. 1,2: ‘ ,.,'
.vaz‘mv >‘
(fl, “'3 n 2:), .

 

;.

‘v. .
“r. ‘
«a»:

.‘I‘

w ‘ » '~

m’fi
'.*'

43““

,3: Re?
35%|!»
451' "

,_ r‘ " -
“ u.‘;‘¢"y«

L \ -

n .‘.< . ‘.'.

«.mfi-i‘ “v "‘ ‘
. or-

k'. u
‘4": 7.

 

6

.I.\f 0

3:3"

“it
a. ‘
«but

1.

V5}:
—.. ‘5‘

 

1445"“

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
AI‘ J E PIILIC AL Alix". LY'SIS CF THE BELI’TTF
REF’E‘EITS CF P33350123 WITH OPTN AND

CLOSED COGNITIV“? °VSTWTS
presente By

Robert N. Vidulich

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Jill—degree in P ‘

#196767“ WMMZ

Hilton Rokeach, Ph.D.
Major professor

Dateflec‘ 6/73,?

 

I
1

I ~ ’~ \ "\ ‘ * 'f‘ 4— I "‘ V“ ‘~ (V \ '-"\ “ y"; " r. 1“ ~: ‘5‘ o 1 -
-Lo mepObc Ol bid pTC‘,n ithst AtloA MAs to

social FHfU'CLlS oi par

C
C 1‘
;.
b
,-J
K,
\j
C
\
*G
S \
y.
p)
1
(P
<.
d
C
(
P-s
)—
0.

" <‘. v- -- ‘ \ ' r‘ rm '- ' 'V V 1 131- . - 2 V ." V-V~""-,‘-r- ‘1 - ”a " -P *.
EOLS WlLL opeA And cloceo co ulLlVd LJDVCJQ. .ue ro-
‘- -‘ H - -. ,‘ +- r a C. ,- r. *- /' -; ‘ ‘ :-- .
ICPL nee VPOA; COLCopo Jab PCLOFLJlQLCU Wl-nlu a CO;-
. t l ’1'3‘fr‘ " W' 1 . x {—1 7 J I 3 l" W 7")
1.1..)lVC— .16; Opt} LLCL}. ll. (4 (—31".'Or"r(. 1-13.1..lcx. It 101 L1 .,‘ W(‘,‘L€

.-- ‘-_ _ o ‘ n L‘. . ‘ ._ “_ 'p" o ‘__ o I . . '1 1 ‘t v -\ _u v. 1 Q
COuCopchallZQG as oLC at .Ofilvlqd taco LJ tic anl-

(I)

J 7--.— 4—. —.«~,'«‘ 4-'-,-~.i——~"r1~» 74¢. Lx~v ’b‘ D 1 ' ~| "L—"
VJ.C'.~‘.'.~1 L10 bL'..‘-‘Sl—”.A"1‘JLC1 L10 ANAL») QJ’SfLLNI Oi. ijA.’ LL (p051. Vl‘Je

rcftrcnts) are dis.tlitfc (negative referents). Three
oimoisions on which belief refo relts COAld vary—--
narrowin;, difiorent iation, and isolation--—wcre de-

. V O

rived from Eokfiach's co mitive tneory, which deals

'itn open-1 o —0103 . co nitive (belief) systems. It

was ;enerally hypothesized that pvrsons with rela-

creasod mar‘rowin , o‘ercacou oil. ror‘iation, ago

ixo oczscd isolati‘n Oi

(

their belief referents, in com—
parison with iniividuals witA relatively Open cog—
nitive sysuems.

One-hundred ninety—seven introductory FSJCLQlO;j
stodents were ;ivox tne Do matism scale, the index of

.. ( .A- \ . ‘ . , ”'V‘ , 0 .‘t 3 ' 4 P . , ‘tro '. ”a? "1‘ .. .‘.‘
opourtos— Llo5cQAeec 01 co “itive SJQEC 0. .nc ot~

tored under anonyrous conditions.

Trom the total pool, extreme groups of tairty Hifn

‘ J ' ‘ — '- 7‘ . .1- - . ‘ I v . 7 .
| . \\ ,1“ V' *1r ' 1 “v . ‘ I. f“ .1 en,‘ . /. .~ - ..) . .. . . . . 1. . ,
' ‘ ' . .. I ‘ . f i I ". _ . (a ,, (3‘ , _J (1 1 4f. .‘ f‘ ‘ ; ‘ d... . ,
..L4. V14 - «L LJ'J .L.()-J ‘) ~»-~\ .' _\I A: ‘ l.) I. -..(1 'x/ x) turn» - (.- I.) -1 .1. z.’ \J ijiml IA. .lJ, 11"; :4 [Jx'f‘
v 4_ .. . ' ,_ r _ 1 _ . . .. ‘_ . . . _‘ . ‘ _ .
. .-‘\ ',. . ’I . x. m) 7H ' 7.1 r;- .“t .-. -' _. -- - ~ 4. . - £— A . .-\ '
~J-. ‘..J.. 11\)\.'. _.- \Jt .-u'~..L ‘J_- i.‘ v.1 1.1.1..~.:'-.A ..L'.: L if.) .‘_ .mflj. Ln) #:1'Kjw, -1}: f

’I ‘ ‘ n . -« .
'.' f,‘ f" "a 'g': /\ "' 1 A "H "0‘ \." /|~‘ 'fiJ— «- ~«- ~\",' . - ...,.. .1) V v -\ ' «q fix
...-:--k.‘.v.'.'.»t) \-2‘.‘- 1.1"; [)_:1_’.,,1'.\ (/\)1.‘.11:“LI 3 \' f 4.: u. '\)I"‘ O 1'?\j F it'—
. . .. .. -. . ~ . I

L J ‘- a- V \l
’4 1""l‘" "-13 " ‘— (\ ‘ ' n "'1“ l" ' fl "‘ " t“ '\ ' 1 '1 "‘ N ‘ 1 7 ‘1 d n , ‘ -
cu . -1 N . ~, \ ' , ' . 3 . . v’ :' \
I -- ‘ - . ‘J A.) O o, - - M2 K1 - , V! x.’ A- JL; . L) L.) ‘V ~ - ._. (“i L t; t}'.-. 3.1 x.) L. J- L (\J -. ~’ (.1 .1 ’0 l
- s ' '
. _ . . - ,' n 4. - ‘ -. - - . ., ' . . . 1 w n
, .,.-'3 .11 '1‘. r - ~ , ' “‘(ugnfl “var“ 'n x: I: :0 f' "1 ‘ 'w ' "1
‘ ‘vtli _1 - («51.»); o Uv4.«.i.\(-LJ.\x ‘JL‘ =/\1.4.1-~A. A‘. :L .3 L.) th CK (2.....1.
. . ‘ - 1 1.. . - " " . .' w ' ‘
- A. ('5 ‘— r‘ . I r; r“ 4 f‘ 5 ' '3' C‘ ‘ s 1"\T v‘, ' 1 r. ~«. 1 f; hwy ._'w -' r< ' "t 1‘
.. I”, \.. .x J .- 0 . {-11. L) .. L. -. L, L}. . - A J‘d u .A. n.) O .1- (.2 \_.t Ix,» AC .1. i... .C/ ~41 h 1' x) -'_ C) 3'... Li .2 O
.. - . , - -‘1 .' , z- W : . . . .° ' . ‘ .. 1 .. 4 ‘
.2 ' ".-,_‘. " {’3 .' v ‘ ‘ "b "'J I" 3 "J '1‘- C‘ ‘ ‘- ’\«‘C? .-> "’ ‘., .' "y‘Q 11
I" a..;&.) x’ ~ , Cl. / -1. Ms -v . U i... 1 .1- -.. , w s . ~/ ~., ‘3 L; A. -. L». 1.! .41.} .1.) --» .- L: 1‘1 .. -3 . l L). .‘V J V. ’3

q 1-

\..‘

:15
A
C.
Q
\
(2‘
f-
L1
4
’4
'U
(N
d
' ‘J
c 1‘
I‘d
p.)
,.
‘ fl
5-)
.1
l‘x'
J
”1
0
7“.
i-
3
U.)
.‘3
w
0
r:‘
H
§.2
1...!
I
;. .
C
’0
C

 

 

‘ O c
4': n f \ a 7" » .“ 5‘". .- \ . ‘f‘ j, "n 1 \’ 1'w .‘ _ c: [114 a: twat“
-- ;A. (fl; L_V - A-.x.rlt . -A\ ..*. ’11. I’3lsChill utml 1-1-.-Aot
A .. . 1" ,~--, 9-“ '~" f“ ’1‘ "» (1 Hm . m -..-‘;~ C h' '37: ’3) z" 0 an :1 ° ‘3. "1 'f‘. o to") H 71 i
1., A.’L,.L ‘JK.’.~i)’ '_.. “ .k/ I. t.) t..-) .‘c'xJLL, 1).,1 \.-K_,..\/V‘.A ‘..~t.) L{A\.OA *1;

,. Y, 1 w- F‘!"‘.‘\ ,‘ n _' J- . 'x'r’ Lr 1-”.‘.\‘ . Tn. \v.v‘- -.- r} 7 4~—. f\ —. N?" J- .xv" q. 751— a) .-().j 4—! I )
x1. ',1. \J"- L)\‘..Lll'/'.. 1.1..) U-..-..... 2‘“; £)Ok),-ll.g. -1 (.. '4'..- .1-.ALJV AQVJ-‘D'

- - - - . 1 -- L.‘ 4.? .. . . . , : .. L“..- J ‘- .~ - 1-
\ a - 1 r‘ f; . / .-’3 r\ T . a 3 x, '3 r ‘. 1 t 1 3 \ , ,r “J (j r" m a . __ 1 h.
.1-"--'.--(/ o .Lii LLJLIMJ... \I. .‘4' v.1 L21. . ‘Jl kW 'L)L.) . 11 Y~'C’U.:‘ak'.‘- 1.1, Q ‘) Jcbb
L L A. u . l
. ' 1...? -, .. '1 - I- .' -. . - ,. ,3 . . .' 4— .° w.-. I. ~. - . V . A." . . l -
.1 .ar "_ . (in . t“ . x (3 ,-~. -2- a '.,. -\ .
1.1;; L ~:_J..’.,4. L; ‘. \Jr -- ‘1‘);- C].\Ju.‘.; CI‘.) ’1 -- L11 VL, guy i.) uK;...Q VAJVFl-I .1. O ,__.U tlo

 

‘41Qthle coca co uitiva systems. This divcropancy W78

1;;A1J 1 ?Jrctioc of r-d coo angrontqs o. g Elie pérsons
9L”LHJ ti; olgscd ; lgcots' Lxliofs.

To trot 3;. filffcr“*ti-t o; Alxonslo», (1) All 8 a

cot" hu?3 “LVUJ irforxatloA t;:t3 Loo.t the pAblto per-

.74
x J
(-
o
C)
O
5"

_, I
.'
‘2'
Cl‘
F...-
,..J
YV
J
(7;
_J
W
C?
4
<.
rI
Ll
.J
‘ -4
‘4

p --
k1
f'
\v
D .r
,_;
O
0
L3
PJ'

I»
I
F.3-
(A
\4

I
O
' a
C'f‘
C l“
(J
C
"5
O
, 4
\J
Q
C)
{D
C)
V-v‘
'4.
%
C)
C l"
:7
(V
U)
1 1
0)
O

A
{‘3'
V
3)
'r--‘
1...:

1“ v. .1-. \ l“- ,' - ~ ~~\ ~- ‘- ' . ' >. n r . .A . .-‘
3-0.ects ritcd the r LCffl iva saliei rsfcruuts on

' " .~ ’ ‘r' \ i T v— 7" - ._,. . j . r -’ 4— ‘ ‘0 ' - -~-- - - -
de Pee 0L si mile r . so Si.LlilCduo differences were
found retween the two ,roaps in the exgert to w ich

he ative melief referents are pe.rce ived a similar, or

U)

-' -."£". ,"»"-{P ‘ r¥"\ —\ (‘~‘;/‘ ~‘.-- ’1‘Qar1 -, ‘1~--‘ -
uhullferedbldCCQ. lLe pFOfOohd rdpotnes is was thus mn-
Siestantiaied.

Two inoices were also outaineo for the isolation

dimension: (1) All 3: gccts cited tile soarc~s of inzor-

mation about their he ative belief referents. Three

(1)

- '- .‘ ' ' V~ . ‘ 1 § 0 ”v’\"\ 3‘ .7. ‘
source—cate ories w re tseo. ioverso al contact" titn
the negative referent or his statements, Lass weoia, or
other positive referents. There was no sifrificant srp-

A

p rt for the hyoothesis ghat pers sons with relativel“
closed CO;LiLlV€ systems should obtain less inlormation
ahoat tEeir re ative referents directly irom these re-
erents than persons with relatively open cogniti"c sys-
tems. rhe results, however, indicated that the rela-
tively closed supjects tended to use direct sources less

‘ferents than for positive refer-

71’
LC:

Cf
H.
<
(D
c“
(D
H
H
)- h

a
ents. (2) Ore—half of each Qroup rated identical state-
to either a positive or a ne‘ative he-
lief referenc, on an ace 0: ance— Hej c ior1 scale. It was
hypotLesized that persons wits relatively closed co;nitive
svstems would show ;reater acceptance of pronouncements of
a pos'tive referent and greater rejection of pronoancements
of a ne:ative referent than subjects with relatively open

‘1r‘infis in the Oaposite direction

0
O
'7)
H
" Y”
H.
<
(L
(1?
c. =4
U)
(+-
r;
En
.
”1
C

from that articioa ed were obtained. Relatively closed

satiects showed “re ater acce 0 ;ar ce of statements attri-

A.

Thus, s’;nilioant evidénce war obtained for only
one 0? ?he *rwce pro3osed comochual dimensions. Elfin
“olarization of oelief on the dose re ation 'ssue w(s
evidevt in the sample used; this tzfldfld to confound
varlfirlons ’T the co niuive cluen31on of Openness-
clooolhos“ 139d to isolaqe aha exporiucntal groups.
While the lack of \rior anqlvses of the tzrce con-
ceptual dimensions used also limips ”he ;cneralization
of these rosglts, the invostiwatlon provides inferential

. "- ' ‘ |,~/ \wfl'. . Y ‘ “.\ " I" ‘3 ‘ \ " 4“"?
evxdevca for toe Mollltj of Lie pfOpOoCU CCCORCepoLdll-

r r v'~ 4' f ~ ~ 0 ‘ - ." n x‘. A .m ; ~' ‘, x L w ‘--,.\ . 4' “ -.\ f“ -. ‘J r '1. ' fl
Laulofi o; CfiLLPUuCC ;U aid as CO.mlbiVC u-llmf PGICPCMUS.

 

r“-' .,"T)* .>'*v"‘1 r: :1‘ vnTo - I“ 18;! ‘ 7”” ..-?‘.1‘.Tv‘-"T. A’“
11.1 “.34. .LlleriL; t1- rxLLultJ K)“ .L;-.L -. 144.0 Lil—41:14.4..LJJ'ELQ

-_-1 v" -\ u -.\-A. 'T ~v—‘f l-\v'~ r - v V‘ “/1-37\ "I\ ~;-‘- --.-v-—v~—w (-‘v.y:- T:~:--—.-_~q
Lu: BM-LULA£N) v-IJ.-.L L .4... IXKI; CUKJUHJ 'VLI 'l‘.I-.L\/AL UlULLal‘AJ

M1 '-1 21’ " ~1- "
ALQaL—JJi L .V . \T .LLKJJJ: #4.;

-. ‘r'.

x

L‘. (1 ‘ . Pa 5 “ “,7, I‘ .‘ ”-1” (‘4— -"-:.
0 one go 001 lo? nuvuhcpd o: w Io: Unclc
, ’4: 5.: (w- A "r A. ' .~, fir :—--- . " . ' L1 4-. ~,o.
\Jf ...l. 1.1L ail gdatcfi Lilly," )' .L Jar L)f A "1. C-. .LV'i‘i‘.
1 dart: a1 11:11.1. l11.1¢.;;

3 ) ‘ 1 , ,) 5‘
‘ ‘ ' I 1 .
I “J L ‘V 'ya 0 -

('3
p:
(3

r—V‘
a
, )
rv
\v

|,,/‘—v1 « 1—4 1)::1'7' .x’VADvV"?
LCV.. \JiL Cs: ' AuvLJvL-LLJ.

IM'J

b.

O

V .2-

1 I“: .- 1\ -._r.‘

111'."'O""fl7- .fi
HUL»-- i'L~—JLJ'.;A—JA M.-.4'..k.)

d finally to Zarrara aLF

.7. _ ‘ (_‘. .» .0 r L— .c .
UKXL]. U: .ta if.£CK311L’J.V\-.3 .

./

H‘
r"'

other help

,1 (5,1 .r r r ..1- PL— 4_ - ..
‘ lollow “Paouape guloelus, 90 the

1.. INTP‘\“‘“IbI

Puroose of the Study

i

Overall Plan
ll. THE RESLREECL QROUP C KEEPS
theOP-,1oo1 Au&1b’ ’Sb Of the

"‘ .a L' , ,, . , {A \ f. ,V 4..
14L"‘J_CLW£:1-C\;’ ALQ.1J LULLC‘MJ‘LJD

.[l_

—",’v .I "g 7- .' ;_- ,‘ - ‘ , _ (A , ") , ~ '
{LAVAAAW OJ LiQ thafiuoliqu 1);] ;\.\.;... ul'r‘HC‘Q

Jro p mole ror

A11 QVLL-O'Q.LO. {1:10 EMJJ DEW“. 13.3 Lot.

.3 ' 1’. ,- YT) , ."i ,l - -. ' .
Cl End m3 Clu CC UTOdp VVHVCUL

#Crflfifi “_\“""“‘.‘ “'Q‘"“ "‘"‘ '.“)T:“"‘.":"1‘"'j 1| ‘\':‘\'-1 :1" \\ 1m£)':
111. lufi oLLiufi‘uufiunuhl qup

., .;_ l L) ___‘ '.y - _. a
Jo 01 the ocllCLH
Siom

statement of the Problem:
The reti Cal F0“molations

1V. 1373 DOLUJI

W
O
O
H
S};-
C?
H.
O
D

T- I. 1' ‘ A, n \‘l 4' ‘1‘ b". "‘ [A
l'ACbi Larbxuel-v 0L Lppll“L/lo Ch
,‘ 1 a :1 ¢ ' J

QCLlCL ujbbphs

- n l ‘ . ~ .-.-~ ,. a \n v‘ * ,1.
hCaboPUmuflL CL gollcl nvloFVHo

*‘ .2 3y. ,3 .' -‘ .3 F 7" C‘
J-‘ I L‘ A o .A. - A
U C b O 0

*4.
F.
M

H“ N“
xxiila

H

m

U)

\Q

14

m
LA)

.:‘.. '3‘: w ‘ ., «4 .J .-,
lme tllot quetloLhulIuo
lne IntePV1ew poned‘

Scorim;

of the Lelief

Dimensions

Composition of

Dogmati

Sm, AUG, ant

lLtelll;ence

Chic]? V

Treatment of the
Statistical Methodolo;y

'1 Am. ‘: .
hall/1‘3

H.

V 1'1

<1
}_J
C 1
L—i
U)
<2
C."
CIA
H
C)

V1 1 . smmmy
RLREHENQLS

APPLQDICES

arlaules

for the Hypotneses

A. bocmatism Scale

L. lute

rview Screoule

iv

the Sample

Baton—-

FALL

L A)

1L0

LIO ‘ 11 CL“

r_~ \ vim 7—1
1%-:le

1.

12A

DO _"rr:.;

' a11-. SI.“ , A
EVVCCL e 1

VB.

1-3 A
.r' ~‘V‘
u‘L ONIKJS

Two lndiccs of Socio- Economic

of Rita and Low D01matic J

Jolle a Class and Reportca

Ci€1d€3 FOl.lC 3-V»I" <3 of‘ffi 3 arx
1

Do matic G

a and Intellii

'7‘ ”‘1' 1:"!
1A.. 1414b

roups

Sex of Hijh a d M w Lo ratic Groaps
Marital Statos of Hi¢h and Low Dogmatic
Groaps

.Roli io's Affiliation of Hi;h and Low
Do 3L1 Groups

Ereqacncy of Charch Attendance of Hi_n

and Low Dogmatic troops

ntia 1 Political Prc3
Low Do;

Pre i_ac‘
Hi n a o

.J

'6')

Political Par y Pra Jere nce

)8

Low Do;matic JPOL;

Intensity of Attitude

mation of Hi:

roqucncj of Choccli At t3

Toward Dos
;h and Low D04matic Groups

fecence oi‘

LuLlC uroops

6 31‘8-

auce of Hi,b

and LOW DO¢matiC G OLps with the Catnolic

Subject Excladcd

"Adjusted" Tota Hom3cr of No9ative
Refercnts for Hi_h and Low Do matic
Groaps

Analysis of Covariance

Total \un or of K3 ative
with Ave nd Iota llij;eicc

of

111"}

t‘

7“

H.) ._3

a
EFL nts
hi3 ld Constant

"Adjusted”

FA

""1

-1
\AH

‘41: i-“

O
117\
.L_ o
"1,.
b—KJ.

\‘1 ‘ ’3'1 \ f) ‘| "‘ I _ _
O Layne? OI Lalieyt
{D ’“u‘fi’1‘ 'fi ’3 far) .31.": “‘r r;).i T .7
3 fv L _.— ' [V I.) g. n i 13 v 3-1 (2.1 1C ...‘OVJ

Iotal E mop? of
ilC-‘i

r0493<
AnalJSiS of Jovariance of
H3mtar of "Frame" Lo ative
witki Age au;o Irfixalliwxaico

.‘H. ' -' , -3 H . ,,. x 7,.
«0L 1 “count Of Staut:nf.nt
IfiiiEPCffid3 for in- 1 axLi.Low
}rolps

.m‘.‘

o covariance of

v ‘ M1» ‘ t‘ C‘ -,\ r - .‘ N \f'

~thcP o: gta3ameot “a;
L.

\
{eieWAnts with A13 aha Int
1 °"'

- ,H 3 (\ -.._-
of"'L:st, Icwzm33vc

Ahalysfs of Covariance 01
71
.3 L

ith A°e and intelligence

LOW Do matic GPO:

J. . -‘._*- -—

"- (J 3 .3 ' . .I- 1*» ., .'_.:
(gali a ainaL ~333_ re lLLO:

. 3 ' ' 3 ( . n .3

LAM-.1 I .. 131/” "’.ol\.’ Urll’[‘\"5 L\,3

A‘ L . r Tn” ' -

itw To “-Lic so yo 0; Foo
P , V' :\ V." ‘ I '1"
uf’ i“ ._‘.'.Y3 .‘.\;_L\“1—\‘l bu

~ ’ W I‘" ’Y: ’u‘u rx 1’1 T -\ I
c 3Atb for n3,h ano Low

Numtar of Posntivc Rafaram-
F

1.3,, , ‘

11111—3 TOKIUJ—
-‘ v.‘—“
lLéiLi3m313'mb

T

I! 1’ I 3 ,-»
“6,3
Lajma

4..
U

F4.
<
(D

L
x

O

,1

tLe
Ht}
elligIJQCG

1.3

'fl + g~
LO ha.

I
ithc
T 1’:
Jo Maoic

a -‘ .1 . 3 . .' 4.
of PeroOna eco 1390 on 3 L333
of 5A Names-("”‘f “or L 388”-

A )1;

.__‘

p 1 L.)
‘1‘) .—I ”f.- ,(3‘ ' “3 ' ‘
L .. 3 L ‘ s4. k
‘3 4 - s r 3- ‘

-g V '... .‘sf‘.’ C3- [3

-3~: q _ fi_
11-3311 LOLSLaut

fa;

\

£7")
,1;
:13
)L.
3

1A)

(3 A)

U"

C, a:
C? _.
4’ .1

6i

Analysis of Covariance or Information
Inojces with Age and Intelligence Helm
Constant

SimLis Pity Ratin; of Positive and
Negative Heferorts Ion Hijn and Low
Dogmatic Crouis

Analysis of Covarisz nee of the NQQaLiVQ
Refs :1? snt Similar'i ty Ratint‘s wi tn Age

7

and IntclIi 3108 ILL 10 CorIs ta.nt

Source oi‘ Information about Positive
and I"j-tLV8 Refsrents fknéiti n and
Low Do. ma tic Groups

Response to St
a Positive I 33I s
u14n and Low Do matic GPOJ

,JL
(3,

x

L.

ssponss to Sta to monts AttribLtco to
i ithLi 3:," I"; :lt (I‘GLUJLLS) by I‘llgfl
nd Low Do ma C Groups

X _

.‘ L

{DA—755

1:1alysis of Covariance of 388001 30 to
tato“n1t Attribltod to a Pbu3thC

:eant (“Mrsnuii with A 3 and
atollL encc hold Constant)

J

C, :

n I sis o: Lova rIance f Response
t teI nonts AtL11L3tLd to a No-at1ve
Re fsreit (It Lass) with A o and
Intelli ence Iioio ConstaJt

U331 H130?

92m

vii

PA

01
Ci'\

‘1
LG

{1

VT"

v.14

-

1' -

I

 

O

«b
3;

Q
U

,

1.01”;

1ot

1“

tioal

A
I

theorc

)
4

SOHL

(1 L“

ilegu

.L.

7

115

‘L. Ga

-\

TY‘ C) _L l“

A

to e

>t

v V"
L

1‘
k

a.-.
C
I 1L

3V0}? .

)

\
L

CHIC.

no
.1.

a:

a.

t.
I

I

"1

O E“ S

t

413

V
-_nf
.

a1 form?

I

LLC‘

t'

')

\_‘.

-\ V
~f‘LCer"
"(:15

A.
0

““10?

id ..

r“.
1;..

re '3]

‘

E

13? fro

Lul

_‘
o
(33..

3
.LS
vb-

d
‘9 ‘n

m:

18

211’"

VJ}

7T

J

OF

3.1.“

at

S

3
a

1.1

:3

Zn“)
8.1";
63‘

u
l

-3
ti

1

J.

.4

V‘I

rst o

.4”

1“
o
. ’\
11;

..

(fildll 5L1
“ed on a 00

Pk

v,
f

V

'11 com
III C

‘ositions ahogt
“&

1y W1
L

-
'\

us~

st

\

tne

f

O

blow

V“)
‘-

p0

OI’ITL 3
'PB

0

'r;
econd

(3
\r‘
I
v,’ ‘ r-
1 L L 1:! K.-
.’_‘
k)

h

4_
L2

-he

I

titpde

LI
”'1

L

Q

it of
blLVC

(.2.

a

[:1
O;
r
.
'5
.L.

P
U

“1

‘81:-

1

AH
.1»
4b

,

I

A‘ /
-~ v‘\
.4 V

30h (

okcv

\
u

I:

:1
OJ.

1.

:L

.C
S

O

S
.1

Oall+

BELT?“

J.“

p1 f‘ e

t

m;
a. u
00

PL
ML
. i
an.
1.5

2..“
4 ,

I‘u
:L

.
tr“
.,_
AU

W
V
4

cc

”313m:

a.

1;

has

ran;,

4

p‘

1111:? Y; S .LOI -

‘

G

.

O 1"

It will be ‘vooti** zed tiat iflCiVlCdalS' belief re"
forcnts will varr on several dimctlsioms, all derived

‘“ Ch “roe to

Q
Q
Ct.
o
W
67

from he Iloxeach model, accor

which thir pCToU'alle or anizct

Overall Plan

 

In Chapter ll, a urrarJ review oi' tnc empirical
anc tucorcti al mate lal on the reference grOcp con-

cept is presented, followed by ar e alaation and re-

.—

formulation of this concept. Chaotcr lll presents a

(:J

ricf ai-a 1'31 3 of lokcach's model of Open—to~closcd—
cliei—oistclici svstcms, the eorctlcol Coagctions

irom his m0ocl, a» the SfoOlflC ngotncscs Ol toe

‘\(‘. " r‘~ - T r\ ' ‘fir\~ *- ' W \ \ '3 ‘f‘ "y 7" \ “x V .: I' ' (V V: A '7'.
Crmfigtcr’ J, cmil tinudtc“ Jl CCAytai.g3 two (gisc .Jtiori«oi

(v
ht)

tn*3’

indin s. Lhfl invcstigation s s rwarizco in

Chapter Vll.

on is opcr or closed.

\J‘:11&PLH‘-“ 1.1.

7'377‘.‘ LF' “L ‘I«“‘;"“‘ ,‘1 /\T'D
.1... ;;L. -1L.4 .‘vu C.;.UV.L

\ C-CJ ' 4 f], V:— ~ -2. - . , ..

(J ,‘\.1 CI. Llr ‘3 VIKJK.) v (:21'k. Ix}; 4-3.1-‘t7L-l'ldl— NJ JILL (.: [K] C,:‘ \\'/S Di.) (Aka I“.
) 4‘— ' \v ‘ fl E‘ ‘ -- 1 ‘fi « ~ A w -'
93 -L; lui’ C- c, J '(‘L‘ uuk‘d 0*. 3.34.1; Ct? 101‘ .1 LCM '7 t1 SA) 14.“

evaluation is tnat of the refererce :rooo. The theo—
retical COuuotations of this term will se elaborated
later in this cnapter. Tue refere ca 5roap concept

. r- n - ' '5‘ ,« - ‘1 1' I‘ " .1 ‘ ”" ‘ ~ I i O. ‘2" " ~ \ t ' “I“ '3 " . . r‘ v
Col.-cz.lly Pelcl‘b LA.) LC_()£v.3 “routs WC hi1 Whithl on; l.-Lth...Cl..z.r_ll

, .q-V _ . ~, ‘ . "i - 1—, r- . , ‘ 7-.»- 0-, ,-.,,. ,1- .v 7 1. a, —' . .. ' ‘
CQMPQPQS LlQSVll, cr tug _roaos isom hricu “e ostaics nib

- _ ' . ‘. , .: 21,, -‘ , .‘g C ,, -j .l C ' . _. 1- -
(2&4th LL58, LJClLCLL‘), EL;.U Vale‘S CL..C4 ‘vJLLL'C- in“) SSS DO Ca:>‘

21 I J—‘ - . ‘ , - , r. ',~( C 1 ,, 'W ' ., - A. A
lLULM UL.\’U‘z O [IJrL‘L “(1L)(D::3U:|S to A-QVU U‘\-l"\;li U-Lc I Lr‘bt.’ LII

ase this term, (“air the COuCGEE i. lea: in a staoy of

:Qi vid al pCPCupthg of self~states. Tni” cxperineutal
~sis OEMOiStlatLd tLat oc*sois shifted tieir cw; sta~
tis evalaatio s according to tne group wits wl vich tncy comm

It is oossiole to trace i'mscu ta t roots for this con—

4.

P

cept it two i'ai:*l" diver;eit realms of soczal science.
The first of these lies in tee thinkip, of sach theorists
as G. H. Head (27), who early noted that the i dividaal
eXperienced himself as a person oulv throa;n the communi—
cated evaluatiOAS of the other members of tne groups to
which he belou4cd. Head fails d to realise, however, that
groaps and ieoividaals other than these “memsership ,rolps"
were importai t referetc e po.“t s for tee indi vistal.
Anotmer, and possibly more significaat, basis for the
reference ,rocp concept as later elao rated by figmau ago

otaers, lies in the researcn on I ames of referesce. As

an example of this trend, tee inveSLi atj on of Chapman and

1
v
5

\r

L

1

CalC

7"
‘if.’

V

sic.

l
x

i
‘

4

‘VCEC
u 00"

v
1.

I“
U «
1".‘3

\

(a

i

W
I
\.._I

)

V C;
W O 1”

to.

I
1‘ '-
L

‘ w

o

‘la
v‘. C.

”‘1
_/

I

3. l’IL 3..

III

for t'

r 1* v ‘ (.
ML)

.‘"l
H: L J

.f‘

r‘,
-.A-v-.

C,"

7 f

\

 

_ _
_ O _ .H. d t e, F
t _ Lb #U ‘1. .U . .nL mm W. . ‘b . p _
F. .l t .1. D. O _ C O a c n 0 mi .1 e .1 .
,x P a O G n ._ l .f. .C .V. S . C .1 n. P .C
u e C r e . i r e h e _ n h T D. l
. O. n S .1. a. e . . t O r C C e e C
d X .l e O . a D. .l pl w... .1 n P r. S C S
U C C C O K V nl urn 8 O n . .1
.. ,C S r” F e C O t in... w“ .l c f. P n O I.
t C .C P . .. a. C C h C a O a
”L . l I: ”JV wrl“ 3.. «WV p 11.. ”Ill. GU t P D. cal. dc 61v
0 a b l o e .i l . . h .. l m t .r . _
t 3 ol P C 3 Tu W. 1.. n l A C .1 t mi
.9 P .i m a n e l t l P a O C a e
C 0 ml :1 my, 1 1 ml .C nl C .l 1 S ml
5 J. a A... r. .C .l 0 i“ M O m C S . h 3 .l A
c m V l C C u w“ . n a. . i O c t O V
F .l a . n n. _ .l S C l 8. S . m 3 a a e
1 . - l a O, .c F S . o l h. d Wu P _ p m...
pl a... a C e T P a a O P a vu .c t G o ._ .C. n l.
e h .l O F e V I e P u T D. l 0
ml m l C S 2. pl 0 J G ) yr... 9 O 3 ml f
O O a.” t C S V t t r. n1 .0. a S .. _ 0
pl 8 .l 3 fl 45 n C .l n L. O . l .r.
O . O .l c r h 9. pl 0. 3 .1 an. F C S
S e h e f .C. u. e C O ,.. u C O C .1
8 H- U h \J t h 0 .3 C P. S n C e .1 .1 l S
m 0 t 2 t C n c H. O S t e r h t c ”J
...., S /\ O 8 p . .i . a C .h fl 9 a W. n r. l
r .l n t pl .0 c "J t m S J O P e C 3
pl P O .H O U. .Q 1 .nl .l B .1 C .. H“ h a .n 1 n. . .fi
a C t C ., c t L t t C t C a
a U. \I n n S 3 r .1” u. C r t a n .1 i .0 r l
m 5 9C. ,4. e h 0 e O a t i S h w ... e
S C a. V S t r .1 O f e e W .. C f r
pd C ( n. L MC .7. u t l. .u t l «I. O m... If” 3k 0.. . O
_ pl 1 1 f f. X C t a O. G S t l, m f t
U ml 4 l 8 a O a.” 8 C C S P S 3i O 1 U I.
3 l P d P a. _ d S f .l a l. u \l 3 P e C 8
S e v... A 6 r C O t S t 1... C H ._ S ._l C
S h a O t n, P m .l C nu m S r). T, t G
o .s l P P a Q S P l .l .l {\ O a a C P
e S J l “a O . u .. l C Q 1 C .I.
.l. 1 pl 46 a C P d S d S .c r. P u .1 .fl . . a, e
1r.“ 0 : l mm. mm A. .G VJ . I. ha 2.. fly m... D. D. n1. 9|. 1,1.
.r... P, C Lu wl 4 l ._ l U 1 lb 1L .L a a o. C .1 Lb
C n P. oi r C d C a t .1 O t O .r, k e
.l .l P pl 3 P C l u . - C n. G G K P U. r. a V n
W. C e O l 3 L .J. a L c ..L. . i.. .C _. .. .J n .l .l
W l o W t 3 .l S S r d. S .l 3 t
fl C 1.. a]. h 3 1 up. n _ C a i a. F. n a . ..
t .l l .l G T w n a l G. a ”I. c Vu C S C .l P n“
«Ms. 0 ha Luv ML 2‘. a...“ mtg Y A 1|. Y.“ WWI. m... a :1 .
3b WC... . 3L . LIV hold J. u :1. D". hr.“ 3» .er H C 0|. WV; 1
P r... H 7C. D. -. t G . _ P P O l w“. .l
.c 1 .c .l o. 8 a H- u c .r. .l C 3 P C O a
pl & wm 1.. . C C L. .D P .1. h n: n; S C V

' .- . ‘ - , I. ‘ 9 . .. '- [‘0 ' - i V ,, -
l .r. :1)! .l‘!\)ll’i .‘ >1 ’0‘. 1 . J‘ ‘J’ A. -, —, ._‘ ‘l ‘ ‘4"\ ,— 7 ;‘ V) I \ I V) ‘ ." I ‘ ’ .'
.».rl\/(- L ‘:;(\'-. Lu J.» K. l.‘f‘-L a--IJ .1. '... kl.~-- ‘) J- {1&1 .4 L V\,;_U (1’? ;_ F .LCI. ‘10:?
.-‘ ‘. 2.. ¢. ‘5 Y’,_ 'i- ,;..."_ . 3.. r“ . .‘u __ 'A _,,_ 1 .. ,. _ ___r
_ro-ps, Stutc ..- PC1:?CU.C P0~p tlrurd a1ms b0 Svd-
U

_ fil- ’ -. :— ' v-\ 1 -~ ‘ y-R “ ‘ (w I ' fl ' ' c . 1 ~ I 1 . ’M‘.
tr.37..;LL.L¢:C ttfl-) (rilll‘ff'n 1(Lth1.) (‘1-0. (.0. 31:21" .LQS on L; 1):}
.' u ' . a .' ‘ 1 n - . i 'r v" ‘. / -* (a ’ "' ‘ a. l - w .- .2 ‘r $ , .,. ..
usses Cu .h:.1—uv-1‘.udxn1:xu1 5e11—.;g1u.1.¢1 111.fl1
' 1-2. 4.1.... L-_.1 -I.. . . .. .1. -‘.. . -
7HO'JLM‘C1 u1.n3 the valbcs 3L0 Suchuafipd of oLLur
‘ U A‘- ":J .1 C‘ r} r - ‘7‘ .1 a,“ F... r) (j r ‘ ~ .1: -‘Q 1‘ l— -. V .\ f.,—. p) r .1 ." W ,_’f-, _n
[ll— II'a" J- I.) Chl ’0 L C) 2.1 1:“ L) in- Q d- (J ()r.::.'_,1rf... L! .1. '1'.’ 1'. \AL.":, 0L 1 ’1, ._' .-
’31 1' '3’".- ”
( ) 1) ° ‘- ) 2
I". \ <‘ .' -‘ ‘1 1 4 — ‘ . at" ‘ .- w r ‘ \ r I 1 ~_ '9 C" 7 .’ I - ‘
“KC/L111)? 1.51:). C O. 0:19:13”:ch J‘UV;Q U1 '1.1_L .wc‘. .111
. . . .._ ,|,. , ,. . 1‘. ., ~, .‘ , ._._ ‘ -3 .2 ,. j.
w111w1 L3 1AM? 30 IR»; 0. :11xzrborfl.3\h;l1co, ...L.t.1u
. 'fi “ ‘ r1 “ ‘6‘ “ o 1‘ L’ 1' ' 1“ I I" ‘w 'I' 1"r ‘4'V‘ " 11’“! ’ k H
_L_.'-CJ. 1;.) C» ..Lo 1411-1 L 1. 11021;]- DUE! o (liming, ;_~'\,‘L{.);.'ULL1_LVCQ.
J 1. 4 .— . .—. 1 . ‘ .l ., ,‘ . ,_ _ . , .-‘ . , .1- "‘1 .\.\.
Lu -. :3 L- ."_-u_.- 1, , 1.11:. I'b‘ 1-..:r1.u 1L .3 _.I’(J..Ii.) SC..PVC S ciu 11L, ;.:L'.L‘C
. .0 - r- .. 0... 41... .2..- ‘3 ' (7 - ,d .'
J. L':‘.;.(:i'\.3 (J; [3-1.1- L'L...Cz.’ LUL' LIMP) .1».Cl.VJ.C.--.r.~l. U-lt.:L.--.L (Mk)
I . _ r 1. ‘ _. ‘- . ‘ 1- -. . .. ' -\ J- . 4.. .. a , \ \ , .'- ,1 ._ . ,.
LT-‘l, _,L‘), Li! L; f. ULfikp ' C u g1.)U:‘CJ11t.-rJu 0L t£.§.» ITKJL UL,C,ILCC
'2. ,~- " - J ' r r, -1 ' v‘v "’-.I'- r 1,‘ 3 ' H ' "' 1 I‘ 4 '
coy rgt 1n 1,3 euriy guard of neveloynent, Quf.nes

‘ . H . , , n , ‘, ,. " r,‘
ICLence ; groups whose horns are “sum do

chorind points in structuring thg pfircqptgal field
,' i ' -' 1" ~ -‘ r~ 4 Q ‘ ,_ a . . . - a 4 ~ -‘. .1 .~ ,- 1" ) 1 ,_ . .-
p. ). bn.uut¢n.'b own Qufln.t.0h o. PCLCIULCB

' 1" ()1. D

o.

)L"O-

yo

1

:7 1
v

J

PE?-

7

ci

n—

-. .. -. ’V o'— r :- . . . ‘ 2 ‘ ~ ‘ ' 1 ‘. ‘ .t - f - . r 1- -! ‘- ". -‘ ',. w." 2.

1n u11‘ Cuflbthu 15 LHau “rod; WUOQU ncrsgucuuvU LCJQUL-
1 n

1..- 1.x.) 1/11"?) .1.£‘;11..£; (/1 1“.:-,«..Y.‘l.-;.’.CE.- Of tic owing/'3, “1.11 116. {#1) --

7 1-1 1;. H -1. . .1,‘ 1.: J- : .. n - r. -, 1-: 3 .. -.: . , .

gs 1“*fiu 1J“POLV; <;.ruc..<3r vu1x.r1:;.3'g.: -Ct1xxt-o.11:1 a

..- . .. _ , . 0,. ‘ - . \ ‘ ~‘_.. "‘ 1‘33 TA- ‘ ”T '3. . .‘ I ~I_ ‘ L“
"r0 9, are couch to {cucu.Vn uh; ”urlu lDUh lbh uh

.., . I--- n-.. -... .. .. 2. . . , ,...t-.2. - ..
rU1ut...u u Peguflume Dub) bcuouzg a callucu-91t¢, Thdl
- -. 4' — ' - ‘ ' ‘ :v .v *3 g r“ v\ ~~ .‘ - ‘ ‘-v ’-‘>, t\ 1-. ~
01" .‘L. :1 1‘10'1. . 0:110:31) pQI‘;3L::Ct,LJC .6 anguzucc DJ 1.1.0 czC 1201‘
r- ['3 H
(-21: p2 “'64)-
. 0 1 . 3.1 ° . .‘ 1 . , 7 -j 4. --w :12 .1... : .1-

If} ‘11.“; L1. ll [.31. L ~22; V), f’ClObP‘--' L1" L10 ‘JLiL‘J‘J UCL?..L, TJIM} PC..—
r“ - . , -,. .- .2 - ,. . -.- 1.. .1. ' y ,. .2 ...,..:. .'. 'V . . .2_ .
1..::‘.) .01; 17121.!) 1..) d. “UL..."Q 1,0 111.131- .211 Lung]- anal 8:1,..I’c‘u

" ‘-'\ r 1' *3") -~ v1 2" v1 \ ’u . ’- 1 - nr‘ V151 «’- ~ -*~ 4‘ *‘ H" '1 '3 ’3')

tJ bid a “AJHWJCL 0L (.1 LLLICJ 1:..4'.La. 11cm. 1;1_(,_‘.£,'r_1.(11.a. -11; IL."

6
iere ce ‘r01p COqCCDC is ased to pOiHC to a; associa—
ios of natau heir s amos_ wgom ope see’ as to _ain, mais-
taiu, or e Laece his statas...a referesce ;rolp is that

5r0uo is whica One desires to “rticipate...a Qrin whose

Pr <
K}
51‘

claims are paramodht in sitaatio. regiirix;

‘1

U)

snoice (5
p. 363)". Sherif (30) uses tne studies of social class
enters, to illustrate
this fonCtion. Here, tue reference group for a ineu
i dividdal may go a other social class tnax the one to
which he obgectively belongs.

Turner ar;ues that this third usage is really _ot a
usage at all, ci in; l; ter.atare i. wnich “the desire to be
accepted is depicted as the me hasism which leads to

adoption of tne values azd per specs ives oi tile reier w“ce

- .‘ .-- ' '- I: . .. . .H, -, .:\ v a; , ..
QPth (3(, p. 52{). me woald rather retain tue iirst two

usages as “defiflithLS‘ Oi tee concept in terms of tee ef—
iects of reference groip oo benavior, asd use tge third
ldmCCiOH LOCEG above as the mechanism by whicn the refer-
eoce CFOup acts Oh the individaal.

A Lreakdown quite similar to that of Shitataui has

In its eval ation function,

\(J

been faruished by Kelle (k
"the reference group is merely a st a'11dard or check— point

J

1.: x v *z : ‘ ,. ,1-, -‘ -.. ,lnv , . V-H . “M _ If -‘n ,4,” M
Wales he izdivixaal moth 1d mania buulh”xLS oi himself
. It - A .- C" - I A ‘ W .1 ., ‘l ,_ v w .. . ,
ago others (lo, p. ”la). SuLOleJ, the reference uroap is
1 ‘_ ._ o ._ ,‘ O C “‘ '. I ‘_ ‘ 1‘" __ 1‘ 5 '3‘ - ' 7 '1‘
tne source of an lgUlVlQaal'S valaes . Ago lg Keller s
H

third usa;e, a refe euce ro p is a groap in which the

indiv is al is motivated to gain or maintain acceptance.

 

V ,_,. ‘ a T 4‘ " ,_ ,y t 1‘ 1» f - f 4 ; (- -_ ,.-< ._
the ,ropp renxczo. lrpllclt here Is the lee a bhdb the
1" r ,f'» . . 1 '(\ , ‘ o \ \ .3 ~ . - ‘1 _ o” _
her/hrs of the reicrence ,roap otServe the person and
H l ('1 "I" -~x‘ ‘ 1.1,- "‘ 1'" ‘ ‘3 " "’3' "1’ «~11. 1- !' ~’ 4'
6. ~13 1am, hill, aIuJ 11.4-11.1 one I‘cIUI‘CQCG :91: 01.31;) IS 111 a

position to award reco,nition or withhold it (lo, p.411,

Turner (5]) has attempted to inte rate the first two
i one of reference groups of Shioatani and Kelley with
the sociolo ic a1 concept oi “role taking.” When a refer-

ence group is the source of a person's values or perspec~

tives, Turner sees an immediate identity 01' mea him with
the role—taking co11MpA ”One takes the role of a mem-

tor of the group, which is synonymous with having a 'psy-
chologically functioning memoership' (newcomo's term)

in the group, nd one adopts the ;roup's stanopoiht as
che's own (57, p. 327).“ According to Turner, a refer—
ence group as a point of comparison corresponds only
partially to ”certain meanings" of role—taking, namely,
taking the role of another from a ”third—party stand—
point (57, p. 327). ” Turrer Sinrarizes his position as
follows:

In g:r1eral, then, it appears that the con-

cepts of reierrence group arzd role- taLir; re close-
ly related...Ihe terms 'rem 'erc ce :roup' and 'rele—

Jaht othe ' refer to essentially the same phenomena.
The reierence group is a generalized other which is
viewed as having member roles ahd'attribites inde—

' ly oi the individuals who compose it. (37,

 

What, we may reaS1aoly ask, is the theory or con—
ceptualization of personality underlyitg these various

theorized famotioxs of the reference group concept? Why

bilk.)

1 C

u
5’) 1

l
.g. 4.

H ex,
01 1.11113

3, ”W
L1 L1 R,

H,
C -1)

and

.. ‘ 1'_. J-- 'l ', r ‘\ ‘4‘. \ - 1‘ 1'. v‘ ‘ r‘ . f‘ u
Iortation and (:11; e o1. a per3o11

r ”1“ n ‘3 “ ‘1’ m *f
v»r‘\v).1>,1o L) Ln I‘ll"; .L

' ”‘4— —?‘.’(.‘J n.1,.)
1P5.) ' .L.'.U~.":.,..I-L1"\-

" ..: l r‘ f - '1_. .‘ '_ H ,. I: 1“ f‘ .
(it), "La , Ll’t' Q . 1C ) ’ C1140 LalIICI LIIC) 1:4-)

‘Tviflua

‘J

L1 C

l

f'
(11
\1-

rw

10?

. l". 8119 1”

[he work of

rz"-“ ' r‘V': -,-$ (' -J ' .r r‘ vr~ v ~r'y
c rr no t1eor rizln, dLC “es e~rch revolves

O O oiJUI ‘I’;L.L-l [/0 I LC) CCLLLPJJ-
£5111. F) 13']-§i.(3 e: ti;11 131'.t2 3111‘ ' _
1s, CCIQ; “CCLCCLC, teih"

‘ .‘i‘ J," \ ~ \ ‘ ‘1 ‘1 I n": f'
OJUDS San/CAT- , .Q-JJL‘) .LOIj 21C, 1-1-0
J . -

in_0 ii the fDPL&IICR an o;
o—attit1dss, in th= ertc‘iOh of
oals. Lhen td“8e QDCMOPJL s come

actors ir1_;hwlh sitoations, We
.civiol “ - ‘ w

l . 1“ »
—‘r '4 r‘ r’

O

4 4—

,.. J
1ence and rts
9 1-1,, .-. ,1
ns...are conrected W1t tre

,1“, , .3 ., .._ 1. ,.
‘JJU; C), OL J.fLL)Ul"Lz CVJ.OILL) DU

{~«'.V:L..‘.,” - —. ~
<1Ct.bu£wh$ are elimnfliere

Caxltrifll) 'Is

.the effect ve fixation

r} ‘ ‘, ‘ r x” v" ‘7‘ 1“.-
, erectei, a11l s a,x3 t1n: s
”onse to var o

L‘V‘ ‘. ‘1 1 ~ 7 v I“ " ’:‘ A—V' ‘ :'\ "1 " \ I‘ "3
(1111C) v‘b’(:.y Pk.) JILL "U o o o S ank’k.

¢

- M 1- ,, 1 . -- ,. :._ '-~_ '. 1 .j
L31..CLL/J-OLJ’ 1!].-J .,xd.J.) J.kI -/1_c. C dbL—L—tl‘ C
‘ V3).
71'1 , " ‘1 r " . " -~‘ . r“: ~r\
11111,. A- r .. .IIJC_LV.1.U .1

na'or comoogents Will
‘ to

ysas appears to pro

4-"
1/1.

:e

I‘j

SOC

.1“

I x V" .L ..~‘1

S

(A I Pi: L;

(1‘0
c-CC

o
‘ C;
AA . L'. l

I

J.
l
‘1

L- L 1' \ r“ n \ w —\ E: S «L I! . » . V . 1‘ 1-7 .1 ‘, 'h‘ _ v 3
CLS person 1 certaiz1 0,0 attit“ es Wulcn are acquires
eerie; his life irom nis SOClal rezerents; these elo

I‘ "- ‘ 2 :w / r "-1 ‘l . ‘ "‘x 1‘ ‘- 1 A "' yr ' 1 v1\ . ‘ I r a :4 . .7 .1 .
dLBithco la pafld Outcrmlxe hLlCh QPOLPS dhC lLQl~

J u,als the person will t1 n to as refers tial

C1“
, f
(D
(’1
(L
(L)
5-4
a...
fi
1‘ ‘J
(J
W
(1
Cr
C0
C1.
\
C )
’U
2
x L)
ct
L.—
,_.)
(‘3
Q
d
I
%
."1
W
.,
(‘1‘
L)
O
'"S
:20

‘ vr‘ f ,. ) r“ - r‘ H 1 o - -. ‘- . 1 I r‘ :3" . -. - . - “L
-, exsaucec set 01 e,o altlbLGCo waich, in turn,
~ ‘ \ r- ..N. v L : ‘ ‘1’ , \ IN > Z. 1 " ‘ f - f
’tryctere tbe worlt of the p rson, ago oe.l:1it a Lew

——-——-——.

et 0: social re —:'e re:ts available to the incividial.

Isis has two obvious shortcomiu S. saless
3i investigator 's able to ocfine ex3ctly the CJPPGLt

'ego attitaoes' o: the person, pre dicti on of preseat or
fature reference Wroaas is indeed diffic lt. In aoditi 1-,

L

. 1, . u . A ,.-,W.n «i y. 4,. 1' )
tne proulem of ego attitiee celireatlou is also qoi tc

An evaluation of tnese theoretical notions of the

refereace group comcept and its ;,sycholo;ical QLOBP—

pi:*i rgs will be attempted followim; a sarvey of the re—

:J

Review of the thCFQtJFC on reference Groap Research

 

The first to use this concept to interoret experi—

‘-

l 32) who reanalyzed

(U
\o

mental findings was Hewtonb (30,
his Eenningtos Colle e dat a izi te; rs of refererce groups.
In essence, iis res lts indicated that individ als, while
telortiu; to some membel sLip 4roap, did not gecessarily use
that ;r0ap as a point of reference in the formation or con~
firvatio; of attit des, but often psed some other groap (s)
as refereetial points. In addition, he posited the G‘-

1stence of both positive and ne;3tive reference

If I'\ Q n J“ 7," n “(.V‘nfi' ,‘. I”! ‘V .1. .' ‘*' ' 1 3" f _" ’3 f“ 13"» Ya I “fl/N .‘ (x “ ‘ 7 ‘ ‘3 “ ~‘x 'n r‘~ r
_ L L); i U} ~I.-~A, .L \21. ! i » _-'. LAT «_.I..:,\)L_,‘.J ‘/C)‘I\;,hi. C4. \tL-1.\_L 1 (J. -C £JT’..L C) :i
. _ .u t. V :I ._ - ' . -L - 1 - - u .. . - .A ’ . 4‘ v
1. 1;? t v‘n n c Y) v ‘ 3 N o 1 v ,_ 5 C' a; fi: -_ .-.‘ 1 h - - ‘ _ w ,‘
Jug gbLLqumU IL Mthm “UPJgQ do IuLaruHVTQI pOlan LA

;-- .'-‘.1,M.. . z- , ..- ‘. , - ‘L. . , L, -- - _- .-. T
’ p.pbuc vachQuwfld dam maLmueLa 00, Li) latter Cdifil

- ~ . r ' ‘A .~ ' ‘1‘ : /.'- - I ‘ ‘> 7 * 1 V ‘ r "- 'p g“
Ix d.OLJCP C‘PlJ SJMQJ, defudrS aqfl LCWCLMJ

-u: 1 n, r a fi L‘, »u-w» -,‘I !~ . .3 m , 4, 4 ~'
Lcfiuu (LOT 0!; 0L ”pa Lchc reli “Gus Promys toad T: buulr

1 '~ “ ‘ "1 I '- ’ ‘- v Ir " ‘ "O ‘. ‘ ,' L‘ ‘ v . . -'- ,-‘ r, P ‘ ‘ v \

0:8- n) LLQL 15 has 9 bSlvld U0 CKPCPLMCLyallU i‘””u SS
I ' l‘\ ~‘~ :1 '1! a “~, ,‘ 1"\ -. - - - « I ‘ -”'~

111,37) Vszl‘: *(L.LCL: 01. 01:6 ELVZIAZLHv/(‘JI’E‘JLL LL) .pC)\LI), USCG. LL
- ’. 1 L» n r *1 r‘ as n a Hr- n '3 «' 1 ' ‘ C‘ " 4‘ I ’7 " ' *- 1“ 14"" ‘1 2 . P l '3 0+ ~ m cv '

U‘aC/L/LJ CAD Ci rt— LCriale’C’ .FO J) I.) uiiCs'u <1le ‘Ji...(.x.;_x.a PLAJu’CJLUK’k)

x 'L ‘m,. H,
Tongs. lb scams cigar

6
\fi 1
H
J
C"
C;
H
f.)
H
*‘h
0
I .‘u
U
' T‘
p—1
Cf‘
‘- I
(L
fl
0
f

(f;
C’)

«r-‘ '-".-‘ 'u '. ‘N' -~.( "' L'VM' l"/y‘ q’.“:.- " "’ »’JV . .'
LudJ Lnl“ 13 Bang L:dllJ DLC fdwe ILHQLL: NOTCU chVLOLS~

{fl Cba Nuafl armx‘VOlknu;un, (uacegfiz thafi; 1V

y

‘ ° , '_.2 ,- ., . l . . . . , " , “ ., ,\ " 4.... 4* L .,
of asplrdLTan or L1.—sugtys was £0420 ti Ilucpaauc ac-
‘ J 3 r. 1. LT. , ,. 4 , . .3 L . ‘ . 1 ‘\ ~' ’
CO?QLH. uO Due Pcic‘gnvlal pofint “Sou .J th; SC'DCCV.

. - A ." ‘r " L‘ \ .3 T" "—6 1.»l V! f ' "t: f 1' 4““‘
Tgrficr, 1n a rca1L nu thQJ (35), udS evochu a LBUL-

1 :- ‘,- z.. ,- ., , -l -. ; , -' I,“ ' .. 2 .IA L ., ,3_ r. .‘T‘ V
on OL chcranLu; Vucpner an luClJdeal re dPu~ hue 1e 31

4‘)

O

ochavior in ahv partic lav ;ro p a" chm; azceptalle to

”m L . r .L.17' ” L h 14fi~ L:t H, . 3:” 3v.m~
ocPV: 38 a sha.uurd qfl dvglmawLufi hLS OWJ ac“ ovumc L.

Bollouin; this meL_od, he reports ChulOFuLOW' fl din s a—

; J“ -‘M . ,. , ,', ,L . . ' , ,L _ -‘V‘ q. . r ,. .L . D . .‘ H .. ,
UOJL LLB FCldtLUhS CLWBCU Lanc mddSuPES 01 “Tng re~

1 o 1 ' . _.

,- r\ - I ' H - r\ J . x : ' v7 -.» - ‘ 4" r- “ ,‘ > “‘ '» x‘ i -. \ “‘ ‘~ 4". ‘ . . ‘\ I' " .'\ ‘3 .'\
luv/nus dJQ IHDLVLdgdl dutluutcb QUOJU parglc pdt40m LA

-T, , ,. ,wm . ~7 .- +., v! ‘._ ~V ,. , _' \.‘ _ ‘ “ ,‘ ( Y, ‘,_ ,
tncSc MPOMyS. fie “Owes the tcLLQACJ for hrbggfi Lo dee be

L- L“

wmrhr‘ .. ' 'I .w .. - ' ", 'n f; r ‘ C ""«*: ' '1". ' 1' 3 W‘ 7
m¢ubal Pau-CP than a llOPm rel;vaucc to bud 1L 1vTuflal'b

 

- {I F ,‘fi. .. ' . , H ., n h... .2 -, 4.; A, : h" “ ."- . W
SElL”CVaJ-ULLtlUf1.oo a.-U rUh)Or’\/b LILLaU, VirOL‘.£./D (1qu .AO‘J O:

11

patio a1 3 ccess add for evslnetin“ ethicel nvd m rrl
_ ,.._.Oi_1l

behavior. To a considerable extent individpals rs"

invest different firo p with relevsrce for different

chh of the work dare on the reference frowp concept
appears to have been accorplishec by the soc ole is ts.

' o
Stern ard Keller (54), uszcg the reference fro p concept

f.)

3 sh explanatory variable in corpar1r; the Urxited Ste tes

and tee French societies, tap lltcd thef2e1*encv of in-

.-,.r« - 1M? 1 -qv
d1vi i.e1 reierences to coth memuersh1p s d honomunbersrip

L.)

groups in a French secple. They dc fin refs resce grepps

‘ ‘ " ‘- ‘ /' '1‘ A . r’ '
as \POupS PGpFCSdhtat1Vn of 800' a

}-_J

4- :3 .
u cc of one's

M

5: ts 01.;ts

"S

soc :1 environment." T irtr—Ohe per cent of the total re?
Spons es were to I'loh—r.*e.ezt;bersh:ip groups, and sixty—1;? re per
cent of the refer<2hces were to membership groups. Their
conclusion is that French val es, beliefs, aid behavior are
not "‘bstlrt ally inflzenced by the values of hon—membership
or "reference" froup s. Pointing to the differences betwees
these data and the use of non membership reference groups
1n the American society, they stress the res: of comparative
rather than universal reference iroup concepts.

In another 8001010031 aralvs«s rsih; the reference
group concept as an explanatory variable, Killian (20) theo—

rized that copflictin; group loyalties and cortrsd mtory

roles, res1ltihg from mgltiple fro p membership and/or

‘4

reference, were signifi c.a:.t fcmcto s affectihj ihy'vicial

behavior in a crisis or disaster sit atiop. Other

w '- ¢ ' U
0" ~ r- -—. -'- -. _-\ ), ‘- -.
dole 1..- (19%;.-0...

- r " \ .. , . ‘ r‘ 1 I 3 1 1"“ ' v ' r ’3 I — 3 ‘
iIKJlJrjl , x. UUO I‘Ciab ’U - n! It.) ~ 2'! (‘1 .5 ( 1;, T4), SiJLdeer;
r Fr.‘.r "’ ’I ‘_ ‘L—fi o v-~ '.‘ “ J ~ 1' - ‘ _— J -
t- 2‘ & -'<:Cl13 (‘1 .3121 ...1,1 ”01.3 1'31u'fl. :11 p l- t C‘ 1‘0 (‘13 (2'1 b1;
.2 ' ,r I -- .2 I, ~ - z ' L L -- ¢_
actlt ccs of a we.; of QQC_CQCULUS. Ls11 t-e attlt LC

r \ ‘1 1‘?" ‘1‘“ “ I ‘ .‘ a'W ‘ "T ' "‘ "- “ ‘3 J" ."
S al.L.x S’ZQLC k/l‘-:(.3:-J, -.L‘ EU. “(J BL-’;‘I.U RIOL’L‘

.1 2. < ., .' -7 .. 2 .. .~ \ . .-, 4- - - ll . . .- - . ' H » ‘ ,9
HPO.pS-—fun115 a”? QU@F3~-,kdrtad CROSS press PBS Or R18
x _- '7‘"- - . , .1 ,- 1 '_ 5- ' ., - " l— -' - ,1 .- .. . .1 4 ,. -.

S ,[y CCJLS. 1111...?(‘3 "4:18 a. 81 “I; ~.l- .12Ca..t FULab .LL.).;{J1‘J.,- ('l}f._LSt-LL

H.)
. ._J
:1)
,__.,.
g a
v—e
I
"K
94
’5'
K
H.
V
'3
g:
u—w—A
LJ-
C\
u
“a
h)
<‘
‘V
(J
vr‘
U4

Cfi‘ixmair femilv aid fm%n?=gro;ps, a IN
even m re parsed when the mannership fro p also served a“
the refererce firstp. 12 cases Where there was conflict
Fetweej the :ttit_des of the two .ro cs, t‘at {re p with
1111011 tké2 s Hs7ectxs a imeeo Teendgxi tC) be 1n1e 1%:fermn;ce 9rO~17

,I’ ' - r‘ L‘ ~,r~,r~ —‘- » a" l;- 1‘ 1
I“l‘) (.ItjfltO.L-D‘-JLLL 3C}. tnfii‘v CLQxL)—

H
Q)
*3
( 1
1_)
.0.—
(‘7‘
(T;
q
C2
1...}
,1
fix"
1
M
M
r‘J
C
’C‘
("

f1 (-
. , ‘ _ _ an F -.' 1:”— ._,-) ‘ .r, . r? r - - 't.: h A ., 1'
“cscehts FQLCCLVEQ tc-lr oerehts 18 81 111103 t ctrvrs,
. .1 I 1 n r ~1.- .,, ' n“ . _ m“, r .3 _ .2. . ., 1,, ,.4.. * ..,
afiU 104.0 d. bJ.'11.l.L,deL IL;,_LdL.L.01/i)lril.£_) E.-eb’.’.\2t3-; foul ($.1de 3”"

1* 1- (‘1 ~. -r q I"- - . r: :- —‘ rw 2‘ < l‘ L‘ "' "' : ‘ ‘, ,’ -. - . . ‘— ,
FJCoatLOhS auO ecclesceht attlc ces. A s; c111ca1t cor~

/ w ' "I I f I - r 1. v ~ - . '~ ' -v - 2 - 1 1" -r I ' 1
relatlos Was also loehd between parcct~1 1o roll [res
r L s. - w j ” r " ‘ ~ v V ’ 4 ' T1 f‘l ." , ‘ " _ '. w " v i- L 'I +— , - r p '. r "r ,
dbu.taflds e.d .eulv;»r. nOodM coucl.<¢s bhub tie re1ero cc

.. . 1 . 1 .u -. ' t... .2 4. .‘ '3 ,_. ,, .._ . _--. 1,- _- .2 .54
-ro p cyprcccu thV»CcS e COUCC§w&a_ Lzscemork w1oh1h whlch

1, . . , _ '. ,_ 1 :- - H n xv.“ f
mec doc coils LO? - Lcrther 09—

’_J0

reTatio ships can be exyle

L1,- 1 -
1_.{ .

....;.' .‘,. _. . 1. ..
velOpneot o; refererce bro 3 .eocg, pdfblC;de1J as 1 seals

(1‘

C

.- x L- , «v ’ ~. -. I 1 1. ',..-3- :x... ,‘ 7 _\_‘
mlth tdrb COuplvg process it wkicA the lHUlVLutal resolves

... ’ U. 1 ‘0 4 . a _ 4‘ I : 1“ Q .3 A ’ 1 _ ' q‘ _’ ‘,~ . r ‘1’ It ‘
L118 COEllLCtl 1 ‘.{OO'_‘ VET/”O1 8 0L 1.--S 21.x ‘ 'VL‘L31.,Q P011138. . . 1‘).
— A L - A. o 1-

1:13—14?— ).

'~ -—, 1 -.- , -3 4- 741,: ,- -— , .. ‘ 2 .5 w -..n_
Only one o.cer e p1r1cal st.c;cs were 10 la 1. a sul

T.)©I’SO.”. S

(_
’V
L.)
"‘.
A.
El'
{-3.

162210

x.
..\

— a. v I 0/
hpA . . . . ._
«I Q... 3 H . _ .‘ ,0. MW r0 M... LV. 8 n.
U. . O r 0.. .7 U _ C O t no a.“ . L.
M O . P e w 3... m . s _ x r - . 0
o z n o a n o . o r n _ .. r L e ., i f
r 0 w . ) . 1.. J I n. 3 t .Iu. A). .wm. «C 0 Q. , 1 9w HA. EA L 1 l 4T.
1‘ 1. ff ’1‘. .YL /I\. r .II Y1 . . .4. \I/ O t )fiw \.
.. C . n a S . e f r t a I . . c 0 e.
w. a t H. fl 0 a S C «0 8 O a H. . a . .. .x . . z. b I.
O L 0 W e C . .0. t u r r .1 C m. . -. .. c z ‘ 0. t
H. 4.1.. C d f C e \l C - ,c a t i C. .L T . .1 .0. ..
. H a H ... o 3 .r. s . s e r 1 c mu t. w. a V. _. . m r
a. ,6 .. P e n C u T E, a a a . .1. .L C .. “U a .L. .1
r1. 1 P. O S at. wt. t A. 0L no .1 w.“ Lb “.1 , 30 n . t o .C. 3 . 3
.1 -. q . . . .. L e e f C n r .. I .- .1 ,...
.. _ C .5 x l I? r . Cb v I U ’ WV oh 0 t 0|; 3C, no 3|.“ r-.. y Ab
.VU ; IL YL LU n. L L 0 WI. (K A . . 3 1 . U . ~ 5 ‘1
wf. V“ .d \.I O “C . L J 3p P Lb S .I O t... I u? .L. O .. . r.
.\J.. n r at. . I, ~ 1 I 9.1.: o. J Ifil* 1/» L O t v i ”L cl r1“ .xw‘v
rk AK 11. _ p \ ‘IU l V CU TV T ) . A .1).
_ ,_ n 1 a. . . q r r s t a e c C
[IL V... r» .! . L V: . .
1 ‘ . . "I l .1 v or“ U 3,. L MC 9% CO _ l w t r. a. JIU V
p r / 111V . \U n ( .v L r t\ _ ./ V) 3 W \. W
”a a u. A .3. P h L .m c 1 h .1 D .. . a 0. I .0. C . .. t
W 4 hip; owl; a v. 1“ OJ ‘U «IV 0 01 r O t 0 will. IVIW . J'IA 0b .1 A A4
J Y. n . l O . . n P r U. S a L . F .1 r a S P
.1 a a... a. V w. .m \I ., .. n. P f r a a e .. .1 O
m .3 O r S S O .0 e a P t 6 l f . .C P.
f 3 , .. s , .).. . fl . 3 l I a... C K. :1, a O 0 n1.
( vhf. CK fll .1 LL 0 d t . x M L l n . x. w ‘ 4‘ L ‘ Q a A.
m ; f h n C .1 C h l t S I , - r“ c A 2 . M... C n.
w 4.0 O 1 t O t .E u. t a n y... 8 a m. .. ..- C O H. «W a 0
.. J. P S e e P. .c u a T t - 1 3 . O A x. .1. ‘ .
: m a o f l .1. a r f d n. 0 .u a. . a .1 3 .1 I. P .-. .
.WL. AL -u U )1" (L ma t J hi CK, O .1 U U o. L A1,. .. . . .r... 1C cl .9be I 9L
1 C, V . a a]. V n. H .C O t o . C. S e
t r. .s 3 e f L l e n i c a .1 i i m. d. O h i J .1
\I._ a n mtl no . 7.1L 0 t 9% “L O _.‘A\. V Ar . f div «7 .C N .. mri WI» LIV h. l
x... 3. 1... VJ Tr. (.\ V . ‘) .IL W. fl) 3 NJ 1 . )u
C «L 3 A. .4. C ._. * K O O x: ..J. , . I. 8 n c.
u , . a ( r ..\ L L I. 1 J
C 3 . e b H S ..L .1 Y t .1 \ n. N. .8 .. l e 0. ,F 1 .
3 n. t f L . m C t r a e e. t N. C m. :5 ,1 .. .11..
l O .0. l 3.. ., o. P O .l 1 .1 3 C A l f. a: ._ .. 7. x I w... m
3 w. . . .. e D. O 8 l d .0 ul .- .. .1 H r s . - Lab. -1 L ., .. , . .
P, S t .1 .3 . ,. r. o O 1. C t O l S S O t 410 V . C. S Q a
J .1 3 J 3 . . .1 H .1. .1 .3 a X. C m. 1 t .1
F I._'\ [Is 14‘ ..>.\ O I .I \L O 1 rl. 1\ WI _ X.“ . 4.. “I .x. JV .IIA V\U
.. t .- _ o -. O N n. 3 (\ C 2 e t r e . .. 1 L . V -
. y- . - .... . w .. a o x... U 3. .L .2.
O a o v ........ n .. e c ... c 1 .C. n. L . .. e _ 1
P L J S t S S S a... a e a \l .. . .0 f. a 1 P .0 O
. WL . w; r/ U as 1 C ‘ ‘1. Wk; t l ”“1 0 Ps.._ t 41'. vDW (C Mb 0!... a...“ A. \. Jul.
W9. 2 J 0 H45. C U. Ab «(HI my; t CU . Jill. rt. Yr. an..— 1 «I. 31!“ . x.
w (k 1 O Lk WI. . .1 .L
\J
O

4' _
L]
r ‘
(1
\
\ A
’C
.L
J
.L
.p
I

e

0

410?

v
131'.
ONCE?

j,
13..
(E?
“I,

‘1.

3
1’1
w '
r'
1’1

1

l.
L;

1 ref.“
e

‘

'1
i

,_
ax
_4
O
<-
»
1..

». e'
O
C)
1v
f5
it
1-.
C
t
mob gr
to E
6.
CC)
1

J
0 '~
'3
J.
"z
r;
f
i
. . H
«ts .
t
t!
1..
[1
-d.

\ .
,
l

Hui".
Ger.
r"

e ._ ,. .1 h
9.. t r. a n P C V .U 0 t . ._ n, S . 2 q ., m. c C 1
3 t I i .1 1 e r. t q s .1 . a m. .9 O .1 .
m. e l P n i r 5 ., i o e o w . C. c. t s .n O
. 1 n1. :1. Lb .l 6, M... C W“ wt. «Q m S S .1 S . k H . n a H .W .l
a. .. .1 O n L. S e P a ...L P Q P, e P t. m. P on- P E, . t
w; .91. D. n1. C .0.. .. ... «.1 an. O O C C .n; .C. C b O O .n; .40 O a.
.0 W . . m. m t a (\ r T e C S 0. e .. r P t nI . .2 t F.

0113

11"0

n
*4

A
\II

+..

.

J.

L u

V3.

I?

. "t v 2 ‘ n I", ~“ " I" ‘ ‘9 f. .., 1 -~‘ -~. -. -*X 1“ ,9 , j ‘ _?
3: AU r‘I‘I-O (1--.L C33. Q.AL“V\:..; 8.3U 0‘ .1th ___J'-’O".p VJ...Jn l-ILC #1‘h—LVJL1V~&1’

L)
C
0]

I .1 . 1 A g A- - - pf- - )1 (~_ . .—- r ~'~ , . ': n. ‘r :A ‘- — ‘1‘ -. -
he 10130 3ha. pooh Varlables were SI -llcauc Odocfmlu'

*- 4n... 1 r .- . a - 13.! M .3 3 . , H-
o: 3he processes 1 ,:corpora.-o3 ago ma? teza.' c3 of new
,I
Le1.M(.-:J.So
, - . 1 . . - 3 , . , . 3
A lmlal m1,;o .EL 0 :r3fozm ll] 1) c:' [IO . ~.3_x11c3 .Jra fl) ccrxlsc,

 

 

,.- 1 n }- 1‘ *‘r n - ‘ r ‘ “ ‘- ’ 4‘ u' I -’ ‘ ‘ .' ‘1 2 ‘ ' ‘ '\ -' " ‘
In llth 01 3hc cheoreclc I a3c enplrlcal a-alyses pre—

*3
(I)

SCLtCG heretolore, :3 is clear Chat Lhe re rehce group con—
cept has two essehzially different KeauikQS or COLthatiOhS
in carreac research. In she f rs: esa;e, the reference fro-

has a compasatlve f3 COLOR: the person w: es Ihe s ahcards or

 

LOFHS of a soclal ;rocp Lo evalaaLe his OWA performahce ago
behazlor. In chls coupexc, the referehce Qro3p is a Woc o—
lo;lcal ex ‘ce-slon of the f'are oi reference, a.d has the
meamih; originally ascribed *o in by Hymag (14) and the other
early workers in this area. icrher's (:3) receht sc3cy falls
w phi; chls coucepcual framew rk.

As the scarce for &x ihdivjdual's values, perspeczivcs,
atritudes, or beliefs, Lhe rcfere ce group appears so be

serving axo her naSL31. This 10T”fietfal f 3.3ctioh, describec

               

by r ewconb (31), Sherlf (50), Shihabahl (bl), and ob hers, de~
scrihes the referegce group as coxstlcupin; the WClluSpPihj

of the 'erSOu's modes of Lho3 :hL agd belief. The work of

*(‘W

Kewcomb(i2), Rose: (43, 44), and K831§J (l7) ls within Chls

.L

o

A Lhird possible f3 colon of refer once pr 4ps~—as

aspiracloL progps seems go; dlsslmllar no the compa at ve

 

ase descrLLec earller, a3d has beeJ described as .‘he mecha—

hism gheerlylhé all referelce gr03p activity 0y Tarher (37).

T ,‘I ., .. , 4—,. v ' ' , ‘ “ p p, y t -_ .’ A , .. . r. , ”
bhlonsal»cely, Slmllac oescnlo lVe terms Have bbdu
P‘ ‘ 'l‘ ‘ - r -- '~ 1 't 1'- '._ V‘ " V v >'- arm ' ‘ 1 1 4 v-— h ‘— ~'
useo oy VdPlOuS LHGOFlSuS LO UB'CULpC caese alceuhaclve

approaches to she co cept. For example MEPLOJ and Hip:

v ’ L
“)1‘1 _-. v ', g1\_ ;_1 , {I , ,- __‘- .. ‘ h I? .'_\_ m .,,. 5 - V , I
(as) oescylce old relerehc~ Scoop as a lraxe or referelcw'

.3 . ‘I . , .. .. ‘ ‘ ,y .‘o , ,. . :..~ ‘ .- . '11 .; T , . _.-

l2 puB proCesses oi sell~\Valaacloa, whlle onloatahl (;l)
(‘1 a : :7" l, (g; ',_ , l. , J..- , 4.? fi .— . l . l,‘ .0,“ . v , .‘- .'

a;d oncrll (we, ,C) space undo one lCL-reuce wL'Osp CO Scl—

fwurwc‘ Lima 01”,. he 0“ ’..~sf*".‘u]_'z':x; 0;; of “’ ’3 :1 ~-“' ’ ’u'“ 3 .- 4" A

UK, KILL.) ‘L\I ‘L..LLLI. .1. \JA-\’ K! A V U Unc *A-CAiV—L—CL-‘a ill bflb

-‘.‘ ‘A r- 1 f‘." ‘1 " " "‘,1/'\ 4 ‘ . f‘ -‘ . “ A ’ L (x

processes ol actl ade~lorhaclo . bach co Cupcaal loose—

«new
“bug

Q.

oes uou wage for Lheorcpical precisioh or ease of
eupirlcal SQbSQaJLiaCLOJ or elaboraulo”. Ohly Gerard (12)
appears to have actackeo this conceptual defihlcloJ problem
r'ul

directly, by redol-hing the co cepc of reference group it—

/ ‘7. r ‘ ‘ r‘ 3 .~ 1‘0“ 1 v." - ' ‘ v 7 ~ ‘7. xv “c (\ - - ~—- r (w
sell, and exoerlmehcally examlhlhd LWO o1 che parama era

It is thl" wricer's belief that the maia reasoh for

thls cohcepcaal unclarity lies in the lack 0.

PK
9
Q)
C‘
(D
.o
f,
{.8
C
(D

'l

oeflnltlou 01 the role of the idoivldaal lg referent acsl—

visy. The idea that mad.is a soclal orga;lsm, aho as sach

derives mos+ of his concepts, oelieis, ago values ‘rom the
social comma ipy l” which he lives, seems to have been ac—
cepted throa;hoct the recoroed hlstorlcal 68V“lopmegc of
nag. Mrh la some way, 3.6 for some reason, aeopbs the ways

of thigkigf of chose wiph whom he assoclapes, physically or

s are chose of some of his fellow~

3’5

pay nolo;Lcally. his belie

(‘1 w , - fl" ”5’“ (\ ‘l ”W” , ‘ 4" r-~ ‘ r~ ~——, -{ - Lab? r ( ' '4 ,:* “—
Di’lfljlll (W0, DU) QHO. 3118.1- .LJ. Q1.KA vci;-ol'li ("4“,“) lieu/d douGh-Qo-

Q
C,

.‘ .-,~., we.“ 4— 4.‘ .. . , ,..‘ . ,3 _ 4.: , -_ .- ,.- r .3 n
uO 4.;bUquJLCv UL.LSU pL‘OCbbSbS OJ. dLJULu~.'.LxC UL‘ UClLCBJ. UL)CL:-S”

H
O ‘\

mission in terms of their dynamic theory of e;o— or di-
rective—attitudes. the individual accepts the values and
beliefs of his associates in order to promote his psycho-

”some ody” Cy believin, as

logical integrity. He becomes
others do. He is accepted and wanted. Some of the diffi-
culties inherent in this approach have already peen put
forward. It is queStionanle if these ego—attidues can he
specified or pinned—down; even if they could he the pro-
cesses ty which the transmission and acceptance of beliefs
occurs are Still undefined in the Sherif—Cantril model.

An alternate conceptual explanation is availasle in
the models proposed Ly some of the coynitive theorists,
notatly Krech and Crutchfield (22) and Rokeach (3f, 39).
In these approaches, the person views the world in terms
of his acquired beliefs, expectancies, hypotheses, or con-
cepts, all of which describe coynitions or systems of co;-
nitions, in terms of which the external world is comprehended.
A reference group, or more generally, any social referent,

may be interpreted as the authority for these co nitions. As

 

Krech and Crutchfield point odt:

It is inevitacle that in the complex
world in which we live no sin;le individual can
hope to ascertain, at first hand, all the os-
jective facts pertainin; to any piven oeject. He
must necessarily depend, in considerable de;ree,
upon what the 'experts' tell him...For all indi—
viduals, then, facts are frequently mediated ty
other people as authorities, and the amount of
discrepancy between the rea facts and the indi-
vidual's perception of those faCts will he depend-
ent upon the validity of the authorities assertations."
(22, p. 1&1).

1]

Truetlood (55) has stated the case in a similar fashion:

Most of what we oelieve about the externa
world is received at second hand and rests on the
prior telief that some men are more trustworthy
reporte's than others...$he area of immediate ex-
perience open to any individual is extremely slight--
a mere slit in the world's expanse...when we rely
on authority, we are not, for that reason, _uilty
of credulity. There is a reasohmfor"5§rmreliance.

We trust men and institutions presenting the most
reason to te trusted...(cited in 39).

In the present investigation, we will take the

position that other people, individually and colleCtively,

may oe viewed as the authorities for a person's beliefs
about the external world and that the process of eelief

transmission is a edgnitive one. The remainder of the

present investigation will consist of an attempt to elabo—
rate some of the dimensions or parameters of these author-

ities or "belief referents," using an existind theoretical

model.

CHAPLEHK lll

‘- 14‘ T7“ 1 ) 7:,1..--),_.“v‘~_“ 1'\“;"‘ r" (q
i112] i,.-_.Li£.r “gypsum.” VUi.K/LPL

the Co (Mlflt (n? the Easlief— Ills

(-a.

m
m

m

4‘

li_ef sys
l reierents

In the pres t form lati01, the socia
tividtal will be viewed in terms of his own

system of expeCtatio s and hipotAeses atoat the world

\ Ix ‘N -. ‘7‘ - , .- V ”3 ~ '- .' r 1 2'. '5' r’, I I’.' ’3 {—1
ihas «my; termtxi by 1mflmaacr1 (do, .3{, 3,3 ‘,;).

x.‘

O

In this the ore t _cal model, the pers nality is as

as a co; itiVe system, censistin‘ of interdependent be~

lief and disbelief systems, apd located on a structural
centinuam ranging from open at one extreme to closed at

the other. Rokeacn has elaborated some of the details of
this co:cept/alization of personality structure as follows:

A cognitive system is 001si dered to be
closed to the extent tnat there is (a) isolation
of parts witgin the belief system and between the
belief a1d dis;)elief systems, (b) a discrepancy
in the degree of diffs rertiation be Jeen belief and
the Q10udilLI ~7-tems, (C ) OCUL if PC tlauth Withifl
tne disoelief tem, (d) a ii , se of i tere
dip,nct1cr betw en central a1d pe ;pneral beliefs
(e) a low degree of interdeper1denc e amonf peripheral
beliefs, and (f) a 13?? win; of the time perspective.
(36, p. 195).

m m
it
w m

()1
H QJD
0
§
(

To sumtarize hose of the stru ctlral dine; sions of
closed co :itive systems important for tme present analysis
the various parts of the belief system are relatively iso~

rated ifrom the s b parts of tne disbelief system

L“!

n a: =. 2,0 ~% 1 »w . ~L

'ne extent t 1at t e variwo1 disoeliel s s-syste s are part
v x. w- r‘ . -‘ ‘ x ‘ ‘N ’- r\ r~ V

of a closed system, tflcj ere ass .to to )e rcl*thelJ less

7.: . .‘. ..- . -' .‘ ‘ .- - ' ,. .: ,- ," .. N; h 4.. ., ' '1
Uiffcfefltlated tnan the beliei system. Einally, in a rela-

19
tively closed system, there is a narrowin , or selective
avoidance of contact with facts, events, and ideas which
are incon ruent or incompatible with the belief system.

Closed counitive systems are seen by Hokcach as ”a
total ideolo ical defense against threat and at the same
time a co nitive framework for satisfying one's need to
know and to comprehend the world one liVes in." Through
the maintenance of a Closed belief—disbelief system, the

individual makes it possicle "to ward off threatening

(.0
C1"

a pee s of reality and at the same time ,ive one the satis—

faction of feeling that one underStands it." (35 .

Statement of the Proolem: lheoretical Formulations

Henceforth, the term ”oelief referent” shall connote
any individual, group, or anization, institution or other
social collectivity, existent of fictional, which is per-
ceived by the individual as navin, certain teliefs associ-
atcd with it. fhus a cultural ideal or value, a church or
other institution, or a publicly renowned person would all
he considered belief referents in this usa;e. These belief
referents are further assumed to have either positive or
neyative loadings or valences for the individual. (This is,
in many respects, similar to Newcomb's analysis of positive
and negative reference groups; this line of reasoning is
also a function of Rokeach's analysis of beliefs and dis-
teliefs.) lhe positive belief referents of the individual

are those referents which he perceives as havin; celiefs and

20

Q;
H'
C)

'I
l.

(D

liefs similar to those which he himself holes. They
are the referents to which he refers his own beliefs for
corroboration and suostantiation. In essence, they are

the authorities of his belief system. The n34ative selief
referents are those referents which the individual perceives
as havin; beliefs and disheliefs dissimilar to his own.
These referents are seen to uphold and communicate belief
systems incongruent with those of the individual. They are
the authorities of his discelief systems.

The basic hypothesis of this investiyation is that
persons with relatively closed cognitive systems will also
have relatively closed systems of referents for these he-
liefs. The more closed the cognitive structure, the more
closed should be the configuration of belief referents.

A closed cognitive system will be defined in terms of
a relatively hiyh score on the Dodmatism Scale, which was
designed for the measurement of openness-closedness of co,~
nitive systems. Narrowing, differentiation, and isolation
are three of the structural dimensions of a co;nitive system
measured by this instrument.

These same three conceptual dimensions will be used
in this investigation as the definin: characteristics of
openness-closedness of the belief referent configuration.
An individual will Le said to have a closed belief referent
configuration if (a) there is a narrowin, out of the ne-
gative referents, (c) there is increased differentiation of
the positive referents, with a concomitant decrease in
differentiation of the negative'referents, and (0) there is

a relatively hi;h deqree of isolation cetween the positive

2.4

and the nega tive referents. We w: ll examine these di—
mensions of relatively closed belief referent confifurat-
ions, one at a time, in order to elaborate their relations
with the parallel dimensions of relatively closed cognitive
systems.

zarrgl*nff With respect to narrowing, Pokeach asserts
that "the treater the do matism, the more the avoidance of
contact with stimuli—-pco,l events, books, etc.--which
threaten the validity of the belief system or whicn proselyte

for competing disbelief systems " (J6, pp. 190—200). Fellow-

in; this, it is expected that persons with closed cognitive
systems will selectively avoid others who hold beliefs incon-
ruert With their owi This narrowing process may be de-
scribed ii teres of "breadth," referring to the number of
referents or authorities used by the person to uphold his

beliefs and disbeliefs. Implied here is that such avoidance

is a thod of li';.itin; contact with those vho crallen e,
and are thus threateni inf, to one's belief.
Differentiation: In pe'sons with clOSed cognitive sys—

 

tems, "tiie more ch fferentiated the belief system will be as

compared with the disbelief system." 36, p. 198). In ad-
dition, " he greater the dogmatism, the ;reater the dis-
crepaicy between dc;rce of knowledge of facts, eve ts,
ideas, and irte Hpre ions stemming from tte beliei system

0 .9 II n0 .
and any one of the disbelief systems. (36, p. 1am . Thus,

{‘J
P0

persons with relatively closed coynitive systems should

have more knowled e about their positive refereits than

they have about their nenative referents. Again, the

lack of Knowledge about the authorities for one's disbeliefs
is an indication of reliance on the positive author ties or
referents as a defense 3:31H3t threat or attack.

Moreover, following Hokeach's postulate that ”the
greater the do;matism the more will two or more distelief
sub—systems...be perceived as 'the same'." (3o, pp,l§8-199)
there should be less awareness on the part of the closed
individual of existing differences among his neyative re—.
ferents. In persons with relatively closed cognitive sys-'
tems, the negative referents should be perceived as being
more similar and as having more in common than is the case

for persons with relatively open systems.

Isolation: In Rokeach's analysis of co;nitive struc-

 

ture, the ;reater the do matism, the ;reater is the assumed
degree of isolation or independence between the belief and
disbelief systems." (3o, p. 197). It may be postulated

that one index of this isolation will be the source of the
individual's information and knowled;e about his ne;ative
referents. Since the belief and disbelief systems are per—
ceived by the closed individual as different in content or
aim, he will be less likely to pay heed to the pronounce-
ments of the authorities of his disbelief system (his neg-

ative referents) and will rely, in larye part, on his posi—

r)
l...

Lt)

tive referents for inf ornation abou; the ”distelievepg,”
sy doin; so, he will be spared the threat and anxiety

which could possibly result from closer contact with his

negative re erents.

Specific Hypo: :1eses

he will new state these theoretic

(n

l deductions re—
;ardin; the dimensions of the belief referents of indi—
viduals with relatively closed cognitive structures in
terms of specific hypotheses to be tested:

Concernin; Narrowin;:

1. Persons with relatively closed belief—disbelief sys-'
tems should have fewer negative referents than persons
win h relatively open telief— disbelief syst t'ms.

Concernin_ Differentiation:

2. There should be a yreater di “or pancy in the de ree of
knowled1e about positive referents and negative refer-
ents for persons with relatively closed belief-disbelief
systems than for persons with relatively open belief-
disbelief systems.

3. Persons with relatively closed belief—disbelief systems
should perceive Jreater similarity amen; their negative
referents than persons with relatively open belief—dis-
belief systems.

Concerning Isolation:

4. Persons with relatively closed belief-disbelief systems

should obtain less of their information about their nega—

 

I .1': V’ 'i
. u L ‘~-.4 -

’\
\J

r)

V J;

L
L;

.
,(i

J‘ ._
W . ’\_vw ‘
L) .,:\.....1‘”

.r:

h‘-

“a

i r'.

(1.

K

\

.'. T"
L

k)

' I

.,
(f ‘

‘3”)

(.3

positiv

\"‘
.‘ LIL

3'16?

LOT? (LC (

CHAPTER 1V

METHODOLOGY

The initial pool of students, from which the experi-
mental srbjects were selected, was composed of one
hundred ninety—seven persons enrolled in two intro-
ductory psychology courses at Michijan State University
dtring the Spring term of 1958.

Measurewert of Open-Closed Eeliei Systems

The 40—item Dijatism Scale (Form E), with six—choice
Likert—type scoring, was used to measure the degree of
openness-closedness of belief systems. This scale was
administered to all persons in the initial pool. No
filler items were utilized. Subjects were asked to give

their names and other biographical information at the end

those reported in prior studies using the Dijatism Scale

(3, 21, 23, 26, 29, 35, 42, RR 59), in which the scale

//1
was administered under anonymous classroom conditions,
and was part of a longer battery with varying numbers of

"filler” items designed to cloak the Dogmatism iters.

Rokeach (38) has elaborated th characteristics of

O

the Dogmatism Scale, and has reported splitahalf relia~
bilities of .73 and .81. Vidulich (59) also reports a
split-half reliability of .73. The corrected split-half

reliability of this scale as used in the present study is

 

K o 1 . ‘2 vns ( (V 4. ‘ ' " .
.70, with a sample of 93. Th_s COdePeo iavorably With
1 The Do;matism Scfie-(?brivijnaghused in this investi-
yation is presolted in Appercix A.

m
0\

the arlier findin s, and su_ ests that anonyuinity of

(D

administration and "paddin ” are n0t as essential as pre—

viously supposed.

From the preliminary group of 19f students who took
the Do matism Scale, 30 subjects were selected for indi—
vidual interviews on the basis of extremely hi,h scores,
and 30 subjects were chosen on the basis of extremely low
scores, a total of co subjects in all. These subjects were

as

CO

i“ned to the High and Low Lo_matic ,roups by an ac—
quaintance of the experimenter, so that, at the time of the
interview, the do matism score of the subject was unknown

to the experimenter.

Measurement of belief Referent Dimensions

 

The Pilot QueStionnaires. It was the writer‘s ori,inal

 

intent to conduct a correlational study of the relationships
1

between personality structure and belief referents alony tne

otal continuum of Dogmatism. With this end in mind, an at-

(‘1‘

tempt was made to construct a questionnaire which would tap
the various referent dimensions growin; out of the theoretical
formulations.

This questionnaire went thr u,h three revisions in an
attempt to evolve a measurin; device which 'as relatively
uncomplicated and which did not require too much effort on
the part of the subjects. The initial version was tested

on twenty-one married students who were neighbors or ac-

 

'r'fi

i—W

 

qraintances of the writer. The second and third vers imo ns
were given :rder anonymogs class oom conditions, to st dents
in the ’ troc ctorr P“rcholo*'r co*rce ”tilisit" a > '

- J...” “Li «.J ”JV “L‘, . nD‘.,, |.(1-._ 4-44.1.1]: cph:)r‘OX j.“
mately forty s:hjects for each administration.

Due to the nature of the questionnaire, it turned out

that :rorp adm_fiistraticn cogld not jive as adequate cata.

l

(I)
I?
9
H
O.
H)
«‘3
H.
H
0“
O

., . A. her. .. .- .
In rost cases, SUbU@Cb A . i answer QuGStiOfiS per—
taining to one or more dimensi is, responding in a h3rr3 ied
and sketchy manner.

The Interview_ Schen"_ . . Accordin;ly, it was decided to

-—..—_-- —-c—-

 

collect the data utilizing an individual interview techniq
with groups of subjects at the d,per and lower extremes on‘
dormatism. It was b;lieved that this interview would mini—

mize the complications arising out of the nee of the imposinj

Questionnaire.

A

An interview schedule, composed of statements and GUES-

J-

tions ve y similar to those in the qu stionr aire was con—
structed, and administered to each of the sixty ubjects
individually. This interview took approximately one hovr
for ena h s oject.

The interview scho‘ale consisted 0 questions designed
to elicit, in as direct a manner as po ossible, information

0 1 t V 0
bearing on eacn of the magor nypotheses.¢ The questions in-

cluded in the interview were ordered from general to spe—

cific to avoid directing the sabiect's responses. To

 

2 The cowolete interview schedJle, :ith the verbatim
i str1cti mozs ims d, is presented in Appendix B.

m
0‘

ensure standardization, the sin le topic of desejregation
in the public schools was used in this stu y. lhis topic
was chosen tecause (l) in the first two pilot administrat-
ions of the questionnaire, the subjects were given a choice
of topics of current social interest from which to choose,
and about which they were to answer questions. Over ei hty
per-cent of these subjects chose dose re_ation in the public
schools as the topic about which they felt most stron;ly;
(2) the use 03 this topic in the interview schedule maxi—
mized the prota.ilify of a susject having stron; beliefs
atout the topic under consideration; (3), Standardization.
of questioning and sutject response was achieved with the
use of one topic.

Every effort was made to Standardize the administra-
tion of the interview schedule. Identical phrasin; of the
queSLions was used with all subjects. Leading questions
were avoided in all cases. When additional inforhation
was required, or when responses needed clarification,
"nondirective" protin; techniques were used. 3

Scorin: of lelief-Referent Dimensions. As will te noted

 

from an inspection of the interview schedule (Appendix E),
the questions utilized are amenable to objective categori-
zation and quantijication. We will now outline the scorin;
scheme for each question cate ory pertaining to the major

hypomheses.

 

3 For an excellent discussion of these techniques, the
reader is referred to Cannell and Kahn (4), and Kahn and
Cannell (lo). Examples of the type of statements made are
shown in Appendix 5.

\
x,
z
. ‘ ¥ /‘ I 7
i l
,/ ‘4
‘ I
’ U
. ¥
\4 . \- x-
t 2 1 , a
c e ‘ >
, f
‘, ._ .A . I
V r ' f
, , . - ,. t -
L4 \ l ‘7 ‘AJ '

r“, . I ., , 4. 1 .. T , . ' 1. - '.. . - - z,
'. (7 ‘ ' . I ‘ ‘ .- H . .- A Ir ' I‘ " l .)’| 5 T»".’ ’..‘ ’.‘ ¢‘ ' ' ,‘
.5. .. 1) .L _ . V‘ .x/ L A - U I). .A-"/ ‘1], L4 J. \J 3) ,-'».) ,‘ VII 3);; 5 ) (.3 LIZ/L ‘ ,(1 U0
_7 . _ ‘ ¢ 1" o 4- _ _ - _ r1 ‘ _I 1 z_ - 4—— _ H 1 3
D ’ t ) . V . , u " ’ \ w I. ‘ j t ' \ " g "1 4‘ - . r7, — (w a -- - «. r. ~ ,—x /\ .
Lube LL 1 n .JKJ-.- O 1 L -L,\..-..)-.. I”! CU. -14...) got/1 L1. hum [gm/v“ U k~.‘~;..;J‘\;.‘ .1"?-

f
5 1
w!
k l
r‘.
t.
O
n
«(4
'\
r‘.
,
“‘1
r
\l
, a
\
r.— I
f-
k)
..
7 J
(\
I“)
-+
\ .
- O
, .
o.’
"S
—&
K
>4
A
-t
‘\
.J
.\
fl
fi.
.J
\“
fl
.
«k
a
V

.f , J. _ ... . .' . A .‘,. . 7 . '. .— - _' . 'l .. . .' J. ‘ .. - .. , ,l -
I I ~ . ‘ . _ r. r, i ’5 ‘1 Fax” .~ .+ - r KN x v. . , _." II. . . . .. . -.
L..- .mJL 4...;:-:L. L133 influx: I .44.-. -23 7 .. Cri '~.:x/‘-J t -' in ’7" « '1 v .V:

 

‘ _ r w‘ _ :1 . . l ‘1 ‘ ' fl .
n I ‘ "I “ T. H.“ ' r‘ 7’) " V' ‘ ‘1 “ ‘ V 'f; ‘,"‘ ' ‘ \ ‘ ’ . '7”: ‘“ ‘-
n. J' . 'L" Cxi 1;.‘L.~.". I. 1,... '.'_._‘v"., . 5;” luduui’q.) )L 1&7)
V_ (I 4‘ - 1 g ’ ,.‘ , £ ‘
’ \~.' 7‘ V') .\r‘\ “ l' f). ', . " "3 (fi' ‘ I ' j 7 if ". ')’_. ’ ’e‘ 'x‘l‘i") _] \« 7"1’. ‘\
. LA: ' ‘\\.4 ._ O.L Ll\)\ ) I. LJ 4- V‘z {1‘- -»‘ L (J '_,. Ll .L_.\I; (7.: I» ( 1. (I x K- . \ bk \4 ~o L \ kl‘q .JI .1. K...‘ '

1\v _~vd .
V
1 WWI-.1: 1 7: “"“T w-‘ ‘4 ‘ f" " QC] 3 .1311: H 1." w 9.2:. ’i,':\ r J" n f7".~. -\ Q 7r.
o __ i.) " -1... 'c 2.' .,. - L— .. (L) UCA _.. .. a. L . l ;1({,.A- \\‘,-I V _ ; H L) . .-. x) xi”.

.- - . . .. - . .. ‘ ., I 1. V. "“n 1 1 .. _ .- _ , . ‘ .. _. ,\ -~ . ,' . . .
/ v r: v . v , w r. ‘ , . . _ ‘ /
'éit'. T, an; .5 c. C t ’ {<3 I. O .i- .v..-.fl.‘: .' . O: 'U.’ ' —- g: (s x ‘1 A) .3 ~—

I
u I, 'V‘ y _ 1 _ '. n < . l
~e - r.‘ P‘ . r w v r. ,A. 1- v‘ v‘wfifif— ' ',. 1 T 4 .' r I“ I Iv
»’ l. " IR’ 0 O O O -«k 3'" L-‘~\r’ (3 ~ tw’)‘v’ 4.. Qx/xn a. -L .. .’ J... 4‘.» ' me' l\r‘ O
'J L V
" H- -v } ft 1 ' 1 1 H
r Av-i- V“ V ~ V .lx-v— —.~/ — , ,
,. ,( no a m 1- . >4» m»

g o , 1.1. V J __ \A I ._ J . .... \. ”U D J . x J Q Q Q 3

« Iv v _'_~ (I ~ .I. 4- - - . - 1 _- I-
,‘ ‘.‘.f‘ _ . . .,‘ . _, . v , 'I , 1‘ *f' . ‘ ’ 1"1 ', A
'1 I I“ x: L \J(,.L.) IJ-1..\; ' .1: xix! {1 K, J, ‘IV' 1 r: , 1&1 L. .x) ‘lo

 

I .._. .. . _ ,
‘ ~w. h ~1t‘rv‘ y ~.pu:iv .1 n‘hfi/ + w
. g .x. L)\,~ x). .l' ' .J. b) JU . _.._. "‘z} \—.. . \I \/ v.../
v“ H 0 1 ‘ ‘
w, .\ I" r‘.‘ ‘—~ ('2 -« -_W vrf ; 1‘) ' 3” ‘ L . ‘ ‘\ “’1 r‘, ‘1 “w "I .‘w r . f‘ (1, *- ‘
. ., .. .. A. x I U. \l .. . _ , __. . . .- - L \, - .. J. x » x) w.) '.,. .‘._:
V ,_t -
‘ fi 1 ~ 1 5 7 £ _‘
2') 'r~~' xx ’~ ‘ ‘. IV “’1 ~ ' - a”, n , 3 u *,_'
L\.‘ A) :1- l~-/.. 1‘- - KCKA (/L )xJ‘J ‘IL' _, L3 V, {‘(Jb‘l
* x -
'7 .' l ‘ ' ‘ .‘l f ' '3 f') I - _ '_ ,-
v :— 7 ' L-‘x 4‘ F‘v 4 . I i ‘ ’d— '3 ‘ (x‘l «(J I \ I '3 I A
v'v ..'...\,- I) Q MI wv I - iJ..K ;. \ LA . . - - x s...’ .
1 'z T ‘ . ‘ K fl r i - x ‘ V T ‘ ' ‘ 1
a, '. .r‘ ' ‘ I" ‘ ,‘V ( I .4 _ . ’ \ ’ . I ' ‘ " I " . i ‘ )
(Iz‘ .. ' \/ :.‘-:. ale. a. k, . K L (i' -. \J'.. _ L.t.‘.‘ . -. Vt- JEN»
_ 1 . "1 . _ . J__ .
6* ' f‘ ‘ ' r! "K" , :. ' a ' ‘1 ".’~f -~. u m ‘ ~. '0 7.x -' ’.* 2" F. ‘v‘\ ‘ (T i ' ’
L.) .t , ’...‘-- L1 w klw.‘. t‘v Law”). x.) hem.) u -ka; wk. -..._) a. LAN) U_ \’~..
" I ,fi\ 0 o e s
"I. I) r. 7" ’. '7' “i "1.7 ’ ‘. "V" ‘- r1; 3. "1 'u "’ 7' ‘ ‘l (A In .W “a, K ‘ ' J” ’ 1 “"l C ‘0
k.’ 'A i . k.‘ .i-v '. l . _ '3 'J .L. 'r- 1. x; L ~.« !. - '1 O ... . 'v \J \J) .’ (_.~. 1- A "r .‘ x 1 ‘ L.
' u ‘ _ - a . _ I“: _ L . ~ . ‘_ ‘1‘ ' .- 1 n :1
-,- ~ 3;.-\ r raj—j ,‘ . ‘ ‘1‘. ‘ . g I; '5‘ , .'»‘r‘.. [.1 H, ((7,‘ ~
U1 LK. '4.)"_v ‘ .1 - \; ‘i. ‘l_ . !. . ‘. . __ J. '_ LIL ‘ _a L) .-'.‘ l P. x.. v L) U .~ ¥- __L . H, ‘_ 0,)
~ W ‘ c. 4-3 . '.~.» use: ,- '1‘ U». .3 L J," " .. -' s «'. —, “ ‘ : ,
‘ . “4 L 0’ v \» Cr: L.) U .- ‘4 .-- - L‘V. \- .1“.. k1) L. U L. ha lJ U ~..’ "- J» ‘~~' kl ‘J .1- LJ .... ‘J I ‘ ) .... —- -
z II o J 2 1 .2. 1.. ‘ ,. n . - , . . . ‘. -.
\_'.~I--~ a") *-, 1),,1“ * (“v a ' .nf‘x ‘~;\ -, .‘I |\' . .: "I (‘N IN ,4 ,1 v x. :I. . . !_ -_
a). . ‘-.l A. \_r.‘. ~.‘. -,: Jk-) 3 UL k- wk} 1J1“... z.’ L;..i-.’ u-L \Jl. n; J2. I.)\I. '.\_) K4.._!J
-
D ' ‘ " ‘. I. ’ n - .
-_* ‘ "/) n) v‘ v . f.‘ z, N“ .‘ 4" 7' ,'~. (. - .) l‘ {:3 _l l. ij‘. - '3 ". f. "f f} a
LA. '. a. ‘9' . . . . ~ ..- 1.1;. UL .4 3.-) L. ..,' T; s.) L) '1 l .i. .L s.) X. I L- I.) . .L.) Lt

.
.2-.- r. w,“

1 1. - .‘ .. - . H
-w . . * , ‘ d P w \. 1". .3
5.0 'JLL.’ .1..‘.»._\.LJ a. .1 ()1. Lil 1.: by’t/LLJ. LUA-’ at LVV

 

L

.
fl-
1;

.2- 1 ‘,T.—... r» , ._ $ ‘ _ . z .1 ‘_.,-A
h—r. .L,(«\LJ~A_L -:m.‘..1"-‘clfi C); .L. L)(')L‘~23 ;.J.-. «A \./‘.L 3’. ‘-1(:) ‘5‘\.')-‘J J/N: L}

H 7‘ ~. H ~vx. __1n .. 2 {N 1—
t

. f. l'~ " , ,‘1 - . 1.... .' . _ . .‘._ W .31.
was astau, new n.s- do Jo- know or know 01 “n

J
J
4
i
4
J
1
y.
a
.)
a.
I
‘1
\
\J
‘1
J

I [.1 . 4. _ I“! ‘ - _
.‘V'a °- * A .~< r. l '0 ~ ,1 x1 . w ‘ -*
(Ci little) kAJ-J—.'-..)--\.:LLJ-L

, .. .. . 4-
LGLVL.‘ CLAN ; C)_L;

O
O
O
M
(K
1
l
C'
\
4’1
l
)-
l.
‘fil
C.
3.4
l. a
O
’ —
\l'
1'"
\ -
r3
1
Q
t -
C0
“.4

“dbi0.dl 3H0 re “OLfll gro ms dUU or w:

L“.- ,‘ a i .A —

- ". 4. '._ ,I (V - . ‘ A , .1 p - “I I-I , 3 1.
1.31; b ' ‘01-!) .xCiVC. Ck’t (3 U-‘- U (- 01. (H l-‘J w (1.5. {-31.1 O

l‘ T; I) 0‘ . 'F :L‘. 1'" C.‘ ‘ h n "l '- f“ T” "A v 1.": N ' ~ J .”~ : ' "
o o , .L_:;,J. i. \)\_..|- nJO.; U»— L L1 L) Lidiuiklll‘gu .J’

, ' "I v ‘ v o

-,\I"_\, (g' . g. (1‘,- " 11 A,” ‘. 4.. “.(7 .13 ‘1‘.“ ~.- a r\. Q 1 , _‘
Lxl\; u..'.- bvv 1U L.)|1V_L.L-‘ LIZ-Luv xi...-.‘VL)UJ-\J..L¢ I..’-j,lf_")
(‘ C “N I“) ’3 d ’3 ':. “‘ .L’ '.2 Ta .1; y A C" '3 1' #3 'rl 3‘ r_'_~_ '5 +- I] ‘V 'x‘ H -.
LJ ’ kl ‘4- C 4. ‘IL L - C... i) )U 4.. {I .LVKJ O L A. K.» .( x) A-. ta 4.] L

-,. ' 1,. .‘ - ~ ,. 4.. ,. ‘ 1.. .:. . ,1 :‘I ,_ n_- .. -. -, .7

(‘03 had indicated n.hseiL as ia.o;-nI
.. .._ - _' , . ..‘ ,, ,.. . . ' .° y. .. ‘I I ‘ 9 .- p .-

oppos_._ dead re at_on on the teliei—i

_- L..‘ ‘ w“1., , . ,- " D I..- . -'.
P&LL-M seal . .ne totals lor the posi

the n4 at- e reiere ts were Gonp_te' se,

. ’ ‘— 9 I " (‘1‘ y ' ‘/ 1/ A 4' “ ‘l‘ ‘-_‘r L
, ”‘C a ”('15 o OWL: JHV SBCL‘u'V fl L10 L: w; 3 0’

'w B r‘ “ 1 ‘7' *F' (‘7 3 4- 1 '\ -
(01.0 n..." 3 C...‘. iOilxm‘I-.- one ‘J Lab:

. .1. ,. \ . 1- r ., v h- r I: r‘ ‘ l
a thtr of a at; cue t was scored as a

. - .11- - , ' ..| - ...,..- ,.'....
ent. LLQ hence authors were --e ti. e

' r I' L..' ,y “ ,_. - ‘1’.
;os_t "e 0' AB at ve roierarts .J as“

1 ‘ L' ' I \r r ‘- J." - I J.— l- - ' - f ‘

S ‘1 LL) | L), for, U:+L:.1 IV Uraul'jz (3 .L; ab {wk} UJ ‘

(.1 \j
’ I.)
I- -
1.- I.
‘ A 3.;

31
Lo sowe aathor, whether he apreed or cisa reed
“with that statement. 11N2:mhns of these names
were used as the indices of posi:ive and he a-
tive "DLdoCxLU " referents.
fetal Lamaer of "Lisz" deferents. Ihe subject
was presented with a list of the names of 54
puelic persons, half of which had been unani-
mously jud;ed by two raters as heing in favor
and half of which had teen Jud ed as opposing
desegreration. fhe sucject was requested to
indicate those persons which he was p0 osigive had
made SOme statement for or against dese re ation,'
and to state the direction of the statement made
(for or a ainst). The sums of these us In es were
used as the total of positive and negative "liSt"
referents, dependin; on the su ject's previously-
rated dir ction of telief aaout the topic.
"Adgusted” TOLal Numeer of Heferents. ihis score
was octained sy totaling the names of every person
or Jroup that had been mentioned my the subject on
all of the preceeding four measures. Names were
scored only once; for example, if Fau;us was mention—
ed as a "prose" ne9ative referent, and a¢ain as a
"list" ne ative referent, his name was scored only
once in obtainin; the "adjusted" total number of
ne ative referents. Separate indices were outained

for positive and negative referents.

:2
H- -~ , W l' ,. ,1: - .
3—;_‘_:: ,‘Aw m“: -‘L' w».- . _ : Lli -‘Ue L4‘\I;.L..Oi. (J-
i perv ;, _ — fiAC:TCt his asie“ f0 twwa‘aiel
lewa Ezirm' 1ar; t.; CJF flie: §u<vs_~fgi Uri a; ,C: 71r;€' 1 e:;&: 'i
(are tr' t'a” E‘mi em? large} d ti tEiis pordii‘
.hterview. A 15—001;t rat' scale was
”his f dfme t (see Appe‘dix F). O.l; the p t
or *ro ps Tha‘ lad 'ea ared 1' ‘le "nio.e"
(HT t*e it iervfewzxnere :ywl; perww-.:’ axwyiai t
rt 1 cl-deo i t'e carparisors. TPC Lean si

rati ‘ assi“‘ed to all “‘e possi 1e cor i ati
pairs of parse s or gro ps Verso was sec as
s wilar"" score.

For exerrle, e s"33 t who 'areC F:
and t-e K.K.K. as e :tive refererfls cart 1
was askei to rate the foliowi. pairs on semi

Fa . s-Kasper (4); Fa; .s—K.K.K. (S);
K.K.K. (3). ire avera e of “‘ese lIPQE ratL;_°

I‘ t e several cases where
,v - _~ II c M
pro ps were tame i‘ the orOce

matic), the referee 8 names in ih
were "sed to o/ta n ‘"e sfmilarit
s hjecis (3 siah Do matic, 2 Low
positive refehe‘t similari'y ijde

(0 person

O

sect;

ON

I 1‘

7 . . 1
v C _\
V 'f 1‘7 h
Va: 1. ’

used it +a2

('1' C38 ".‘."3
rilfiri‘j
O? 8 Of

1. *1”: 1:01.61.

01

Ad

5).")

and for 4 subjects (all Ei,h Lo;ratic), no ne ative re—
ferent similarity index was obtainalle. In these cases,
only one referent was named by the subject during the

"prohe" section of the interview.

C. Information: The subject was requested to answer a

 

ries of six information questions for each of the

puhlic pers Ons and ;roups named as either pos Hi or

:3.

ative referents during the "prope"'portion of the
interview. Personal acquaintances were not used.
Separate lists of questions were used for persons and
for groups (see Appendix E). The answer to each ques-
tion was scored eit ner 0,711,0912, according to the
degree of factual accuracy. Questions answered "don't
Know," or questions answered incorrectly were scored
0. Partially correct or incomplete answers were score d
fl. Answers which followed statements of "don't know"
were judqed as uesses and were scored,ll. The cor—
rectness of answers for all questions was checked in
standard bio raphical and historical references

The information score was computed by totallin

the individual question scores for all referents used
and dividin by the total hummer of referents about
which the susject had answered questions. This was done
separately for the ppsitive and the negative referents.
In those cases where no referents Jere named in the

"prose" section; the information score was based on

II

.I‘\

 

 

.' .. - 4 L I N
C‘ k' I n ’7. ‘ f, ’ ”1 a ‘ r". ’v r \. r 'v)
I‘DU.L\) 1 ) Lit); 14/ in (11 L! k}- t; I'Lf13K) -I) - -Lr \‘k‘l 'J: -'_ f1
‘ L‘ '1 J .

 

1" : v u -
.1 J, Y) 1’ \ .111 1.“ V . _ _ a ‘,i L 4. , -_ _- ,- . I . .-_ r~
(kw) 1‘..-1.1J(J..IL.L1. CbiglICJ‘,{/b L111 L131 Own) )K." -J3f’.)..-Jo :1

’ l-v‘ ’ < ) ‘ ‘A r‘ . ", ‘y ‘ 4‘ *‘ ‘ “ 4"" <
01 bJ, to .” 11sV1 K_,:€L:fll ally ruri. tnw in rso '.3
~ /3 c ‘ I (‘1 i x I r ~ ‘ V) \. qu 1' I ‘ ,7. .. v... I. ',-. ,o‘ , . -7', 1 _ . ..
()1. L0 1") t.) A r k. .1) b- -...L UIC 1.131.) 01.. L/LLU UO:«‘_~C, LfiClVIFJV

r ’ r\. f\ I '7 ‘ x .‘x *, 1 1' -. L-7.‘ r ,- - . n » ,—
per3o,al v heard or seen the person or nm'n;e' of

(“F
r—‘
1)
a
d
O
r‘
\J

salze prOno nceme nts or the top oic on
radio or television, etc.

- -. T -r— v -~. ‘ 1 I ~‘.. ' ' r I". ~ ~~ ‘ . - 1 v - r . V , f ,
(u) _1ss taoii. r03 exangle, haw1:fl seat or

'L“ 1 .- -v-. t x- ‘ 7". ‘ l'x‘ "3". ‘1 c ~ « K H a ‘-. '- ‘—
inuv.fi3flfil or re : <1, hav;.,j1131rd or ffifiJi isozt

__-._-_.... a...—

I“"./ -r .7. I ~' r‘.‘ » " - - n ”a L- . v». P“ v.v -, " v. :-
{11(3 ’.)~.;..'€)\,)1] ".J 1:) £101..) -1.’ . u e L ._'.:i'¢:)"{.]'\'§(\ 1-36., et'c a

‘ P‘ "'1" "‘17" rd" t1"? '1“ "‘ '- ."_\ 1“?) “3‘ 3’3) IF 2‘ 1 I '3

v bL/Il'ul. b/\)U-L.IJ.LJ‘V I: Lfivle/un LOP L--AL x). .',
lrv I “W7Vn W ) t t m nfir’r or ‘WA‘Q wit‘ on-
i IvL‘ l- ’ Llfi‘IhKJLw‘ a/\ J ‘L b i.‘ ’ JEJI ._L\l\._~ VI——k.’1‘ viii

1/4. _. - , , .. V a 1 .- .j - 1.». }_‘, , -' ', 4- . ‘ .
‘ n ‘_ )C‘f YY", ' ’I_ 1? r." (~V I. (x n 2",[7
Obi.d1. £33.110Q1; .111 Ci ‘,L\-3\JC.L V‘iflbLl U113 t.) Idedvu uL-‘Ueje;

ion oi i.1ormatton so roe can ce placed

Cf

Cele 1,-01;
into more tnah one cate:ory. ror etample, a 313

V ' ‘:" ’ ’ ‘ 'l ' . ' ‘. . ' i‘" r ‘ - ' ."‘ ,r. l" ‘- _ - ' g : V
,ect repor in; seelnr pahuas speak 0n teleVIslon

U)

1n I- (M ~ H" r- r . fli‘ " -. 1.“ r' 7" Y ' fi ' 3 ’ ’
who has also seei pauii peaa, wO lo rec 3 ve

1.: . 31 h‘)‘ L‘. i, ,4-,_
1;;3r.eu;0f; -11; all 1.1111168 Cdce O-L‘

}_).
I

 

r,1_‘ .-~- W.,, ,(1‘ (1. H1, ‘YT , ‘ "1‘1,
cate_o13, LC_&QIVG 1e CLB1US , was ori inalig
" 1 F» ‘1 i- -, , , ‘ ' .3. . ' . , ,4: 4- .°. ,1,
not no sutgect :epost teo receiV1;_ iriorhation

«’3 '- "I 3-; s v.‘ ‘ r 1- :1 r- . w ‘2 -' 4“ ,‘ ‘ ' ~"

rei re t lion SOmUOJe wro disa_reed wita flih.

r1"

 

 

 

 

T renor‘eo . fornfitiog so rces for each s Fjoct
were taYIZed i110 @291 of the epslfcabie cate or es. The
total n‘mme: of so “ces RR tio ed hy the s g.ect was com-
puted, aid each cate or; gas assl .ed a fraction 01 the
total member of 31 rces in ter s of a fierce ta e. Th 3,
for a s; ject With two re ative refere;ts, Fauc1s afid Joh*
Kati» :, 1113,1ac .nEJ Lip! 13 sgxg1; o' (has; 1~e a1'1; o 113-c—
v-3 o , rno ward a_o.t hasge- o a ?¢t o awe—‘yotdcas a d
had ta‘aed ate 2 Fa»L1s With a rev3red pcofassor, the scorin_
wo 7‘11 '06: as 'f‘oliorrsz
E2r80“1 Co ’act Kass Kwdfa Pcs'tive Re°ere ts Tot“7
So roe l 2 7 4
Perce ta"e aEfl 50$ 25% lOCZ
s. gcetpf“*cn~neject10‘ of Refere ts. Fa}? of the High Doe—
ratic Geo p a‘d 1a 1 of the Low Do matfc Gro p were asked
to respond to e: ht statewe»*s attr*%uted to Orval Fatefis
in terns of their a_reere t or disafreere t. Tte other
han of each Do matic grogp resjo-‘ed Lo idertical state—
we is, with ide.tical i str.ct30us, attrit ted to Th1v;ood

Likert—ty

.I

.it’

(see AppenC x 3).
The respo se to ea0u statemezt
to the form ]a (—1,-2, a;2 -3 = 1,2,

 

ratin: scale was usec

ied accordi-
1,2,

and

acceptaece-re—

 

jection sc re for each sxhject as the sum
5 At the time of tzis invest1.atio , Orval Faubos was the
Governor f Arka sas and tFe womi a] letCer of fife sejrvjatior
se;tfirert is the SoytTere States; TE7T300d Narshall was tke
Chief Lefa‘ Courcil for the Yatioxal A.sociatioe for the
Advanceme t of Colored Pn p1e a/d played a: active role in the
atterpt to irie.rate the P Ylfc Schools of tre South.

X C'
-_4 IJ

L

t1

,
0

01

.1.” 1.,_‘
(Itl‘j:;vbo

“‘3

)

{LC J. K

.3
.L

"‘ V ‘ ?,, (:)
AFJk.’ ‘—

T

11;.1.

ES.

13, - 1
Uiufc”

P’

I"
JC~

. (J T"

.1 H
13.11?

. ',,‘

'_A
V

1.1

n.. _
stat

r of

'13

N"
1V

[’1 -111

a« v

-J.

C

7’) A ~ 9"
\1'23 (3 L

4....

A
DC

GESJFGS

I
A

K

DOVE

‘

l\
a!
£4-

‘- I-‘ (I')
V J K J

'5
OI

h

’)

3

TH

(

V8

1".
L14.

I

.l) «.3.

830

.3
.1

in

posit

‘\
he

CHAPTER V

'7' —.'. T” ”T?
I‘xpSUVJJa S

Depaatisr, A;e, and Intellijehce. The mean DO'ratism

 

score for the total initial pool of 197 students was 145.21,
with a standard deviation of 22.71. From this pool, ap-
proximately the upper and lower fifteen per—cent were se—
lected for use as experimental sntjects. Table 1 presents
the data for these hijh and Low Lo natic hroups on Do;—

rt, afie, and ixrnjlli once as estlyafiaxlfflxnh the Ameri-

P‘<
'1)
A
l

i

.0 c...
.l. Q

can Council on Erucation Psycholo ical Examination (ACE).

TA LE 1.
DOGMATISM, Ads, AHD INTELLIGENCE OF THE TWO
EX‘EHIFENTAL GROUPS

(3 L. 30 in each ;ronp)

 

 

(4
O
*1
m
p.
E0
:13
CC.
(J
>
FE

 

 

 

&
$1)
:3
U)
0
h
{13
:‘5
U.)
t.“
b
C \
U)
U

 

1.47

R)
1.1
o

(

[U
'\ T:
C73
KP
L»)

Hijh lc0.4? 9.36
DOgmatiC
Low lll.#7 9.31
Dogmctic

[\3
k
k ,1)
F 1‘
h)

1.3
h.)
in
U)

t —~--* 2.5-

p -__- ,.CS .03

 

*Not computed tecaase of the otvious difference between

the two groups.

[(2 111g“ meorggs l;QCKfi lJl Liiizs sini<gx clifik r 11of; orilJ' 01

Lo ratism, -1” are also diffzr.i 01 i 1 and lrtclll~
1Q3s5u31‘*3 r-d ,z“; ASL. 'szlfigh D r010 isYJV
«>11 1 ’ .11 l .,c ' 1"? 1 * 1-) ‘ ii .' D. 3;?(fl p. I .

addition, the correlation Iain 11 a_u arc App 7s'+.£;,
whicn is not ti nificant. Lhus, the data for the major
hypotheses could conceivably be a function of either ape,
or intelligence, or both of these variables operating
simultaneously, in addition to Dogmatism. In lipht of
these findinps, it was deemed necessary to partial out

statistical

(D

the effects of these two variaeles in th
analysis of the main hypotheses. The procedures of this

statistical analysis will be elaborated shortly.

Other Variatles. Data were also collected on several

 

other variables, includin; socio—economic status, college
class, reported college grade point average, sex, marital
status, religious affiliation, frequency of church attend—
ance, political preference, and intensity of attitude about
desegregation in the public schools., These data are pre—
sented in Tables 2 throu;h 10.

Two indices of socio—economic status were employed:
estimated yearly parental income as reported by the subject,
and the North—Hatt rating of reported parental occupation.

The former measure was scaled on a lO~category dimension

(see Appendix 5). She latter measure used the reported
paternal occupation and was lased on the occupational
ratin s reported in the literature (a, 34), in which the
hijher ratin s are indicative of hi her prestige occu—
pation. The obtained correlation between these two measures
in the present study is /.s5.

Ihe colle e class index was scaled on a four—category
dimension, with l: freshman at the lower limit, and 4 Z
senior at the upper extreme. There were no graduate stu-
dents in the sample.

The colle4e ;rade-point average was oetained from the
sutgect to at least one decimal place, and the mean is
presented.

The categories for religious affiliation were collaps—
ed into Catholic, Protestant, and Other to allow a Chi—
square analysis. The exact reported denominational pre—
ferences are presented in the footnote to Table 5.

A nine—category scale was used to rate the reperted

44

frequency of church atten_ance, with lZ-attendance more
than once a WEEK: t0 9 =never attends church.

-‘

Two indices of political preference were obtainc'

presidential choice in the 195o election, and political
party preference.

The intensity of attitude toward dese;re;ation in the
putlic schools was indicated, by the subject, on a 15—point

vertical ratin; scale, on which 1 = very much opposed to

,_ . s 9
* .xC,‘ .3 "v1": "_ 7" “"- h V VP v,"
ULQ'V‘JLJULL uldh, gum 1/; “" VLL‘ 1.; 2CI1

vatiom. ( See Appepd'

L4.
>4
E .‘ .1
O
V

All analvses emnloVim: “>ii
a J _.
LOP conzih‘**v “fifflg

\J»A..Ud’ wxix“).

? .»~ . ‘ A r‘.’ ‘ ~ " T‘ ‘ V v a’ “1 l“! K. ‘ \‘ ',’ '3 ‘
as QUSCPlbcu LJ LQHQPMU (3, {9. ~

v (a ‘fl

7 0».
.LU. .LCLV\JL

Var-5:148 CCJI’I‘E.‘

‘. .. —‘ ‘ Y _.
Spcu .,‘-T \ C“

d Abs LEV

thc

U)

 

Two iniCuS 01 30,:O-ECUUOm10 Status of High and Low
b0 matic Groups
(I = 30 in cgch {coup}
North ha,t Occupariordl Raging Appordcd Farcn‘al I?
l'l")11. biog}. l;”k-ll SOL.

{i ”[11
Dogma

;

I. .10

Low 70.60

D0;mabic

 

{0

7.96

1.04

I“: Q S 0

PO

 

'n and

po‘q~~yv1-‘ r)
I

LIL- j

C: C)

30 in each

cried Colle;
Low Lo;m

9roup

' “‘ " . 4 \

e JPQQE’PUlnb Av-
“. "u N ,

d,lc qrob*s

V

 

 

COllpje Class
mean
High
DO rau’c 2.;
L017
.— ’ .2 )

Reporu

(”1 Y'x
Q.JJ.

 

.oo

[U

KL)
U.)

C‘
F4

ed Grade—Point A7:

"Pa :8

 

 

anu Low UOQWaCLC jficugs

1.)

db in each ;Poup)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOW
Dogma;ic

10

 

 

Kale Female Chi-square «f p
High
LO del" 21 9 .

.gJE/j l 44.30
LOL
Lo manic 25 5
IAQLE j
Marigal Staaus of H153 and Low
Do matic §roups
(N7 30 in each rsup)

Narricd 51ndle Uni~sguar“ d9 E
Hi;h
Do;matic 4 20

F Q
\QU.

 

‘ F ‘ . .
on dfiQ

1- --~. -. .- _
Low LC ma

-. i ’— iA\ " ‘ v '1 ~ 1 " : "r'.
(.1 : JL, 1:. e;u3n. HIE)-r/)

/) P.’
A‘I .

 

"‘1'“ ‘— v.. . . '..\ -. .~ -~- v‘ .r ,- -
*LLJCQ ffleqLQ.CLCS DJ UMDLL
T v- o .1 .J’"'\r‘/" '1 l“ Yv-‘.-\ ‘ I“ i ' v- t‘ 1.4 1' N
.LJL/ , ELK, DI.\)\. -Ls.) "ill/j, .LJU’), .LJ/ flv IE}. I

1" ,‘~.
, 1.1le;
.)(.‘.-.4-,|-,,.:.VJ.,‘ .:.~ 1
IJF'QLJU" U\ I. .LuuA"ILJ./.L,

"'1. \r. J__

VCZ-Un(ll.i\3—

Congrc4atLQHaInHDZ,

v-v-

L;
In.” YT..r , r.
LU“), quv‘v @100 L_~

101, Lbl; Jesth~LL2,

’-- J— - .
U LIV-Ilklvb-

(. : 30

.L11 9....

uatLon mp2:

 

Catholic~"LlC,
Lu4, Lbd; Lpiscopalcai-
Laptist~LL2, LL13

:d EIot’ stant "‘

nL1, LL35
LDl; At11c_su—LLO,

LLl.

oyy\’-\

CT‘
1 a
O
C.
"3
k)

 

cw
.. 4.: :‘l "3 ’3 » C
DO I..£lL/.L.C “Tot—J.“ (—..(J‘J‘

 

%

44
1A LE L

PucSiCenLial Poliyical Preference of ni_n axd Lcw
Do;matic groups

(R 3 BC in each group)

—-—-————_-_._.

 

h' Q/- -' r. v/- -.-v ~-‘ . - ’“~ - 1/~. ~r -.r "‘ ~
lewunuWuP Stevenson LLL—bfiudrc a: Q
Eti_r1
T5.»- , qL' I”)? ’
UK.) 11L... L1C C._/‘ Z

1.000 1 N.S.

C
O
.5,
Q.)
L
O
P\‘
( x)

 

 

Political Party Preference of High and Low Dogmacic firoups

(N 3 30 in each ;roup

 

Repualican Democratic No Pref. Chi-square Qf p

fl 1 _ 1.11
Dogmatic 17

\L;
J:

cw
0;;m1tic 11‘ 10

U t“
Lo

 

 

43

iAiLA 10

Intensity of Attitude Toward Deseprepation of Ei;h and

Low Dogmatic aroups

(N : 30 in each group)

 

Mean S.D. t p
Hijh Dormatic 11.80 3.54 A v
olj 11.8.
Low Dogmatic 11.97 3.29

 

Of the several variables on which data has been pre—
sented in Tables 2 throu;h 10, only two are significant or
approach significance at the .05 level. One of these,
college class, is very likely a concomitant of the age
differences previously noted between the High and Low
Dogmatic proups, with the older, Low Doymatic group being
more advanced in college.

The other difference--that the High Doymatic group re—
ports a significantly Hreater frequency of church atten—
dance-—could also be a function of the age differences of
the two groups. In support of this hypothesis, a small but
significant inverse relationship was found between age and
church—attendance frequency (r=.27, significant at .05).
The difference may also be due to the fact that the High
Dogmatic group is more predominately Catholic than the Low
Logmatic group (Chi2 significant at approximately .15).

To test this latter interpretation, the church atten-
dance data was reanalyzed with the Catholic subjects ex—
cluded. The results of this analysis is presented in

Table 11.

4U

TALLE 11

1

Frequency of Church Attendance of Hi,n and Low
Loymatic Groups with the Catholic Supyects Excluded

 

N Kean S.D. t p
1511-11. 1;K)irlh:l1_l.c (‘0 3.3Cv 1.\)
2.13 .C5
Low Dogmatic 26 4.54 2.04

 

CD

It i apparent that, even with the Catholic portion
of the sample excluded, a sizeatle difference still exists
between the two Dogmatic groups on frequency of church
attendance. It thus cmains unclear what the main factor.

contributing to this difference is.

Treatment of the ‘ata~— Statistical Methodology

 

As was noted earlier in regard to iable l, the Hiph

nd Low Dopmatic groups are si;nificantly different on

{13

both age and intelligence as measured by the ACE.

In order to eliminate, or partial—out, the effects of
these two variables simultaneously, the procedures known
as multiple analysis of covariance were employed in se;er~
a1 instances. Multiple covariance is an extension of the
more widely—used methods of the analysis of variance and
simple analysis of covariance. In the case of two con—
comitant uncontrolled variables (as in the present investi—

gation), the adjuStment of the variance is made in terms

T ‘L"1~ ”a A ‘I ‘— .‘l I" -‘ 3 Wu" ‘7 t H J P. ‘f ’ I‘} ’ 1* ’ ‘ ' “ ."‘ ' ' >
C) .11 l, I. a ., ‘L‘? ' ' L r L ‘ JuaO O: \./[‘K.; I 1.. 5;]. u 3":LA'21'.{"..: 141%):3
4.
:vCa“";"} flf 1 1".6"73C‘C) ‘ I~’f "’._1",1. "J 1;] 7.5 C‘ ”“13 x" . ',' "’n' (n "{l " 3 ~ "V ‘> r —. x") ‘ , I.
L, .1 u . s \I -I L - K; L) V {I .“J L J Lu J. .1. LA. .‘..V- U o .1.- - I A) ". 1.); K) \1 . “J ‘5 I (.4. Q I 1;: ‘v/ Ix; A)K.) “ _

C \fi'x ’1 rm [‘3\ ’1 ‘ ~ a H ' ‘r 4 "3- ‘1 \ .~ ' 1-‘ .
t...)- , _ LC}; .-‘_,'/O _ 1 .114.) "Ik'n’x‘ .. S' ‘)J I L" i: (JCV "l- 11-1.1 0 \sL
;“ -‘ j .1 . ‘ ‘ f\'u ‘ r\ I” ‘ u
.K‘ . ' ‘ ‘ I {V ." f" x L ' - -
I i I» ‘ _L n) K) 1-] '. _.\A "U" D {If}, )() . (1 ,” £,\’\ 0 :— X )—'".‘I1) ‘14‘7 .2 ‘_’!’ _,
5‘ '1 1 -v ,3
T .. . -'-- 47‘ - A - - J I — 1- ‘ ' 1
\ ‘j j 1\ Y) . \ (o r 1 a f >
.L' (V ‘T‘ 1-"; I w; ’(HA .‘ 2‘“va 0&2") or} Elit.U-bJCJC;C‘l ‘23.“
n. qé—(fi 0 ,\.~ y)‘ . r '1 .1 J x I“ I " " n '-‘.‘ . ‘ ‘ ' ‘
. , _r x .- * * ’ H "
J. 'VK/VLJ C11. ~ 11 l; L-‘.-L ‘ 1., x) .11 J. v Li 1&1 (Aug II. 1 Jill: Eff" s)V?.. I (LtLll,
1"f ‘fi v" / ‘ , ' y. I ' I” ’~ ’1 ¢‘ "1 f V: . ‘ 1‘; " u ' ) (V ‘L‘ r1 I '1 ”\‘A \
>.‘ J v11 p '3) 'qu u). , t.) -I ,\1 L1. " Jii”, Jul :1.) K1'3K .L '3 1. \ Ll (- r k) LJILC/“I--,
.3 D ., M, 1 , 5 L- - . . . ., A. ‘ ”T' _ . . 4. . . 1. _ . - i -
. ) . xv» v.1 I. n .. w, L'. ml, (*1 fi;_~ , . ¢~ — ..— -
;. L ljll. 4-9-. LI LI IL {In-VI \J‘ (J Cjwnij J “Cy-‘(l O .1...- IILCJi‘) x) .rLJ. J{;I.)’ UV‘C? ‘k;L(l" vidfl‘“
“Mn 1W1 ; ..
\. Cu «.1. -Zu—Ld a“, Q LI ... -L.’4(.; u; kx- N: u ”‘4 Li. L) 4.0 o
' -‘. “1’ r " ) 3 LI 1 . - ' , ‘L ‘ u a " . ~ 3 v, x ‘ 1“." "
1.1:. a [\2‘-L(' I: J L\"1 ‘ (v \jk, , lli {.'ILK:‘_7": (I, ["£\L’).P_.:J ) k), til/lb
A
PI
1 "' 1 .,, w :3“... 4 ""'.'_ H1 1 l .t; d
I i 3 . , . N _ N I v v
u .2 i , 0' Ct) Mohave-J, 111...“, J2 J. in: 1.01m Cneioj Oi
I '3 a - -
‘ r _’-‘ r , D ‘— / "q ()1 1 ‘ ". 1(1)”) ; , . -'-'\--3-- (\ -~ (1 v1 ‘1 r - rx 1. ‘ 7
Val. -LLiL.(/(’ 1. \JL LA. .. 0L (J1J\4UV (JKJ‘A iJLJ.L .'.. u01-u 1-4 ‘l__("~__df"49_‘\} o .'
7‘!’1C‘ 1‘ q |\ "“ "1.5 ‘ '1') h ’J - ‘ '7. 31" .' .fi- ' ‘ ’i .a' ‘5 _. ’ .r -
‘V’L )u'v bg‘.’ \IA.) .JIA", - v LA‘.’ UK’L \_. v (V, L \J k ‘ V»; .Ld--(JKJ K; AJ-Q LIVC" {JLgb

be in accord with the ass hptio s of the statistic.

In the case of HVpothcsis lV, concerhiig so woes of
i.fornation, the so of t—rat o agd m ltiple covariance
techhiq.cs was ihpossiile tecaJSe UL the ass mptioh of nor~

L? z-‘ IX") 7‘ ~.-’,,—_\ :5 7‘ "\"1 (- (‘1 v) " ‘2 (1 4—- r— f t"‘ _' (J " T” '4"\ 4. 22;; C‘ " o I): ‘ .- 2 1,. ,’(-‘ {.113
lb nfll‘vgbu./.LLQ ..utl,k4 at.) Co. --LJ (J \) il.;_k) lle/OU.1\.Q.J-~J \,L/V_g.i../f4v1 \J k,
J“c Oi bfil~SUu3Td procedures.

.5 A
. ~. “v ". _‘fl .‘. _ \_‘-‘ I 4‘ I. ,- _‘. _ V _ I , , ' ‘: n - ~r , - v 'r /_
“QDWL1HSuQ-QImv the QiydoLiohillEJ OI many oi the h fiu~

L-‘- . - - - n - ' . - .
p ’) C‘ 1"; ‘1 -~ K ’ - :— »- 4w 7 . Q- I" '\ -‘ r‘ ‘, .‘ . g~ r ‘ ‘ ’ I -- '1 , , ‘_- _
bAlLIQE/b .LAA. [ll/1.15 S U a-er’ UIIIJQ L dildki L/Cl‘ 0‘ O 53.:— ;-_.LLLCL1.s£/C3 K'T'VL \J

1 V ."\ 1 .2“ i '— JH‘ ,‘7 ‘ ‘ ,- ‘—..- - Q.— N' 1.. ' _, f 3‘ -., n -, 7 . I Z q ’ .: ‘7'-
d‘bUQ bfii'o'-x;‘71C) 2.1;, .L U‘ LN.) L111 vile o~£abl0 dud CUVOLL‘maHCC CA.Ak.t]J

4o
ses. tnder the confoundin_ conditions of the aje and
intelliJence variations noced auove, it was felt that di-

rectional Stati“;ical tests were not Uustified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ELQEE._LL;§UEZQI‘ tin: Efi;,x>tttssc3s
____~2__:_;' 3T1: or w t‘n Tl algal it:
dfsbelief systems “h9:ld_have fewer nepztiye PC?”P8¢lS
that parsors with relatively open belief~disbelief svstchs.
Table lLA freSents the unadj s ad (t :ratin) analysis
for the "adestej“ total number of ne;auive referents for
the HiTh and Low Do.matio groips. It i" clear from these
results tLat the High Dogmatic group has significantly
fewer negative referents than the Law ~*‘C matic pro 9.
Tarps 12A
“Rd; S ed' Total n ;ber of Hegative fiQf“PChtS for
hiwh and Low no matte Crowds
(N = SC for each ro; )
Kean S.D. t p
hi;h Dopmatlc 5.43 2.3;
1.19 .Cl

 

ine dign Dogmati
.eqative referen
total negatLVe r

intelligence

and

V‘i‘ ' 1" ‘~r1,/
c s btects name

ts, wkile the Low DOQKPtIC a"era;e o.+O
eferents. To partial out the ’ffects of awe

lance

covar‘

analysis was employed, the results of which are shown in
Table -3.

mhe hypothesis that the two corps differ on the ”un~
gdgusted ” total iamber of ne;ative referents is supported

 

 

50
even with tie contributin; effects of aye and intelli-
gence held constant. It will be noted, however, that
the level of significance is lowered iy controlling the
latter eiiects, from less than .01 on the unadjusted

analysis to .05 on the covariance analvsis.

d

TALLE 123

Analysis of Covariance of the “AdlUSt*
A

e
se and Intelli-

51
L.

l

(— f
n“
y.

fetal Number of Negative Referents v’
~ence Held Constant

\_.

 

'g “ ‘ J" ‘ ‘ d w t - I". ‘
Acgasted or Reduced

 

Source of Sum of Kean F p

Variation D.F. y squares Square
Within 5o 710.93 12.70
_ : , _ . 4-5C .05
oetween l 3b.26 5t.;o

 

Total 5"

\1
CL

C}
O
I'D
b—‘

 

It seems clear that the remainin; difference oe—
tween the two groxps is a real difference, and is a function

e ree of closcdhess of the co nitive systems of tme

Q,

Of the
Hi,n and Low Dogmatics, and not of the differences in a;e
or intelligence.

We need not rely on this one index of the breadth of
the ne9ative referential sgstem for substantiation of tne
first hypothesis, however. fine foar measures of breadth

’asted ne ative tonal were ana-

- .z ' .,,- 1. - 0 - l. _- 'l,. ‘
vngicn cfiiter JJIUO ifh) any
lgzed separately. The results of these analgses—-of the

n , n n n - n ., n . .n 1 -l.
salient, proie, statement, and liSt nesative re—

. p . v. ‘ ., ,.‘ i ‘0 V
00.11).»er LBCCLJJb 02. .118 e

we 7. WC {2

~n 1;. To

;_J
x
l
*3
C\

.II , 4.:
RU

{"163 Vol JVC Te-

:ident lack of

. ..‘ 4... . y, ”3 .rr‘ "_
Tl tel/1'3 LINO [105.95 OT“- ufllb‘ [1.02131 Ne.

TA LE 13A

‘v'1r 1 r‘ ‘ O 'l ‘f 4 v\ " \v’ ; "

ii‘4L411|...V31' i. ball al.1u MCQatlJG

rents for Hiwn and Low
cognatic groups

eacn ¥rosp)

 

Kijn Logmatic

Low Logmatic

 

r‘,

 

 

 

Ll
("J
iAlLE 13A
.,. t- ,. ll _ -- ~
Esta J-gocr of stateaent” He;at;ve
Referents for High and Low Do matic Cro.ps
(N ; 30 for each grO‘p)
1"1‘I'3QI‘1 s Q L . t p
Hi;n Do ratio 1.70 1.22
1.0c) .1"
Low LOQLatLC 2.30 1.4;
YAQLE 133
Analysis of Covariance of the Total
.. _. h n. __ _|; ”fl _'_ . ’ - _ __ ,.. _"
HLLUCP bf Stateme;t “egotlve deferents
with Age and 1ntelli;ence Held Constant

 

7‘~ “.1... ,,.. t,\ C“?
‘h’k’Uli'it/J‘3Il 1 o‘fl)

\f‘a
L')

LA)

0
U“

 

p

Tot'l

\_)l
.\‘

99.11

 

 

 

 

Let us now attempt to sumnarize this series of
findin,s about the number of negative referents cited
by the High and Low Dogmatic groups. Three of the in—
dices of breadth of the negative referential system——
"adjusted" total, total "probe", and total "list" re—
ferents-~indicate a significantly greater number of
negative referents for the Low Dogmatic group, when aje
and intellifence differences tetween the twog;roups are

not held constant. These differences are all signifi-

 

cant at less than .01.

When a,e and intelli ence are eliminated as con-
tricuting variacles, however, throu h the use of co-
variance techniques, only two of the five negative re-
ferent creadth indices indicate significant differences
oetween the two Donatic ;roups. the Hi,h Dobmatic sub—
jects haye fewer "adjusted" total referents and fewer
total "118:” referents than the Low Dogmatics. The di-
fferences on the "statement" and "prone" breadth indices
fall below an acceptatle significance level, although the
latter comparison approaches significance in the hypo-
thesized direccion with a;e and intelli;ence partialled-
out.

It seems clear from these results that the breadth of
the negative referential syStem may, to some extent, be
prediczed from a knowledge of the degree of openness-
closedness of the cognitive,sy8tem. Some limitations of

this conclusion will he presented shortly.

7

:—

 

i. J ‘. I- -"

«.- ' ’ . _

.‘D \ ’ I A ' (v

D) U rd . . J \. , . (A. .J.
W V ' . _

.. "3 (‘ I ‘ +— 1 x I" 1 firms 1 r.‘
~ ;_ K ._) . o _ ,, I \.. 1L.) ,
.‘.___.__.__._._...___-

s ‘ . I’L- ‘ 7 Y) A‘ 1‘ P‘
v K E) \lhp‘ {J\) LII?" ‘ lr-) - s O
c fl. ., , v— f" ! ~~ L- ~

0 . v. 3 i'. K ..
1 'ul k.L '~.)..\J .k... L ”v n)U-’:...

L. » ' \ .. ~'
._‘ 3 ‘ \ l ‘ l \' "1
I ‘o .LIK/(J. (.2. \J ‘1 \.’|.) 3, 1JK

. .‘.\ ‘f' .7 A- .- -
ts ioz‘ if ad 110v

 

1".)

(

_-1

Lo'

‘

K.
l\ .—
’ \.

\

’u

'._Ja
£057:

k,

_ .\_
—-.—— .1.—
1

)\n

}__.J

P.) F.)

F...)

\

.J

( ,
l‘ ‘

C-\ 4-
.l’.’ LU

’ L. r
.H. \J \J
/

, )\ y' "1
09—- .¢;~., 1..u.
"4‘
‘ ’3
Q/b.

o
L..J}.-.
\

o
‘H

O
C}

O

[DU

.:/v 0‘; l‘cCD.
.;,’\.4
'K'K’) low/1., gig

f _ _ v H n . .v: ~ , r- , - V‘ ‘ . '. '1 fl, .- - ._ .2 . .

.lu lavel bi COuLiOJHCH. ublnt Multiple CU.dCL¢th

-i -t‘ 1—H», .' A r. 4. fl -, ._ - , 4- a“ g“ 4. .. n m -. ,., r‘ _ . V _ _ .9
--H:,’31ii.-‘i-’eixl':}u DO l_)cz.1.':,,lcll—OUV 1,113 CLLCCLJV Ua. (.4;qu (mid lILKIUllJ."

gence upon the former index reduced the si;nificance level

V ,,._ 53.. ,._" _.- . ,~ " ' (‘Lfi 1
even luIdeC (aO‘UooCU F = l.

u 2 . It was impossisle to use

\.J

R)

covariance methods with the "list” positive referents com—
parison hecause of hetero;eneity of variance of the two
suh-;ronps.

Although no siunificant differences are appirent be-
tween the two Dopmatic proups on the positive referent com—
parisons, it is of interest to note that a highly signifi-

cant correlation exists between the "

adjusted" total num-
ters of positive and ne;ative referents for the total
sample (r = /.gt).

An additional comparison would appear to be of interest
in lirht of the findings reported thus far. For both the
positive and ne;ative referential comparisons, the largest
differences (aside from those for the "adjusted" total

numOer of referents) are found between the two Lo;matic

.4.

groups on the total number of “list" referents. In order
to ascertain if the differences between the two Do;matic
vroups on the numter of persons known or recognized on the
list was contrisutin; to these findings, two comparisons
were made. The first of these was between the numser of

i ,

names reco nized that had been previously 'ated Ly inde-

pendent Judues sein; in favor of desepregation; the second

a

was tetween the numter of names mentioned that had teen
independently rated as Opposing dese;re;ation. fhese com-

--)
DD

parisons are snown in Taole 1o.

TALLE 18

humter of Persons heco nized on a List of 54 Names
(half itn71138d_I£ £1 iOrl, lfi.i a air ’

(H : 30 for each troop)

 

INC/(in SOD. t p
Persons High Dogmatic 14.t3 2.83
for 1'} . C‘
DBSGJTBQathU 'U4 “'Q'
Low Do matic 15.43 4.1C
Persons High Do natic 11.50 3.98
a 'ainst 1 0'2 v n
" . 0C. lilob
Dese;repation “ °
Low Lo;natic 13.0] 5.03

 

On the basis of these results, it is difficult to attri—

rute the "list rcf't re nt diiferences be ween the two Lo;-

\

matic groups to the general factor of greater reco;nition
of the rames of public persons on the part of the Low Do:—
matics. For, while the Low Do,matic subjects do recopnize
more names of public persons, ooth for and aJainst desegre-
;ation, these differences do not approach significance.
Still another index of 5roup differences in the type of
referent used is available from the ”prone” portion of the

m,io

(D
U)

interview, where the sutjec:s were asked separate on
about their use of personal acquainta.c es, putlic persons,
and puolic ;roups and organizations as the referents for
their heliefs aoout dese re ation. An analysis of these

‘—

cate,ories for the two Do matic groups for potn the positiVe

:‘r‘ r \

r - .. . L . 0 _' -. - .W, ., ' _. ,i 0 , 1." ,
zinc In: atiAh; IE LcL’Wito 113 prknmeattnl in iii.le r).

 

 

TA'LE 19
Use of Three Types of h,1erents
pyl 1;L 1 and Low Do_ matic GLOL “““
(h 3 30 for each proup)
Personal Poplic Puelic
cguaintanees Persons dropps
11:63.11 3. 113E111 SOL. I'lk:a{1 SOD.
Po sitive Hi :h D 1.73 1.01 2.07 1.1‘ 1.4! 1.33
fie ferents Low D 1.73 1.14 2.13 1.31 1.03 1.32
t 0.00 .19 1.05

p 13‘s. ligS. bios.

Negative Hidn D . 3 .05 1.47 .9 1.0? .91
Referents Low D 1.17 .79 2.3? 1.47 1.17 1.05
t l.{0 201/ .3;

 

As we would be expected on the Lasis of the previously—
reported findinps concerning the type of referent used, the
only significant comparison is that between the Hiih and Low

Logmatic groups on the number of public persons used as ne a-

H.

tive re“e rents. Once a a

v

n we find tkat the High Depmatic
suojects report si nifica ntly fewer pu131ic persons surp nort—
ing their disL elieLs than are reported by C118 Lo ow Do matic
sub ects. A covariance analysis could not be applied to this
comparison because of the sipnifi ant OlffcfanP between the
variances for the two groups. Thes e res ults tend to cor-
roborate the earlier findin H( acles 12 and lo) which

indicated tia; the main difference cetween the two ;roups

lies in usage of public authorities as hepative referents.

An adcitional findin: which is of interes* is that the
high Lo Iatic sutjects ale 0 repor‘; knowin; fewer personal
acqgizaintances than the Low Loratics who disc ree with
them about deseprcwation. ihis difference does not reach

. ’

an acceptable level of confidence, however (p : .10).

To suhmarize the ifnd ciz‘s witli respect to the first
hgpvthssis: With a;e and intellipence differences be—
tween the two Lo;natic wrou s removed by multiple covari-

'

ance techniQLes, the Li‘h PO natic group is found to have
significantly fever negative referents than the Low Dog-

matic group on two he ative referent indices—-"adjusted"

Q.
C“
b
O
('
’(Z
"3

total and total "list"--of the five analyze
index—-tota1 ”probe” ne ative referents-—approaches sif-
rific cs. Further analyses of these results indicate that
the main differentiating Comparison between the Hi h and
Low Lo;natic groups is on the numter of putlic persons
perceived as disa reein; with the subject's beliefs. This
findinf is apparent throu9hout the analyses, and does not
appear to be a function of a discrepancy in the number of
puelic persons known or recognized by the Iii and Low

Logmatic surjects.

Hrrofre is 11. “here should he a greater

the de;ree of Lh,.leo e about pos ‘ HlV and he ative refer-

ents for persons wigh relatively closed 1(11CL-C1 1elie“

 

systems than for persons with relatively Open belief-dis—

 

 

/l

ol

7‘. x ‘41. ..I,_!, --,. 1:1 .- ,
io Ln c LUIS LJDOtMfib
. . ,. .9 e. ,_ - -, ,. z- “ 4 1n, ,
{klrfistu.o EVQLH: Ildtbf, bifla I“.
c ‘ ‘fl‘ _ ~ ,P‘) ~,
111 18.-1r3 at).

'. C‘
-L s.) ’

groups on Positive and her

COF-

‘rOtp

:sults presented

and Low
:itive Referents

Scores for hifh

 

 

M Khan S.L. t p

Positive

Referents 29 4.53 l.”b
Ki9h Do matic

., L. 5-05 .Cl

hi2 fa cive

Referents 29 2.59 l.;’

POSlthO

Reforents 30 $.32 1.34
Low Lognatic

fir“
20;!C’ .01
he“ative
Heferents 30 3.20 1.5;)
As mat ce seen from Table 20, the hiya Dogmatic sub-

jects attain a mean information score of 4.”3 for their po-

itivc refere

(D

T

or tleir n

Fa
w

7'

0.
I
-4

v0 means is 1.94, and is

tifil .01.

r!
art

For 8 Low Lo ratic

L—‘.
ofl

information score is 4.32

formation score is 3.20.
"en the means is 1.12,
.01 level of

than the

nts but a mean

;ative referer

1“roup,

information score of only 2.

in

its. The difference between these
significant at considerably less

the mean positive referent

and the meaz he ative renercnt in-
In this case, the difference te—

MT h ".9

AL...—

ch is also si;hificant at less

confidence.

It will he noted that the distri: iors are hi n1;

y, ‘I : ,. ‘41.~ °‘,,. -- rm: .'.,.r - L-h. ‘ ‘ l- . 1
s»ewec lxiti FOSJLJlKBCJLDJCLlOU, dhfl tdmfll'nflf ran e «E

n ' , ' L- ‘ *4 V 4-: "' ' Y" -- ..- - .. ‘- .
o l 1_n-.l_r.2(l. b0? cue :1 t: l/Cl {little .L‘Qup, e

C!“
(‘3
r3
r3
C1
r—al

" _, _ . "\"\ _, Q _~,_ —. > _0 [fl :1". .
scores range from .33 t ;.So tor the me atiVe relerente,

—.¢

’

A V r‘ 'x\ 4‘. ‘3' fl" \- wir ‘3 o, .4.,. .l .3 2' -
and from d.b0 to o.c{ for tme pos tive referents. nor the
Low no matic Qroups, the he ative referent s ores rem e

scores I‘Eifl '8

Cf‘

from .5? to Y.CC, and the positive referen

,_A.

cse f’ndim s will

‘\
r—r"
\.J

from 1.50 to c.75. The importazce of

0

cussed in Chapter VI.

(V
(I)

we di

A a test of "he si;nificence of the discrep3ncy Le-

CD

tween the two ;roup ojtchequ“, an lthLM”LLOI index has

‘

computed for each subjzct incividually. This index con—

sisted of the difference between ositive an negative re—

’73

“3

Q ‘ _I ~ _ O _ /I-
erezfi;iuiforr3t11ni scores, t£)\VlLCh a.cxm3st3mt (Hi/“o was

idded to render all indices positive. As was hypothesized,
toe avera e (1 '-scxm ”pared betWeen the emoUnt of information

~—

he positive and negative referents for the Low Do;—

{1)
O
f—‘
p
CT
CT”

pp.

;s (D =1.12) is less than the similar mean dis—

‘~‘|~.‘.r_.\
k8‘v‘bl‘dg

U}

latic

H
>- "

crepancy for the Hl;h Lo;matics (D =l.§4). The difference
o-tween the two mean i dices is .t2, and is si Lii‘
the .10 level of confidence (t =l.?j) when cifference in

.
a;e and inielli erce between the two :rou"s are i mored.
The results after these differences fire partiellei-out with

multiple covariance techlnioues are preser ct Ed in Tatle Cl.

f
I

0?

TABLE 21

f Covari3rce of Informatitn lamii 3s
rd Trt;e'lliferce llecl Corstarfi:

11>
3
m
,_J
‘31
7)
,J.
\J C1)
#3 _O

—-—.——___..MHV_-.—q---.f_ ___-.3,_...‘, r...- ._—__..

 

 

Adjusted or Rednced

 

Source of Sam of W 3an
Variation D.F. y sq ares Sq.are F p

A

Within 55 183.20 3.«

..J

( b
Cf
t-I
(u
( J

vn l 4.11 4.11

 

Total

\h
0
F...‘

N

Lt \
H

 

It will be noted that, when a:e and irtellijence dif~
ferences between the two Do fit 0 frozps are removed as
sources of variation, the remaininr difference between the
two fro US on differential irfornation is Lon—si;nifica ant.
Th 8, the second hypothesis is rot srbstantiated.

Yvnothesis lll: P‘rso,s with relatively closed belief-dis

 

belief systems sho ld p‘WP31V‘ treater 81171~Pltv aron their

 

 

re ative referents thvn persons with relatively open belief—

 

 

 

 

Table 22 presents the rnaoiflsted t - ratio analyses of

the similarity ratings of positive and he ative referents for

‘

the PM h ard Low Do "3t 0 gro ps. In this table, the lower

the mean score, the ;rcater the average reported sinilarity

of‘ th

\0

rcfererts. It will be recalled that a 15—point rating

scale was used in this analysis, with one, equalin; hti h sini-

r,«"_

 

larity. .d? s ;)3t.. both Fi,h 'rd Tow Do KfltlQ, one
ti htly “ro sad at the low, o3 si3ilgr, ehd 0” th: scale.
The oossihle 3t‘ects of this oelarizatior oa the res lts
t”lll luv r4:izo1: ted ’n Cfiv1eteqé‘Vl.
mast? 99
S;ri1ari;y Ra ti: of Positive ard Ve'ative
R3farehts for H"h a*d Low Defsatic Croros
Eiflh Do ratio a? 5.69 1.6&
Positive
Referer.ts .35 N.S.
IJOEV DO_ —'~1':~t :‘LC 2') 5.:\O .62
’ ,. . .n‘ ° W \
leh Do natic 2o 4.71 3.00
fixative
Refererts 1.09 N.S.
c f ,
Low Dijatic 30 5.00 3.C4

 

Table L2, it 18 aprarert that for neither
her the he_ 3tive reierect comparisons do the

Do ratio rowps di Fer si'rificahtly. On the
ecert “Halysis (that in which we are naioly

*etereste ) we fird that the wear ssrilarity ratio for
the Hijh Do‘ratic s bjects is 4.7l, Ihlle t‘at for the

Low De“

into
the
analysis for

onted.

H.

{'1

T3e adgf

Table

ererce is hot sigleicaht. I3 order
acco rt the age ard 4Ytelli ere differerces

two Do,ratic :roqps, a malt‘ole covariahc

this eh

ue_ ative refel t corpari son was com—

res lts of this

are pre—

23.

~,_ ' n 'I K , _ .1 ,. ,. , ‘_ ,. 1 1- . , ' _.
133 a or quer;anse o; tat 3 He;3 ;%V Refereut
" . :- L_.'.. - ...‘ ',., V‘s.“ ‘ ‘
'ty luluig. S lthkl Avjfi aim; I;JA ll . c~3'1e1.‘ Ccnzstax1t

 

 

 

.1 v *1 ur ‘ ‘V \‘ l » P1 ,
DQL . 12f b11\ .11.: 021 “1‘ 3 b :3
Ld )b3.;w 3.91

"‘

’5 J" ‘ i,“ .' \
l 0-21 5.);

 

 

1‘ a I '~ --
J. QI‘UHCB

“tflellin5—o t e"e and intelngenee reg ces the dif—

betue“1 the ;rosps to such an extent thet the S13-

levnl is lowered fgom its alrcaCy non-31;“;ficaht
u the basis of these analyses, we nay conclxde that

ts between the two Do;matic groups on the

'nilar ity of the negative PBLQTGUtS.

H
d
C
.3
<:
(.3
C
U)
P.
_‘

sis l”: rersoas with relet vily cLos3d belief 01$"

-.__ -..-—--..———..._.-._.. . ---_.1___

 

 

JStCKS 330510 obtain less of tie Ir Lilmrl tion ebcst

 

 

 

 

 

’ \L J‘? 1"‘. ~.n . ‘
Lti' £10] LJ.L.V'_J1L f 01"31 UQL -631" .L-JOZ1 VI 5 Tbt'v' u.
CO..L;_Jd. ..UJ-- l FLV )JLL -leS 01’. LL V'LL..1u;’ 1 93.41LLLL Il‘QI‘l

‘;PCCS for the positiVe and he;etive referents of the

BL h and Low Do matic pro ps is presert d in Table 24.

‘m'\“7’)"\.\ on *V“f‘f"4 '. (3"r i ’ “1L " 2") fivt‘ \ ’ ’3

UUtx- bk 1. ,LL; L) ‘ ‘..A.'IJ U01 ’.~L/\)L( I lCJULL/J.J\a CA.¢O. .‘C ul.‘ JV’
1) l" A '- L- 37' '_ —. r ‘ I’ ~ / t- 4- .’ ~ ~ Q ~-\ :2
“iiereats Lor #1 n and Luv so ratio Jroaos

 

torsonal Mass Other Positive
Ccn1tax:t Ehgdigz fhafezwghims

w——-—-.---'-——~v—v—~ .—.—_— -—_——.—- .. *—

 

._‘ . , ‘4/ ," I I' ”I
him“ 2b”) U’q/V 1 .'/
Dogmatic

Positive

.\ K‘v", 1" 1-! 1.! ' «J
I40?! dr’l‘) { 1/; I ,1;-

L0“matio

High 14% to; to
LO‘Ufith

H, r11. - H
‘ v “le,
7*) f‘ .L
ItCYLCT‘Eerl/n
. f)/"«"' I' ’1-1’ v’
1-10"! L_\J“ J (I ..J/V (/

 

This table may be read in the following way: for

the UC;3tiVG referents, the hiflh Logmatic group obtains
11"” f ~' ‘~:‘p -' ”I" ~ 1r”. L. .- ~,-.. “ f)"-- r," (7* ‘Y'f l ‘ .L-q \J- ." 4-'~ L"‘ "‘0“ an
fivd 0 Lot) it“ urine .1011 leflu 3k;PoLn~1 CCHioeA,t IALU;; timflse la,-

ferents,,tc; from ioCiroct contact through the mfss media

VF“, ' ‘.\L-° ., r.-.“ 1,, Ch” 0 , L.,. 1,: ., r‘,_ ,..L. 1,4“,3 m..~"r-.
COLHLLAITlLavLOLI, (4.110 013., 0..) JFOM wathn; dV'OLALI bf”; ICLLP-

"I

01

goo: about LLG togic.

out with pers‘hs a;reein; with the sub

I 2 _‘ (x (x , ’

'1 ““ “ ’~" v—‘W 'v‘ N“ ‘. "“,‘ 4 1- “ "‘ r “\ ’\ '~r' ‘ ' . (V n- x, ; 1
i‘ 1" L116 Lk/‘N LU max, 0 Suouf-JCIJE), LILCSL) grbpuflJiOmo “FL Lu”)

1- f‘ ’ 9
l

{3,3, arm

.' " ““ ‘ I' "' " Vv""l "( . T-‘t .‘ ~’ I Y‘- y" ~" I'- ‘1 " '~Vv
ISln; the oata yfdbdhwcu in iable a1, we La; also Cvm~

r ,__ . _‘- , J. - ~‘. 3..“ -. . . ,. C, .J .. , - ,R z_ - _-,, . 0 1.1,, 1, 1-
iaro tuJ two LO_m3LlC troops separatvl¢ hloJ rewird to
'.,. . . 3 .° \ -‘, . , .. . n .2 p _ 3,, - '1- - 4-1, ,. .. - L- 0 V 1.. 4" ,
Cfldn es in tne SOarce 01 in ornatiOh irom nae QOSL'lVS to the
‘ f' "' ‘2 ' ‘ ‘A z' ‘ .‘ 1‘ 1 ';"A A ' . t ‘— ‘«‘ .- ’—-. .‘V- .1. u a r I' 3 1 “‘~‘ . "3 " 1 I
IQ auLVB Peidfunbb. thPCfiS ohd LLJH DO MdbLC SLLJthS OC‘

tain an average of 20S of their information about their

if)

3. .2, ‘ . 'l . Ls
OS_tLV3 refore ts from pe°soral cortact" w to these
r*forerts (i.e., sozih‘ or hearihj them speak on the
topic, readfrf their statemerts, etc.), only 31% of the

Hijh Doiratic *ro ps' rforrat oo abo t their negative

3:4.

referents is ohta wed d: roctly frow these re erewts.

other positive referents as information sources for their
pp a+wvo ref3regts by the High Do matics (from lflfi for

mass media as an indirect soorce of it mformatiOh about
their he ative referents is reported by the Hi h Do.itatic
swbjects (from 6’ for the positive referents to 80% for
the he ative referents.) In the case of th- Low Do trati c
sahiects, practically no Chan es in tne so rce of infor—

mation aho t their positive ayd hc;ative referents are

The data on the sources of informatics used by the
High and Low Do matic troups was separately analyzed by
me ars of White's t, a rank—order statistic (9, pp.fll7-
422). For all comparisons, these aralyses are hon—Si;—
hificaht: for the comparison between Hijh and Low Do;-
matic groxps or the rse of the pore oral co tact so rce
for re a tive referents, z :l.33; for the comparison be;
tween Hijh and Low Do ratio groups on the use of the
mass media source for he ative refererts, z : 1.2fl; for
the comparison between the use of the pe sonal contact
source for positive ard for negative refs rezts by the

O

Hi;h Do;matic subjects, 2:1.42; for the compar sor be—

L.“

L)

3‘0

tween the ase of the m ss r dia source for positive and

C\
CD

\

re ative referents by Hifih Dogmatic abbiects 2:1.93.
To briefly stmharize these findings: The Hijh Doe-
ratic srbjects do not obtain significantly less of their

information abolt their negative referents directly from

these rz.’ nere'--~1ts than is the case for the Low Doynatic

\

C

subje1ts. for are the chan es in the usage of the vari-
oas sources of inforration from the positive to the nega-
tive referent si;nificantly different. Thus, we may con—
sider the fourth hypothesis unsubstantiated.

Hypothesis V. Persons with relatively closed belief—dis~

. J

belief systces sho 1d show :reater acceptance of the pro—

norncements of their po

U)

itive referents and greater re-

 

 

;ection of the pronouncements of their negative referents

 

than persons with relatively open belief-disbelief systems.

 

To test this hypothesis, half of each Degmatic :ronp
reSponded to eight statements attributed to Orval Fanbus,
while the remainin: half of each Dogmatic group responded
to the same eight statements attributed to Thur;ood Marshall.
Only those subjects in each sub—group for whom these men
were either positive or negative referents were used in the
statistical analysis, the results of which are presented
in Tables 25 and 26. In these tables, the hi;her the mean
score, the ;reater the acceptance, and conversely, the lower

the wean score, the greater the rejection of the statements.

 

 

 

TAHL; 25
Response to Statshemts Attributed to 3 Pos tive
héféreit (Ha '1'11 by Hljh and Low Do;matle 4ro Us
Y ”11r S.D. t o
H‘ h Do ratio 13 C 1.23
10:35 1703.
low Do atlo 11 37.50 5.77

 

:33
.4 D
C‘)
1.5
C)

to Stat meht‘ Attributed to
25’. h’i a and Low Dogm

k:
C“
:3
(‘1‘ '4‘"
(-1- 0.)
an)
O

’U
U)

 

 

 

V?!
\-
:5
U)
0
C1
0
CT
'6

High Do:hatic 12 30.67 5 28

LCw Do :atlc l? 35.62 6.21

.1

 

4

The hypothesis that the di;h Do matic s biects will

_ U

Show freater acceptance than the Low Dogratics of positive
referent statements is ziot borne 01:.t by the results in
Table 25. Alth01 h the mean aooeptan score for the H1 h

Dogratie :roup is £0.77 and that for the Low Dijatic “romp

is 37.50, this Cifferehce is clearly not si:nifiaaht (b¥1.35).

Ho

Contrary to our expectat 0.3, the Hljh Do .atic :roap

(D

180 shows greater acceptahce (or less rejection) than the

Low Dogmatic group of the hejative referent statements

"' ‘1-) ".'T - 1,. x - -. -. n. ,V .
(Table.2o). Th1s olffere1oe~—oatmeeh a mega acceotaaoe

' . I o u '. n V 'u ‘
'f' ”h f‘" H C 0 Q t ‘= Q: -< " t ’ "- <2 ~ \ ~ -: w a: r‘ 1 "var t ‘ a 1 -.
'J.‘ -.PC’.‘-1.r.C/Lt‘_.u «.3. up. 1.213.» Off .1. .‘VLW --LwI‘C‘J L—‘J'JJ. Lleflfl.

-< ‘. r ' ‘ ." v " ‘ :‘ §~n 0' ' ‘h .“ f 2“ ‘-‘ 7-? I:
the orev1ols co par sth ( U‘: 1.1%).

C
I

\.
12.1
(1.
(’7‘
(‘5
}~
H

'2313 covexwzrmau afial7EkH31%3PG

,I I '7‘ .', I, . 'y N. — ’1.‘-‘;r ‘. -, ~ '. .— "‘7‘ ‘1 h ‘~,- r‘ -,—. .7; v. ‘-, ‘- .A\ .‘
CthI—l 00;..[3al°18'.J£l l-’.. O-.’LL';B.L’1 LO I'thsz‘fgf LLL’IJ (L4.._.,’ c1111) __{.'r‘ 11L—

,.., ,. - .- 4.? \"I . -M._:.._ ,. , .1 .l ~ -. ,. ' . , mw,‘
”(BLUE ,1 ,Li I (31".33109’ 3 L1; ‘o-«J'QC-J LL63 turd LIO _.‘ 33.45.10 ‘_ I.’(.).'i_'d . 1H
.1. — . . ‘ . ' L. . v- ., . .‘z. .,t 1' '71,.‘1 ' r‘~,rx ‘ r . f
au.¢8tdQ rerglts are presentec LL LlefiS 1{ ant 2o.
fin. * t.’
1.. ..LL 2{
. 11 -.—°.~ :- 'r » -" 1‘».- ~- L:~f~- 1-». '—
A,(La¢jb.f.d UL ‘vC/‘V'C 1.11.3111 5C3 OI. 4‘11;’.3,_JOZL;:3'J .LZL uuclbkfl (31.11
»- ~ '. , I ’ r. '- 0‘ .2: ‘ f" 1 ’ -. v .‘ __‘) l'n‘ -,- , I ~ _' .r'. '- .- (V q . -._ L‘.
Attylbolmfll Lo (“1.tlve neLeLzLd, Lagrsnall) KLUAI
_ “ .AL, ‘ .' .1, . . . -._ ‘ I: {1 ..| ‘ ' , 'i" -
and inofilll;3¥08 helo UOUSCJHL

 

Source of Sum of Mean
Variation D.F. y squares Square F p

_ ’\ /-r‘> v ‘- f. 5 I

',‘L—"‘T~ ' ‘ 1' -l’ .. “I

VJ.LI[1J-I’1 :1 OJ“ o‘v’ dC/Q‘T/
"\ ”" xv ‘
;.C( h.o.

r ."‘
*7, 1...- - m? at) (,3 g)
#SUV‘ICCKPI ]. >’J.Ut_- 21‘). L“

 

1-]
0
cr
{.2
H
P.)
m
d
J
.L‘.
«1

. “5‘
J4 ‘

 

, n _ .3) 3., . “.3 ,. .‘ , l w" '
b Oi ,()’\/\.w 4110” OJ. 11F”- mom-3e 1.0 f. 11159171321 T.“
#41; '. ‘ _,;) ‘ 1 r - . 4.- 1. ‘--. :3 ".1 H.‘ . , 0'
23.31" J-I.IL-. Jr. (J. LO J. ; .K-‘_"d. L .L \f‘: "L , L01 (321‘; \i‘iil;,C>L3.‘j) W]- i]
.2 _ ‘.\ .3 T” J- .- , . ,
Awe emu intelli exec Held vOLuhdflt

 

0 - *

oour e of Sun of .w“w

viini3.7LOzL Lal“. ;’ Sfiilu’\“d :gHI/ii~ _? 0

.f ‘ - l r‘ .~/ .

.aLIJL-J_11 Ki]- {CK/{.11 JV.U(
r3 A, ,-
J.C“+‘ IN.S.

Zetween l 102 25 102.25

 

I 75", xT/ ’_‘I
LUIJLL]. s-L— \J\ 1'" 03:)

 

compariSOH“. "Hun ; e aru iuttlli ence differeuces are
r~"ovk as souwees o" viriation, the Higd Lo “dbic ,roup

r-uvon . with consic d3va 'lj: reater ace :pteuce to state—
mengs “trILmtrd to both a positive and a newative re-
ferent. The aciqsted W. in each case is non— Si nific ant

"V \r. 1 ‘ n» ._ _ _ I _ _‘n_ 4”"
(b:3.0( for the he shall stademwnuv° F-3.04 for the bLabC-

An a .enpt to interdret teese unexpected findings will
0e made in Cnanter V1. At present, we may state thet the

fifth hvootne"1 is clearly not vautantirte" by the gate.

CHAPTER Vl

In this chapter, we shall review the findings of

FJ.

fiation, noting which of CUP hypo—

the present invest 4
theses have been upheld by the data, and commentin;

on the obtained discrepancies between hypothesis and
results. An attempt will be made to relate these re-
sults back to their theoretical roots and to ascortsin
if the conceptual position taken earlier is fruitful
for furtrer research.

Let us look first at the significant discrepancies
between the High and Low Do;matic groups on intelli-
gence and a;e.

To this writer's knowledge, this investilation
marxs the first occasion where such differences have
appeared in research utilizin; Rokeach's Dogmatism
measure. In fact, in only one previous study has ate

been a variable, and in only six (21, 23, 41, #2, 55,

OHS

Ho

59) of the many previously—completed investi;at
With this scale Pave intelli;ence differences between
dotmatic groups been analyzed. In each of the four
studies where intelli;erce diifg‘

and Low Do;matics were analyzed by t-ratio techniques

29, 41, 55, 50), the High Dogmatic subjects were found

to score lower than the Low Do;matics on the AC: or the
Wonderlic intelli;ence tests. These differences were
in the same direction as that found in the present stuiy,

but were non»si;nificant.

{2

With the sanplcs we have emoloy ed, our
findin S show that irtfilli‘snce is neiglijiblj
related to the de3ree of 0p enxess— —closed ess
of cognitive or anisations... t seems to us
that we are dealing here with intelli arc whicn
is measuFEd by current intelli__jence tests. Ap—
parently, intelli3ence tests do not tap the so
called 'non-intellective' personality d t:rn7—

nants of CO3nitive functioning... (33, n55 p.

4.1).
he calls for a re—appraisal of the present concepttali-
zations of int elli 3nce, su3 cstin: that these are not
trori d enou h to include all as spec ts of 003nitive func-
tionin3.

We mi4ht su33est here an alternate w: y of looking
at this problem. In the previous research with the
D03matism Scale, relatively crude measures of intelli—
ence have been used, such as the ACE, the Wonderlic,
and the Ohio State Psycholo3 ica 1 Examination. All of
these are group—administered examinations with less
precision than individual tests. The tsasure of intelli—

ewployed in these investi ati ons -~the

(D
.3
C D
« v
f?
O
U.
Ct
O
‘ ‘3
Pt
\_J
:3

.\

ACE—«is used with a decile scorir; system at this uni~

versity, a system wnich has reoeatedly been criticized
as bein3 insensitive to sli 3t varia Hi0 ‘ in ability.

Lhese intellectual i ndic cs do not appear to be precise
l_

or sensitive eaou3h to provide an adequate test of the

'5

reml tion betw en ooeincs -closeoness OI co nitive or—

" ' H. "'u' 1‘— ‘. f‘ \ ~‘ .2 ‘1'. 1" -' A - ~ . —- 7.“; 1‘ :-~ r~ ~. -~ I (V ~ ‘- "
33ni¢ati0n ahd intelli3ence. what appear- to so IO-

quired is some enoir ca] r‘0*iroh U313; the :we at avail-

 

able measures of "intelli ence, ” as usually conceptualis-
eéi, {)0 'ta4) txii.3 ru_le.tic>vs: i1}. anl r if in it. vnxy'<3ar1 tine
need for a total re— aphrlisal of the ”intelli once" cor—
cept be ascertained. The present investigation points
Up the fact t at some relationship does Seem to exist
between Dogmatism and intelligence, even when the A32 is
sstd as an index 0? Jne latter variable.

With re3ard to the relation between Do3matism and

a; there is cowl id rably less prior work

8.

base our interpretations. Only Mikel (29)

1y measured the a; extreme in

althou h hoons (21) matched his do satic

upon which to
has previous-

.1 .. , _.0 n,”
oonmatism,

Lif)53 (>r1 tsiiea

basis of age computed in unit years . The [orn1er writer
Count his Low D03natic subjects to be non sL nifi cantlJ
older than the Ii"h Dognatic subjects, with differences

of arproxizately a half-year reported. In

strdy, a ciLfcrenct of tWentV montrs (1.69
been noted, with the Lo.v Lo matic subj cts
cantly older.

Two alternative

10‘ the large age d‘lff‘rence between Hi3h and LO." Do;—
ratic 3roups in the orescnt sa‘vle. It is pos siblz,

shat, as the colle'c student rows clue and is in
1y exposed to the s‘cotiCism ar1d SOpListicltion oi

(including t:at associated IJit

and.;igicnolxiiiccl cszacrininn13t10h), WI

uni—

V3
b1-

test—takin'

becomes increasin3—

.. ,- 9 ,l‘
CPEJKJDLlL'

ly ”‘ est—wise." ha ter ds to agree less with any state-
ment or oosition tresehted to him, being wore crLti cal
.Jlied con3eht. The 0t} er alt cmrx tive
concerns the possibility of a L3Hlfii%3(hm rrise in the
defiree of closed ess of co m Ltive on 111. ltioh with in-
c:%;1;L3o :L‘e zn'd mo H j713i 131 *n3r*e3d usaixior . Uiuis

writer would presgue that this is one of the desired ef—
instruotor's classroom quLulkhU"

L' .

Lotn of L Lese alter 3Lives wosld result in a lower score
on the D Scale for the older, more advanced, student.
Burning now to the main body of results, we find
s :.p1OLt ior only one of the five proposed hypotheses
-out the dLmehsions of belief referents of p<wr ons with

Open and closed co Ltive or anizatiors.

dmaace :01 the theoretical deduction

1—f-

There is some ev
of reduced breadth of hejative referents for persons
with relatively closed cognitive organizations (Hypo—
thesis 1). A gezm3r alised staten ent abou t incr ased UGT*
rowing—out of n<3 Ltive re Lerehts is not possible, how—
ever; the obtained data stron;ly su;gest that the nar-

‘-

rowing UL ocess occurs mainly with regard to the awareness

’3

0L p blic persons opposing one‘s beliefs. There is an

 

indication hat iewc r personal ecquslitsnces w'th op—
posing belie Ls are also perceived by the High Do;matic

ssojccts, but this renaius a non—si;hificent “rend.

breadth of the closed person‘s he;ative reL erehts is not

3"

D. . ~L~-‘ . A,-~. ,. ,1 »-. - » - .
:1 LQCCLJfJL 0L 3 In», 33d ahrrixL3ss cfl75meoplo 311-»3080d13

4.. .2 :- ..\,\ .,- .. ,. ‘3 -~..-.. ., n 4.; . ”L ...
tr-&LL Ls, (u ngOPUf'Iyflfi3qhiiJAfil or Lunxall Cu the reawss
p , s. .- .. _ _ - .9 . , . 3 3. nu , .3. .93, .
oL pdolic persons. It Ls ddSUmCQ LL; at tne OP_aflinfltiOfl—

al dcternirants ssipcsted Ly Bo}  eacw1-— auielv, that the

ruizwro 131:13roces

x...

A

3 serves as a proc‘ctLv3 d3 ice for rela-
- . r ~ Vru -‘ . 3A ' -. '. " ‘LI .1 Iv I " ’3. q" ' W ‘ ' ‘3‘ r. v '-‘ - -
tivelj closed indLVdeaLs--arc the Lactors prodLCLn: the
' A: n - ~ L . ~. (1 ’ ' ' r 3‘ ,' - ‘/ Irv» n A -' ‘- ~ ' * .‘ ' ~- 7 ,— r- — u. r

G Lf[()ri\)r10‘:0 DC: 1‘11” Cr?“ L‘J v‘lllkZLt/LC ‘3 COL/1;):3 ‘u'U’LlC’L 3’14”?) hdvt.) ILOth.

urhypothesized, firidin; is of lite?-

C.

A related, bu‘
est here inasmuch as it furhis hes indirect evidence for
the hzoretical ESSdhptiOhS just noted. From the theory
of belief-disbelief systems, we should expect the nar—
rowing process to be in operation only in the disbelief

sac—systems. That is, it is assumed that open and closed

persons will not differ in the breadth of positive refer—

 

ents or authorities. This is borne out by the present
data; no sijnificant differences between he two Dijatic

groups were found on this dimersion. The obtained cor-

rel ion of .56 between breadth of positive and ne;ative

Eu

n..—

referent confijurations strongly UfgeStS that some nar-
rowing occurs irrespective of the open—closed dimension,
however.

The findints for Udootlnsis V are in conplete contra—
diction to what was predicted. As a test of the isolation
dimension, it was expected that persons with relatively
clo sod co;nitive or;anizations would-show reater accept—

ance of the proLOanlnc ts of positive refer nts and

greater rejection of statemeits er‘ rzaratin: from he ative

77

efe - nts. The Cat3 ir.di cated that tiese closed indi-

viduals tend to accept the statenerts of both positive

_. -—.—_

 

 

1—1

and n2 ative refe W:e1ts m233_than pe‘sons with re
tively open systems. Contrary to expectations, it was
the Hi h Do matics who responded to the staterrerts
withoat re: ard to their source; the Low Dogmatic sub-
jects appeared to utilize the source as the basis for
judgment to a ,reater extent. While these data are
not statistically si rificant, they demand some ex-
planation.
It is possible that a methodological oversight
may have contribt ted to these ne ative results. From
the work of Asch on prestife SUjjestion (1, pp. 419-
442), it is evident that no person is considered an
authority in all areas. Stateme ts are evaluated within
he context of their authorship and the interpretation
placed on any statement is a result of the joint effect
of statement and imputed author. Statements with dubious
authorship are rejected. Followin; this, the use of

D

statements ogtside the two referents' area or authority
may have been unfortUhate. More H.eanin ful data ni ht
have resulted from the use of statent nts within the segre—
gation issue.

It is also possible that some variable ex Htra mo 3

to the stimilds situation, such as a form of acquies—

OBTICC‘, WEIS O-Ejeyf'a13’1fij t0 pPOCEJCG the 0011131313537!“le Of

1-

r ‘ \ , r , ‘ '3‘ 1 V . -‘- r‘ L- "l ‘ 4 Ni V
resporsre' among tae J1 n DQ ratic othCCto. In sip-
D ‘ .. . ‘ ~ ~ '1- .fl 1 ~n '- ~ ' r‘ - —~ ~ . '
port 0; tile thOLHCoflb, we LOLc that tierc i3 less
1 - 4- ' - - f r .,
(A I" ‘V‘JJ 1'] 1J1 ) fishuo I v Oi, (J i',‘b \‘ L IT)!1 t: 7..” 3‘ .31.].

tC) t331 Err bLTB sf "if’ 1:;s inr {file iii T1 Lc>icatxiczs tlr1n
for the Low Dc;.__;-1~atic siziflacts (tables 25 and. a6). The
former subjects appear to a ree with the statements

0! any authority, whether or not they a;rcc with this

authority. It may be said that they are ups el :ctive;

the pronouncements of any actlorit cy elicits a ”(theft

21>
(,0
Cr
0.
H-
C.-
O
}_J
}_J
G
U.
a:
OJ
\o
O
{I
t
C?
(.1
(-J
C
(
"3
(D
H.)
.i
"3
U1

('3
,5
513
U
H.
Cf'
O
’1)
1—4 o

vfiifli scatlxirncs, irres
of cortert. In tiis usa;e,acr‘_€ Cerce is merely a
specific fo*m of the general concept of response set,

which descr'bes any consistency in teS' behavior. De-

scribed in tlis wtg, acquiesce c: is equated with
agreaucn , as indeed the lip c stic definition denards.

‘

t
c bghavior of the closed 81 )bjects in the present
stm‘.‘r may be illustrative of acquiescence used in a
second way. Acquiescehce here is with reference to
authority; it is an act of submission, of givin; in to
soyeone who is viewed as wiser than the person himself.

Rather than referring to the habit of agreeih; with

StatOLCNtS or test items, acquiescence in this usa

 

in reference to the act of agreeing with authorities.

P.
O]

 

:5
L

terms 0. istihction wade earlier by Hokeach, it

Ci.

("3.

+4
I.)

9

not a rig idity variable, btt a do matismv var riable,

I‘- 0
U)

 

occnrirf when an anthoritative sorrce is perceived and

hritted to by an ineiv

Cf
('1‘

71’] 8.3301"

Hokeach ray ”911 he CCFL”? in; (33, V38
no. u7d-H8C) that the differential re spo*.is3 on the DOI-
natism scale cannot be accounted for in terns of jeneral

response set or acq ie Hoe ce. The present findir‘s when

.1._ L),

interpreted in the above manner, in no way contradict
he 3e asserti o: s.

The findin s for Hypotheses 11, 111, and 1V are also
Si n;;larly u: :rpressive. There is no significant izdi—

cation that the relatively closed individuals know less

(D

FYI‘

0’]

about their nejative referents (HVpothesis ll). Tn t
of the Rokeachean model, there is ro less differerltiati
between belief and disbelief eferehts by these persons.
with respect to Hypothesis 111, there are no differences

apparent in the data re ardin; the so rce of infornation

A-. ~ . -\ -‘l‘ —' - H.‘ "'5 ‘N 3 - . ‘- ’\ fl L—‘r ’ ‘1'
their more oi3n co iterparts “d tne wtilizabiOh of tag ne_w

cant differences between the open and closed 3 b acts are

the ne ative referents. Th3re is no evidence for tile op3r—

ation of reduced differentiation (or de ifferehtiation)

anon; the ne,at1ve referents ( Hypothesis 1V ).

§

{:10

Our caution in irterpretihg the fir dihfs for the
proposed hypotheses has been dictated by several con—
siderations. The masking effects of age ard intelli-
gence have been previously roted. Peihaps it world
have been desirable to have corducted the present analy—
sis with relatively "pure" experinehtal sub—:roups; i.e.,
Hijh and Low Defeatic gro ps matched on age and intelli-

rence. There are two arjmnents ajainst this position,

re:.pected discovery of the relation

C

however. First, the

0’)
t—Io
C
15'
O
C“
._I
Q

iable w.th defeatism

’3

of age and intellifence va

e he ixpetns for clarifyir; research in this area.

ILL

9-1

rovic

"O

ecord, the comparisons resultih: from the multiple co—

C”)

variance procedures, which removed the effects of age ard

int”, lli ice variability, are as pure as ary which could
have bsen acc upl i Hh3d by ratchin, technioues, if not more
so. It will also be noted that several of the comparisons
(e. ., those on similarity, infornation, ah: source 0
i forration), are not sigr.‘fic a: t p““jr to the 1urtialligp—

.J- ~-1 '.,1 :Mr, '- .. ° ,.
oft 0L a e ant intelli_euce difLererces. It is t“

’5

-,2

pa rent that the 00b aided lack of si rifieence must be sonyht
ovt elsewhere; it cannot be attriQ to d to the operation of
extraneous W ri ability.

To acco nt for the findings of the present investi—

gation, we must look at both the theory from which the

trpotnesee were deriveci and at the methodology of th

El

s*tdy itswlf. The former holds few clues for our pur-
poses. The present stady is tze first atteipt to aha-
lyza the different atLOh, isolation, and narrowing di-
me“siovs. It is difficelt to ascertain the empirical
ctility of these theoretical dimOnSiOfS, siece thace
are to prior findin s with which to cor are oar re-
salts. in liynt of this, the present strdy must be

considered exploratory in nature

With regard to methodolo,y, the use of the de-

searegation issue as the focal topic of this izvesti—
gation may be criticized. It will be noted fi"st that

the desegre;ation issue is str0h5ly polarized for all

‘ .
0V V '1
LJK. OU‘

of our ects (Table 10). 20th high and Low Do;-

matic subjects rate them"elves s

trougly in favor of in-

tegrating the public schools; only ten of the sixty sab—

iects used were opposed to inteyration.

It may be arQu—
ed that this positive polarization to the topic and the
high intensity of attitude about the issue served to

mask the differences between the two 5rorps on the

dog—
matism dimension. We may hypothesize that beliefs about
desegre;ation, because of the intensity with which they

are held by most Northern collepe students (anon; others),

constitute a closed system irrespective of coihitive struc-

ture variations.

We shoald expect similar

any other intensely polarized is

see, e.;.,

should not expect this masking effect with

belief areas, each as politics or reliyiOh.

results for
Commdnism, but

- l
less "loaced'

 

11 I
, p 7‘ V "g :. ’ (\ ,’\ Ii ; ’ " “r r
I t ‘ 1D - f”
..i J k. 11.. , l- 1 -LI- .1 k.) 1" ..'.._(.~.. -- ..\_. I J "'dxlk’ 'J- uio N,
_ r_.{ .i o . 5‘ . 1 '} ‘ A . 1 I ’1 u I ~ —7 r.
, ‘ -’ r . . . ., . . I ' 3.‘ . Q ‘ v ‘1‘ " "’ "" ' " x " V '
' , , ~ , , I , . —- ( , ~ 1 -. I , -
_, _,_ ‘J. - ___,, ( t \J -. ‘-«.- a,“ - -4 5.)”... -1..._£.~- .._ J kw” JC‘. -‘A‘A --v bu.) .
v. -|‘-),- -_, ’\_ .- .A .‘| v- V ‘ (m ’~ - . 75 ‘1 . '1
._ . _ _. z ' , , , — . ~ - '-.‘-' " " -’ ’n ' U" (7' ' ' <~ \ - - ‘ .
3-.-- v, QV’Jl. (~_-‘- --J. .L (,4. k. 44v“ UV “avib -U p.) Lhuvlu.’ b0“
_ . - A L ‘J A
.1 r» {"3 ' ‘lj {—7 :(' . 1' H‘ I. '2‘ 1"] 'I. I ‘ ~-‘ I' 3‘" '7'] \ (I Y} I -\ “ ‘ ‘ A ‘ . 1 ' ' ”'7 ' ’
- w— .uivax ”1.)- .. ~~AK'VU \JJ. -';(‘.. \-I'\."......(,'.- (.4.-. JL ‘_ - “(ILI‘J UL . 1.1; .-l. ..-.\.j (.J.
‘_ o 7 | ' ~.q a fi
7-3 r). _, 1 ‘ w‘ \ \ ‘)’ .gc * 1 p“ ~ ,- .. . . a, ,
\J_.\IV 1‘... J. _. .-u. -t , u .. .. 1 1b.. I. x) .01 SW! .1 L ) 41) 9,. 1'3 .C—
A
,», - J ‘. .' L - ‘ ,1 l— ‘ ' ‘
I.) , _-‘) 1' r 1"“. f ",1 r‘ l 19 1 \ l on 1’ ' 5 l . l" v' (N “ I" \‘W I ‘3 K‘ (
u A. J-- .’ L... ’.-.. k} I" - -. -. .. \. -'. . k/.. . /. i- J , J IJKIM .. .1 k) . -‘ o

(‘4‘. ‘ ‘ b ‘ -~ ¢"- 1/ v. -:‘, ‘ -, /--' :1 : ., I - ’Ii “ ‘ r '2.
11(1‘11... S VuTOwlu '3.-K$Je, $1iL"va_Li.-> .L..KJ.L‘J.L(4--.C;l (1.11.; . fiO‘.) {4.1.1

CgC&S to become more appare t. The polarizatiog effects
are also aypare.t ii the cat; 0; amoi t of iLfOTW§CiOQ

( atl; 2o.). A4&1h, tlure is llLUlC clffere Ce bc‘wee~
th- two ,roibs o“ begree of knowled;e aboat the he ““ch

._,. ., , ,1 . . ,,- . .' 4. V M - , .: ,, n ,_,. ’. 4.1., . (.x. , .
hat.0b wo-io JaVu co SluNVdUlj more -“fUrhdbiOL than they

do. In this case also, the ra ;e of scores i" l-#

,H: . . .,1 . ‘ , ..,: . a ‘ 2 4n .2 , z : fl
.iaitral a d kiinflha.\%ioll top.c sho-iu rwxhwu: this artil

A fair test of the theoretical dimensio s used in

”\‘.' ‘ . r‘ A .u ‘— "‘.| ‘ VI , ‘9, ‘2 f" ‘7 ‘ 1 ‘2 '1 ‘ ','\ 3 ‘V v \ -
prese - lLV‘SC-_3o a- $0-20 twili-e beliei topics thicn
(l) relativel" neutral, i. e., held with huTB noccra7e i

CT
0
O)
’4
I
c:
O.
A R
I)
V
:.
'_J
}.J
(x
*‘b
(W J-
:3
c»
U
d
C)
31,
C\
(
re
p
\D
O
f”)
(7)
}_.J
*— o
f.

‘1 ‘ - . q v _ ' I ‘ ‘ _
<3 ("*L' " ‘ ‘n A 9"". 31:71:) a) "n ’\.’)V‘ 3‘" " t \‘f "'1 'IW‘.) "‘ C‘ C: " ‘74.. .3112 x,
Q) Ud'Jl-‘.-Cf, 1 L0“ K,\‘-’.L‘..L..\., LA,;\_‘-\411 v1.2) 0 xx Jibt...’ OLUMVJ. -. .h.\..,..

n ‘ j- ‘ ‘3 ' >\'. .' ‘- " ‘ "' 1‘ v "‘ -. f“-4 ,~-' 1‘ I r ,‘13'. ,1 -, fvr
n rClEiudU .30 .-b COL.C<1PALS olLC Liz'.o&.il.b LO 1.1“;an (.0--6‘

., _. "u, , - - . 4.2 . 1‘ ‘_. '. F 4 yr - 1"
VaLiQL belieis are sJSLematlc, or CLDCMQQO i. a aroac

"i ‘ ' _ ,, ' V __ (3 r ‘ 1 - _9 1 2-5- W" ‘I ‘ o r‘ ‘ . _\ _o I f} , vrw .‘. -7
iranemork On related UdllOLS auQ distelieis. ine three
_1A _ ‘ ‘— I I 1 _I V'_ _. 'V‘ . . .- O ‘_ _ O 1— ‘ ‘ ‘1 v 1 .
theoretical QlKCuSLOUS tSed in oils sttdy are system

.. W

variables an ylates of a theory of belief-dis-

C)
(”f
>
C

are po
belief svstets. It is possible that an adequate ana-
lysis of these dimensions could not be accomplished

regatiox issae.

..4‘ -,.

}_

Scue wocld ar;;e that a person's belie"s aLo t
school se re ation are unitary, that the; stand in iso-

. 1.. .. n. ,4. l_‘., 1. 4. .- 40,. .. - H . 1-. .. .1 .~-_, .- 2,-
ldblOn ime all OLLSP beliels. It is ra ted tha. the

belief-disbelief system of which beliefs aboat desegre-

gation are part is relatively restricted; that is, that
it does not hec ssarily inclade a Treat marker of re-
lated beliefs about other areas or that it ooes not al—

low for shadings of disbelief. It is t-is writer's ob-

servation that for rost individuals, school desegreyati
is a polarized issre; they are eitier for Cesejre;ation
or opposed to it. There are only disbelievers; ho sys-
t,1 o dl5721l‘v“” secvs to exist.

 

89+

'1 D
..

one's belie s about s c-1001 ihte ration are irtita ely

I}...

tied to beliefs aboct law, state's ri;hts, reli: on ,
ecouor ics, tradition, democracy, and even sex. And
Southerners Opposind irte ratios are able to differ-
entiate those who oppose their views into several
categories. The acCOahts of our subjects also point
to these co clls ioxs.

The crucial point at issue here is not whether be-
liefs about dese,re;ation are isolated or systematic,
however. At issue is the question of whether this be-
lief area is as_systematic as some other which coald
conceivably have been used. Did the belief area of

school desegregation allow for a suffi

"I

cieht rah;e 01
beliefs and disbeliefs to adequately test the theo-
retical dimensions? Would some other belief system
have provided a more adeqLa ate test? In retrospect,
an affirmative answer to the latte r qt HQSCiOl seems to
be in order. It is quite possible that the cse of an—
other belief system (scch as beliefs about religion
would have allowed greate r freedom for the operation

of the theoretical dinLe sions. What is required in
analyses of tr is t ype is the use of ai area where the
exist‘hce of disbelief sub-systems is assured, and
where the authorities for these seb~systeus (the ne;a-
tive referents) are assumed to be more discrepant than

in the present case.

'3 :L.) ‘3; I) ._ -' «LI J {4‘ (J 7:: LU K.) J \r. IL} (- L*".“' 1 ,(J C 4.:
t1 ; ;trh.<- c :L . o *L L “ , ei_ - 3-(. :;_;;‘ =>f' ad s‘uu :3. l_t
cg; else e ngwed as a {rel;m;.1rv at zen o; the hrcadrr
t;:x3rtf ,chl pIV) 1;: C: tl' -37 i C‘W.,SC:‘ ll. 1 juri' ‘w ,
d<v ' :LL'_s: vi ~ :3i’ U rm .2 ‘Leur' 19;, f.( 1.1.l‘, asJLJt‘ 1; "a-‘ S‘uc -ELL
r ? -13i 5 c) t of L {1. £= _L‘:is (.2 a‘ ‘a)? L :3
‘3‘” o 0': >l_u“sf is t c ;”CQCJud refer 1&210u of a I
? a‘ET‘L‘,-l*ty f;£LL t2; "nafece At) 390 p” (waifiLJt?
Sc'L‘ evl;znice 11:0 tit: gel Ln“ >cf~r’* t ct>L3ept ‘Ls aL-
parent fCOL tie pres: t data. Contrary to tfe socio—
lo Zeal ho.Lo of _“o 2 1-51 e cos 0. att;t Le~foru~t u:
11d we LtULQLCB, we have ~.ot.-:d the repeated tse of lidi“
13d als as raferential points by o r s L;ects. lhdecc,
U.e -se of the el.efs rf a refere.ce " re p" appears to
e relatively frcouxo_ (Tarle 13). her are the gro_ps

thed as referents alwa"s seen as unitirv or'ahizatiors;
the fro n more often seems to be the
its ialividgal members. A renark mace by ore of the s eject

'The Catholic Ch;rch mtst be op-

C"
><
(D
:3
'U
H
’4.
t—b
H
(D
U)
('1‘
'3‘
in].
C
(.1.
'1
(—D
d

posed to Segre ation...l remember readihj about that Catholic

bishop in Loaisiada who ordered his people to otey the co rt

ted) referents are, in most

CT
I
O

The most salient (firs
cases, parents or siblih s, followed by personal acqwainta ces,

-

' 0 , 1 , . U ..1
iszally peers. These are sometimes fro pee; e.;., 'All the
guys in my fraterrity feel the way I do." More often, how—

'I 0 - _ '1 - . ll -
ever, they are treated as isolated referents; e. ., My

mother is fr.m the SOuth and feels strongly a aihst inte-

l

t

(.0
if
r—S
Q
L-
Cr
0

Cf
L- '-

gration, bit I apree with my father tha

treat the Keyroes the way ther are tr ated."

(D

86

The proposed notion of the use of both positive and
nefative referents is also strongly supported by the data
(Tables 12 through 19). Most subjects could readily cite
persons who afreed and persons who disagreed with their
own beliefs.

In conclusion, individuals are aware of the social ref-
erence points for their beliefs and disbeliefs, and this
awareness is tempered by divergences in the extent to which
persons are relatively open or closed in cognitive organi-

zation, and by a:e and intellectual factors. The theoretical

assunption of idegtity_between the cognitive awareness of

 

others who agree of disagree with one's beliefs, and the

utilization of these others as the authorities_for one's

 

beliefs remains an assumption, however. It has been given
no direct test in the present investigation. An adequate

experimental attack on this problem would require an analy-
sis of the change§_in beliefs and disbeliefs followinj ex—

po ure to the beliefs or new referents or authorities.

0)

J:-AfiAL'! -911 V 11

i1) 93?90se OL tne ”P‘QHHL iHVsdtl_ation Wad LO

.3 1.1,. . , -5 - ,, .1 ..-,.- -.9, 1 .,. .11., ,. 1- (711,. H 0,. - ,. . ,1
Tula'JLK/L. 00371 Elle. ClOL‘JGL' COylrLt/aflfc SJI‘SI.AJI.L.3. .11‘11‘ I'CiCsf'HlY‘fj

"1 . - VY H .--.‘ - ,,-. (1 a), O A — \ v-f '- . r -. .- -. ‘- ,
,ros) conCept was 1 ‘OIRU1At€HMJVthn a cognitive—theo-
retical framework. Lalief fer1ncs were conceptual-

ized as the authori,ies used by the individual to sub—

o
3
a
w
d
(D
'T

° . -rc' 4.. u - {‘0 1.. ‘. 0 ,, 0 g. . . . .' . .0 f. ,1. p ,7) A _ 1'
;is Systems o1 hLllCib (positive PiiCPLhLS) and
‘ '.' v‘“- " ‘2 " c..." " 1’ "l ‘ o I (‘1 4" K‘ F11 /\ ‘ ’. "‘ - "‘ ~ ‘1 -: V‘. " - —.‘
C‘ibL..c:lJ-e’J.o (.lt-Jvetltlv'c‘ I’eicBI‘Ch-ou). 1.111%».— Q.J._I:.t:.‘1 b_L()1'b 011

13

which belie~ i referents could very—- narrow’ng, eifierentia—

‘1‘

tion, and isolation—— were derived from Hokea;h's cot-

ritive theory, whi3n deals with Open—to—closed co;nitive

(belief)systems. It was ;enerally h"potko ised that

persons with relatively closed coynitive systems would

manifest increased narrowin;, decressed dii

and inc1eased isolation of their belie: :ei‘ erents, in com-

parison with indiViduals with re lativelr open eoqnitive
S; 8 terms o

One-hundred ninety~s eV3n introdimcr ory Psychology sto—
dents were fiven the Do;matisn scale, the index of Openness“

c o dness of co nitive systems. The obtained s>lit-half

U)
(7)

o
p.)

MJil“ y of .76, using a si ed scale with no filler

ir-«o
w

re]-'

items, is comparable to previously-obtained reliabilitie

J

s
with padded scales administered under a10hwuob COHdltiOhs.
From the total pool, extreme :ronps of thirty Hieh and

thirty Low Doymatic subjects ware selected and tested wit:

:_ r ‘1-‘fi f,‘ rv 111y'h1” “(1 n‘s’ «1% :4) prev 1%:
r~?s' es of th: three concept.al dTne sio s f helief
r~f1r t“. ”he ‘opic of this schedule was D blic—sehool
dwse rujat a . Sta Card p1eel res were Cod for all

‘4 .' '.' +‘ "1‘W4'“.' r 1'.- r1 f 7r~r ~ ’
sdo 3c s. n.staple u11ha lyC:s 01 con iria no 126 -s:d to

- ,. ..i .. .1 - L. .1 1 .- -., . . . _ , -.. V- .
rbtove a.3 Edd 11LQ111_9LC0 VCrlfltIOHS retween the two

As a V113 re of the rarrowir direxs;oc, all sub

~..-

 

"‘ /' ~‘ ‘1‘ 7‘ 3 ‘ '7' C‘ " t r\ “ '. ‘1 ‘ I 2' f -’ ,- r\ r - r . '.~~ — ..~
Hmblh, 01 five s pa rate indices, all persor l acquai;ta:ces,

-‘1'~ . .1 ' *- v r - '~ ~ ', w r 'w. ‘ -~ / ' ’ 1 x
pdsiic perso~s, a d firo.ps who were parce.ved as favor

lJv

J v .1 4..-: 4. L' _ .21-. . .. —- A .. ..1 ._
or .1 opp0k,tloa to one r ow1 position on the incc_rat10n

topic. In accord with the proposrd hwnoinesi , sub ects

Wiih re ati vely Closed cojnitive svst3us were fo,;d to

r t‘
1-3
z,
C)
H)
J
‘3‘
d...
C
"S
L:
<
O
rw—l
e)
x 1)
r..]
Cu
H)
"S
G)
c—b
\G)
'1
7\
U
PT
(I)
D
‘3
’1
)
'71
l
0
(41
E
}__.
{’1‘

3
L .3
I
_J
4
l,
3:“
'_—§
i
3
:r
O
O
’ ‘3
"‘5
(I)
{L
O
\ V
F
{‘13
2':
.3
73
U)
(a)
O

n H o ..,.
i p blie pecso s

 

3n

Vects were :iven information tests amo t Vie p1olic persons

and fretps who served as positive or nejative belief reier-

erts. The findinf that subjects with relatively closed coi-

riuivc systems had no less knowledfe abo t their negative
telief refe re nts relative to their positive refereuts ttzn

lid persons with relat’vely open co;nitive systems did not

8 pport the proposed hypothesis. (2) All s bJECtS rated

the ne ative belief referents on de ree of simflarity.

s

Jo sifrificant differerces were fo r.d between the two fro ps
in the extent to which :e;ative efererts are perceived as

similar, or 1rdifferehtiated.

..11'A1‘\ V’ l ’ 3' x 'V ' ‘-' ‘ "~ ‘ l 1" .' 1‘ 't 1‘ VI r 11“ 1-. ; t“, ‘1 "7‘ .‘ 1 1‘ . ~ A. l‘ 4-,- xx
-1-1« ll17ilii121113‘1 I‘U’L1C)..11\3.;_L.J 1a;115 a1111.3 Ll 1:.1lt)gsa,c1111,l gin/C:L1.

Two indices were also obtained for the isolat1on
dimension: (1) All su jects cited the sour.es f info-
rmation about their negative belief referenus. Three
source—cate40ries were used: ”personal contact” with
the ne atch referent or his statements, mass media,

or other positive referents. Tnere was no s’ nific nt
support for the hypothesis that persons with relatively
closed co;nitive systems should obtain less information
about their ne;ativ: referents directly from th1se re-
ferents than persons with r1latively open co;nitive sys-
tems. The results, however, indicaled that the rela—
tively closed subjects tended to use direct sources less
for negative belief referents than for positive refer-
ents. (2) One—half of each group rated identical state-
ments, at‘c1‘utcd to either a positive or a negative be—

lief referent, on an acceptance—rejection scale. It was

hypothesized that persons with relatively closed co;-
nitive systems would show greater acceptance of pro-

nouncements of a positive referent and .treatcr rejec ction

tive referent than subjects

:15

of pronouncements of a ne;
with relatively open co nitive systems. Findings in the
opposite direction from that anticipated were obtained.

‘

Relatively closed suogects showed greater acceptance of

statements attributed to both positive and negative re—
ferents.

‘

or only one

t-fi

Thus, sirnificant evidence was obtained

oi‘ LEng il‘rrnz gncogngsaml C(Mucigpt111l (Llnmnzsixurzs. li’si1
polsr1zatf on of 3cl1ef on tie desc5reo .t:or: issue

evidcrt in thc s rplc used; this tended to con-

.4
‘3
L)

w

found v1 iations on the co nltivo dime: sion 0 open-
so ss- -clos: doc 3” uses to isolate the cro'erowts

firovps. lfiTile the lack:cu 111*lor a'mlflxfi of the

A

' t J

torso conccptt al d1nensi1ons used also 1t1ts the
generslisation of those results, the investi;ation
provides inferential evidence for the utility of the
plouosod rs Ocuccptualizst1Cn oi‘ referc< nco groups as

co;nitivc belicf referents.

:2 0

k)":

(.2.
(_,
J.

11.

.‘y.

.517 'H ‘r-‘r ‘ ‘5‘; ‘7‘
ALMA} glut—314VML.)

 

 

 

 

Eugen, ”. LL. Linzga;.;psytx11£o,ér, 1¢nv Yo11;: P1<3.tjrx3—
Ia'l, .13;2

.
Ascn, S. s. Effects of ,rotp pressxre Mpos the
Iroolilxxzt;os a;1;<31stolfl;111 of L,11;tosarn I : Ema; so_,
u. d., hewcoufi, I. M., aha hartch, E.L., sea; _ s -;
soc'sl ps;c;olo 3. new YOrK: Holt, l;j2,pp.2 11.
;o =eu, R. J. A S» oJ of ope r313 Lo sn p -etwtex
sl“c perspeculvc a?c ope —'105td col of systegs. &.A.
Inesls, L.c11,a. State ““_vers-“v L_J”;xy, ’3;?.
Ca” cl”, 3. F., a.C Kahm, R. L. Tao colleco;01 of caoa
«y l_:erv;ewl.j. I . “QSLJH e', L., a-c RaLZ, D. (cos)
Research meiosis l1 the wefiav oral sc1e ces. ,ew York:
LP‘JHJ‘“ 1 lb?» 95.303319380-
CrlOfl1 , D. U., and Volk a , J. A s cia; dcbcfnlwa‘t 0?
Elk: level <35 as,lix1s1;.. .3. a thr. 820 gxsfclol., 33)
34, 235—234;. _.._..._.__._-___ "
Cnarters, M. V., P d hewcovo, V. 5. Sons attlt 01 al
effects of ~xgerumeutaily i “reaseo sal1e1“e of a GENLQ;
su'o "(L1 . I “vJ -so , 3. ‘ onb, 1% 1J., a.i

,. a fl' 0

 

ence . o‘ ‘ 1011811:

'7 :- ”xxx"-
KJ.1_I-V"C- 51. U

 

 

H, , ‘ “N '-_1 ' -1, _ 4- v: ..‘I '.1. - ‘1’. -1 7.1 '_r,_ ;._.z.- w, ,. “
Dy..db, ..‘L. 1‘... 11:26 fipx).LaL/.LO.-S LOP L116 1‘011UL-— id‘s/b b66148.
m1aeooraAmeo paper, Uslo oCaLe t 1vers1ty.

*“ an ‘ C". - -‘. ~91 " . ~«.—n w ‘r ,. 44, lrxv -' - r.
LCV'JLLFU Q, A o 1.x. [28.1-5 DJ Ci;- L [1.9 L1! LOC". .C.) l 01' pfle at. aVLOPdl

. -.. . .« . ' . {7.73 1;.1‘ _. n “

sc -.e_ces. 12:: I Yo : slaesaro, 1,44.

 

Ehrlic“, H. J. Dowmatism agd lttelleCL al cLan e,
Urpublished N. A. Thesis, Ohio State Ufiiversity Library
1955.

Frgchter, 3., Wokeach, M., and Novak, E. G. A factorial
study of d0;matlSfi, opiniation, and related scales.
Psychol. Reports, 1958, 4, 19~22.

 

an
1-)
I
O

1 2
r

.1- C:
O
8
C222

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ r.) . . _. a O -... S a
E a; . ._ S 2 S O 2 a .._ ,. m1 by V” .L 2
C 7,. S. tr; C. . .h. w. 2 V. L 2...]. 1 P. ..J
rum ..h o C w mu 0 . b fill y [J m..u .LJ/ 3 LIV WI.
.1 a... 3 hw .n... .. o O 7. .0 a: .- d L d 2 r“ S a
l "a. c. a; s. u 2 r t .L s L e 1 .1 e I a ..J r
i; .l: N; P; C . 1 1,1 . _ P . a .u o wl .U 1.1.. a l S ._.L.
-_ a” an. SW . ._ ..C l a "J. . S P D... 2 a S .2 . .i. l .1
2 a. e; r." O c O .2. .1 ._ ..n .1 ..J was... a F. L
S ..-I H: w... ..w 1 J C 0 AU Ni. V 4-; 1|: . l I I ._ C P. .
o _ _ J . 1Q -. .0. «C .l . O Q m.“ mu . an :1 . a. La
0 2 .L S 1.. re d .11 Q 0 e .1. ... U .1” .Q ... .1 a 7.,- P J1 t
in m. _ L (L . .1 a a.“ .921 T. m“ C. ..r...u HUT: 2-.“ C .T.
_ 2. C 2-. l _- .,-. 2 a... C e O N ..1 m _.-. D. .L S
, 4 ..J ._. ,1.“ no“ 1,. T), ..xJ. ml. 3 . u nL ..I. ..U 4.]. Cu .1 "MIL L .3 m“ mL
0... .11 i ..,.. .6; d. J, "J 1, G. . s Q t O a r L. e a _.,_
C s s 0.. ..T r L r H-“ . .w a . .J . . V
2 _ a... 011 1.- S c t .3 J s . t S .._ d 1. .1
.1 «.8 C f .. . 2 ..c ..l . .- 1 U S S C S .. .H. V... .-. O n
(. L a o s T. . J .--. 2. o I a - r o . ..e .. .u m. a r N.
O . .. u wu MINT . L a...» 1U 00 . s a a 74 M.“ a W... ..I. 2....” W... Tani C 0L 1
2L .1 S wd mm... in C S : C {v C C a C ..r. -C V .0 V1 1 1 c,
t .. . 1:1. . l 0. C. 4 ., Owl .0 _ .. .l t. S l V 2 ..a u t
a a .1 o o, a .o w .. a“ o -. ..o w..- 2.. .1 f A. o .1 .o w o C a
-L «I. O .1; :U C 2.. O )1. 4. U .m-VL 1-, 1H 4; al no .. . 1L 74L .11.. 3:.— 21/.
O c O A... 2-1.1 3 .. 3 75 ,L C . . l. C 1...“. .l TU 3 3,... t ...b .r.
1 2:1. S .n .31-.. .1... 4 .S. C .1. l D. H O .1. . .. . n 2 .1 3 mo 1
c so . C . .87., -1 r. J. a e ..u. .1 r... .1 L 0 e .e a... r c .
.u . O / ma 0 . L L...“ Z .3 An. a... H -.. S O S C ..1 l L ..F . O f ,a
a --. 1.... o .x... C” _ .le C L n1 1n... S t 2 .72 12 o a C ",2 C 3
C .. . p a: .2 1 ._ . 2 ..-. 1/ c 1. ..c .u q... 0 Jo 2L. _ h C .l
.V .2.-. ..U Hi ) ..ru . C u... VI 0... “no 0 o .l. .32 r“ O h“ a .9. .n; Cu c O t 3U
. ,. a-“ e 2 S .. .. L . P .....; w L m. .-1 r. O L T o t C. ..C l d C
..-.1 2 :1 a- .3 L a .3 I a a .1. 3.. . . .1 C O A H.
0 “VJ a.- L (L; .. .U U 2. ad. 0 .29 Q: wWH J-u I.“ {V .d 0-... a ..f. ma . -.
S . ,,... l . e. .H e a: 1.. .1. L C 1 1. . . O H d C
o 01 ”.1... _ -m C ”2.. u.“ o 1n“ . 0 1|.— 1; W1 WK ”nu 1. .I-l. "rd 0 O .1
TL . 2 fl . ) P. . u L Wu ) 2. O C ..L I), . 1. o o T hr. n S J t S
Q o 1-H U.“ o o o 1)th o r mu .3...) o 24- .-“ t A. h... calm
. .1 no Va P L . . . .L S o l L 011 .3 fl 2 . v... S
N...” .. . 1; .. H. ..1. . mu .0 L .. l. ..1 .17“ o a 71.. -. .IL. TU -.x 8
2K .1... 0 21¢ . .1... n. . c K . .1 D 2. 2,.1 _ D1 _... ..L a. l. n
2 .3 .. l P n . . 2 O 2 ..a(\ r C .J ... u 1, 1.. 2 ..i 2 a T
Q C O 2 O O O V .. 1 ..J .2.” O a T a _.... L 2 .- S ... C Wu Na
_.. m ..H n, 1 h S V. . .3 a V ..o co . Y 2 e . a..." ..1 e a; u T ..-. h. 0 e C .
a _...-. l ; C ... . .. .-1 a l L D. D r l .- e m C S n- l ..1.
.3 _ w Va h w“ .n .-.. D. l .. W I. l . L, l m 2 O L ..uc .e .1
O a. J ., S O ..c a O. c c .H . e L a .3 ..1 1. e. ..l O 1-. .T L. a.-. a n-
r. L . a V P To . U ..L. .._ K u h ..l 1- 1....” ..1 V .91 L .7...“ .f. TJ h 1C M . V. O L O .V
o o o o o o o o o O o o

[q-
2‘
~ J
i
l”
,J
'V-
1'
'1
J
J
C‘
1
2
'2
.J

 

 

 

 

 

4r

 

[U

(.1)

( t.)

V. ., T.“ -,
.-.r30, .wxurxua
Pfiéé0t_OH auu

".’ "tlfi .3 (J ' (*
L‘Lo A. .LLLLQILJ,

 

 

we u~~o 3) ti L133 -,'g1. gcn
5.5, J.) ,J:‘. . - ‘—
5. bvp torn relauL1 to s;u:luw;ty
Tali 10:8 &ff;lL&t;Oho Lug *ijsh
....<Ji‘11_‘.li;-z‘1 State L'rgi‘v-ijr‘n ”Cr-r L__L’_}}"&;'y

 

n-25, G. h. la. »a;e and the
it: 0W71SOH, &. 5., ucho b, T.
Hoac h 3 in z;m C731 psychology.
pg1. -3+-- %.

f-Kn‘tmd, R. m. and ‘7 tt, 111105: 3
thearv of reference '“Cta bchg'
Ikfiqcouk), 12 1d., auwu lfifl?tlc;7 4.
'90’11 psycholm‘v hnw ”ops. H

 

Y 1 :2 ' .
J. - ‘ L‘.0 _-.. , _L_J . ng '.j

\ ‘ .' ." " "‘ 7’ “ \
0. tJQ ace 3.:

y ~\ v—\ u _\
(1.1). .8533 (“T

T.‘ . r v. 'y ('1 "
‘qu O", ‘ 2‘. U , l. L‘A

'7') C"
:3“ C
J+=
( ‘1‘ C) H.
0
‘3
rd.

J.
"D
O

‘11t11, C. C.)
po qgular eva

 

Orar, A. Some
HQQLf Ht OH O
Lchi _::w1.3tate

n and
TVW3 Of
airion,

*. P:

Clcscd

1'1 (3 W 3.71 .J_

I'LL C h

sonality an"

 

SOC

ouvcl

L'.o J

~
‘3‘-
A“-’ ll

:11} (:rzt; C31

uno
:L\aln.1.’;

 

L111
A-
ad v
-LQIULUJ
T ’l 4—-
‘LL\./ _.. LI,
1 I-
L). J.(;f;S
' ’ - r
ba¢m84w
m) "171‘. K‘- ;
’ LLn/ kn .
.fl -¢

 

:.1] p;;"hLL_C'

 

Atti

tgce

!- I’. 1 ‘
, I. 1'10, aim-1C:

(EVIL—i iLCL

Jation.

O
H
T3
0

tt, P.

I
Ip—'
..L

Hart
York

K.

Y11.C)I1

developmcn
The bcnnantou L

lay,
: H0

Jo

. . 73". 1‘
-VIL' ‘14:) ’9

t as
t- Cy

£1.

1t,

Ll (1C1

 

“J-

.g/ENL.-;:,

afid power

 

J. new

M439.) .

,3
IL.

Glen

minqnts cf
‘31 ef syst

and
006,

LL93

Ill

L-,, ,
ULUQ (J.
{'11 A
. IUS

 

”:7 ’ 1; f? r-
0 , ALL/Ly“:
vi '1‘ .
J/L‘) -

1 1; L~
.L. /’ ,1
361
fi“
LL 0

.1 k z

(- I; J

7“ --1
-Jo El.)
V »7
E2 1 r.
0 /v ’5 5
..._ T‘L.
- :t-ms

(I
J 9
('2: CL
qt:
2

L‘r‘

L).

. (\ lb-
.. '

 

 

..Io \.

’1.

-‘J

C‘/\C
. , .,)._l o

0
TI
I
x)
..L
.1
..I.
\:
f¢L .
,1. J
I... r--\
n... ,v
“I T v
J _
(
C J
'\
f ,.
_ I. 1/
.\ x .
3..
.I
.

1:4 9.
3 H. J
. a
Y]. ..J
N. 9
.1. L.
.. wk,
L .
. \. .Il.
-u 7.
U .
. )
.L .(.
x . 1..
. . 1r:
. \x
. /\

vl
.. u

z )
xx m.
..U rf

“JO

-«
.,
.L. '.

.’

\

{nfl‘
-' --\'-.,

I" .1-
.LL\)1.

cf
.33),

 

 

n.
«I
l
t... 5;.
.y.. it.
)
.I\
la
o... f~
J .
-17-.
u.” (
r: .
_.,....
.I. no
\I; .
VI. I
)-

.’

_ r

.
u ’

C
y .. __ ..
\J
(_
.C
1. a
r.
h

0
o
-.-

\ r
I 1‘
5

l
9/ PK
.1 Y
1L .1
\
ll.
\4~ .J
a y M.-
). .
L, .4
P h . ,1
~-J I
~\.
..(\
.31
1 A
C
a.)
o. (x.
.l4 \.
T. a:
.3
.11
0 , 1

 

\I.\ L

”1‘

~0vr0

’1
L1

,

7-".C

u.
i
A

x)
.I

Y,

o

,f-
I
..

.- i.\..

\

EiI’lO.

C

(t;

f" ‘
.. ..

GO

1

'Y ’ ..) A ‘
I ."1 k, f__ r;

i

0 LB.

10 .,

1w
l

.. C.

.I

I
U

,
L.

\
..- _— ___....-___.——._ ‘-« —.- —...

‘t...

 

.2):

*L

v.,

It;

3' \

l‘
,
a‘A,

ngor‘

.IV

Jr

« _

V1-01"

.‘IIG.

,

'-

..L
a

‘nh

0—.—

C

f1

parental

'1

(

‘5
/ ,'.

/(

C

 

U

k.

per—

r

,.

I

_..~L

41"; r‘. L f “1 (1
.L (..x.’ QL u

.11

o
'\

SOC

r

1"

LC

I.)

rx

f“ {f

 

_.-.

. .j-.

 

 

 

to
\1

I
A L

.-.
L

Y.

,‘
4

\

J

 

. .81";

Y"
L

ha

A.
A
‘ j
-3 N 1
L. (I. s)

.h

(V
L.)

\

”CO -.I

-'

'\

C‘

,n—

I'L'I. :3
CU

08811053.

(-..

.

o. A
7.. a
W

II
n1. .
n. ‘ n+_l
1 \I‘
.p~ r
,Z'H. fill
\I. 3.
1Y1 ,._

f‘\
L)

1
..j.

l

\
I:

b.(

l'lo

U

BUCK)
..ioCJ‘f

‘JI
I.

. J

99

.Of

'9 140.

f
L
A

U

.1 -Q
G

(

’-
\.

‘1',
J-

C

e

I
L

1t 6

C

”OHS

_.
at:

1

KY?!
\4-

 

'1t11_:_1,

')
\Al

/‘ v-
k;

.

(1.7.0

 

‘.
7 o
1‘- O

r .

v
I

*U

 

A‘)’

) C'

A“.
11th

,I t
O

K) (J a“

V
A

4.. .
I L;

1
..L.

.- L
,d
~ k2
,.

\J

’Eh
.£.IJ-.“;
Ill
2

_ O
)‘\
1

‘fl
9“
v
‘r
I.

V
LIL

;
"I

 

y t.
7'

"A

r\\
.nw;.:L
.,fi
-L'n
O
+
AUKI

CLSC

I
‘

.1
A
(‘1 1, ,-

Q [1'

 

‘kJ

 

D‘V-‘ri

._“.,(
“31-
) in“: (.1.

 

5.

11

l‘, ,
g) k

T)

C‘
l

¢HCOU

4-,
U

(‘1
O o

)

7")
L

?119

'C.

1+;

(1

r‘.

L.) . ’

I

.. Y: “-

,‘

 

of

I
VL.

O

 

1).)..4’
rpor.

v

"1
'3’?
..‘v‘

Q

0010

(‘1
U

 

avior.

n r‘
|

l

3 be

ou

“J

vn
.1.

WA

J;

HTTYCQ
L1, 310~

1 4‘.
(7 INEL.
=-!-L)
J ,1 3

W

a
1“

'r

“x r:
J .

,. FOP(

)

 

‘1C)(

U

-_‘.
.'

a 3.
tx.......

.}

v

_/

h...

.1

"‘
alum—J

n1 1" 1'
\
.

5

‘rT‘T C‘— ‘ ’fi
'4”; l.-1..\J~L ux’.

\I‘rvp

\.

‘::d

P
,'
v-

l

/ LO.

0

VII, ..
.J.ll.

i) 1/1
~

‘. .
(. ....

16 V.
. u ).
, . C
.)J A
K

I“
\

fifi
I V
. I !.
4K ,(.\.
.\J. \A. a
m... E
.. L
G .41
gm .Tu
Lou
.JL
0 .V
j y.

L.
1
T.
.\t \4.
‘ .
TV :1-
. 4
o 1 5
~)
,L

.
.I I
L .. m-
)
D). n.1J
x. ..A
..P\ VA
\ ,
..PL. . L
_.\|
».L
A.
C r\
. .
Vlnl
.
1L; . 11._.
I.»
n.-.
”:4
. O
1). :J

tr\ 1.,
W; U»
,K .11
x. s].
r I!\

~

‘3

L! .

. w-“
.I ..4.
I... ,.\
_. J .
.p.\ .

H a.

_ 11‘.
. I. ,1
{x »I\
..n . .
.... /
.

) I

.~

rk .
.n
.1 .
3,
r. y
\ a
, u
1 J
.r. .
.
_ ./

VI A .
. ..u
a .. w.»
. J i
1: ..:K
It
5..
V... .
..l .o
. It. .1.
OJ
\
O ,
.1.)— N)
{\ ;1|\.
) f
/. .. .
. . u,
A.
. _
..J
. 3,.
., J
..L L:
.,L
_ x _
a .
\n )
,
.4 . -

l. .
.. ...
..s ..
c
)
_
. L
.
‘ WI}
.1; .1
f v..\
I"
—
91

z n
k)“;

YQL
vhf;
‘. l
.V
,1 7.1!;
[\ vlr.

T‘IF‘
.;. JJ
.1
7""
L, K/

.L.
.
..LA.

1”"
\1-3’7‘
I
’1"
v

1“T

."I

L;
..I)

.-L A ..J.
Hr; ..4.

fin Cl ..V.
S 3 L
L. . _
“45.13...
Pu m .. 4.
As“ A...“ a...“
. p
L.

E
lL'

- l l
I;
f)
v

.5;
I.
.V"
a
U“
A...

‘l . A
_ ., T. _ (I.
w .- .
r _
. 7
~ll_ ., *
. a. ..L
.pi.. . .
' L fl .
z. ‘ .. H
.Ilo ..Fu h VI.
{1 n . v\4
i v IQJ
A a; L
.. . .J .J
.g ,. . .
L ‘ l. \ .L
_ . v.
c . . ‘ J

..L. ...
1 . \ l
..(A. {k
‘IL. . J
r .u I. .
. l . n

aw .. AV
.11 C
\n
r a.

fix...
1 L
To .. J
_ k ‘4...

. .
. . ..L
i

C .‘
_ . A
. \11
‘/L (M
. J
L .. .. _

o
'W

.‘

Vii 1'3

L
«d
L_)IJ

I‘SO“

._...,
..11. \1.
(l. .r. 3..
\I. .\...
r... ,. k.

a

. .
v .
a;
rr‘
.1:
A
Ty.

“’7
I \

Y

Ia

‘1”(1‘

«
~ A

S

l
(T,"\
LL-.-

{l

7’“
3.

O

t

1 1
fix
‘I

.i.

._-_w
K)

1 . . 2-. g
117:1 L.

I

.f V

.r‘l C11.

I
LA-

v
.3
.J
ll.
46
3

C- 1"
A

.1110 C5 8

. :3 71h
lugtnl.)

1,.
L

'1

O'n'

.3

r
i
\4‘

SOT-.1

.;,A L

1'

.- < - A
“a 1 ‘. (.IV >
\J - ..- ‘4 .1

VI—

\

C .

——‘l
\J

]. Lv

.' I ’3
\’ L~

nt-
UV

f;

I

I?“

'1
_(.A.\

k .

,.
V

4—!-
UAK

0:
u
L).

l
n; C
C C
n.“ Hr...
P
S O
3.30

:11“: t1")
3 h. i s

t

v) r ‘

..a 'yt

o

q. "Iz.. ‘
l t

0‘".
ukw

n.

,3,
.FU
4‘.

.-I {3 C ‘1'

‘ .

.- 4",
.LL (3

‘l;

m‘mfl

flwwg~

‘\

§_J

..—-W—-m

 

 

 

_- *———.—_—- ..u _

—-—-———.-_ ————.- “—

h

*' . .. ,3}, ,, 3' ..'. 4-, . ,. ' \--.- :..1.., .3-‘ .-
ln thls compllcato; *urli o; 03’s, bud o3l»
\ . « «,4 3 . -' . 3. ‘ .
;now 1J33t is 33334 on 15 to cl
1
l

w ~ - ‘ _ .,.. _
13.301- i«.l‘aU.CI’S OI' isllurji‘ILS 1*: .O 3531

*‘(
*A
C
I
C"?
“3
(A-
CD
-I-
g 1
(‘0’
L“
O

F‘ 4 ‘ x I ' ~ fi‘ . >"‘ ' 'p ‘, ' ' ’ ‘\ - .’ a, I"; ~ N a .\
11:?3 are 3 names? 01 ocusons l n3vc con:

__ (J ‘ ‘ _ _‘ '3 ‘1“ ,_ \ f» _. _’ . ~., .- 4-3. -3 J. , r ,. "x ‘ ,
to Late beca3oc Cl L33 tn33.b oncf SodJ‘ IOU.

A gfloap wglcn tolcr“tcs too mccu UL::3TCHCG
or opiAion ahonJ its owh mpMDQCS c3nnot cxi“t
f0“ 133‘.

It is o ]J 33t.ral th3t a pccson should Lave
aLGuckllugttc: clcwn3f;ytau,3.zilth in“ 38 133
believes in than with 13333 he opposwa.

lo I don't like to admit thl
f l sorctlucs r3vc' the amt
3 ;'33 333, line Linstgin, or
5 -

Even t3 35h freedom of svacon 1«P all Qroups is
8.1H3Ftlflfitile .3331, it ix; 1r343rttazxtcl
s3ry 3t timos to Peatr3ct ‘ ‘ ' ”‘
“313 politic3l LPOJES.

’1 "\ “ -. N 1‘ n y I'\\ 1 . "V ‘1 ‘ ' ‘ C\ (G J ‘ A ‘9 ‘ : L3

IL LL 1131.1 .L' L10 @va .E‘J.J-Dl- 11-x.) Y...I.x)3)‘33)11 .1-” 13.3.3)
u

. < ’\ ‘ ‘,,-..l..;._. ~ 1- a ‘ , fl ( -q 4 ‘\ , \ 1’ 1 *‘1

LL; ‘8 3201.3" u3_:.1'_l.;) LC‘JQLJ-U~ Jr v3 31.3321.) (1.1- CI:

..:._'...s . .4. ll 1'

/ I I 1' 'Id '

133) U-;_..'-.L. (ab ' Q

‘~ 1 -' r ‘f\ V‘ ‘7‘. *‘1- ‘, 4- “"2 1 I: r" 7‘ V3” I ‘ I‘

most peool: adob oyu't mlvo a 3333 aoout
-1, ,

otucrs.

Any 8 4
1. T 1 —~ ‘0' l \ 1 {V . ‘1 :‘l /'
:RHAUCT Cu (313303 133 1133
r- 'v 4" ..‘1 - 'V ' I
.31 -J— W b113, SO “

L‘o conprornis a with 03” political oppont
33:; crous 030 3
tra J31 01 our

If ivcn tne cnarcc, I would do something thét
wo3lc \e of ¢Pc3t b33351t to th‘ world.

imcs like those, it is 0 tan necessary to

c“ more on car 3'3333t iocas put out by Ger"
; pfloplc or JrIups in one's own camp'tnan by

hose in the op posing 03mm.

“'4: .———._-—‘

—__.——'-..———-——-

——.‘A—.——.~. —- W

“Wm——

V

l)

b-)

t L)

(A)

U)

H

D.)

—\
O

- y~ 1‘, L . I J. o , V 1 '1 r 3"

"fl (.1 1.33333 U; UCL Sb 0.:

. .M. * . :., a .n- L ,3

db E'Of’03(‘ .Lfl W1.th .L 3.51 0' 'il’m Lu. {‘3qu UI Lib I
“ P

) r-&
,..J
x

x U
V
A
L__J
:1
O‘
3
O
O
3
q
.4
0

0V

r';3t to listen to what tae others a‘

(\w'. ’- .,—- w)‘,’~“ ' ."‘ ‘ /.a‘ “‘r' I: wnr‘

UCCS I Lit WQudd dp LU a LUQLJJ CLSCLDDJOH, I
. 3....1. ,. -

Last Can't stop

There are two kinds of people ih t- zis world;
c Who are on the side of trath, aha thos e
who are aJaihst it.

n his own is a helpless aho miserable

'.M ‘H-z.n van 3 H 1 ”~«n: K ,r :. n.flw_
fut: Uniteu otatcs anc. Lioboia have LtlSt about
nothing in common.

In the h’story of riahkind there have probably
been gust a he Hlif'Ul of really great thinkers.

The highest form of government i0 a democracy
and the hi :hest form of democracy is a govern—
ment run bJ those who are most intelligent.

resc ht is all too ottch full of unhappi—
it is the fatore tr at co 3 ts.

’3
,_)
' G
M0 *0

Untort3LatelJ a good many people with whom I
have diSC‘ssc 3 important social and moral prob-
lems don't really understand what is ;oihg on.

PJO

Fundamentally, the world we live in
lorlely 1113.06.

8 a pretty

i.“

It 3 often desiraole to reserve :33 ent abOLLt
what's goii on until one Has haw a enhance to
h ar tie piniohs of those one r

Lhe worst crime a hereon can COLth l to attach
poolicl" toe pooole who belifive in the sane thin
he does.

V

Most of the ioeas that get pablisneo nowadays
aren't wor til the paper they are printed on.

Only natural for a person to be rather
l of the fate re.

 

 

.LI

V’.\

y;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’\ . ~ 1" - . _- -: ‘ ~ " '\ .- ~ ~ ‘ I" ..u «‘ -‘
-;. hJ Ulood bULlS Wuonev:r a ucrbua S+u0~
vi —H — —. _. . —.‘f. V“I’ v "‘ " ‘i‘ . ’ ‘2 ’ -’ W ..
burnlj PULMQUD to dgmLt 0 LS “reap.
4L. u;en Lt comes to ugffur;_0us 0; OpLflLWfl 4n
.‘ 3 .-‘. - ' ‘v V. ‘- " ‘ ~ (1 ‘- 1‘ I ~
rgli fiix;, hJ Lflqu u; caCELLJ_ICDb to cum:
‘ - 1‘ . "3'. '2- :. . :1n:\,‘,.a.‘4- 1
prou;sa WLtn tnosc who bbl¢ch Q¢LLp:”flulj
3 _’_ ' ' -. r _[
1 1701;! 40.1.8 WU. r I‘ve C10 .
\V~ 1‘ .‘,-
lMLLMA'x.’ O U\J(L O
A .' 1\.2 - ‘ . A O .0 L \_
pivv 0L ULCbU. , Place CL 0*PUA:
*n '1.- , -x -11 -, -_.- : ',
rt 14- UM,“ pram c‘L'p Aid . 11:14,- LOW:
1r! r . ..--',- y
ggv'xc's OCCJ“¢LLJF: . Jghuup 0L
"fl ‘ 4‘ ' .0 .,1. . ,
L L Own . S ”... 8-1-1) 1.1.2.1." ‘
r1, . . ,,_ I , - 1"
bull“ <3 Olga-g: ‘u‘o" 7144543 1—‘Ui..iu Lid/i, a.
, 04:, f "-. ’17-. 1 "rt-..g
.51., (‘1‘ J. Jflfilk: . 1.9.1 ,L bunk. SEA/Lu t4}:

 

 

.-_A.A_J

-4 ‘1 ,’

’1 ' V':

I
‘C.
V x]; .

“.1- . J i ..U [s

n 7'—.* --—)y

. .' ‘
h-” ..

posur grd

{’7' 'f‘ "
L

‘) 4': .

C

(.L

'/'\1

p s

,.
(L

4.
U

L ’_.<.

' .
‘

L1 :

1.

K14

l

‘ ‘

LIL L\)|J._

ca. »,r

'.
v

V 21$

L.

.. """"'J-l
-'\‘k ‘L"

f- 3

. ..—
. .
l

t‘ ,'

Cf .-
lJL -\/I. -

"1. i; '.

1

U L;

O
1.1“

Pi.

tal

D 2'3

V

ll

0
I 1‘? ‘
’ I. —L-

v 1*

1

p

1.
db

_ tn

'.
1'~

Jr. ..-
l/ -12.

..
\J. \J

1

EL

‘\

'.
J.L

LJU‘

L“

.” Ix
d. . .L

.‘.

r2.)
. \l

ws q

-l
.1

Fit

A k;

‘VIA

t

\A
.01

..L.

I 7". k‘
.1 (..J. L .

\f' A

J

v

”L r- .
k) b 1. UV;

V

7-
..LL».

{BUG _

f
,
K

r-.

v

i

)
.1

QUE

_- ‘J L

.1

l

.
‘-

c:~ " '

r'--

“
*w

l .O

u ('1

\.‘

U

i

w i ' .‘I \
) _ .o
.J' [\I ~' '2

J.

(3

C3 0‘

O 3"

h

aic

- ‘

' I

H.

V C; l"

c‘ ’7
UK.)

V!

"J c...

3

LA.

I

 ’..!..‘),

n
’J

r .

{1‘

V

11

C)

\

ul

J...

’)a_,

0
\‘j '1‘)". 1’
-L~)(I.L Li

I
b

L/ ‘

wv

'v VH5.

A

‘

D 3

Y

‘1’

J

..-. J.

\-

r ~'
\_I |

N»

J DJ

T

.‘

)
..z

w r“

3‘"

.1"“" N .
LI-KJ U f C’th.)

(T
L)

:3
V

V
I

Y
A

IQ

\}‘|

E

‘ 3

V1
1.x

{INJC‘

—‘ . -
>
L \.~L

V.
l

“LOU-:1".

a...

1

PL

0

i

1.1 . '. 7 "\ rw
‘4. ‘v' .5. K, ‘—
1 .

I

J.

3.

‘h
\J

L)

J y‘-

4-."
'\

.,1
L

4) 0L1};

‘;'1‘|n \

‘1‘.- ' i z ._ r'.- ," ‘ . *1 —' ,~ w r ~' ~' ~- v . 7- ¢”.-. 1 .p\ -: - J— : r 7', , .‘
1“;le “ a)- at: xi... :9 ~,_?_\J. ;- c.1136 3170.1 L Lleflw 03L; .1. . A L‘l' , 'b

 

.1 I.) 7' '3' " 4"" ,’_ ‘A".: ‘3'" i. ' ' j‘1'“. "' . x" " - .' .' - '1 ‘~ '- L‘
L1~L~J|J £214 4' rx-lill il‘x-‘qt‘hj L no. 'rl.l.c3:i :IC l.-‘.'.:'..L::l£-, l _ l :Ii.J LID ('3):"'

9 .. ‘ - 3 _n . V. - «I V , . v
\ . 1 . ‘ '- " (. I ." . ‘ -"." .2’ ". , ," _1\ "‘ '~-' ._., ‘ ' f.) ‘ ' 1“ " “ *
’l;-.-;..l {.HJL‘I} T/(l k) v‘,...L.L.L Lxx) \_ L.)\:(" Ml EN!" £1 £1", .;-‘.L.K,‘ hf) .‘ ' . VO
9 .-

. :1 1- , , , , ’ l_' «L ' , L , ft
‘ a. ‘ ‘ ‘V I ‘ t , r I“ 1 1 I: r n I r‘ .7 1 ‘ '4 7— ,r /
(‘JT ‘ ‘ -., s_) .1 ()1 l; r- \r. _(\.) V“ K-‘ t) -u L‘-’ f U l.‘ _L.‘- ' I ; _. # _~ L -L. ‘1. L \. a
L- — .. ’.
‘ 3-, . ,1. ”1., V
'J‘ JR: r L: kl. )
, _
t‘r‘t‘! C! YNE7C' '1 73' -,1,_,« ( I'Arq v." 5‘ fir- ~r~\ r.- (I 7‘ .13.
tk k) 1 ) .‘ / ‘ . -L. up {A I. .. u ..- » d A -A L\_u' .1 4 , I o '. ’ ‘ u x, . \J \ “J k '_ ’ (_. ‘J ‘1 L)
' -. , ‘ .' .- -- " J. . .‘ _ A 1- 1
‘ . I v I 1 ”x - 1 . i I “ ‘ 1 v ‘ /\. . ‘V l . y l\ . J) 1 (- 1 Y \ - \,.", y
L..; L t)”, 'O_.L-‘ .1.( ' "I. L x I. , -'_, |-', u." .z '-1../\,-- t..__ ..'_,' VJ .‘ - L \z.
1 ' . 4 , . l 1 . ‘ -¢".- 1 . - \ .. _ . , .
. 3 " r. 3 ‘ 1 ‘ I u ' ‘ 1r! y\ ’\ '1 a .r' \~ ,-
; vb" I 1 \J I) .' .‘J (_;\1 _‘_ K _, -l/ _L_._ . _-_ \,' .a)_|._;, L; kl J ‘ ,. \J‘ 0'!
_ rt _ , I - ‘o. ' - . r , ,
f- ‘- —- r: r v_ur‘ ,-. n f -‘ ‘ v'r ‘VI QT~ I a |
x‘ .j. ' '1 v 4- h.-- ‘ J‘- I- \— " . - 1 L’. L (_ -1. IQ; o I’Xk) k.) ' ”Q _L\
d x u v
‘ ' ' ‘ _ , .‘1 ' _ ‘ 1—7 ‘ _‘ .. 4 r . -.. _
' ‘ ' ‘ ‘ . ' . 1 .3 I" ’ ‘ ‘ X ’ '3 " k.' " ’.' " (I ’3
‘ .. J-L .' L. CQ( ‘ .. k L, |\;__, n. ‘ (i - " , (.';.~L ). \ ; UN), 0 K.‘ ..A.‘ K
K‘ o > 1' V- I r H ‘ (1 I" 1 )(I r w"; ) f,‘ ‘ ) 'I ‘l ‘ v :1 ‘l
' <4 "‘~ ‘~ ..A z .- ki .. " .7 I ' ‘ -. '. ‘ :' _ -‘ 1 \ ». ,3 .2. . 3' ' ‘ r " Mr”: .' .-~. *
. A-) V‘. , x v N 4‘. -_J 3 '1. ». ( U :3 ' , 1". 2) (-. \“1 -‘ L LJQ L , '1'. i. '7, L x ) .2 U ‘ ’. » ‘ A o 5- ‘ . ’..~. I
, - ' . "‘ ' ' . L 'm . , ‘ ‘5 . I. Y .. ' . V
— v r l -‘ +—- ~ j r - *- \ V y -. ~ . r ) ~rrv‘ r) f‘ C A ~' - . v - r f- r“._ ~’)/‘ ' m
h": J.’ J ~‘ l,;‘-‘,l- ",ul ‘1 ‘I’ L . Ln) 1111.1; '...\/ ‘1 9. 3|.) f. L '-J-.'~4 n', 0]-?" 1. ~..I".' 2,‘
~
7
- (' ,.. ‘ , IV .I.. ‘ .- . lb 4, ... - . ,. . - . I;
m x (' ‘f‘ k' ‘~.‘ 1" f: ':- r‘.) =\‘. If v V". fc
K. 1 h-" , “k, ‘I\-) , ‘ J l! n '(1';. 'V, ‘2 ,. LL} LI r4. '.' A”... .1 K1 1‘. .I‘ZLI pt.).‘.3. w 2....1 «J o
«,11~ L: - ~~ ~:fl q: «~«I1 "n«w q»-.,\
‘ . b , I ,_. 'V ‘ I I . ‘ I
xJ\,)_L-.'_-(~_/ t! [.Lx'f.‘ L.-.L. _:,‘\,, .. \_,~“, .L-l-k.lz—£ 1..J '- UL .l'CA'-I-LOL. / o
' . l - 1 ,
' - If. . "1" 7‘7 X '“‘ "7117"? 4" ’j: 1I ‘l i "7' ' '4 .'V‘ P ‘ ‘ J“ v‘VIC)‘- 1.r‘ f;- ‘I‘ 1“ H. 4‘ . ‘ ’V ..7‘ P‘ '5 :' 1 'fl). ‘ 1'7
" - J U ‘- a ‘1 1 ‘7 ~ L.) ‘I'.,'.. '- '.' \ ‘ ’4 -.I « L % K.- \) - ‘1 L’ a '. x-.. I I’ .. {J \ —L' ..' ‘3 Lab . \, ~41 I
-1.. ,1 ‘ -,, .l- 1.9 . ’1' . . ,7 r 1 ' 4‘; ' r. -‘|. . 1-‘.‘ ,- ‘ -. 1“ I- ' ,
‘_.\. n. . . \ L5-..) ' - ( .v\ , ’ ‘ . 1 ‘ . 4 ‘~ M 'Jr-'. - ‘1 r \
(.4... V“; ‘. VJ J'J_!_V.-, ..L --‘~l‘~_4‘~! (J. 4-.1'-/V4.~.. .CLC/ T L)- . .1...L()1V.J.L/_‘.-~)-l

T A
{LLAUV u U u. _. \‘r .,-‘_;_‘1 Hit} 1. thLB: , .L ' ll trill 3/0.». -L 17."; Viki: P121“
'. r v "‘ J 1 '._,

I

~ " ‘r’) 0 ~ ~ ‘ -< q I: -i

L1.- vi: L ‘1‘: ' LJUI 4 t.) k, L) VJ ‘13 I t.) M: .
9

I
7, _ A J“ T ‘ m . .' _ .' .8.’ ., . ‘ -- .' -~ V -' - ‘
sh aw. (inc COuL; LuLurmabLun LS .p
I .
l.
l

(C

. ., .,1. a A. A 5 .\L .

Ftfl.pufl LG? ufiruzu,'s

Logs ac:n<r1t* agmg Lac CCNJJT‘ cute f
.1) _.,

_. .,...,..2, 1, .n J, -.‘. -_

.n‘. r3 Cignngzb "L" 0:. tin.) CCLLA:__()P1.L:S. )i

"5
rJC
( )
m

 

 

 

”I ‘ n
g.rJ1 “LJP~‘1;O‘I::OI“ .
N 1 {I _ I 1*
('}""Jf\ (JJ. H‘.L1LLA ).
1". / I)-.. ‘ ' ,- ) J .. r ‘a"‘( L
H- 9.2—: LCIL, JUL/1 VOIJ :
)1 4' .2 '
(1*; c 0L ~Lrtfl ).
'g'l .‘ _ J... _ .l,‘_ .. ' t ' o _ r ‘— nyfi‘r‘ “ 'l
”Lid. u Juan? r1 "'6‘ C) Q a I] (2.. u .uQU .
I 1 l,\ -/j ‘ A, a C“
‘uLwJ. L. ”L- .LvLLJu .
Hva 4 . -.,- .- W . 2 .. I!
a gm; as do 5' :3 L Lorr
w - . .0'. '. '2 ‘ '3— 1. .s—n»4— ..u {- An” . 1-:
L;;14 lugs 3.. lJanLJw: inobw'wa u, L;1 p""iua LO ,
V “HF——
' -.' .‘, ¢_‘, 5' I. {‘1 ‘ ”a, ‘4- U, , I. . ' .‘ ,. .25 -.~ ..
Juk48u ; Lufid? Ho Laud 51L lOMS _Lo 9
,; ,-. ,7 ‘ 71"“??71; T'T‘T _ . :T"*‘T(~_ . ““““
g9. 3,10,; L u): :3 3197 4:93“). . ,g 5

 

m—--—.—-—

 

 

“x;cLly wuat anus yogL father do f0? a liV'u 2”
(Lairv;r"‘<30c ':;b1..1 ).

"qua cu iaxlcelgrifiozz *\-: vxy4111 ¢an Lfijtlhlite LfC)l‘ pajéerfJS
<;;:n wt: ch r'13_; tfik:: gxlsi; 31231‘?"

(Farcnia' ’rmny.): l lhuxn? ¢;CCC; 2.;LECCG~;C&£g f3 géCCC~
6LGL; g gCLCf—ZCCC; ; ngCL~IC,LCC; c 91L,LCC~12,LCC;

y 912,0LC—14,(UL; m *lfl,CCC—1C,CQC; 3 @19,LCC~1;,CQC
lg VVcP y1=,cop.)

”I‘m not aim” to adv you 1? Jpn 63; or die '3 vote, hat
1? ;ankxmfi'vnfiéc, for'vfifxfli;n5;5juential cmgcibfiafla would
;Ky» k;8ha vcflJed <3? 1:1 t‘me laafl: e1.a3LJ'ufi;" (k“>1it;Lp:‘ give-
Fc?e cu praSLCc'tial: VLgvgnsoxz Lischhowcr:
Ofi“JP.)

”7‘ Y. .-- u - , ~—'1~-~.-I--:..—‘ 1..“ .V .3 Y, , ,

JJL k :Cu LLW_pLCbLAQAULdl CduULLduco WOdlU you have

* ”L * is, wzut do yo; call you?self politically?”

\, V

“ v
' ‘ ' <. '. ' o
j—LJ- —O<3 “Cu"! _I.,";l .
I: . rs . -‘ 1" ' ". _‘ ‘ v
1Vvk/K '\’i\ Q ‘; l-HI .1.le "L 1.10; U:)

30:: ~~I’iCfi)Il

\ao

'; ‘ Lemocratic:

O CLUTCH s;rvlcgqi”

1 .LOL“ th ax; OYUJ‘ Q Ire 7<; 22 Lh.c;3 a

mt UDCP L mast ; j Paar 90 six times
7 LBS” LM¢J orcewa ;)ar; 5 Pinost

.« t'~. -‘ I
. . ~’ ‘. -_ p .1 O
-.7‘ _\ ..| '_ . . _ :1 K , - « ‘1 «. . - 7‘ . _'
~ ..A r r . ‘. ,. ;' ‘
..f/ \."‘:C,-‘.‘.l L'.. K." n , . - - . _ x, L l) ., ‘ .7-. fi ’7.
. l.
I" A "(1 Q
U -4 .1 ~
'! f‘ “‘ . ' a
. ._1 u I .. " ". 7. ‘ “ I a, ‘ 7, —') ‘ ") . y] x“ .1 ,~‘ A
(”At A) J, . , (‘x - l..‘ . I . 1v L , 7 .4 !‘1 J. \ J t ‘ r A
,° . _ A ' . .1 ‘ V A ‘. ._ _ )1 _ ' }
‘ I — ~ . «. ' ~,v . f} , ’5
t) 7. ~J . .J - . O ' 14 w: .3 , ‘ a . ‘ L,
..l I s
’- ' " ‘ A I L \ 1 ‘ ’ '. ’ U " . -l ‘1 ’A 4‘ ‘ - 7'
y in .x , . J 1 ~» - .A \ '~‘ “ - L, '1 O L . ‘
1' - ~— -
~\ . ‘ ‘I ‘ _.,. “ .' ' n. V .A .’- 'I <
1. J J 'J < .— —- r».. L...) ,u .\r.:'.
U u
. . 1'
‘ ‘i I 'l A A ‘ ‘A V l 1 IA} . I .
hwy, L: :1 t)- .. .3, ., ..-. unflqu‘:
v‘ 1 1 . . ‘ ‘ g. N
r‘ . I ' . a " :fi‘ 1' J "‘i ) -., I ' AW’I J "1 _, a
(£11..- "I. '_. -1..A) 12k 1“. . [J '1.[, L) i".'\ A ‘ L‘.\.J(.)
'» / V r. a ‘r '. <3 - C: I.‘ J ' ‘*' 1') .17 ~ r‘
\ \J . t) ,1 L. [1‘ 1 DJ u.) :.1\..)LJ ) K .1 ‘..4 9‘ \J. - 4.4 Q ‘ O J
“ A -l-' ‘ r“ - I Q o I. 1 a .“
2-} ..1 . ,.\ ‘. -- 1 . ' x .. . 4‘, U
1 L.‘ V ‘.4 I\ L - . a, s.) o _L . . u . L‘.’ \ 4 \l . . ~_/ w . . _. 4.; LI 1. I)
‘ I - _ I C
'r‘l_.’."".4' LI ' ' '\ _’ ‘7 )f') ‘ " " ..9 ‘ "I .' 3 “V
l ‘1. L)i./\J\ . .k" r , . 1;, . - ‘41 L ‘ r \ ‘J . If .4 K.’ L _. L‘ ‘J _. . . (.1 (‘1‘.
2‘ f\ ‘ 0‘ ._. t ' ‘. " \ .1 'r I‘ ‘ ~~ /‘ : —] I I .3 r. L 'T
1_.' .. V A l '..- I.) _|.. L)‘ ; k_ , k‘ \) .1. ' " U4 x) [1—1. —A. . .b - (A - . J
1’ ~— 0 .y " L ‘ ' ‘
i 1.7.“ ' -‘ 34 ‘v ‘ -- - . ~. I r. .3 | 1 — 3 (s 1 4 ‘- »_-‘
J.. Y‘ k) A -(J~ r; .l J. U 0 01k.) . - kA \4’1.’ .1. A (:4 2, .1- _.. \J [_ .1 r,
_ . 0
0‘ ) .1- ‘- (4' ' I, ‘ < .1.
L K, ‘,. . ’ t, -\_, .
'l‘i'r-l1 1' C‘ T. r‘q r L /‘\ ; ,r\ ..I .."J . 1):) I ‘f ,. (‘3
A -.\J '1 K.) V k— *d *K/ U U \ r "~I J. v.‘ \. J K’yl l-)
- l. > . 1 4‘ ..‘ |
y) . 1‘ .. f , . I." o - ' 1 7 ' - ‘ l-‘ - ‘ ‘
1L” ‘_.« . \J t..-J U. L: 5;. .. ”,1 k_)_‘- V..I b uk,-_..._t.. -/I;;
T _ _ I . _ ‘ ¢ H .“v _ u ‘ . _ 5‘ fl ‘
’4/‘\. . f‘ .l _) p _ -.v. w v (J, ..v ~ f‘. . “v‘
l.\J.-7 U‘\)\..\ j \;(.’....) (U ¥\'.J.b_) . \fbl.‘ L4L.'\: ‘.U.. ..OI'J“.
‘ l V ‘ O t
r‘ n f .-_'. -. . x '1 ‘3 v) “ ‘ fi. :.’ -1 v C “‘3 '. '
K4" 41v A.-. O; LIL,1. JO ...\A.L_'.. 11.x...) 13.4. /_ - .
KI ‘1 " i ' N r ' (W ' fi
'1 ‘ ' V' ' ." \" ' ‘J
.K...‘ '4 ..1 \JL.'~_’U\)(,U
1‘ {V 5‘ T! (..A V'fh '4 r‘ - ' 1
\l J \— 5-‘ I |— .- “I. V' a— .A
‘ F - 7‘ W "- " 7 ‘\ 7‘ ' d 3"
.'. .(1.L (J-)_‘Cr‘t"~:".o
A A
(W x v , r\-_ v‘ v ‘ ,\ ’ ‘ ' \ ,\ "‘ s. “.
\).’. .‘J. . “/ \‘i'\)‘»_/L:J._.[Ao
(W “ ' . . .. . ‘
I ’3 " ' ‘Y ‘ C‘Hxl '
U .._ .'.. . 4 .1 Jr \J. JO A...“-_ o
:1 ‘ .‘- -- - v, .,... .,.,
5.)]. -‘\/_u ) ._'_4.‘4\).L 0
C‘ . ._ ~ - h ~ ‘. W -, . 1
u().;.’.l‘.v.. L J -4 ,- i J-» kz1
4fi ‘ .9 I‘I 7v ,- 7/)
A... V-L ,ci‘vU‘L o
vl’ ‘ ' r 7 '5
', “"v‘ ' b ' l
x / - . . i - ’l.\/ y)
u
i

)0: LU L

‘

)1 ;f' '~

. '1 (.‘¢ V
' r ‘3 V
L ’2)! C:
' .L

.r) ‘3. ;;

.._. ~ A
, ” , ‘Y' '_‘
‘0 - 'J U

‘ "3 v ‘r~

‘I__’: :.l'\/
"r’ “11")
.1.V .-

.,2
\1
i_)
, .

v '- '1
‘]I’)I\ '.-‘ .
4- . .-O-_
\f.‘.‘f11 I
.. ’4 \’... ‘1
I
L
fit...
I

P)

 

 

3... 1 ." 'rr'f'
1 t, L)(,“_"._‘ .
‘ '1‘ I“. ‘ m
\ Kl. s)

V I
'5". ' (I O
. i ' . "’4
' - ’ A . ’ _A.
‘ v" ‘ ‘1 V V,’_
I2 1 g) . Ax.) 13".,
" VI ’\ F .
k'J. '3 K, . , -._’
A

I ..—
r“ ‘r.

I

_. > _ " \

75

'VA

H r:

x D

, \

\ .

' " " 0" T’ - / ~ r 1—- I:
j ‘ ‘ I ‘ x I I ‘ \ " A P0 A " v‘ I)
g. LU \ U \J - .r - U V' t .0 U ) \ ' -) - «ls—l 1.1 k k- n t .J Kl--0-x.‘
'! ‘ ' W v 1 1 v 1
. n ' ‘ .\ 7 - ~ ‘2‘» ' \‘ ’2 ,. L ‘“‘ . -. ~‘.~ —
an- L ' ' lJ J L ~ ~ ‘ ' ‘J {J —J- kv d \3 L H- 1 'A v, 1-’ b -14 _— ch 1-) .L‘ f".
O V ’ l.
N A. a , 0 a .'\.‘ I J ) “‘ ."1 _ A 1 r L
\J . I» v . K. A \l .- K’ .1 I./.. l O)‘..I11 -‘K’ ‘J I
H 1 r1 .
’.’3-"" f '3 ' ‘ 1‘ ‘I .II"- .‘7 ‘1 A W ’1. *- 1' "'m "H
I 0 ~ .1 ‘ r ‘ 4 \ ._/ \ k 1 K n) {J . .kr - I a J \/ lJ XJL - I.) k, .. ‘..’ r ..I g
A
II . " fl — ‘ g 1
;'k ‘1) . ‘| I) . 1 y) ‘ xi » —.‘ _-‘ 1‘- 3 "X (-.. a r. I! l ' .. \ .3 ‘ I z A r‘
. ._ . x. -_ J, 0.....- - JLJ‘- 4.- LI . ..A\/;. U’ L/L.’., ) .2 ". IJ‘J_ z u.)
. - , . ‘ - . I. 1 | 1
‘ V! . . . b r1 4 J ‘ . ‘V ’ | r ’l “ Ix ,‘ ‘ , '
..' , a K J ’ ‘J _. . V A. ”.u 3 L3 L. 1 k) 1“- ' "‘._ J J Cl K' )‘J , '. '

“ 2 -. v'- 2». . .-’ .- :1 .. 1.1 .~ - ..J _ .\ ., 1..
(L: -‘. 1?\1 (2 l.‘ l'. x~'.‘.. ‘J U (J‘ ] J. I '€.~ 2-) ‘.)lt ta’L) b J L LXI": (- 11‘) 1/1 ‘3 ‘ (Al. Ll

“1 . , .. H w. . . .. - . ‘ -1 f
xuo elgg u» do. kuCW or kngy of that fue.s tau sane
, 1...! r,

.~.~ 'nl vv-.u‘ (‘3‘ (~1'~ . . 1" q} -i "~ -
way 54d» 5). my 400 t OOScJCCJap-UJ

Hv 1 1 1 . ‘. f , ‘- 1 «L ‘. . q 1
2 . ~. I - ‘u p .— \' \' v. /" § I \f- r‘ - .1,-
...‘.O p _.,-,‘ \0 JO b- v.’/ Q? 2 \.-‘.. .2‘ n a L:-..)1.) (-.L: ‘I’r
‘ 1-1. ‘ 1 , 1.. s . l7
'.' ‘r W x . r 1 1/ j
10‘ l.-- i. _: -. x) (.M 1 x - L' x i “C c,‘ . u 2: LI .
{I w 4 1 1 L. ' J ' I '
a ‘ 3 "r‘v' ‘. ’ \ " t‘ ' A“ ‘ f‘ "\ V " ' ‘ I I‘
\- 1. . - 12L, u _ L.)_ . L, ‘a; K-L~JU \4' I), Ll\ojk’ J~ \ -.-U ‘1'-.."-
’ 1 1 11‘ 'u .4 ' 1‘ ”v ‘ "‘. ".r'\‘")’\ ’ 1' '(‘ ’4 " "‘1 I",""0
- - \.’§ ’ - ~ .v . , n K Q g. '._ L1 ; \vaK L ’2 '.k‘ 1 - .L. k) 1. (.14.-. Vi; I.) o
1" z ‘ l L- ‘ 1 o W. ‘ I v. '1
L‘ r -") ‘ ““’:‘ ‘ .1 '_ I‘ ' 5 V”" V“ W I‘ 'u ‘r‘ " x ‘ V
.. J b J A- J ' 'u J .,I '-~ ' U‘; L/L'..,'.U 0". Ca... L}... I M. »)' t); V-U .1.’ 4.1. J
.. . 9
'_ .\ .4 ---‘._- : u , r L -~~ 1 .
« v r r n I I ~0 'wj . ‘ \V Y r \ A. Y.-
L,‘ . . ".u (, J r. " _.-\- {2-..} u-l_. ) d-\) "U. _.l‘_, [1‘40
uWK) ‘ " ‘ u' x 3') ’\ "-I 2 " " ' r: f".-‘ ."."'\ (" “«"‘ “’1 )f‘ 'i‘, "t' ‘ ."V ‘2‘ '. fir‘ \‘ ‘ ‘
‘ .. \J' k.‘ s.) ‘u- . J 'x.- ‘_ .L-)E.k.' .1. vi (L. (.1. -11; L.) .L k); :-‘.L"--' L] 1;. '.L.. .-1 . k). ‘ , E. 1k- \ -
.
.' 2 , ' 7 ‘- . I ' .‘ .. 2 ‘ 2 '..‘ .. .
. - ~ -- .‘ ‘ ! ,r » -. ‘ ,-\; - '~ -. ’1 - ‘ " r“) " 71 ~, ‘ h . * .~ \ ‘ :
LIL-(J .1 AK. !.'.K.k . wt n.'~..‘,-..L;..-w.:u.a... C1.'.J/ LCL‘ILEM m. Luv-) {xi/C“
« 1 l - ‘
q 2‘, . - . . .‘ - ,. , ~. ,1 . ._., - _
‘4‘. K: L1 ..‘_.1 Li .21)..) L1 .. KDA.‘ (JL 3,11. <)'J F: o )
': - u 4 (1 1 ~ . ~ 9 ‘f.
, ‘ ‘ " v") " f- ' r ', 1 n 2* ":1": "t 7'“ . f' " ,7: ‘* '~. r ‘ ' 4 ~ ",1
g“ -. ._ ,.__, (J. L . . n 1.. K 1.- V r)” L g V :' ; L) L1u.V .3 C U.. \ lb . I. l. «1‘ka 4,
4' ~~1 ‘ '.'~'..-': 3". t ”'30:; “1-3. ' "4 '"r. "4".n‘3 13"101" fn .r
K) , Cl. Oi ;- \_I Q __ .‘..~-..).A C), k4 I‘JQV I. \r (.2. ‘l k). - ..n‘J U1..~_, ‘/ Ls L) Ll 1-;Vc
-- - .‘j - a I ‘
2v.» -; :AC‘ ! v r~ ~ r' '_ -n - 'r." - .-- 3% ‘11; .r' 1 l ..r,' r. fr I\' ‘v r‘ .\_
at.-.‘-.._u. .1- mum--. -.L 31;)... (.0..- Lu... - LAO cl..d' a; um-‘ L,
.. ‘ 7 ‘ '1 _ r I:
"n . .’ ‘ . ' . I
tV'/.x.-l_..;.v :‘JU‘X. | ldk,L\..’
A .L
fi 1' ‘V ‘- ’\ 1 “ ‘ 1' . I1 I' ‘ , 4" i \. r w. " .-,', .x ‘7‘ .r: 0 g! 7" F) -n /\
‘. K.)-L Ll.’ 1.. Q (1 IL) ’ L91-) 1 \Jx CLC‘ [A -' U Q d—A. £111. UK. UL) U1, " kl
J»- ‘ «- - . 1‘ - —— . '- 7" - I‘ .‘ w -
(I \I ' .— 3 ' i 3 : Y x‘ ' f. \ l . .\ .‘
.. ukfi‘-A, 'J‘JJQ vLLuLl LK L LILLC: fvlpr'H; o -.l LLV(.)1 (/1. a.-. . ()r’.‘"OU"'
L ' "~ ~ If " " i" \ C ..\ " ’NI ’ “‘ ‘ ‘- ") 1 C“ \ ‘T I ‘ t1‘ 3 C‘ '\ 3
L} J \J . CJK,‘ . r ‘ L 1.J LKJAV‘. Q I .\5 NJ" PFU'. db.) WILL“ \Q‘L, (J --11 L'V L7 (J
- n 1. v . ‘ .
U: -' 0 n \ “A; (3 D . ‘ \C‘t ‘ \ ‘C‘
I'Jv-dr (.1 o l- OL L’LL‘x: ' 'L \JVL’CKL“ . qv Lo .5 LILAU . )

:1 ta 3 33w nat;onal and re_i0Lal 4? .ps Md or an'
zatiors hrvo “or: ogt for on a ainst dese'rc ation. I
wonder if yo. can tell 49 who some of the“: jromps or
OFf&flL3“uLOSS are?"

_ _. ‘ ‘ ._ -.4, . fl ~ ': V. . v 2- u \ u
( W)? iii a. q‘xa .343 , fc>.r cthL.t.(DL -L ;,rcn Vs
‘ '1
o

;.; sogun; Lne Spnlkxg; o; 1.;Luim3LLOL CT’

;.¢nlcd'e s.o5¢ gosiai o aJC n gaoivc rcfv?yuus mentiomao

in age ‘proge” suctiou. Err 'scl poplic pcrsog or “PO p
‘ s "i

6
' . - -‘ .2 .2 .~ «. l; , . . , . .. .
Lad o in sun yfouu on, bgd : llJVJ»

5.?
K

C

x'
z...
\ L
C; .
r.

,L
L
C“?
L
i
'4 \
L?
C-
C:
(I
L
V

 

'V : ~,- .' '- I 4‘ - v-. ‘ . ' — . .~ -\ ~~ V" “ - y . ..‘ -,
C J LhU Odo Luau (rare Oi fsiuficw3)had in
_ ,. g , ._ 1., 7 .. ,- .,-_'."'T .. (
lsvor o (QpJCQCJ to) ucsc re 35lou5

:1
!
I
!

'1” . ., A , . .. - - - 4. 1-- .,. 4-.
(rollow_h; bud D'S response of CulS QLBSo

v .—~ ' » ' " x ’ - '-~ -.‘ - a r I‘ A‘. ‘ If. n " -. -
jam 6V3? soon Him (or a mouse? oi one 59o“

,,, . .. \ , . t‘ 7-“ .1 ’,J. . r. -I‘ T .4 .'.. .
(5310:) 14 chSOI: save you CV6? reao liro0o . -
‘, 1 r.‘ . - I. in .f '1

:33 11.5.23 “[1“ uoC...’

 

 

o0 t oos Lp.ive and ne;ative re-
oats. sue 5 was handed a 5x1 card couuai ‘e
's "03 so was PCQLCS teo t .

:nc pgolio persons as usu houolO so in L5G :prooo
socpio::)

l. sxactl" wha; “UpllC pOSicion ooss as presentlv
- -Wr- ‘
LiOlu.’
’ ':.r.- - r , 1' ' ,x‘ 13:1 . z~ ’7
L. hmab Obucf hills pOblleub Dob he uUN Aulu 0P
' C‘
U

L.‘ 4—0)
H E 5
g.5iu
o $17 (T)
W
:' (I,
(L r' (,4
' L.

p)
U)
(D
C
C
W
T)
:0

O ' L ‘r r "' ” ‘9 " Va/ ~r. "3" -:‘ r r.
I]. 80, 1.0"», 11161.1J ClllejL :31- [.\A0 LAD?

 

”l'o like JOJ to try to answer e303 of Luese ques~
Lions for (:irso pgblic pcrsos.“) (7&3 S was asked to
answer tgc duo q ostio s for all 0338? pub is o3rsons
iamoc IHJLL tee quu‘SL:)

H \ '/ ‘~'—. ~ \. L ..« ' U
(Joi‘s. 13L)?!" t30h’lr a’JO;/.U ?

 

ollowcd so evcke information
ions :am3 o; the S, exce pt
re utilized, handed to the

gt cue groups 10 or :an
e 'ollovin: question
SKY card:)

H\

" , r a in (.3.
.

;: "r. _

(‘

.k.)

F!
‘.L)

.v-w

T

(I-
wfib

 

(—‘
V'L) .

I‘LL. . ‘4

.\
\J

C' .
t-)

..
.
x.
r]
w. .
I.
I;
l
VII
1.!
‘1:
I.
.
III;

a! ll
\1
..k
“ #
r Tl
vU v‘o
. ..\.I
3,4 ..I.
0 I
..IL ..L
V)“ I
If» .|\
‘ l4”
’ J.
r
3
. .. a...
S n-..
ml...
‘
I-..
.\I 1)
L (A
4--
.L
' I
V
W
,9
.1 . )
v . u.
\1. ~
(.

1
¢;-

, ‘h

1’)

‘~v1'r
|
— n

v.

{p ' fl r. A.
Afi,.;. ’ 1

I
4
.k ¢

‘l .—

1—,
bu,

1“
C.

Sh

Ch". ,

:h

L

16;}

:1 t
1.; .a.

I,‘~‘

r“
\_l
. v‘
_ .

_;‘

L)
" “1'3?
Exit :1 ..

.4-‘,,
J-L'L.

v

4 .

..3 ’1
{18

llcgb. tr.

\

,_
.

”10
I

V»
A

I

1.
‘...
U.
-I—

x
.A
a

1‘7

Low

(1

or
1“

‘ C) E". 3

3". -V)

V’:
‘-

v

\’ .

J .3
L2 .
1’!
J.

/‘
. g)

n

\J ‘

I} 1- Ix
;.L. '
.7;

.'. “.z

J‘: 1:)
’3
1)
I
‘ .

“ LI: 5
(.1
t.)
., ...
u
7,,

..L.
'V'.-.A
..
,

.10
'w
2.
'3'
-;«-C
J

'.'
g)
{.1

bf; LJ V

t
t).
0
. 1—.»
‘/1
mt

”‘1
0
C4...

.4.-.
U- 1;“
.itl‘ 5‘} Ft}

' ”11‘. S .
,. "‘ V
23 L0 1

111

1i,"

(2

..\.

(_$
5‘ 5
‘y .3":
J 6‘

(1-5?
r)

) I

“Ii

“14'...
“f
',u\
n. A.
1,}.
rm?

rw
»)

Y“ A.
.n..r'
,..
. Id
3 is

Y;

I

t
‘noo

.-

r ’3
4,-A
”A f‘ ‘l‘
1-711
. L

‘M‘
J

1;;
C‘ (“I
k.) ‘4

V—‘fl

I

s-

y .5
S e . Va
3t ..U CU . aw
1 1. - . ‘. ‘1 . . >
b 1.1 .‘L 1; L... C .r. a {J
.1 t a C C .3 h
.u 0.. H F I _ L t
0 f V f _. g H C e ..-.
... 0 mm. Tu "1 J C 1W 1. t
Lb LU . mL Vi“ . U ml. mL Q ”,1,
a d 0 T. T. a“ e 1 . ..
-.L 3 .3 I T .. a... a
..i, C Lb .L n“ 31.. :. . J M].
.1 P n w a” 3 f S .r t
. C m}: n.1, .0 an.” DL ”V 3C
AU U m!“ 1n... \U nu LU o
S p; O 3 3 mg .3 .Q d 1. C.
t S B .1. F“ .L 1 C .,
G d 3 L “I“ ..b; a...“ 7U I C. ._ 1*
1H ,6 Lb Lb .1...‘ H C1,. C1. 0 . .1“ .o
t .i S E f. Q ..n .J a C.
HL :1, To U , U Q . ». no .|” L ..p
P ..1. . . 1 T.” 0 T3. v.1 t e C
O V C C :1 \ a a -3 C g
f f. O N . .1 a .U P
.1; W. .x l .L. l -C .8 S .3 J
U Q ..L. P. F S P: L 0
Eu" W... l 1.0 V Q J C. .0. .3
M-” M 3 3 1 2 :4 P .L t on C. n... t
d O C . _ H W; S :C. m. m
3 .3 PC In 0 I n... G .L w“ h”
Uh ..,. w; 8 Hr,“ ..L. .
O O Q t 3.. t F a 3 .
“BID 3 )9 n1: K. a C 7.. O
S .a t L a n .M S m a P
13 .2 a c
t S h .111. :u. 1 t P. C t
n e C. r 3 l a C a C h.
3 h. i. C. N H . u b t n. S
t C h .b E T.“ a d O P‘ t S n d C
r e w w L .m, ..n o o 1 t
O 3., . T v; M S n d C 1. a,
U1. n: mum { t h; 1; T. .L a O .3
m. S. O Y. I m... w; o O tn h a.
.1 r e a L E. ”A a L m .1 t 3
7f n m R L C t a n 4 m C
N. n. O «n D; V P C P ..-.. I. a Q
a a 3 t ... 1,. ,.fi,. ”1“ “.1. Lb
m... t. C 3 E w; L W. T O a, ..C, C i
e n h t E L w H O t r h S h r.
C ,9 t S 3 an R C F 9 Tu I U
0 C C G ,7; C.
C a b e n C“ A

l
l
l

C:
I
1‘ I
1- r\ '
b CaCH
.L
’3
'_)
‘ J

S
a
'C
0
(3:10

h r e R u. x/J/f _
111. 2. .1 ‘1 _
.Il\ (wk 11?. r
e .KH a,“ _D . . .
h a A t a 1 3 3

P<-

[—J

(W

7‘.“

fi‘ -43 proptscd «dd ct 1or toe coal“ fiscal Jear
docs not COLtalm a lar o enog.4 appropriation
for tho scnool allldin pro ram.

j._ _~ 1x. 0.13.6 atom1c Clsu'mronoLt ls inpcratlve if
13.. world.it to Le smxlrco lewn oRL cilkmzts cf

cioactivc fallout.

c._~_w~___ One of tLe most important proolcma twforc the
tnitco States at toe precant time is toe Loco
ltn? torts rvlt.<m1 01 «Jar LWLL-dlltiv watt %;l rc-
SOL/.4. CCU} o

g._~_“_m___focrc shoxla be a '81003 tion of our important
military plants away irom the citics to less
cou9c5tco areas because of the ‘ao er“ of
atomic attack.

o. _ Soc president's rcccnt occlsion to unify the
arxcd scrvicco was a loag~awaltoc a~d moch-
acedcd Stco

(Qrmvlullf 01'1xacn cm? the liign amxl Low ix):natixzi;roops
were ylven the above sleet wit- tLe otatc mcnts attrlo utcc

to F.uoo“. T1:e rctdlhlnf onc— ralf of coca oi the hign 4c

Low Do mat'c _Imnmfisvmn%3 :vcn the same statcatnnxs aittri~

Lutoc to :Lur,ooo Larsha ll, as follows.

inc 1<of tgx2 folltnviuv (”citan its tn tokgd..frox;1x1clcxx

a gdeflfifazlicS.Of t.c past low momtns. LacL statcmth Has

woo) Ly Egor'ooo ficroicll, an executive offlcier of the NAA-

CP, who, as you probably already know, was stron ly in favor

of enforcing

the Supreme Court order to inteDrato the poo—

4 *4 2'\ r‘ |1j ‘ v») I“ . . 1- C" : -. -‘ . ‘V- L . I‘. "‘
1.1.0 SC.1‘.JC)lS 0’. LL L616 I‘LOCA 111 o‘)\)LJKleL)K’£‘, l;fl,‘{ . 0.1.1100 omau
4- 9 s .-. v '7'. " r~. ~ r‘. x ': . " r‘ ‘ 4‘" , 5 .’ V',’ ‘ ~w ‘r — W ‘— I ‘1 ‘ 1' f1, “

a, -113, -1) lLoLb 1360.); .3 1-1 Jug-of tog}, bzeokoohtti 1. O.“ L'..L‘; l7. LIL. 1'...*
- ' A. -.- u ’L" r :1 "— r '1 r- ~,-.r -- \ (~ ~ anal. 1 v v .
L+L)1;J_E) JO, £1.4k2'. [lug-b I11Cl‘ I.X\i.x.>] ULJVK’ULL\)3 ai-onAU n'al or (.LmCU (1:3
' - l‘ v‘ ‘ ~‘ - fl ‘ .- -', ' . a -\ (-1 . r ~~ -_‘ . l" -. ’ ' ‘- 1. /‘ . ' I“) f :

VC'US UL 0;.9 “(HUI LC .1 DCULIC, .LL bill k‘llxiCLl UL;C lUlLOSILAi Suave"
- - «~, r. I) .~ ‘—
mcmto Luv; ocon tduéh.

'1. (H ' _~'- ,. ' 4— .7.» "I. ’,,-\.,.._-_‘1\__--,_ - .- _‘-,_u,.:
(Lib aool hh.ho U. outed ‘ hgd ‘JLoUmlJ’ aCCOLOllShcu
-..-- .. W. I \ .3 1,. .l _ .- ., ... .. p 4.. ,1 1 '-.,- .- ‘._ . .~';. j - .t
UJ’ a l L’idn’iu ()1. u..\) .LJ’ b0 Usmib uMI‘lA; C11!) Lil'x, I‘V 16“! u" [11, (..LU
.. .4. .-,. ‘. - . 7m- . .. .. . ‘I-..'1 - -
1.0L; ixuvw ox) V.".1lC.. uu Iii-Si LL15“; VI‘Odr} L116 5 L'olOn. co.
Tr I .. n p, . .

lllo DUJUL -LLAU Q'mOll.

' 'r — -? ~, A -— .5, — ‘ ' J ,3 .. -— 'I ‘ - ,2 ,_, “. 1 I . 1, ‘- .; V .' .

J..1L-.I_J.'t.Co poolzza‘olvu .L 11.31.1091" 01. 008-1; LJCL GLQ .16 ..lolxl't CC“
“3 “ ‘ ‘ Lc'v 0' I‘ , I ‘ '2»! r ‘-r
Lcrcuto lrcm gooLJhoms st.te; tents).

.r“

4.4-144,

o
w.) -

10;

Cl..

4— v4 . .-‘ ’\
"Jv14'4

814:3.

' ['1

’33

Is.)
.§
3
K,

t)

Y
)‘U‘u
fl
uA
If
h.

{4 .0.. t A. 0 C
_ S. w _l a 3 .U «4.4 S ..L. a
r 444 .-.. 4 .4.4 44 4 o r., .4 .4
M4. w. .1 mm m u t .4 ..H .1 t 4 fl 0 n a p P4.
r\. T4 .. 3 1. S .v 3 o L LU n...
AC WV.) C t P DU 00 .4...» 4K 1 1m .w Ly. - t MW er . «C O
4 O J . .IA \4 ‘4 7.. ..LI .1 \4
m o ”4 U I C U :44 ”.4 C C O t t P r e r t o .
1L C .4 r ...... mu 4; v... p O L «U Tu d
. S

ta
wars.

0
.. I-
11c
:1.
oc'
“irc

".
.U
l
..C
al,
I"
8

1 (41
6‘
(‘
I,
r-
3.110 Pea S‘
".

(3.
x
c
“310.
4..

I
I
l".
J.
L
C‘
r)
Y).
L
1154‘
(W
I.)
'I

C)
l
l"~
J
our only
_. 4. I; ».
'4‘)
It?
'iVip.

of
14
C
'1
131.01”.
1C
the
I;
d
14
14
{p
.L
SOC l

5 WC)
1..
u 0
6:? ~- :3
0.1
\
eaeral

:‘la
’4)

T
.L
O
o
4
I111
,_)

S ...ClO"

-CiJ4C
. $.-
L, .
0
E:

01
G
e
. _ m
- ,. t .. C 1 O n e e O _
i 4 14. i r Hum .444 w a4» r4. huh d O4u
t 4 S P L t 4 L . L. f m l ...4 O. O A t .44 e .,._L e
i S .. .4 t G a. 44- O O ,1 U 0 n4 S O S a S n C
MU ..IV. C 4... mi "4.“. .74 Q Q \U. I. H .l 4.; n4 HD 0.4.4 .TU y 0 8 wt.“
mu .4. 4C FIN L L...” :I. t flu HI; ”\IU 4...” HUG “J. t w w ...... e 0 rd «I; ‘UA 4:
U... .4 n1 3 ,I. K H . O -.L a . a ,C G t ....4. 40 a: U. S V
Hyn a 371 3W4 644 .4 8,6 44w4 n V40 t g4t O .144
M4 ,_.4 .F ,4.“ .4 to O 8 P 4. a .1. C C .L e S C a a
i 2 4014 t s a -4.. m. £44 1 O and 4Q,ui4 a S
uraQU 143 ; fi 1 S4u : a .4m4 m .4 “mp4 0.4 anaflw w. 148
.1 4.4 - O P C P m 4-4 44.4 n n4 mm .1 0 d e l o a O t
4 s o. a in .0. ... mu n a ..d w e «4. s 1 4 0
,.l4 am 1. a C .... 4.. C ...u a .w. 1.4. S l S O 1 Wm ”.1 4341
4.4. 6 4-4 C m4 8 C r .L. t .6 .l . l n. S t 4B O O S An .1 +4 C 1
Q S S __ .0 4444 S l h e S E D . 2 o L l t a O l S l
P4 441;. O O .C. 1H4 W U .l 4.4. 4 3 Flu .-4 O O .l O .C .0. 0 an O W
O L G p O 8 C t a .3 a4 .1 J 40 O L P O C O . C S C
W1 4 R d P d ,4... ..I c 14. 2.44 3 .0 a O L S ....4. S P .1 Y
n. +vm ,tq4 -E. .40 wns L4u44 44 fl nHw : Cruo e 144
m4 4.44 y 4.4 .J b L w. i ..14 - 4.444 cm .1 C e S O ...: .4... u e
I . ... ...: O a 4.44 ( an - e P 1. .40 ...4 1 t .4 .
C r... S 1.4.
uIL 0..
a o
O
.C
n... Lnl.“
l

L)

S
. l e . .
, . . .r. 4 .0 H ..U N. 1 O a 4 . . ,.
4H ...4 m. . .44 m 4. __ _ ...L t 4%. .C . e. O i 4.1 14 w. 04 F .-4 ”14 C S 3 t . .
”I. OIU VuvA _ w L .IL LIV o..J J \I b 00 .I“ ...H 0 “IV p O .. 1.. _I“ 4 r Id; S l l ”leo co
mum.e 3mm 4 ,4 m40 -4w t.4 .t p .0 c o e a Q40 f 4.
WI» pi “if. 3/ vH.‘ 0 +4.; I... i OJ (”th a ”V t ...VV «In J WWW/.1. 8 Win.“ 01].” LIV S S [U ,npv O O O O
44 m w t n43 . t 4. m_u 4an4c C 0 n4 n 44:4 45.41 .uau n41
44+4% .» a .1 46 .0 w L T44? 44 .t o w4n .4 04¢ .Ln4 n t
ho4m , a .« t,4 u 44 Unwe 14 oh“ 8
...4.

t

i

('1

‘40 not;

t
out
13-1

'4

l

l

"L

3

1:.

" O
in

k’ I?
G
d

for

r1

.'\
U.
-3
r:\ f!

Weaera
‘ i
P
as

".1

’1

i

s

f

r
043
t.a

«C ..L

1
4A
f1 ‘3
LA. 4'.
(_l
I
\J
U

I
J.

I
U

:i

T
.4) .
\a

I

A.

B
a
.C
Q
allrw
11
f
611’
t. CPI.
. 0‘
I1
10f)
p
L
e
marvia
‘8
O

x . .1 v: 4. .qlv . ..IL 1“” vVU .1 c O LIV . m
«IL 41.- [Iv .% 1* .x _V * ,le.” 1L? ulI. CO “'1 \IM 0 ’44 P .a ...C le. d M. .1 l 0 ha a .U CO “(V «Ib
0W4i4 H4 4a and 4 fl 040 wwu. n40 w4, a e 41 r ..Q4 “9943
- 44,.N- m4 4” ..4 n4 ..4 Lu ”W n4 7 mg n ,,4 “a .,u 44 .4 .44- 4 44 v4 34 “4 c4 n4 .nu 4.. a“ n“ .mu n4 .mu ”4
.-4 4... .v MK, :4 4 iv ,1 4.4 O U H ml. U n; Lu C e e e .1 Lb .ru +U Q
... a .4 w. m4 44 no 44 a .4” n. 4 4 44 . 44 44 4m .4 n4 n4 n4 n4 44 44 44 D4 14
m ..V nu ..n . 4 O ..l J 94 U .....H C 3 f. n; 3 4-” O 4.4 { 4. .O 4. .O .14 .1 v“ .1 M S A...“ 4.4-4 4.4.4 AI ..4
4.,n4.. .4 +4 .4 . 44 .4 n” L4 Q4 4 44 p4 4w Hm..4 M Mm 4.4 o 4“ 94 mu 44 4-4 mm.4 :4 M4 04 T4 mVHw

a

*3 pgbllC 30300.
”.1 “ VYj-(JL' ‘ " '14P ' ‘I ‘~; /
..L [J u../-.b.)k1 7:: CJ. 1 O I 0‘1.

”WV, I: ~: f . .l - ,. ;.,. --
l.co JIJNfldlLLudlv’.

f-{
L
3
O
(F
O
m
Pfl
"\
U)
C.
.. C“
x O
F)
T‘)
C’
(1
”3
L2
,—+
...A-
C“ O
O
C‘L
h-

w ' , ,, x : l w , ‘ - 1 , 1' ,. y - 2,- r ,_
1 o LLGAU&CLOL of ”3 PO“ ‘npo one ol;llc SCLOOlS o;
.- '1‘. ..L. . ‘ ..' 5“,“, ‘ ., .' 4- , ‘. , - ",,.
Ln: Domufl walla lee bred nova Pllntb tnal nay oc-

" -. ' ,2~.», .n, ~ ; , ;- ’* . .-..1 A- ‘_- ' .\ _ :4‘
olr Cmylolcu SLQQlQ flOo we 1 Pccu go Ml lLu colorcoo
in misod SCflO~lS. I: will only load to v olenoo and
JCFBC.

—\

r:-
(A
\4 l
H:
K\
\J
*3
Q,

1
(D

j
C')

.c sonools mas worl p
"v )Vip‘x "s)’)7"‘€7‘ 1’ 7".) r A ' n ~.r'/\:r 'L or “1"?" "-
.lELL Jpn...) u() UK, llu 17-x). 0:; Villa 1L; ULlOLA All b

53933‘3Lion, as practiced in trio Soltru era Schools, is only
so moon aha Lion tor Lne Coma;~lst QFOpa':moists. Every
lunaoiLant 01 Asia ago Africa is AJtCl: “‘ ‘ L r
remedy for rnis all.nt will be.

UH

\
p.

‘v ‘ r,‘ ‘ 1 4- r - ,".Y\" r ‘I I- ‘.~( ' - .35 w v —. "(u . 'f' 1 ‘C" ,— ,1

e bOMG budtumflflbb Lhd: haVC ”CCn paddil LPOM
lily-'14 712}. £123 ! ..G . LCLCU OZ LL‘L‘J‘LH was fililUC C73 SQIVTLBOLC‘ l' l {'Q'LVQTI
{re azion. l'd llke yo; to lo ok at

4- f — , ‘ A ‘ 1 . * ~ \ f , r‘ v / .«r: 2“ _ A. (V
Tfll Lo ocll me WLO cools have muce it. Lct'u

V.‘ ~— ,1 «L v..- ~- ~' ' .- , .n r .7 ‘l r ,. .. 2‘ ~ 4..'_—.-- q -'—v~.v « r H
D'J ‘F'o XVLL/h. 'JI (118 Olt‘). VILIQ 001.1]..(1 l.dVC’ Lidhd ULbe SL8. db :ulfiillt.)

 

r:.-.r~ 3‘- ’ Hr-Js' -r\+——. x \ V. 'A- \" " v. 4-. ‘ ’ :7
(Ifullpbo JoulmwolOH of mom ‘p OJ pOblolVB ano me Otlve
l} ‘ r ‘\ " I. f‘ . ‘1' D , ‘ ‘— . '. 4- ‘ -‘ "_ ‘ R r
W 1' outs .rom a lLSU ol so 364doLOhleb ano ddbc r: —

alf of whicl W’ l 0
so re atlo:‘1 and Lllf of wn'
be opposed to serve anion. lhe racer" jaw ments

for @333 pc“soo; Uflfly were “03 presenLed OH Cue list snowu
to the 5:)

W“ H v” _
3-.ng 'a3 1;. 11-52153]
LVEPCLt alrzs31

loorge oasclgmo

‘, .9 ‘V‘. r ‘Yr';. 'L ‘
pollx pragnllroor

J. William FlePl;flE

*n1--a “a
. ‘ r I.)
wall/LA {hiul a,
..r r. 0 '. Iflo
n ‘ V,— - - -. .A
L"AT_I.:.J'_ \J—L ..LLJ. J..."
7.}, , r: ‘
\JI-1 AA“.J- -LA. '

v

r‘-1~' f7“ .2-
L_.g LIA x). 1.;(JG

Orval Egonard

\\ \x ‘x

\\
o \‘

\\

\\\

\\

‘x

*x_ \\ ‘\

Lartin Lotto? hip
';CJI'_{3 i . Ifi3aLCuxr'

Earl Lou;

Lilssull LOL_

.314? (KM? La :fiiall

John KCJlEllafl

VF V,’ ,~ 3
ii. I). '1‘7314Ck/‘:\-

..--4

“l')vlv- /‘
'\\.4L d ‘19

Morse
'7: ‘r » '-.I » ‘. .~ .»
aloudrd LBJHCP UP

Adam Clayp=n Powell

William P. Ho ers
Llou or Hoosovelp

HlCLaPG filssoll

ficruan 'Ql:iau_fe

1-1. ‘0 .«1‘ V ll 1
J. .Doliflfl ll u.er) C
'3 ~‘~ ‘1'” 1.3“ -' Ll‘r’l
{Londfi u NU. "1.4,-

marl Harrej

'3 ‘, - L '1. my
hO-odf‘o fC.:: Via. P1";

F‘

Roy Wilkins

. . < o

'1 :7. _. ""..“. . 1 ‘ , ‘-s-"'
J. 19612.49“ lVlii-Lpl.I'-.~)

3..
fir.

.lL

) p1
) l A

OJ
k

I: (‘1
LA.“ b.) [L

4 T

‘1

'J

. C) '
ANN—b

I'd l

7 IL; 5.‘
by“ U o

3 Ci

...Q .00.
,. . 2,
Ya. ..\
f K.
i ..
3. U w;
..0
.34 \n’
( ..r.
a}. 1
:3 Q
mu 9
”1|.
.--.
Lqu LI.
.rl.

4|”
r; \-_
a». ...L
fl 7..
L .r
o ..v
‘1
,.C

T-

O

' ' ".
11.1 .

\I
-o x
‘ 1
I,
I. .
ului.

VI.

I
Ll.
nu DJ
.Is (p
' ‘1“

~
I .3
ul\
xl.

. 'I

O
.7-.. X,
I

1
’L to
.... .J,
IfL rk
L3,. 1
”.i ..
‘(L J

.. 4 , ‘
\ ‘,\ '
H, LIKA‘J

3.,
r
”J
v!
-..J
:1
,l
\n’
—
V L
Y '
. u
(

S

_)
\.

~17

J
bu

.L

‘

r') O 2‘-

v
4‘ H
. I
\_/,

'0

..4

l- 3 1
L1 OIO|A

1 -.
'u 3 1 t

w“.

‘13.
V)

13‘.‘

v.1

I

I
I

' .- 0 1/

Aw?)
L

- ‘\A..s

.,‘.~.
I

")
I

.—.J
‘ J

'7‘ .3 rf' "
( \J k.)

C“ 4!—
L.)

air;

«4 rw‘
. . ,
.ILA. Lin.

‘J

[1. r3. (7 <7")

‘\
34

1
a

V {=-

-t I
It

_|
V

l l mv

7"1

1 , '\
._J

-1!

L- .9 O L.,

C4 ~,- .1-

l

7‘ ~ -A‘ 4 « .-\
U‘JQJ 14-25

.....

 

.ll‘..ll ... Ill,

 

‘IEIFF

 

 

“‘5 ‘1 Y) C
lfu».,~b Jk/L- .Ld

A. B. handler

,: .3 V. a, ’1 , r
‘Pfihn Llfimdut

+1

Lefloy Collins

7"

rrlce Daniel
Egomas E. Dewey
LvereLt Dirksen
George Lastland
Orval Faguus
William Faglkncr
James Folsom

Felix Frankflrter

a. William Fulbrl;ht

7" I- 1 /
\ISUI d

.4

waiter
= (3"1 ~' ‘ d n9.- A
1".ul'v7Lri qI’lll l3.

”Flu“ [Tr,~~,,:n'
UIUIAI: 1;Ci.lL.LJ..-L

John Marshall Harlan

Lister iill
thhe

Crval ngpard

\ *\x\.

\

X

\\ \k ‘X‘ \\ ‘k

\K ‘\\ \\ \k

\

\

Adam Claypon “owell
Jackie Robinson

William P. Ho ers

Llcunor fioosevelc

1
U

..‘ ‘. ‘.:_nq"w1
(31.an l\v-ooCJ_.L

S
I,“

r

4

a rl 551316.13 lr v
Allan Sgivers

1% »/ (jw-gr‘ --‘ T" ‘\
\JUOP ’7: QL..L.LI\./L.C D

1.

‘ " F'V . .
,ul‘ .~ \ (\._ ‘1‘) y. ' l 1'!
db;‘.;’. Q 4L1L1‘_a.:d.l
‘

Boiert Wavmer

Earl Marrefi

Rogert Pena Warren
Roy Milk; 3

’1

n'r.._,‘l 1--
“,1. 1416:1391; y'alllldllls

C
.- L ,.3
1 ‘ '
wt. .5.--

MEN: 1:3 .

n
- \

..\

K.) 1.1

11

A
t

1,“-
(silt

I

all to

\J -.

. l

a.
(

1’]

..‘L

f

a 30m

11%

I‘d

‘

' '0 L1.

.5

4,“- (I 1...
.J;l\'~ [\J

..O.

r

(l

L)
x. ,

‘ 1.1.
.‘1 bu
v" '1 .
..-..L.

O

.\ 3‘
v k_1

I‘

l [’0

v
f

A-
K)

1 a); ,7,"
K; g’ka‘.‘

x.) .L'V

'. Y

I
11.

C O

E; ‘.-) y 3

\

,-
1.

‘3 H.610? t-
101'

i"; ii Vt
1t7

 

 

 

 

r ,- .4 h ’1‘...“
ma" 1 * fi '
I]; f «~4'! ' * I-.‘-

WM

WEE
AUGH 1883 I
WW“
.. -. ‘ “ fig;
"1' l 971/