounted for by the additive mechanism.7 Lumping "stables" or "statics" together and comparing them to the marginals confounds the levels of the main effects; consequently in order to make the statement that mobile persons differ from static indi- viduals, one must show that the mobile individuals differ 'from those at their former level, and from those at their presenttlevel.8 'Now that we see status inconsistency and the ef- fects of social mobility as statistical interactions, we 7Duncan, op. cit., p. 90. U 8Even with this warning, Lenski, for example, com- pares consistents and inconsistents in four nations comparing occupation and religion. Gerhard E. Lenski, "Status Incon- _sistency and the Vote: A Four Nation Test," American Sociological Review, 32 (April, 1967), pp. 298-301. 103 first method proposed by Lenski,9 simply compares diagonals and off-diagonal cells. ADDITIVITY MODEL (from Lenski)lo Variable Xl Variable XC h m 1 H a b c M a+d b+d c+d L a+e b+e c+e Additivity Hypothesis Mn + L1 = M1 + Lm Hh + L1 H1 + Lh Interactive Hypothesis Hh+Mm.-:;Hm+Mh Mm+Ll=Ml+Lm Unfortunately, this is a simplistic variation, As Blalockll makes clear. If downward mobility and position on an in- dependent variable have consequences for X and upward mobility had no effect, then, for instance: 9Lenski, (1964), op. cit. loIbid. \\ 11H. M. Blalock, "Status Inconsistency, Social Mobility, Status Integration, and Structural Effects," American Sociological Review, Vol. 32, No. 5 (1967), pp. 790-800. i 2 104 Example12 WC BC Variable B WC 35 20 Hh + L1 = 75 BC 60 40 H1 + Lh = 80 This situation is indeterminant. Unless we have some theoretical reason to suspect that either the main effects or-the interaction hypotheses are the cause of these results this relationship has too many unknowns. If the researcher does not specify the nature of the inter- action, a significant main effect will confound it. This particular problem is a more-or-less specific case of a more general one, the "Identification Problem." As Blalock describes it: Whenever one uses a set of simultaneous equations to provide theoretical models of causal processes, he can generally expect to encounter identification problems because there may be more unknowns than pieces of empirical information for estimating the parameters. Furthermore, status inconsistency (1) makes "a priori" assump- tions regarding the signs or magnitudes of some of the co- efficients, (2) finds and measures additional exogenous var- iables and appear in some but not all Of the equations, (3) postulates certain kinds of non-linear relationships.14 A, ”lzBlalock (1967), op. cit., p. 793. l3Ibid., p. 791. l4Blalock (1966), op. cit., p. 789. 105 As a solution to the identification problem, Blalock makes several of which only one aids our study. Here the theor- ist constructs a non-linear model. Nonlinearity is implied by theories that specify the directions of the inconsist- ency effect. But this approach requires a theory to determine the form of non-linearity. Hyman makes a similar point when he questions specifying the signs of these coefficients without specifying the magnitudes of the relationships. Blalock agrees that such procedures will not yield defini- tive results. This lack of results remains to be seen. If the researcher does not specify the nature of the interaction, a significant main effect will confound it. To avoid this confounding problem, we make specific generally non-linear hypotheses predicting that only one type of mobility, either upward or downward, has an effect. As our theory specifies the directions, not the magnitudes to be expected from the interaction, we have chosen an analysis of variance design that allows for both an all over test of the interactions and individual com- parisons. Also, we confront unequal cell size that raises problems for any form of analysis. Two strategies are available for unequal n's: a least squares solution and the unweighted means analysis.15 15The least squares approach tends to give more weight to the larger cells, and if there is a correlation between the main effects then the method underestimates the interaction effect, the focus of hypotheses but it is more 106 We chose the unweighted means analysis because the focus of our hypotheses is on the interaction and our basic question is: Given A B A B is A B > A B 1 1 l 2 l 2 2 2 A2B1 A2B2 A1B2> AlBl regardless of the numbers contained within A132, AZBZ' and Ale. THE UNWEIGHTED MEAN ANALYSISl6 Since this analysis must compensate for the rel- ative instability of the small cells, the method revolves around the "harmonic mean," analogous to the number of replications in factorial analysis of variance: P = levels of Factor A Q = levels of Factor B = Pq + +... “h 4 .9 %-> 1 2 pq powerful (more apt to produce significant results) than the un- weighted means analysis. On the other hand, the unweighted means analysis gives equal weight to each cell, although if extreme variation occurs between cells, it seriously under- estimates the main effects in particular. Also, in the past most experiments were concerned with main effects and their estimation; consequently, if there is extreme variation in cell size and this variation is due to sampling, the method was considered inappropriate for estimating main effects. But in our case, we are interested in the interaction. 16B. J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental -Design (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962), pp. 241-244. 107 As can be readily noted, any number of small n's, less than five, will severely decrease nh and the presence of very large cells does little to compensate for several small cells. The estimate of a level mean Mi and Mj is: Here A1 is the mean of means in row i, not the mean of all observations at level i. These two means will differ when each cell does not have the same number of observations. The estimate of M.l: r =gA—B,, j 12 i P And the following estimates, the grand mean: 23 ABij ij Pq % "0 L33 €112.13 Variance due to main effects and interactions are estimated ”M by the following sum of squares: _ —— -- _ — 2 SSa — nh q:§(Ai G) __ _, — 2 SSb — nh ijIBj G) 88 —H{AB'°—A°-B‘+G)2 ab - hlflj 1] 1 J The cell variance is calculated by a pooled within-variance procedure. 108 SSij = m xijm - (mxijm)2 nij And the error variance or within cell variances is a pool of SSij.: SSw.cell 8513' dfw. cell = ( nij) - pq. Contrasts are calculated: t = ABij - A312 MSW. cell (%— + fi£—) ij 12 ANALYSIS Our analysis falls into four main areas: (1) a test of the assumption that individuals living in Costa Rica and Mexico have a more ascriptive value oreintation than those living in the United States or Japan; (2) a direct test of the relationship between the socio-economic , variables, occupation and education, and the dependent variables, powerlessness, normlessness, social isolation, sense of autonomy, perceived future life conditions, and authoritarianism, across countries; (3) a presentation of background information, inter-item correlation, inter-sum of item totals, etc.; and (4) a test of the status con- ‘sistency hypotheses. 109 Preliminary»Analysis Before proceeding to the main analysis, inter- item intercorrelations will be made (as well as correla- tions between item and remaining items). Testing Basic Assumptions The basic assumptions will be tested through a one-way analysis of variance, parametric with the scale items and non-parametric (Chi Square) where dichotomous items are used. Background information on the rate of occupational and educational mobility will be looked at and presented in Appendix V. The intercorrelations be- tween the scales and the independent variables will be presented in Appendix II. We hypothesized that (1) powerlessness would negatively correlate with socio-economic power cross- culturally and (2) normlessness would correlate with socio-economic status in a universalistic achievement- oriented society, but not in an ascriptive or particular- istic achievement-oriented society. Consequently, we will examine the independent variables separately using a two- factor design with (l) nations and (2) socio-economic variables (education and occupation). This permits us to examine differences between nations as well as the effect of the socio-economic variables within a nation. 110 In response to Blalock's warning17 not to attempt interpretation of interactions without explicit hypotheses which predict the direction of the differences, and given that we begin with such a large N, I will simply display the means and give no summary statistics. Background Information The main questions this study presents require at least some look at background information. First, the reliability of the scales and the structure of inter- correlations are both important for interpretation of the results. Unreliability may alone account for lack of find- ings. The measures used will be simple means, standard deviations. Kertosis, show-run intercorrelations and intercorrelations item to sum of remaining items (to check each items relationship to the total scale). Rates of mobility will be examined in Appendix V, although these rates do not enter into the analysis directly as do distributions of the independent variables. Status Inconsistengy This section examines each dependent variable, alienation (Dean Scale), powerlessness, normlessness, social isolation, autonomy, future life conditions, and authoritarianism, by a two-way analysis of variance using 17Blalock (1966), op. cit., p. 784. 111 an ascribed and achieved status as independent variables. Three analyses will be made for each dependent variable: XNeducational mobility; Occupational mobility; and achieve- ment and ascription. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND ANALYSIS This section presents three sets of findings, those relating to background information, basic assumptions, and the main hypothesis. Each section will be treated sep- arately, except when the findings in one has relevance for another. Basic Assumption--Achievement Versus Ascriptive Oriented Societies The assumption that Costa Rica and Mexico are more ascriptive in value orientation than the United States and Japan is central to our research concern. To test this assumption, we derived a set of hypotheses about the re- lationship between certain dependent variables and their occurrence in ascriptive and achievement oriented societies. These hypotheses were tested one at a time. In an achievement oriented society, the individual has more goals different from the collectives (social sys- tems), to which he belongs. Hence, he does not share as strong a sense of "common fate" with these systems as those persons in more ascriptive societies and can move into and out of a social system with more ease. Consequently, the self, the individuals' goals, beliefs, and expectations are more important in more achievement-oriented societies. Hence: 112 113 IN AN ACHIEVEMENT ORIENTED SOCIETY, THE SELF SYSTEM IS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAN THE SOCIAL SYSTEM TO WHICH HE BELONGS Our operationalization involves having persons indicate the important of self on a ten-point self-social system scale with the self at the 5 point. We dichotomized this scale scoring only those who ranked the social system as less important than the self. The social systems em- ployed are: political party, community, family, nation, and work. Political party reflects a strong difference be- tween the two Latin American countries and the U.S. and Japan (Table 1). TABLE 1 SELF MORE IMPORTANT THAN POLITICAL PARTY Per Cent United States 41.7 Japan 49.8 Costa Rica 36.3 Mexico 18.4 Despite differences in political structure, few people in Mexico see their political party as less impor- tant than themselves. While Cost Rica has slightly more people indicating this position, it has far fewer than 114 either the United States or Japan. When asked to rate "community" both Costa Rica and Mexico show fewer people willing to rate community higher or equal to the self. While the United States shows a rate higher than either Costa Rica or Mexico (See Table 2). TABLE 2.--Self is More Important Than The Community Country Per Cent Frequency United States 19.9 304 Japan 39.7 393 Costa Rica 11.6 121 Mexico 7.1 101 the major difference is between Japan and the other coun— tries. Looking next at "work," we find that here, also, the United States and Japan are more "self" oriented (Table 3). In regard to importance of country relative to self, Japan has the strongest, self-oriented pattern (26.1%), with the United States having a low 6.4%--which is still higher than Mexico (0.9%) and Costa Rica (3.1%). Both achievement-oriented cultures have more self re- sponses supporting (Table 4). 115 TABLE 3 SELF IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WORK Per Cent Frequency U.S. 23.2 355 1173 Japan 30.9 207 783 Costa Rica 7.6 79 1040 Mexico; 14.4 204 1210 TABLE 4 SELF IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE COUNTRY Per Cent U.S. 6.4 Japan 26.1 Costa Rica 3.1 Mexico 0.9 our hypotheses, although there is a major difference be— tween Japan and United States. The examination of importance of self relative to family presents two problems. First, the referent is 116 not clear. Does the respondent interpret family to mean his extended family or his nuclear family? Differ- ing interpretations of this question confound our find- ings. The second problem stems from Parsons. According to Parsons, the achievement universalistic value orien- tation concentrates all the individual's needs in one collective, the nuclear family; hence the nuclear family takes on gigantic importance. . . . the intensity of sentiment about the 'American home' may well be another compensatory mechanism. One reason for this is that the conjugal family is the unit both of kinship and of community as the local unit of residence. If, rather than the in- dividual, conjugal and the family must in certain respects be the unit of mobility. If solidarity is less of a threat to universalism and achieve- ment values than would be that of a larger unit of community as well as kinship.1 With these two problems in mind we examine self 'versus "family," finding all countries to give a predom- .inance of family greater.or equal to self responses, but 'the United States is highest (2.7% judging self more impor— tant than "family"), with Mexico and Costa Rica next (5.2% each) and lastly Japan at 7.8%. Consequently out of the five social systemic references, viz: work, political party, (Hummunity, nation, and family, only family fails to support lParsons, Op. cit., p. 188. 117 TABLE 5.--Self is More Important Than Family Country Per Cent United States 2.7% Japan 7.8% Costa Rica 5.2% Mexico 5.2% the classification. We also point to the authoritarian nature of an ascriptive value orientation whether particularistically (or universalistically oriented. Our position differs from 1?arsons', who sees the ascriptive particularistic society EiS antiauthoritarian, but agrees with Eisanstadt, who ssees the family structure of ascriptive society as aauthoritarian. This position is also echoed in Hagen's \vork. Se we hypothesize: 'THE MORE ASCRIPTIVE A SOCIAL SYSTEM THE MORE AUTHORITARIAN ITS MEMBERS. The more ascriptive a society, the more singular the goal structure and the less tolerance for social de- \fiiition. Our five-item scale produced the following 38t: of means. 118 TABLE 6.--Authoritarianism Country Sample § United States 19.32 Japan 21.18 Costa Rica 24.63 Mexico 25.52 Definitely the two achievement oriented cultures are less authoritarian than the two ascriptive oriented cultures (See Table 6). Although Parsons did not view the Latin American particularistic ascriptive value orientation as authoritarian, this evidence and other observations of family life in Latin America support our hypothesis that ascriptive values and authoritarianism are related. Next, we turn to participation in voluntary or- ganizations. We first consider instrumental organizations, *which include labor unions, farm organization, business organizations, and professional organizations. We hypothe- sized that, in achievement oriented societies, the pluralism 0f goals fosters voluntary organizations and associations for the articulation of potentially divisive elements, pro- deiing them with an outlet for expression. In the univers- alistic-achievement oriented society, individuals, vary in Agoéils, while in particularistic achievement-oriented societies 119 TABLE 7.--Participation in Voluntary Organizations Country Per Cent United States 27.0% Japan 35.3% .Costa Rica 8.9% Mexico 13.8% goal variation is predominantly across social systems. Nevertheless, in the particularistic ascriptive cultures there is little need for such instrumental organ- izations. As we see in Table 7, the two Latin American societies show a lower rate of participation in instrumental 'voluntary organizations.2 Expressive organizations like fraternal organizations or recreational groups not only .articulate the specific interest of deviant groups, but .also provide intimate contact among peers. Such organiz- ations provide anchor points for individuals by which they can make comparisons with others. Warner points to the lUniversalistic ascriptive cultures can, however, enqiloy "voluntary organizations" to articulate and express their ideologies and goals. 2The key questions concerning ascriptive-universal SOCLieties are how voluntary is participation, what it costs the: individual to belong, and how interrelated these organ- lzértions are in the larger societal network. 120 functions of subvoluntary organizations, observing that they provide a means for finding, maintaining, or advancing one's status. In an ascriptive society there would be little need for such a (see Table 6) defining institution; one's pos- ition is given either through his ascribed status. While achievement may indeed lead to higher status in an ascrip- tive society, there is no need to display or express one's position through expressive organizations. Warner emphasizes the expressive nature of asso- ciations. . . .Associations perform special and important func- tions for the social classes in excluding the many and including the few; they are excellent institu- tions to maintain social distance between the higher- and lower- class levels. Now if such organizations do appear in ascriptive societies, they should perform a similar function, i.e., rank individuals and at the same time give them an outlet for expressing their position. Within an ideal typical ascriptive system a person "knows his place," and his status need not be reinforced through belonging. Vogel presents evidence that Japanese women in- volve themselves heavily in clubs that have a quilting bee aspect, e.g., flower arranging. It seems that the Japanese liousewife puts much energy into perfecting the housewife's 3W. Lloyd Warner, American Life: Dream and Reality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 228. 121 role with tasks involving an elaborate set of performances. These must be learned throughout life. As these perform- ances involve "mastery" or achievement, some means of com- parison and of sharing common experiences is needed. The expressive organization fulfills this function. The Japanese males have their own private recreational clubs (of which relatively little is known). Whiteford5 notes that, while Mexican and other Latin American cities have clubs like the Rotary, Kiwanis, etc., they are mainly populated by upper- and upper-middle class members. One could argue that such groups were more a reflection of urban value oreintations. In any case, our data provide strong support for our notion that achievement oriented, as Opposed to ascriptive so- cieties, foster membership in expressive organizations. Both Costa.Rica and.Mexico have low rates of participation--1l.7 and 8.8 per cent, respectively, while in the United States and Japan approximately one-third of the population par- 'ticipates. Similarly, the relative importance of social organ- :izations should be greater in achievement oriented societies. PVhile our data show a relatively small number of people in- diicating a "social" organization as the most important, CTapan and the United States have markedly more persons ‘ 4Ezra F. Vogel, Japan's New Middle Class (Berkeley: UThe University of California Press, 1963). 5Andrew H. Whiteford, Two Cities of Latin America: ‘ EEpComparative Description of Social Classes (Beloit, Wis.: Eieloit College Press, 1960). 122 TABLE 8.—_Per Cent Membership in Expressive Organizations Country Per Cent United States 35.3% Japan 30.2% Costa Rica 11.7% Mexico 8.8% do ing so . The last test, the importance of religion, stems frnom the assumption that the more ascriptive system requires 21 strong ideological underpinning to its value system and TTUBLE 9.--Socia1 Organization More Important than all Other Organizations W Country Per Cent United States 10.3% Japan 8.1% Costa Rica 1.1% Mexico 1.6% -__r ttuit one of these ideologies can be religion; hence the SCNZiety's religion is monolithic and of central importance. A55 such, individuals in ascriptive cultures should 123 experience their religions as more important than in achieve— ment oriented cultures. However, the belief system, while monolithic, can focus either on a religious or secular underpinning. For example, the Soviet system has sacred tenets, deep emotional commitments to a supposed social force, dialectical materialism; but this is not recognized as a religion. Thus it is possible that absolutism of political and social beliefs can substitute for absolutism of a religious nature. We find that both Latin American countries consider religion to have higher importance than do the two achievement oriented countries. Unfortunately, we have no information concerning social-political beliefs on an ascriptive universal country other than on Finland6 ‘which shows a mean lower than the U.S. for the importance of religion in everyday life. Still, the pluralistic character of religion points to other difficulties with this hypothesis. 'TABLE 10.--Importance of Religion Country Sample i’ United States 6.79 Japan 3.95 Costa Rica 8.28 Mexico 7.41 124 In summary, this classification finds support through three of the five self-collectivity hypotheses, yip, level of authoritarianism, participation in instru- mental and expressive organizations, and the importance of these social organizations. We now examine the scales to be used to estimate their reliability and general metric characteristics. Alienation The intercorrelation between the six Dean alien- ation items can be found in Appendix III. In Table 11 we find item-sums of remaining item correlations for all Dean alienation items, the first employing all six items. One social isolation item (i.e., item E, "Real friends are as easy as ever to find") has virtually no relationship to the scale and we will therefore discard it in the final analysis. {FABLE 11.--Dean Alienation (Six Items) Social Anomia . Powerlessness Isolation Normlessness Country A B C D E F E IJnited States .3494 .1334 .3115 .3539 .3578 .3326 ~Japan .3368 .0679 .3727 .3356 .1956 .2028 Costa Rica .2826 .0719 .2456 .2483 .1821 .3925 - Mexico .1638 .0288 .2790 .2790 .2871 .2755 k 125 The remaining five items intercorrelate as follows. (See Table 12) TABLE 12.--Dean Alienation (Five Items) Social Normlessness Powerlessness Isolation (Anomia) Country A C D E F United States .343 .388 .361 .391 .343 Japan .355 .379 .361 .206 .210 Costa Rica .318 .268 .232 .203 .390 Mexico .188 .314 .278 .313 .278 Ir: ggeneral the items hold up cross-nationally, although the satireength of the relationship is rather low. Consequently, 'trua amount of "true" variance in alienation cannot be very egrweait. Table 13 shows that the social isolation items Ilafifer little in common in all countries while the normless- ness and powerlessness items show slight agreement. While the social isolation items do not intercorrelate, the two- :itenl scale does intercorrelate with the other scales. In all, ‘we cannot expect our subsequent analysis to show mas- SiVe mQ DMflDZdBm D24 mz\0Goffman, I. W. "Status Consistency and Preference for Change in Power Distribution," American Sociolggical Review, 22 (1957) 275-2811 Gullahorn, Jeanne E., Charles P. Loomis. ”A Compar— ison of Social Distance Attitudes in the United States and Mexico." Studies in Comparative International DevelOpment. Vol. II, 1966, 89- 102. Hagen, Everett. On the Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins. Homewood, Ill., Dursey, 1962 243 Hajda, Jan. "Alienation and Integration of Student American Sociological Review, Intellectuals," 26 (October, 1961) 758-759. Hodge, Robert W., Donald J. Trieman, and Peter H. Rossi. "A Comparative Study of Occupational Prestige." in Class, Status and Power. Ed. by Reinhard Benedict and Seymore Martinlipact. Sec. edition. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Homans, G. C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary New York: Harcourt,7196l. Forms. Princeton: Caste and Club. Inc., 1961. Inkeles, A. and P. Rossi. "National Comparison of Occupational Prestige." American Journal of Sociology. 16 (January, 1956) 339. ‘>QJackson, E. F. "Status Consistency and Symptoms Stress," American Sociolggical Review, 27 (a962) 469-480. "Status and Symp- RKJJackson, E. F. and P. J. Burkéxé toms of Stress: Additive nd Interactive Effects." American Sociological Review, 30 (1965) 556-564. James, William. Psychology: York: Holt, 1892). \>kJKelly, K. D., and Chambliss, William J. "Status American Consistency and Political Attitudes," 31 (June, 1966) 375-82. F. L. K. Clan, Hsu, Van Nostrand Comp., Briefer Course. New , Sociological Review, \%VKenkel, William F. "The Relationship Between Status Consistency and Politico-Economic Attitudes," American Sociological Review, 27 (1956) 365-368. Kimberly, James C. "A Theory of Status Equilibrium," Sociological Theories in Progress, ed. by Berger, Zelditch and Anderson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1966. 244. Kinch, John. "A formalized Theory of Self Concept," American Journal of Sociology, 68 (Jan., 1962) 481-486. 244 Klineberg, O. .Negrp Intelligence, and Selected Mi- rations. New York: Columbia University Press, I935. Kornhauser, A., H. L. Sheppard, and A. J. Mayer. When Labor Votes. New York: University Books, 1956. Kuhn, Manford. "Major Trends in Symbolic Interaction Theory in the Post Twenty-Five Years," Socio- lggical Quarterly, 5 (Winter, 1964) 61-81. Kuhn, Manford and Thomas McPortland. "An Empirical Investigation of Self Attitudes," American \>KV Sociological Review, 196 (February, 1954) 68-76. Landecker, W. S. "Class Crystallization and Class Consciousness," American Sociological Review, 22 (1957) 219-229. Lahay, T. Empey. "Social Class and Occupational Aspiration: A Comparison of Absolute and Rel- ative Measurement," American Sociological Re- view, 27 (December, 1956), 703-709. Lasswell, Harold. "The Threat to Privacy," Conflict of Loyalties. Robert M. McIver, Ed. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. iVLenski, G. E. "Status Crystallization: A Non-Verti- cal Dimension of Social Status," American Socio- .logica1 Review, 19 (1954), 405-413. .\. AvLenski, Gerhard E. "Comment," Public Opinion Quarterly, 28 (Summer, 1964), 326-330. /k“Lenski, Gerhard E. "Status Inconsistency and the Vote: “ A Four Nations Test," American Sociological Re- Linton, Ralph. The Study of Man, An Introduction. New York: Appleton, 1938. Lipset, Seymour Martin. "Three Decades of the Radical Right: Coughlinities, McCarthyites, and Birchers," The Radical Right, Danial Bell (ed.), Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1964. Lipset, Seymour M., and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mo- bility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: Univer- sity of California Press, 1960. 245 Lipset, S. M., and Hans L. Zetterberg. "A Theory of Social Mobility," Transactions of the Third World Congress of Sociology, Vol. II, 1956. Lipsitz, Lewis; "Working—Class Authoritarianism, a Revaluation," American Sociological Review, 30 (February, 1965), 103-109. Macaulay, Thomas B.. "On the Athenian Orators," Poems and Miscellaneous Writings, London: Longman, Green and Co., 1889. 340. MacIver, Robert. The Ramparts We Guard. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1950. MacKennor, W. J. and Anters. "Authoritarianism and Urban Stratification," American Journal of \// Sociology, 1956, 61. 610+620. 1\\¢Malewski, Andrzey. "The Degree of Status Incongruence and Its Effects," Polish Sociological Bulletin, No. l (1963), 9-19. Marsh, Robert M. "Values, Demand, and Social Mobil- ity," American Sociological Review, 28 (1963), 4, 565—575. McClusky, Hubert and John H. Schaar. "Psychological Dimensions of Anamy." American Sociological Review, 301 (Feb., 1965) 141-19. McDill, Edward L. "Anomie, Authoritarianism, Preju- dice and Socio-Economic Status: An Attempt at Clarification." Social Forces. 39 (March, 1961), 229-245. McPhail, Clark. "Dogmatism, Relegiosity and Aliena- tion." Unpublished research report, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1962. McPhail, S. Clark. Self Identification Within a Specific Context of Experience and Behavior. Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1965. Mead, G. H. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1956. Meier, Dorothy L. and Wendell Bell. "Anomia and Dif- ferential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals," American Sociological Review, 24 (April, 1959), 189-207. 1." [iii Ill'lu I . 246 Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Revised. New York: The Free Press, 1957. Miller, I. W. Modular Models: A Technique for Ar- ticulating Stratification and Personality Sys- tems. Dissertation, MiChigan State University, Unpublished, 1964. Eykd Mitchell, R. E. "Methodological Notes on a Theory Of Status Crystallization," P. O. Q., XXVIII (Jan., 1964), 315-325. Mizruchi, Ephraim H. Success and Opportunity: A Study of Anomia. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Mizruchi, E. H. "Social Structure and Anomia in a Small City," American Sociological Review, 25 (Oct., 1960), 645-687. Nagi, Saad S. "Status Profile and Reactions to Status Threat," American Sociological Review, 28 (1963), 440-443. Neal, Arthur G. and Salomon Rettig. "Dimensions of Alienation Among Manua and Non-Manual Workers," American Sociological keview, 28 (August, 1965), 599-608. Parsons, Talcott. The Social Syspem. Glencoe, 111., Free Press of Glencoe, 1951. Pearlin, Leonard I. "Alienation from Work: A Study of Nursing Personnel," American Sociological Review, 27 (June, 1912), 314-326. Rhodes, Albert L. "Anomia, Aspiration and Status." Social Forces. 42 (May, 1964), 434—440. Roberts, A. H. and M. Rokeach. "Anomie, Authoritar- ianism, Prejudice: A Replication," American Journal of Sociology, 61 (January, 1956), 355-358. Rogoff, Natalie. "American Public Schools and a Quality of Opportunity," Education, Economy, and Society, A. H. Halsey, J. Floud, C. A. Anderson (eds.), Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, \ 1961), 140-147. / \V Sampson, E. E. Status Congruence and Cognitive Con- sistency, Sociometry, 26 (1963), 142-162. 247 Schumerhorn, R. A. Society and Power. New York: Random House, Inc., 1961. Seeman, Melvin. "Alienation Social Learning in a Reformatory," American Journal of Sociology, 69 (Nov., 1963), 270-284. Seeman, Melvin. "On the Meaning of Alienation," American Sociological Review, 24 (December, 1959), 783-791. Seeman, Melvin and John W. Evans. "Alienation and Learning A Hospital Setting," American Socio- logical Review, 27 (December, 1962), 772-782. Sherwood, John J. "Self Identity and Referent Others," Sociometry, Vol. 2 (1965), 66-81. Simmons, J. L. "Some Inter-Correlations Among 'Aliene ation' Measures," Social Forces, 44 (March, 1966), 370-372. Srole, Leo. "A Comment on 'Anomy,'" American Socio- logical Review, 30 (Oct., 1965), 757. Srole, Leo. "Social Integration and Certain Corol- laries: Eunomia and Anomia," American Socio- logical Review, 21 (Dec., 1956), 220-224. Stogdill, Ralph R. Individual Behavior and Group Achievement. New York: OxfOrd University Press, 1959. Stone, Gail, Form J. "Instabilities in Status," American Sociological Review, XVIII (April, 1953), 149-162. Struening, Elmer I., and Richardson, Arthur A. "A Factor Analytic Exploration of the Alienation, Anomie and Authoritarianism Domain," American Sociological Review, 30 (Oct., 1965) 718—775. Svalastoga, Kaare. "Social Differentiation," Hand- book of Modern Sociology, ed. by Robert E. L. Paris. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1964. Tausky, Curt and Robert Dukin. "Career Anchorage: Managerial Mobility Motivations," American Sociological Review, 30 (Oct., 1965), 725-735. Tiryakian, Edward A. "The Prestige Evaluation of Occupations in an Underdeveloped Country: The Philippines," Amer. Jour. of Soc., 63 (Jan., 1958), 390-396. 248 TOhnies, F. Fundamental Concepts of Sociology. C. P. Loomis (Trans. & Suppl.). New York: Ameri- can Book Co., 1940. Tucker, Charles W. Occupational Evaluation and_Self Identification. Thesis for the Degree of Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1966. Tumin, Melvin M., and Collins, Roy C. "Status Mobil- ity and Anomie: A Study in Readiness for Deseg- regation," British Journal of Sociology, 10 (1959), 253-267. Tumin, Melvin M., and Arnold S. Feldmon. "Theory and Measurement of Occupational Mobility," American Sociological Review, 22 (June, 1957), 233-234. Turner, Ralph H. "Upward Mobility and Class Values," Soc. Prob., 11 (1964), 359-371. Turner, Ralph. The Social Context of Ambition: A Study of High SchooI’Seniors in Los Angeles. San Francisco: Chandler Pub. Co., 1964. Vermilyd, Herbert. "On Measuring Status Consistency," American Sociological Review, XXVIII(Jan., 1963), 455-456. Vogel, Ezra F. Japan's New Middle Class. Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1963. Waisanen, Frederick. "Stability, Alienation, and Change." Sociological Quarterly, 4 (Winter, 1963), 18-32. Warner, W. Lloyd. American Life: Dream and Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Whiteford, Andrew H. Two Cities of Latin America: A Comparative Description of Sgcial Classes. Beloit, Wis.: Beloit College Press, 1968. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. 241-244. Wolfie, D. America's Resources of Specialized Talent. New York: Harper, 1954. Yasuda, Sabura. "A Methodical Inquiry Into Social Mobility," American Sociological Review, 29 (1964), 3, 16-23. 249 Yinger, Milton J. Toward a Field Theory of Behav- ior. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1965. /\V~Zelditch, Morris, Jr., and Bo. Anderson. "On the ; Balance of a Set of Ranks," In Berger, Zel- ditch and Cohen, Sociological Theories in Progress. Zetterberg, Hans L. "On Motivation," Sociological Theories in Progress. Vol. 1, Ed. by Berger, Zelditch andIAnderson. Boston: Houghton Mif- flin Co., 1966. 124-142.