ATTITUDES OF MICHIGAN CLERGYMEN TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATTDN AND TOWARD EDUCATION: THETR NATURE AND DETERMINANTS Thesis for the Degree of Ph‘. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WILLIAM HENDERSON HEATER 19:67 W23??? WT LIBRARY Mans-B University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Attitudes of Michigan Clergymeni Toward Mental Retardation and Toward Education: Their Nature and Determinants. presented by William H. Heater . . . has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. de ee in Education}? Counseling, ,7- Personnel ervices, and Educational' Psychology flé/Zhn E.W\ Major professor Date June 16, 1967 0-169 ABSTRACT .ATTITUDES OF MICHIGAN CLERGYMEN TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION AND TOWARD EDUCATION: THEIR NATURE AND DETERMINANTS by William Henderson Heater The purposes of this attitude study were to test hypotheses relative to the attitudes elicited, and to expltxre methodological problems in rehabilitation re- searwflu. The hypotheses were derived from research find- ings in the field of social psychology to the effect that certain aspects of a person's values and of his contact with the subjects serve as determinants of that person's attitudes toward education and toward handicapped persons. The special focus of the hypotheses was upon attitudes towards mental retardation. Religiosity was studied as a relevant variable. The problems of methodology included problems in sampling, attitude measurement, and the inter- pretation of religious and social differences. Both the hypotheses and the methodology considerations extended a large, continuing, international study1 of attitudes to- ward various disabilities, centered at Michigan State University. 1The large international study, under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan of the College of Education, Michigan State University, utilizes samples from eleven populations in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. fic— — -——-.._—--_o-_ .MF‘_ v— ‘v *1— _._~._‘-_- F“ V4 William Henderson Heater Between June 1 and October 31, 1966, a total of 405 clergymen completed and returned by mail a packet of re- search instruments consisting of the following: the Ker- linger Education Attitude Scale; the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values; a Personal Questionnaire, to mea- sure contact with education, demographic variables, and orientation toward change; an Attitude Toward Mental Re- tardation Scale; and a Personal Questionnaire:MR, a set of items to measure the variables of contact with mental retardation. To secure the sample, 5,113 positions of professional, congregation leadership had been identified throughout the state. These had been stratified according to theoretically apprOpriate geographical and ecclesiasti- cal groupings. From each stratum cell, one-tenth of the positions were selected proportionately, at random, with first and second substitutions designated. Individuals currently filling the positions selected were then con- tacted by mail; the response therefore constituted a sample of those willing to participate. Some of the hypotheses, those related to the scal- ability of the attitude instruments and the comparison of attitude content with attitude intensity, were not tested because the appropriate computer program was not available when needed. It was recommended that multidimensional scale analysis should be attempted in future studies, using the same instruments and a larger sample. Nevertheless in the present study this deficiency did not preclude testing the other hypotheses. IO-gh a *‘O- I I!" Q H‘- ‘ ‘a \.‘ William Henderson Heater Statistical procedures used to analyze the data for evidence relative to the other hypotheses included analysis of variance, simple correlation, partial correlation, and multiple correlation. Significant support was found for four research hypotheses. Clergymen with more frequent contact with mentally retarded persons tended to feel more strongly about their attitudes toward mental retardation, regardless of whether the attitudes were favorable or un- favorable. Clergymen who placed more value on doing things for other people and being generous tended to show more favorable attitudes toward mental retardation. Sources of the variance of attitudes toward mental retardation were within denominational groups and geographical areas; for there was no evidence of differences between any of these groups and areas in respect to attitude content. Similarly, there were no differences between any two of these groups and areas in respect to the clergymen's conformity to the rules and regulations of their own religions. In showing lack of support for the remaining hy- potheses, the statistical analysis yielded information which might be of interest to other studies. Age and amount of education of respondents were found to be significant, relevant variables in the relationship between benevolence values and attitudes toward mental retardation. When religiosity is high, conformity should be considered as a variable which is potentially relevant to variation in William Henderson Heater attitude; high scores on conformity tended to be made by Clergymen who held unfavorable attitudes toward mental retardation. The fact that the clergymen were exception- ally consistent in reporting very high benevolence values and very low leadership and recognition values may have reduced the expected effect of these values on attitude variance. Finally, it was noted that in considering con- tact with education as a source of the variance of atti- tudes toward education, it is relevant to note both whether the contact has been with teaching or with educational administration, and also whether the respondent is ident- ifying the purposes of education with maintenance or extension of his religion. ATTITUDES OF MICHIGAN CLERGYMEN TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION AND TOWARD EDUCATION: THEIR NATURE AND DETERMINANTS By William Henderson Heater A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology College of Education 1967 PREFACE This study is one in a series, Jointly designed by several investigators as an example of the concurrent- replicative model of cross-cultural research. A common use of instrumentation, and theoretical material, as well as analytic procedures, was both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many re- spects although the data were different in each study as well as certain approaches to design, procedure, and. analysis. The particular studies are discussed more fully in the review of literature chapter in each of the indi- vidual theses. While these studies are not all available yet for review, since some of the investigations are still in progress, they are all related to the same, larger, con- current-replicative, cross—cultural research project on attitudes toward education and toward handicapped persons, now underway at Michigan State University. The additional studies, with their respective authors and their actual or projected completion dates, are as follows: the pilot study, of attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica (Felty, 196A); attitudes in Columbia and Peru (Friesen, l966);maternal attitudes toward ii emotionally disturbed and physically handicapped persons (Sinha, 1966); attitudes in Europe (Kreider, 1967); atti- tides in Japan (Cessna, 1967); attitudes of various sub- groups of special educators (Mader, 1967); comparison of special versus regular educators (Green, 1967); relation- ships between attitudes, values, contact, and theological orientations (Dean, 1967); attitudes of college counselors (Palmerton, 1967); attitudes toward general disability versus blindness (Dickie, 1967); factors influencing atti- tudes toward integration of handicapped children in regu- lar classes (Proctor, 1967); and attitudes toward general disability versus deafness (Weir, 1968). iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people to whom I am deeply indebted for assistance without which this research would not have been possible. First of all, I acknowledge with thanks the fellowship assistance from the Vocational Rehabili- tation Administration, of the Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare, of the United States Government; also, to Dr. Gregory Miller, of Michigan State University, College of Education, for his essential support in obtain- ing this fellowship. Many religious leaders throughout the state of Michi— gan devoted much valuable time to the research. I am obligated not only to the A05 clergymen who diligently co- operated as respondents, but also to the Catholic, Jewish, and Protestant leaders who provided needed advice and in- formation. In this regard, I wish to acknowledge parti- cularly-the help of Father John Grathwohl, Rabbi Philip Frankel, and the entire staff of the Michigan Council of Churches. I feel particularly appreciative toward the chairman of my advisory committee, Dr. John E. Jordan. His generous attention to my work, his helpful advice, and his personal encouragement sustained the investigation and filled it iv u .0 in. Ar Iv.- .g“ 0'. '~p- u-nv \.. V W with interest for me. I am also grateful for the counsel of Dr. William W. Farquhar, Dr. Don E. Hamachek, and Dr. Orden C. Smucker, who showed encouraging interest as the other members of the advisory committee. I owe special thanks to my wife's parents, Dr. Julius Fischbach and Mrs. Fischbach. While the investigation was being conducted, they opened their home as a place for my family to live and for the paraphernalia involved in the project. Above all, I wish to thank my family. My three children, John, Susan, and David, patiently allowed their father to postpone activities with them and also helped to collate the thousands of pages for the mailings. Parti- cularly am I grateful to my wife, Mary Ellen. Not only did she encourage me while she cheerfully accepted the strains of graduate study; but she also devoted many hours to helping with the painstaking task of drawing the sample, and with other processes of the investigation itself. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . Nature of the Problem and Limitations. Definition of Terms. . . . . . . II. BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH Background of the International Study. Expansion into Retardation and Religion Considerations Related to Scaling . . Major Research Hypotheses. . . . . Hypotheses Related to Scaling . . Hypotheses Related to Attitude, Values, and Contact. . Hypotheses Related to Differences Between Sampling Strata . III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . Instrumentation of Variables. . . . Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation Attitudes Toward Education . . . Interpersonal Values . . . . . Contact with Retarded Persons . . Institutional Satisfaction . . vi Page ii iv ix xii H \ox:H 1A IA 19 25 27 27 29 3A 37 37 37 A2 A2- A5 t ,p .A r hf "not 1'. . Chapter IV. Religiosity . . . . . Other Personal Variables. . . . Sampling Procedure. . . . . . . . Definition of the Population . . . Stratification . . . . . . . . Randomization . . . . . . . . Data Collection. . . . . . . . . Statistical Procedures . . . . . . Descriptive Procedures . . . Zero-Order Correlations . Analysis of Variance . . Partial and Multiple Correlations. Scale Analysis . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . Desoriptive Characteristics of the Sample. . . . . . . . . Comparability of the Sample and the Substitutions . . . . . . . Bias of the Sample. . . . . Representativeness of the Sample . Patterns of Interpersonal Values . . Extent of Contact with Mental Retard- ation and Education . . . . . Patterns of Attitude Scores. . . Correlational Relationships. . . . Testing of Hypotheses Related to Scaling Testing of Hypotheses Related to Atti- tude, Values, and Contact . . . . Contact and Attitude Intensity. . Contact and Attitude Content . . Values and Attitude Content. . Testing of Hypotheses Related to Mean Differences Between the Different Sampling Strata. . . . . . Partial Correlation of Benevolence with Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation . vii Page 61 67 73 79 82 82 87 88 88 91 95 102 107 ”,o’o . . i (“it 1 - . Chapter Page V. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. . . . . . . . 110 Discussion of Findings in Relation to Original Purpose . . . . . . . llO Implications Relative to the Study- of Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation . . . . . . . 111 Implications Relative to the Inter- national Study . . . . . . . 119 Summary of Recommendations . . . . 126 Concluding Summary of Support for Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 130 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A2 viii .li a/ Table 1. 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of Clergymen-Congregations in Sampling Strata . . . . . . . . . 51 Responses to the Stages of the Data- Collecting Procedure . . . . . . . 57 Distribution of Returns Among Sampling Strata, with Reference to Samping Sequence . . . . . . . . . . 62 Distribution of Usable Returns Among the Cells of the Cross-strata of Sampling, with Reference to the Original Size of Each Cell . . ., . . . ., . . . . 69‘ Distribution of Returns Among Denominations and Major Denominational Divisions. - . 70 Distribution of Returns Among the Counties of the State . . . . . . . . . . 71 Respondents' Classification of the Com- munities in Which They Were Reared and Have Worked . . . . . . . . . . 72 Number and Percent of Return on Each of the Major Scales for the Geographical Strata and the Largest Denominational Groups. . 7A A Comparison of Intercorrelations Among Interpersonal Value Scales Reported by Gordon, and Those Obtained for Michigan Clergymen . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Means and Standard Deviations of the Gordon Values Sub-scales for Largest Religious Groupings . . ., . . . . . . . . 77 Means and Standard Deviations of Attitude Scores for the Major Sampling Strata . . 83 ix Table Page 12. Zero-order Correlation Coefficients Be- tween ATMR Content Scores and the Six Sub-Scales of the Survey of Inter— personal Values, for the Major Sampling Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . 8A l3. Zero-order Correlation Coefficients Be- tween Traditional Education Content Scores and the Six Sub-scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values, for the Major Sampling Strata . . . . . . . 85 14. Zero—order Correlation Coefficients Be- tween Progressive Education Content Scores and the Six Sub-scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values, for the Major Sampling Strata . . . . . . . 86 15. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to Intensity Scores on the ATMR Scale, for High and Low Frequency of Contact with Mentally Retarded Persons 88 16. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to Intensity Scores on the Two Dimensions of the Education Scale, for High and Low Frequency of Contact with Education . . . . . . . 9O 17. Means, F Statistics, and Partial Correlation Coefficients in Respect to ATMR Content Scores for High and Low Frequencies of Four Variables Regarding Contact with \Mental Retardation . . . . . . 92 18. Means, F Statistics, and Partial Correlation Coefficients in Respect to Progressive Education Content Scores for High and Low Frequencies of Four Variables Regard— ing Contact with Education . . . . . 9A 19. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to ATMR Content Scores for High and Low Leadership Value Orien— tation . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Table Page 20. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to Content Scores on the Two Dimensions of the Education Scale, for High and Low Leadership Value Orien- tation . . . . . . . 97 21. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to ATMR Content Scores for High and Low Recognition Value Orientation 98 22. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to Content Scores on the Two Dimensions of the Education Scale, for High and Low Recognition Value Orien- tation . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 23. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to ATMR Content Scores for High and Low Benevolence Value Orien— tation . . . . . {I . . . . . . 100 2A. Means, Standard Deviations, and F Statistic in Respect to Content Scores on the Two Dimensions of the Education Scale, for High and Low BenevolenceIValue Orien— tation . . . . . .T‘. . . . . . 101 25. Means and F Statistic in Respect to Content Scores on Progressive Items of the Edu— cation Scale, for Catholics, Methodists, and Selected Others. . . . . . 103 26. Means and F Statistics in Respect to ATMR Content Scores for Ecclesiastical Strata and Geographical Strata . . . . 104 27. Means and F Statistics in Respect to Religiosity Scores for Ecclesiastical Strata and Geographical Strata . . . . 106 28. Partial Correlation Data in Respect to ATMR Content and Relevant Variables . . . . 108 xi Appendix A. B C. D [11 LIST OF APPENDICES Page Education Scale . . . . . . . . 142 Survey of Interpersonal Values . . . 1A8 Personal Questionnaire. . . . . . 150 Attitude Toward Mental Retardation scale 0 O O O O O O O O O 161 Personal Questionnaire: MR . . . . 167 Mailing Enclosures . . . . . . . 171 First Letter Postal Card Enclosed with First Letter Instructions Enclosed with Questionnaires Second Letter Code Book . . . . . . . . . . 176 Means and Standard Deviations of All Variables of the Study for the Total Sample . . . . . . . 199 xii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study is twofold. First, it is to meet a need in the field of vocational rehabili— tation for additional information concerning attitudes toward mentally retarded persons, particularly correlates of these attitudes which theoretically might be deter- minants. Second, it is to extend certain aspects of a larger, long-range, international study of attitudes relative to rehabilitation.1 Purpose of the Study The larger study is a comprehensive attempt to in- vestigate technical and theoretical questions involved in cross-cultural research of attitudes toward education, and specifically toward educating disabled persons. It is employing a set of instruments designed to elicit and measure attitudes in such a way as to make possible a comparison of these attitudes from one cultural group to another. These instruments permit thorough consideration 1The large international study, under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan of the College of Education, Michigan State University, utilizes samples from eleven populations in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. 1 of differing socio-economic patterns, differing value systems, differing systems of contact with disabled per- sons and with education, and differing cultural norms. As projected, the study will utilize samples from Belgium, Colombua, Denmark, England, France, Holland, Peru, Yugo- slavia, India, Israel, Japan, and Surinam, and other nations not yet specified, as well as contrasting sub- cultural groups within the United States. A pilot project for the international study was con- ducted in 1964 in San Jose, Costa Rica. Focus of interest was on three major considerations: a. the need for "normative data about attitudes of various interest groups toward education and rehabilitation,” within a given nation; b. how to make rehabilitation research "comparable from one cultural and/or linguistic setting to another"; and mainly, c. the importance of testing "the assumption that both value and contact variables serve as determinants of attitudes" (Felty, 1965; quotations from pages 2, 3). Underlying the entire international study is an interest in knowledge of attitudes toward education as a valuable factor in developing, funding, and organizing educational programs. Implicit in this interest is the assumption that educational programs can be developed more effectively where there is an awareness of what these atti- tudes are and how-they were formed. Since there has been an emphasis in recent years upon preparing mentally retarded individuals for productive life in the community, it is becoming increasingly important to evaluate factors which may affect their education, vo- cational placement, and social adjustment. In the litera- ture (see Chapter II) there is the strong assumption that one such factor is the attitude of others toward them. Adding a consideration of attitudes toward retardates to the framework of the international study permits analysis of these attitudes on the same social psychological di- mensions. The selection of Michigan clergymen, of all faiths, provides a population which allows exploration of several additional problem areas: 1. The value to the international study of applying the instruments to a carefully stratified sample of one particular, predominantly male, professional group close at hand. 2. The opportunity to test rigorously the meaning of religiosity variables in the international study. 3. The methodological lessons to be learned by using the instruments where cross-cultural differences are very subtle; for to some extent the religious categories, of which the clergy— men may be assumed to be representative, institutionalize contrasting cultural back- grounds in their attitudes toward education. A. The questions raised by many researchers as to the place of religion with reference to values and attitudes. 5. The expressed desire on the part of personnel of Michigan State University and of the Michigan Department of Mental Health to learn more about how to deepen the Clergy's understanding of mental retardation, because of the influence of clergymen through counseling and idea leadership. Developing an instrument to measure attitudes of clergymen toward mental retardation is itself a research need. Several scales have been developed for use with parents or with teachers. Others measure attitudes of local communities toward persons trained in specific pro- jects within those communities. Many measure attitudes and information without differentiating between the two. As a purpose for the present study, it was proposed that identifying an instrument suitable for clergymen of all backgrounds might facilitate the search for an instrument broad enough, yet reliable and valid enough, for use with any population. Nature of the Problem and Limitations Everywhere the international study has been under- taken, there have been indications of recent rise of interest in the education of handicapped persons. In many nations, particularly in Latin America, special edu— cation is an innovation. In the United States it is one of the current emphases in the field of education, and is very much the focus of innovation projects. Particularly in the United States, there is increasing concern about problems related to the education of the mentally retarded. The trend is represented clearly by the various, relatively new programs sponsored by the United States government. That the latter concern is also new and salient inter- nationally was dramatized by the first Inter-American Work- shop on Mental Retardation, which was held in Puerto Rico, October 17—22, 1965. These innovations imply social change. Implicit in social change is attitude change. Disabilities, as repre- senting differences, have become the objects of very impor- tant, changing attitudes. As such they may be viewed as Paul Tillich viewed theological concepts, i.e., as "Not less than symbols" (Tillich, 1957). The disabilities point beyond themselves to values held within the social system. Moreover, attitudes toward the disabilities participate in these values, and are themselves instrumental in value change. Hence more and more, attitudes toward disabilities, as they represent attitudes toward "differences," are be- coming the "language" through which values are expressed. All the trends noted above are being reflected in religious groups in Michigan. In the correspondence incidental to the present study, several respondents re- ported special programs for retarded children in their own churches, in other churches, or in denominational or interdenominational centers. Nearly all of these pro- grams were innovated since World War II; most of them, since 1960. There is widespread use of such new books as The Church and the Exceptional Child (Palmer, 1961), which itself reports the trend as involving all the major dis- abilities. Religious journals used in Michigan churches have published special issues on mental retardation re- cently.1 In the pilot study (Felty, 1965), the implications of religiosity were unclear. The symbolic value of mental retardation as perceived by religious groups in Michigan affords an opportunity to investigate some precise aspects of this variable which, from a theoretical standpoint, might be expected to have some importance. In a religious group, values expressed in attitudes toward mental re- tardation are part of a value system which is sanctioned by very powerful religious symbols, and which may tend to be either traditional or progressive with reference to attitude change. By assigning ultimacy to certain values, the system of symbols contained in a religion acts to establish these values with pervasive, long-lasting 1Some examples are, the International Journal of Religious Education, February, 1965, Christianity Today, January 21, 1966, Baptist Leader, May, 1965, Gospel Herald, November 9, 1965, and Pastoral Psychology, September, 1962. motivation (Geertz, 1965). The religious symbols may also establish moods and motivations in relation to the anxiety, hostility and guilt which often accompany disability. Further understanding of the effect of religiosity is therefore appropriate to rehabilitation research. The values of a clergyman are in some sense the values of a group. To some extent, a clergyman represents the religious group of which he is leader. His values are re- inforced by the expectation-sanction system which defines his role. Other people, both inside and outside the group, learn to associate the group with the values of the clergy- man. Religious doctrines maintained by the group, while they may also be uniquely factual, are at least symbolic of values; they specify certain means and certain goals in society as being ultimately good (Tillich, 1957). Therefore religiosity is not less than identification with a value system. However, this does not mean that religion determines the values; but rather, that for a religious person his religion symbolizes the values on which he acts. Recent research (e.g., Photiadis, 1965) seems to be indicating that values held in association with membership and_parti- cipation in a religious group are not held in association with acceptance of the doctrines of that group. Specific values symbolized by a doctrine may be relative to the person or the group. If the values of a clergyman are consonant, he will tend to perceive a mentally retarded individual in terms of how well that individual is able to fulfill roles which are in line with those values. If the clergyman places a very high value on the inherent worth of an individual, for example, the consonant atti- tude toward a mentally retarded person would be to empha— size qualities inherent in that person. If, on the other hand, the clergyman places a very high value on a standard which normal people approximate more often than mentally retarded people, then the consonant attitude toward the latter would be to perceive them mainly in terms of differences between normal and retarded persons. In either case, the clergymen's doctrines, for him, existenti— ally, would tend to symbolize the values on which he bases his perceptions. For these reasons, it would seem that to investigate the meaning of religiosity as a possible determinant of attitude toward mental retardation and toward education, the appropriate independent variables are interpersonal values rather than theological doctrines. To check on these assumptions, additional research comparing inter- personal values with the intensity and content of certain theological positions might be in order. Such investi- gation, however, is beyond the limitations of the present study, except to the extent that a clergyman may be pre— sumed to hold the doctrines distinctive of his denomi- nation. According to this discussion, such investigation should show little if any correlation between theology and value. Another important aspect of the problem which is beyond the limitations of the present study is the techni- cal question of whether values and attitudes can be mea- sured validly by an.objective test. A strict symbolic interactionist position would preclude the possibility of investigating real interaction between values and attitudes unless actions are the unit of study, through such devices as life histories, case studies, interviews, autobiographies, diaries, letters, anecdotal records, and observations (Bolton, 1958). In the present study, however, methodological problems involved in the cross-cultural as— pect of the research, which are also a major purpose of the study, call for objective instruments. Hence every statement about attitudes and values made herein must be qualified, "As measured by these instruments." Nevertheless the symbolic interactionist frame of thought has been main~ tained by holding the symbolic transformation of behavior-— e.g., of expressed attitude-~as the main object of study. Definition of Terms The terms basic to this study have been understood with reference to precise definitions as follows: Attitude: An attitude is a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). Applied to mental retardation, this definition would refer to the whole of all the acts of a person with respect to mentally retarded individuals. Applied to education, it IO refers to the whole of all the acts of a person with re- spect to schools or the process of education. In this study, the totality of behavior toward mentally retarded persons and toward education was estimated by scores on an Attitude Toward Mental Retardation scale and an Edu- cation Scale, respectively (see Chapter II for further explanation). Attitudes may be thought of, for purposes of analysis, as having two components: item content, and item intensity (Guttman, 1950; and Suchman, 1950). Here, these two components are defined operationally as scores on separate dimensions of each scale. Values: A person's values are his "basic motivational patterns," of which one measure is knowledge of the extent to which he considers certain environmental or interper- sonal conditions to be more important than others (Gordon, 1960). Hence the relationship between values and attitudes may be understood in terms of the relationship between motivations and acts. One approach that may be used in measuring interpersonal values is to determine what as— pects of an individual's relationships with others are relatively most important to him (Gordon, 1960). In Beatrice Wright's formulation, the orientations of values attached to relationships with disabled persons form a continuum between "comparative values" and "asset values," according to the extent to which perception of a disabled person is influenced by a standard outside the person him— self (Wright, 1960). 11 Mental Retardation: Irrespective of the generally accepted categories of mental retardation, there have been many scholarly attempts to define the words themselves. This attempt was, in fact,the major concern of the London Conference on the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency, held in 1962. Usually, the definitions mention below- average intelligence, general impairment of behavior re- lated to intelligence, and prenatal or early causation. Therefore, the Instructions sheet (see Appendix F) used with this study Specified that the words "mentally retarded," as used in the questionnaires, "denote persons who from early childhood have been obviously below average in their general intellectual functioning." This definition is an abbreviation of the formal definition with which Rick Heber summarized the definitions used in the London Conference: "Mental Retardation refers to subaverage general intellectual functioning which originates during the developmental period and is associated with impairment in adaptive behavior" (Heber, 1962). Religion: Often in the study the term "religious group" is used, with the understanding that it refers to a group of individuals who adhere to the same religion. This understanding implies a sociological definition of "religion" such as the following: A religion is a system of symbols whichactsto establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by fermulating con- ceptions of a general order of existence and l2 clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic (Geertz, 1965). Religiosity: In the international study, religiosity, or personal orientation toward one such system of symbols, is defined operationally by two items, one measuring im- portance of religion to the respondent, and the other mea- suring the extent to which the respondent follows the rules and regulations of his religion. These two items were re- tained in the present study (Appendix C, Personal Question- naire, Items 17 and 33). The choice of clergymen as sub- jects was a deliberate attempt to select a population with a high mean and low variance on these items. Clergyman: For purposes of this study, the term "clergyman" has been defined operationally as the principal leader of a religious congregation. Small, local religious groups working together under the guidance of one leader in the form of a "circuit," "yoke parish," etc., were thought of as one congregation; that leader, as one "clergyman." For multiple-staff churches and synagogues, the ordained person recognized as being in charge was considered the "clergyman." By this definition, the term "clergyman" in- cluded women, part-time leaders, unpaid leaders, unordained leaders, and leaders of groups in which the leader is not called a "clergyman," as well as the typical, male, full- time, professional, ordained priest, minister, and rabbi; but it excluded ordained assistants and other ordained 13 persons who were not currently engaged as priest, pastor, rabbi, or principal leader of a congregation. In general, elsewhere, the term "clergyman" is defined only by ordi- nation. In this particular study, however, the focus of investigation was the role rather than the theological category of the "ordained." CHAPTER II BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH The theoretical framework of the present research, and of the international study as a whole, is the symbolic interactionist school of social psychology. Within this framework disability is symbolic, given reality by an expectation-sanction system, so that it may be considered a value judgment rather than an objective phenomenon in itself. Background of the International Study Since certain roles have higher value than others for maintaining social structure, individuals tend to be esteemed by others according to how they are perceived to fulfill valued roles. Thus attitudes toward disability would be assumed to vary according to the kinds of roles perceived to be important and also according to the degree of structuring within the social system. Interpersonal interaction involving a disabled person would then deter- mine the meaning of the disability with reference to social institutions; e.g., education, government, and religion. The disabled person, tending to share the same symbolic meaning of his own disability, will develop the 1A 15 corresponding value orientation toward himself. This is the point of view taken by Wright (1961) in the field of rehabilitation counseling, and by Meyerson (1963) and Levine (1961) in the field of special education. Some basic interactionist propositions germane to the study have been set forth as follows: 1. Behavior is motivated through the give and take) of interpersonal adjustment, both the person and the society being products of communication. 2. Personality is continually reorganized and constructed in the day-by—day interactions with others. 3. Culture consists of models of proper conduct hammered out and reinforced by communications . and by collective grappling with life situations (Shibutani, 1961). The importance of interpersonal values as substance of this communication may be described in Levine's words as follows: . . . values are criteria against which behavior is assessed in terms of deviation. . . . Where there are questions as to the adequacy of the individual in relation to these (society-maintaining) demands, there will be some devaluation of him on society's part (Levine, 1961, p. 84). Wright (1960, pp. 128—133) has suggested two value orientations which are different in their effects upon attitudes toward physically disabled persons: "comparative values" and "asset values." If the evaluation is based on comparison with a standard, it is said to be a case of invoking comparative values; but if a person evaluates in terms of qualities inherent in the object of judgment 16 itself, the person is said to be invoking asset values. A reasonable inference is that people holding asset values, in contrast to those holding comparative values, will be more favorable in their attitudes toward meeting indivi- dual needs in education; and also in their attitudes to- ward disabled persons, they will be less inclined to per- ceive the person with a disability as behaviorally "less- valuable" than persons without disabilities. Some cross—cultural studies have given strong indi- cation that interpersonal value orientations differ from one culture to another as a reflection of difference in degree of social structuring, i.e., in uniformity of ex- pectations and tolerance of deviation. Stoodley (Stoodley and Bartlett, 1959) related value differences to structural differences in his comparison of American and Filipino university students. In comparing the relatively high degree of structuring of the social norms of Ceylon and Thailand with the "loose" social structuring of Burma, Ryan and Straus (1954) found a correspondingly higher tendency among the Burmese to evaluate in terms of qualities inherent in the object of judgment. Lipset (1961) found the different forms of interaction between values and material conditions to be a major source of the greater individualityl in Sweden, Germany, and Great Britain, as compared with the United States. lBy "individuality," Lipset meant the opposite of other-directedness and conformity. 17 Similarly, between contrasting social sub-systems within a given culture there are value differences which reflect differences in expectations and sanctions (Almond and Coleman, 1960; Rogers, 1962; Katz gg_al., 1963; etc.). Specifically, groups and associations in which contact with disabled persons is a basic role expectation have been found to differ in values from other groups. Re- habilitation and special education groups tend to be characterized by relatively modern, democratic values such as "democracy," "constitutionalism," "humanism," "scienti- fic process," and "universal suffrage," in Latin America as well as in the United States (Jordan, 1963). By the same token, persons working in the field of special edu— cation and rehabilitation might be expected to hold more "asset" values than those working in other occupations, re- gardless of whether their culture tends to be modern or traditional. Thus values and contact, separately and as inter- acting with each other, may be regarded as particularly important determinants of attitudes. The definition of "attitude" chosen for the international project in which the present study participates is that advanced by Guttman: . . (an attitude is) . . . a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something. For example, the attitude of a person toward Negroes could be said to be the totality of acts that a person has performed with respect to Negroes (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). 18 The relationship between values and contact, and between values and attitudes, is suggested by the literature cited above. As Rosenberg (1960) summarizes in his conclusion, attitudes that are dissonant to a person's central value orientation tend to be abandoned, whereas consonant atti- tudes tend to be maintained. The relationship between contact and attitude, however, is unclear. Does attitude lead to contact? Does contact shape attitude? What aspects of attitude are affected by contact? How does contact affect the influence of values upon attitude? What intervening variables operate between contact and attitude? Allport at first found the effect of contact upon attitudes to be confused (Allport and Kramer, 19A7), but later (Allport, 1958) found stronger correlations between contact and attitude, consistent with assumptions of others (e.g., Homans, 1950). Chesler (1965) found that high school and college students who had had some contact with disabled persons held more positive attitudes toward disabled persons than those without contact. Guttman and Foa (1951) found attitude intensity rather than atti- tude content to be directly related to contact frequency. Zetterberg (1963) found attitude direction to be related to contact frequency through an intervening variable, the presence of alternatives to contact which are perceived as rewarding by the actor. Sex differences and sociometric phenomena are also known to have some relationship to the effect of value l9 orientations and personal contact upon the formation of attitudes. In Chelser's study (1965) females scored significantly higher than males both in attitudes toward disabled persons and in ethnocentrism, the latter being measured by an "Intergroup Relations Scale." He also found significant correlations between ATDP and each dimension of ethnocentrism: race, religion, nationality, and class. Houser (1956) found reference groups at Michigan State University to be significant reinforcements of attitudes, with subjects in sociometric core groups expressing most strongly the value prejudices of the group. Expansion into Retardation and Religion Research may be cited which has compared attitudes toward one ethnic minority with attitudes toward another ethnic minority. Other research has compared attitudes toward an ethnic minority with attitudes toward a non- ethnic minority such as blind persons. However, prac- tically no research has compared two non-ethnic minorities in this respect. There is indication, though, that in- vestigation would find any given sample to be displaying similar attitude pattern toward different non-ethnic minorities. Several authorities have noted the similarity be- tween physical disability and membership in an ethnic minority. Chelser's work, cited above, is a case in point. He concluded that, ". . . the physically disabled can be 20 conceptualized as a minority group subject to many of the same attitudinal and behavioral predispositions as are ethnic minorities." What Wright (1960) said of physical disability can be said also of racial segregation or anti- semitism in America. Using Negro problems as a metaphor, Barker (1948) saw disabled persons as members of "an underprivileged minority." Handel (1960) observed that investigating physical disability is "like investigating a problem of race." It may be conjectured that such a relationship could be demonstrated between two non-ethnic minorities; e.g., between the physically disabled and the mentally retarded. Just as Wright's formulations regarding physical disability can be applied to ethnic distinctions, they can be applied also to mental retardation. Badt (1957) found that atti- tudes of prospective teachers toward different kinds of "exceptional" children tended to follow consistent patterns. Himes (1960) found that those who carried stereotyped atti— tudes toward blindness tended to carry equally stereotyped, though different, attitudes toward deafness and crippleness. In the same vein, Sullivan and Adelson (1954) found that intolerance toward one minority group is usually accompanied by intolerance toward other minority groups; their study of ethnocentrism suggests implications for the study of non- ethnic minorities. A survey of public knowledge and atti- tudes conducted by the Minnesota Association for Retarded Children (1962) showed patterns of social distance between 21 normal persons and retarded persons similar to what might be anticipated with respect to ethnic minorities. The place of religion in the formation of attitudes toward minority groups has been the subject of much investi- gation and conjecture in recent years. The present study affords an excellent opportunity to explore this question with reference to the important area of mental retardation. Since the Judaic and Christian traditions contain strong humanitarian precepts, some writers suppose that there ought to be a direct relationship between belief in the transcendence of God, on the one hand, and asset value orientation toward disabled persons on the other; and this direct relationship should be reinforced by belief in an orthodox Christian view of eternal life. It has been speculated, for example, that it was precisely because of his Roman Catholic belief in super-natural reality that President Kennedy was able to develop realistic and passion- ate concern for progress in education and for enlightened advancements with mental retardation; just as in Protestant history, "from the Levelers and Diggers down to latter-day Quakers and Methodists, there is a direct correlation be- tween other worldly concern and social reform" (Fitch, 1966, p. 203). One would be hard-pressed, however, to find empirical data which agrees. Most studies have found religious be- lief to correlate negatively or, at best, insignificantly, with attitudes toward minorities. In summarizing his 22 studies of prejudice, Allport (1958, p. 449) notes that differences between religious bodies regarding attitudes toward minorities are "equivocal." Earlier he had found that Protestant groups were more tolerant than Roman Catholic groups, non-religious groups were more tolerant of minorities than Protestants, and Jewish groups were most tolerant of all (Allport and Kramer, 1946). In his research referred to in Chapter I, J. D. Photiadis studied the effects of religion upon American business values. Using entrepreneural orientation as his dependent variable, be compared the effects of three independent variables: denominational membership, denominational participation, and conformity of belief to the orthodox position of the de- nomination. He found that Roman Catholic businessmen tended to depart from business values more than Lutheran business- men; and Lutherans, more than other Protestants. Catholics and non-Lutheran Protestants who participated highly in their denominations also differed significantly in certain aspects of their value orientation. However, there were very few significant correlations involving orthodoxy of belief. He concluded, in contradiction to Emil Durkheim and Bronislaw Malinowski, that doctrine is not an important determinant in value maintenance (Photiadis, 1965). Thus the literature suggests that doctrine helps to keep de- nominational groupings distinct, but that social processes rather than doctrines determine values. Hence, whatever 23 relationship there is between religion and attitudes can be discovered only by identifying appropriate variables within religion other than doctrinal variation. Moreover, no distinct parallel has been demonstrated between ecclesiasical affiliation and theological belief. A survey of Michigan State University students found that a test of "liberal" vs. "conservative" religious belief could not significantly predict a student's denomination or, indeed, whether he belonged to any denomination at all (Toch and Anderson, 1960). Where religious behavior has been factored into acceptance of dogma, religious activity, and interpersonal values, all three of these factors were found to be stable across religious denominations (Cline and Richards, 1965). In the previous study, all three factors were statistically independent except that for fe- males only the value of compassion had a significant, secondary loading into the factor of acceptance of dogma. According to Rokeach's formulation, it is the nature of its cognitive system rather than the content of its doctrine that determines the attitudes of a religious group; atti— tudes toward outside minorities relate positively to cognitive agreement and negatively to the importance of a stereotype to the cognitive system (Rokeach, 1960). Fairly consistent with this is Houser's sociometric data (Houser, 1956). Among high school students in the Houser sample, younger Roman Catholics tended to be more favorable 24 than Protestants their own age in attitudes toward minori- ties, but both categories of older students were equally unfavorable. Houser assumed the difference might be re- lated to the fact that the younger Roman Catholics were relatively more influenced by the Church than by their secular, socioeconomic environment. Because of their role as counselors as well as of their representing religious social systems, it is impor— tant to investigate and analyze the attitudes of clergy- men toward mentally retarded persons. It is reasonable to assume that technicians' beliefs regarding the mentally retarded will affect the way in which they treat and work with retardates. Un- realistic opinions can also be transmitted to patients and affect the way in which patients regard them— selves, and thus have an effect upon their response to treatment (Polinsky, 1961, p. 12). A pastoral counselor is a "technician" in terms of responsi- bility. A pastor's handling of guilt is also a major factor in counseling with parents of retarded children. Yet in one study of this factor (Zuk et_al., 1961), religious background was found to have no significant effect though there was slightly less trouble with guilt on the part of those who had been counseled by Roman Catholic priests. In any such study of attitudes among the clergy of Michigan, demographic variables may become important. Although, as indicated above, there is reason to assume that attitudes toward mentally retarded persons will 25 correspond to attitudes toward physically disabled per- sons, there are also grounds for suggesting that physical deficiency will be devalued more in rural communities than in industrial areas, whereas intellectual deficiency will be devalued more in industrial than in rural localities (Jordan, 1964, p. 4). On the other hand, religious fanaticism, which as a construct is the antithesis of progressive, democratic attitudes, has been shown to have a significant, inverse relationship to the size of the community (Putney and Middleton, 1961). Considerations Related to Scaling A major aspect of the international study is con- sideration of scaling problems. Items which form a scale in one nation might not form a scale in another. Similarly, items which scale for one professional group in Michigan (e.g., rehabilitation counselors) might not scale for an- other (e.g., Michigan clergymen). Comparability of atti- tude scales is therefore a basic objective of the conflux of studies with which the present study is involved. For this reason it is relevant to include here the hypothesis that a given set of attitude items represents or contains one or more dimensions on which response patterns can be represented by scale scores. This consideration pertains to the Attitude Toward Mental Retardation "Scale," the Education "Scale" as a whole, the "Traditional" items of the Education Scale, and the "Progressive" items of the Education Scale. The hypotheses were stated in the 26 language of Guttman Scale Analysis, which assumes that it is possible to define a "universe of content" for each quality to be studied, and that any universe of content can be represented by a few questions which form a one-dimen- sional continuum (Guttman, 1947 and 1959; Waisanen, 1960). At the time the research was proposed, this procedure had been used extensively; other computerized scaling programs were being developed, so that there was no certainty as to what programs for the CDC 3600 computer might become avail- able. The Multiple Scalogram Analysis had been developed, which would allow the data to fall into as many scales as possible instead of testing the degree of scalability of a set of items as a whole (Lingoes, 1963). Under development was an "MSA-I" program which would have tested the data for multidimensionality. Various approaches have been employed to obtain cross- cultural and inter-group comparability of attitudinal data. The one which was proposed here involves using two com- ponents of attitudes: content and intensity (Guttman, 1947 and 1950). To test for such comparability was the main purpose of using the Likert-type format of the attitudinal items. The content component should provide a rank order- ing both of respondents and of items so that knowledge of a person's rank will predict the pattern of his responses, and knowledge of an item's rank will predict the pattern of responses to items. Responses on the intensity component (i.e., "About how strongly do you feel about your answer?"), 27 when plotted against the measures of content, should indi- cate the point of "indifference" between positive and negative attitude which is psychologically comparable from one group to another (Suchman, 1950). Major Research Hypotheses For most of the following hypotheses which call for statistical tests of significance, the hypothesis is stated in the research form rather than the null form for purposes of clarity. Nevertheless in the statistical analyses them- selves it was always the null form which was tested. Hypotheses Related to Scaling H-l: Scalability of Attitude Items Each set of attitude items employed in the study (Appendix A and D) represents an underlying, one-dimen- sional universe of content, so that Guttman scale analysis will yield a scale or quasi-scale of attitude items. Hzla: Attitude Toward Mental Retardation items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi-scale. H212: Traditional items of the Education Scale will yield a Guttman scale or quasi-scale. H219: Progressive items of the Education Scale will yield a Guttman scale or quasi—scale. Hypothesis Derivation.--The basis for the assertion with respect to Michigan clergymen and mental retardation is the assumption that retarded persons represent a salient 28 group in Michigan so that clergymen will hold opinions with respect to them, either on a favorable-unfavorable or a different-similar continuum. The basis for the assertion of the hypothesis with respect to the edu- cation items is the factor derivation of the "Traditional" and "Progressive" items by Kerlinger (1958 and 1961); also, a pre-test scaling of these items in Lansing, Michigan in March of 1964, in which "Traditional" items were found to scale independently of "Progressive" items on a sample of 97 students and job-retraining workers. Instrumentation.--The Attitude Toward Mental Retard- ation Scale is reproduced in Appendix D; the Education Scale, in Appendix A. In the Education Scale, the "Tradi- tional" items referred to are items 3, 4, 6, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 18, and 19; the "Progressive" items are 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, and 20. H-2: Content and Intensity For each attitude scale the plotting of intensity scores against content scores will yield a U-shaped or J-shaped curve. H323: For Attitude Toward Mental Retardation items, the plotting will yield a U- or J-shaped curve. H-2b: For Traditional items of the Education Scale, the plotting will yield a U- or J-shaped curve. H-2c: For Progressive items of the Education Scale, the plotting will yield a U- or J-shaped curve. 29 Hypothesis Derivation.--As discussed above, Suchman (1950) and others have reported that such a relationship may be expected and that it should serve to establish a "0" point dividing the favorably-disposed respondents from the unfavorably—disposed. Instrumentation.--The location of the items is the same as for H-l, above. Each of these items is in two parts; the first part expresses the content of the item, while the second part expresses the intensity with which a respondent held the attitude expressed in the content part. Hypotheses Related to Attitude, Values, and Contact H-3: Contact Frequency and Attitude Intensity E212} The more frequent the contact with mentally retarded persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Attitude Toward Mental Re- tardation Scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. Hypothesis Derivation.--The assertion is derived from the research suggesting that contact frequency is directly related to attitude intensity regardless of content di- rection (Rosenberg, 1960; Foa, 1950; and Guttman and Foa, 1951). Instrumentation.-—Contact frequency is measured by Item Number 2 of the Personal Questionnaire: MR (Appendix 30 E). Intensity of attitude toward mental retardation is determined as for H-2, above. Hzig: The more frequent the contact with education, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Education Scale, regardless of whether attitude is Traditional or Progressive. Hypothesis Derivation.--Same as for H-3a, above. Instrumentation.--Frequency of contact with education is measured by Item Number 2 of the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C); intensity scores are derived as for H-2, above. H-4: Contact and Attitude Content H24a: Those with high frequency of contact with mentally retarded persons will tend to have low scores (i.e., more positive) on the Attitude Toward Mental Re- tardation Scale if their high frequency of contact is con- current with ease of avoidance of the contact, enjoyment of the contact, and acceptability of alternatives. Hypothesis Derivation.--Reports of Homans (1950), Zetterberg (1963), and various studies related to special education, point to such interaction. Instrumentation.-—Attitudes are measured as for H-l and H-2, above, using content scores only. Low scores on the ATMR Scale indicate favorable attitude. The contact variables are measured by direct questions of the Personal Questionnaire: MR (Appendix E): frequency, by Item 2; ease of avoidance, by Item 3; enjoyment, by Item 6; and acceptability of alternatives, by Item 7. 31 H239: Those with high frequency of contact with education will tend to have high scores on the Progressive items of the Education Scale if their high frequency of contact is concurrent with ease of avoidance of the con- tact, enjoyment of the contact, and acceptability of alternatives. Hypothesis Derivation.-—Same as for H-4a, above. Instrumentation.-—Attitudes are measured as for H-l and H-2, above, using content scores. High scores on the content parts of the Progressive items of the Education Scale indicate progressive attitudes toward education. The contact variables of this hypothesis are measured by direct questions on the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C): frequency of contact, by Item 2; ease of avoidance, by Item 3; enjoyment, by Item 4; and acceptability of alternatives, by Item 5. H-5, 6, and 7: Values and Attitude Content Hzga: Persons who score High on the Leadership di- mension of the Survey of Interpersonal Values will tend to score High on the Attitude Toward Mental Retardation Scale. 335g: Persons who score EASE on the Leadership dimension of the Survey of Interpersonal Values will tend to score high in Traditional items and low in Prggressive items on the Education Scale. 32 Hypothesis Derivation.-—According to Rosenberg (1960), the more the belief content of an attitude is in- strumental to value maintenance, the more favorable will be the evaluation of the object of the attitude. Accord- ing to Wright (1960), persons with high power needs are applying a comparative yardstick in their evaluations of others and should be expected to devalue persons with dis- abilities; they should be expected also to devalue pro- gressive attitudes toward education, since the latter usually implies changes in the status quo. Empirical evi- dence of these relationships appears in the pilot study (Felty, 1965). Instrumentation.--The Leadership scores of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B) are used as a measure of the need for power and control. The attitudes are measured as for H-1 and H—2, above. As before, high ATMR scores indicate rejection. thg: Persons who score high on the Recognition dimension of the Survey of Interpersonal Values will tend to score high on the Attitude Toward Mental Retardation Scale. thh: Persons who score high_on the Recognition dimension of the Survey of Interpersonal Values will tend to score high in Traditional and low in Progressive items on the Education Scale. Hypothesis Derivation.-—Same as for 5a and 5b, above. 33 Instrumentation.--The Recognition scores of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B) are used as a measure of the need for recognition and achieve— ment. Attitudes are measured as for the hypotheses above. Hzlg: Persons who score high_on the Benevolence dimension of the Survey of Interpersonal Values will tend to score $21,0n the Attitude Toward Mental Retardation Scale. Hzlh: Persons who score hggh on the Benevolence dimension of the Survey of Interpersonal Values will tend to score low in Traditional and high in Progressive items on the Education Scale. Hypothesis Derivation.--Same as for 5a and 5b, above. Persons with high nurturance needs are applying an "asset" yardstick to their evaluations of others and should be ex- pected to value persons with disabilities; they should be expected also to value progressive attitudes toward edu- cation because of the implications of these attitudes for social change. Instrumentation.--The Benevolence scores of the Gor— don Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B) are used as a measure of the need to be helpful and generous. Attitudes are measured as for the hypotheses above. Low ATMR scores indicate acceptance of mentally retarded persons. 34 Hypotheses Related to Differences Between SamplingVStrata H-8: Attitude Toward Education The Roman Catholic clergymen will score higher in Progressive items on the Education Scale than clergymen of religious groups which are not identified with non- tax-supported elementary schools. Hypothesis Derivation.--Research considerations leading to H-4a, above, also apply here. Moreover, the hypothesis is suggested by three additional observations: first, that Roman Catholic clergymen, unlike almost all other clergymen, function as educational administrators; second, that their selection of the priesthood was made in full knowledge of this role and in lieu of occupational alternatives; third, that because of the altruistic nature of the priesthood any resultant rise in attitude toward education might be expected to appear most strongly in the "Progressive" items. Instrumentation.--Progressive attitudes toward edu— cation are measured as in the hypotheses above. The de- sign used in sampling and coding (see Chapter III and Appendix G) lends itself to appropriate categorization of subjects for testing this hypothesis. Scores of Roman Catholic priests may be analyzed as a separate group. To operationalize the category, "clergymen of religious groups which are not identified with non-tax-supported elementary schools," all respondents except Catholics, Seventh Day 35 Adventists, and specified Reformed and Lutheran groups, may be considered as a unit (e.g., ecclesiastical strata l, 3, 7, and 8). H29: Attitude Toward Mental Retardation There will be 22 significant differences between EEX.tW° sampling strata in mean scores on the Attitude Toward Mental Retardation Scale. Hypothesis Derivation.-—This research hypothesis is worded in the "null" form because it tests whether ecclesiastical or geographical situations are in any way related to the interactions hypothesized above; also, because of the ambiguity in research literature regarding the relationship between religion and attitudes. Instrumentation.--Attitudes may be measured as for the other hypotheses; ecclesiastical and geographical strata are established in the sampling procedure. H:;g; Religiosity There will be E2 significant differences between gay two sampling strata in mean scores on either of the religiosity measures. Hypothesis Derivation.--The purpose of this hypothesis is to aid in validating the religiosity items in the inter- national study and to facilitate their analysis. Instrumentation.--Sampling strata may be analyzed separately or in any combination, as for H-8 and H-9, above. Religiosity is measured by two items, numbers 17 and 33, on 36 the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C). These items are. the same as items 20 and 38, respectively, on the Personal Questionnaire used in the International study. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Because of the concurrent—replicative nature of the research, the design was comparable to that employed by the other studies in the series (see Preface), although certain aspects were unique. Instruments were altered, to make them appropriate for the population being studied and for reference to attitudes toward mental retardation. Special controls were used in sampling, so that repre- sentative data could be gathered by mail. Instrumentation of Variables Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation A twenty—item "ATMR" Scale was developed for use in this study (see Appendix D). Items used in this scale were adapted to this purpose from the "Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale" (ATDP) developed by the Human Resources Foundation (Yuker, Block and Campbell, 1960). Published reliability coefficients, using both a measure of equi- valence and a test—retest measure of stability, are ade— quate ($2223: pp. 4, 5). Tentative norms have been pub- lished (ibid., p. 11) based on a sample of 625 non-disabled 37 38 persons and 640 disabled persons; scores of the two groups were significantly different. To substantiate construct validity further, scores were found to be significantly re- lated to other variables which are theoretically relevant to attitude, yet statistically independent of extent of disability, type of disability, and social desirability (the latter being measured by the Social Desirability Scale developed by Edwards, 1957). Using this same ATDP scale, Chesler (1965) found significant correlations1 between ATDP scores and atti- tudes toward each of four ethnic minorities. Chesler's data, like the original ADTP data, showed significant differences on sex and contact; in each instance, females and subjects who knew disabled persons showed favorable attitudes. This scale measures the extent to which the disabled person is perceived to be different from the physically normal person. Wright (1960) suggests that with respect to disabled persons this is the crucial attitudinal dimension; to be seen as different or set apart signifies rejection. Each ATDP statement tests whether the respondent sees dis- abled persons to be the same as, or different from, non- disabled persons in personality or in need for special lDirectionality of the correlations indicated that acceptance of disabled persons was concurrent with acceptance of the ethnic minorities. 39 social relationships. The Human Resources Center of Albertson, New York, which developed the ATDP, expects to publish in 1967 a monograph giving details of a large number of studies utilizing the ATDP, including numerous research studies for which the scale has been success- fully adapted. Following very extensive correspondence and perusal of literature, it seems clear that this pro- cedure is most appropriate. There has been little research in developing scales of attitudes toward mentally retarded persons. For one reason or another, most of those which have been used effectively are inappropriate here. Some measures are limited to the attitudes of parents toward their own re- tarded children (e.g., Zuk gh_ah., 1961); some, to the attitudes of employers toward hiring educable adults (e.g., Cohen, 1963, and Phelps, 1965); some, to the attitudes of teachers toward specific levels of retarded children (e.g., Badt, 1957, Haring g£_h£., 1958, Semmel, 1959, and Warren and Turner, 1966); still others, to the local needs of specific communities (e.g., Cleland and Chambers, 1959, and the Minnesota Association for Retarded Children, 1962). Many scales fail to differentiate sufficiently between attitudes (sometimes including "opinions" or "concepts"), on the one hand, and knowledge on the other; yet Cohen (1963) clearly demonstrated independence between attitudes and knowledge. Seldom are reliability and validity data available. 40 Still very promising is the first instrument developed specifically for measuring expressed attitudes pertaining to retardation: the Attitude Scale Toward Mental Retard- ation (AMR), produced at Syracuse University and used there for a series of research projects (Hebeler, 1960). This consists of 256 Likert-type items categorized into 33 sub- scales. While some items actually measure knowledge, most of them measure attitude. The scale was developed for, and factor analyzed upon, a population of middle-class parents of educable retarded children; yet most of the items could refer to retardates of any age and any degree of re- tardation, whether or not they are the subjects' own chil- dren. Thus, trying it on a different population would ex— pand knowledge of its usefulness. Hebeler's analysis showed the scale to have high reliability and statistically in- significant variance. Almost all the variance present was accounted for by three major factors; most of it, by Factor I, "Restriction," consisting of variables having to do with concepts of a retarded child's limitations. Much of the remaining variance in the three major factors was accounted for by Factor II, "Striving for Achievement and Acceptance," consisting of concepts of retardates as being different from normals in some aspect of development. Hebeler's AMR was considered too long to be practical for the present study. There was no statistically defensible basis for choosing certain items to the exclusion of others, except in ways which would leave still too many items. 41 However, it did provide added rationale for using the pro— posed adaptation of the ATDP. Half the ATDP items are practically identical in wording with AMR items; the others clearly express the AMR categories. Fourteen of the twenty ATDP items may be clearly identified with one or another of five AMR subscales which load heavily (.58 - .73) into Factor I: "Peer Interaction," "Abasement," "Educational Implications," "Community Provisions," and "Emotional- Social Adjustment." Of the other six ATDP items, five are clearly included in AMR subscale "Normalcy of Development," which loads heavily (.57) into Factor II; and one may be clearly associated witthMR subscale "Strictness," which has a maximum saturation loading of .38 in Factor II and also a secondary loading of .36 in Factor I. It would seem in other words, that no identifiable combination of twenty AMR items would express the total AMR better than a simple adaptation of the ATDP. Therefore, the ATMR used here is the same as the ATDP scale except that the words "mentally retarded" are substi- tuted for "physically disabled" or "physically handicapped," a few other words are changed where necessary to be con— sistent, and Hebeler's item No. 59 is used verbatum in place of ATDP item No. 2. To test the hypotheses related to scaling, responses to the intensity question, "About how strongly do you feel about your answer?", were re- quested as an addition to each item. 42 The ATMR Scale used in the present research is a measure of rejection; and is scored such that the higher the score, the greater the rejection. Low scores indicate favorable attitude toward mentally retarded persons. Attitudes Toward Education Kerlinger's "Attitudes Toward Education Scale" (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959) (Appendix A) was used for three reasons: first, because in a study so closely interwoven with educational concerns, the re- sults are valuable in their own right; second, because in Michigan the religious groups differ in their orientation toward education more saliently than in their theology; and third, because it is short and simple to answer. Appropriately, the scale was formed from a factor analysis of 40 items given to 598 subjects of varying backgrounds and above-average education; cross-validation was adequate. "Traditional" items (3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19) and "Progressive" items (1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 20) were analyzed independently as two separate scales. As with the other attitude scales, to test the hypotheses related to scaling, responses to the intensity question, "About how strongly do you feel about your answer?", were requested as an addition to each item. Interpersonal Values To test the influence of "asset" vs. "comparative" value orientation, variables were included which are 43 logically related to these constructs. The Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1960), a forced-choice scale included in the international study for this pur- pose, was also used here (Appendix B). Of the six sub-scales in the Gordon Survey, "Benev- olence" is described as follows: "Doing things for other people, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being generous" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Among studies presented in a subsequent research report, "Benevolence" was found to be correlated .49 with "Nurturance" scores on the Edwards Per— sonal Preference Schedule, and negatively with Achievement (-.24) and Aggression (-.28) (Gordon, 1963, p. 22). Con- sidering the item content in addition to these points, the Gordon "Benevolence" value was thought to be an adequate operationalization of Wright's "asset" value. Another value to operationalized was that of "com- parative" orientation toward others. The Manual for the Gordon Survey offers the following definition for "Recog- nition": "Being looked up to and admired, being con- sidered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). The following definition is offered for "Conformity": "Doing what is socially cor- rect, following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper, being a conformist" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Leadership is defined as, "Being in charge of other people, having authority over others, being in a position of leadership of power" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). All three 44 of these values would appear to involve rankings of others in some kind of absolute scale, either of social accepta- bility, achievement, or power. On the basis of item content, the "Recognition" items appear to be most representative of "comparative" values, although correlations with EPPS items show that "Leadership" might also be a high indicator of "comparative" values. Evidence of reliability, construct validity, and con- current validity for the SIV as a whole is provided in the manual (Gordon, 1960). The evidence includes test-retest and Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficients, and validity evidence based on significant correlations with the six scales of the Allport—Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values. Many recent studies employing the instrument have pro- vided further evidence of its concurrent validity. One noteworthy example is the comparison of SIV scores with thirteen variables gleaned from biographical inventories and personal histories of all military and civilian appli- cants for the United States Antarctic Research Program (Gunderson and Nelson, 1966). Support scores were associ- ated with lack of experience; Leadership scores, with college education; Benevolence scores, with worship; and Recognition scores, with marital friction. Patterns of intercorrelations between the six subscales corresponded to the pattern reported in the SIV manual (Gordon, 1960, P- 3)- 45 Contact with Retarded Persons The instrument labeled "Personal Questionnaire: MR" (Appendix E) is designed to operationalize variables in- volved in personal contact between the respondents and mentally retarded persons. Items included are conceptually distinct. Item 1 reports the kinds of relationship experi- enced; item 2, the frequency of contact; item 3, the ease with which the contact might have been avoided; items 4 and 5, the extent to which the respondent gained personally by the contact; item 6, the amount of enjoyment experienced in the contact; and item 7, the availability of alternatives. The last two items, 8 and 9, measure frequency of contact with persons who have other disabilities; i.e., the physi- cally handicapped and the emotionally ill. Though re- liability data are unstable for such items in any context, the pilot study (Felty, 1965) affords evidence of item validity in that workers in rehabilitation and special education responded to comparable items in patterns known to be accurate. Institutional Satisfaction In the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C), item number 27 (number 31 in other phases of the international study) asks subjects to evaluate their satisfaction with social institutions in their communities (i.e., schools, business, labor, government, health services, and religion). This item is a set of measures adapted from a scale 46 developed by Hyman (1955, p. 400), and suggested for such use . Religiosity Of particular relevance to the present study are three items explicitly oriented toward religion: items 16, 17, and 33 (numbers 19, 20, and 38 in other phases of the international study) of the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C). These report the broad categories of reli- gious preference (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish), the perceived importance of religion, and the degree of conformity to religious regulations. The questions about satisfaction with religion as an institution (item 26-I) also may be thought of as a religiosity variable. Other Personal Variables Besides those described above, the Personal Question- naire also operationalizes other variables which from a theoretical standpoint might correlate with, or predict, the criteria: contact with education, items 1 through 5; opinion on aid to education, items 39 and 40; Opinion on educational planning, item 40; self-concepts, items 12, 15, 20, 21, 23, and 24; personalism, items 18, 19, 45, and 46; attitudes toward social change, items 34 through 37; and attitudes toward personal change, items 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, and 49. The remaining fifteen items pertain to demographic variables which may be used as control data; they are 47 variables often found to be of significance in social- psychological research. Sampling Procedure Definition of the Population The total population originally proposed for the study was all the clergymen of Michigan, with the term "clergyman" defined as, "the principal leader of a reli- gious congregation" (see Chapter I). To operationalize this definition, the first step was to identify every "religious congregation" within the state. A list of congregations of each denomination in each county of the state, prepared by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America (NCCCUSA, 1957), constituted the starting point. This list was established by the most complete survey to date of the congregations of Michigan. It included not only the churches which cooperate with the Michigan Council of Churches, but also most of the identifiable congregations which do not: Jewish, Roman Catholic, evangelical Protes- tant, Greek Orthodox, and the sects. Congregations not included were assumed at that time to be statistically negligible, with the single exception of the large de- nominations which are predominantly Negro. This list was up-dated, and Negro and other missing groups were added, insofar as was possible through a very 48 thorough study of the following sources: The Catholic Directory; denominational directories and other records on file in the central office of the Michigan Council of Churches; all of the telephone books and local newspapers on file in the Michigan State Library, the library of Michigan State University, and the Lansing Public Library; and interviews with Jewish, Roman Catholic, and Seventh Day Adventist leaders. It was readily possible, from these sources, to determine also which congregations were "yoked" in pastoral circuits. Except for metropolitan Detroit, the local newspapers were the most helpful of these various sources. They responded most quickly to changes, and they provided knowledge of existence of congre- gations which were listed nowhere else, particularly in the smaller, up-state counties. The comprehensive directory published by the Detroit Council of Churches was most help- ful for Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties. The result of the above procedure was a master list of 5,113 congregations, counting each "yoke" parish or "circuit" as one congregation.l By its very nature, the list excluded many groups which were too small, to inde- pendent, or insufficiently institutionalized to be identi- fied by these procedures. It included groups which the National Council of Churches had tried to include in its 1The unit of sampling was what some groups, such as the Methodist conferences, would refer to as an "appointment." 49 1957 survey (ghgg.) but was unable to include because their leaders had failed to respond to mailed question- naires. The population was defined operationally as the clergymen of these congregations who could be contacted and who were willing to participate in such a study at the Specified time. Stratification (Muamaster listwas cross-stratified two ways, in order to minimize variance, insure representativeness with respect to relevant variables, and facilitate com- parisons. First, eight ecclesiastical strata were differentiated as follows: Group 1—-Jewish congregations, differentiated because of cultural and doctrinal distinctiveness; also, because this is the only non-Negro religious group with over half of its clergy and membership con— centrated in Wayne County. Group 2--Romaanatholic congregations, differentiated pri- marily because all priests are engaged full-time in the profession and because they have a unique relationship to education; secondarily, because of distinct doctrine. Group 3--Methodist congregations, differentiated because this is by far the largest Protestant group in Michigan, because it is the largest group in most counties, because it is represented in 82 of Michigan's 83 counties, and because it emcompasses, an unusually broad range of Protestant theology. Group 4--Congregations of the Christian Reformed Church and of the Reformed Church of America, because this group is unusually structured as a social system, because it is unusually concentrated in an area other than Wayne County, because it is associated with a unique system of non-tax-supported yet non- parochial schools, and because it is unique in its 50 identification with a particular cultural back- ground.* Group 5--Congregations of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, ahd_of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Wisconsin and Other States, differentiated be- cause this constitutes the second largest Protestant group in Michigan and because of its identification with the largest systems of Protestant parochial schools in Michigan.* Group 6--Seventh Day Adventist congregations, differentiated because of their parochial schools, because it is represented in more counties than any other denomi- nation except Methodist, and because it is by far the most rural of the major denominations, with over 72 percent of its ministers (as compared with 63 percent for Methodists) scattered throughout the 70 smallest counties. Group 7--All other congregations except those belonging to denominations which are saliently Negro. Group 8--Congregations of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, the Church of God in Christ, the National Baptist Convention of America, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., the Baptist Missionary and Evangelical State Convention, and the Wolverine Baptist Convention. These denominations were differentiated because they are the only large denominations of which most of the clergy is Negro, and also because they are the only large denomi- nations from which the National Council of Churches had been unable to receive questionnaire returns by mail. Second, each of these eight ecclesiastical strata was subdivided into three geographical groupings because of the presumed relationship between size of community and attitude (Jordan, 1964; Putney and Middleton, 1961). Michigan lends itself to such stratification as follows: a. Wayne County b. The 12 other counties with the largest centers of urbanization: Bay, Calhoun, Genesee, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Macomb, Muskegon, *Note: This coupling of two denominations into one stratum is to control variance in the data, not to contra- dict deeply felt differences between the denominations. 51 Oakland, Saginaw, and Washtenaw. c. The remaining 70 counties, which are relatively rural. This cross-stratification produced 24 sampling groups among which congregations were found to be distributed as indicated in Table 1. (Though Berrien County is larger than Bay County, the latter is chosen here because it has a greater single center of its urbanization.) TABLE 1.—-Distribution of clergymen-congregations in sampling strata. Geographical Stratac Ecclesiastical Other Strataa Wayne Urban Rural County Counties Counties Totals 1--Jewish 19 12 2 33 2--Roman Catholic 204 229 324 757 3--Methodist~ 86 284 304 674 4-—"Reformed" 9 172 103 284 5--"Lutheran" 85 120 188 393 69-Adventist 6 19 47 72 7b-Others; Except Negro 670 730 1200 2600 8b-Negro 150 140 10 300 Totals 1229 1706 2178 5113 aSee pages 49-50 for a full definition of ecclesiastical strata. bFigures for Ecclesiastical Strata 7 and 8 are of necessity rounded estimates, because available infor- mation was ambiguous in some instances. 0See pages 50-51 for definition of geographical strata. 52 Randomization As the master list was being compiled, the 24 strata were listed separately. Within each stratum, congregations were numbered from 1 through n. This numbering did not take into account any other denominational categories except for the Jewish congregations. Because the latter are so few and. so distinct, the three branches of Judaism, Orthodox, Con- servative, and Reformed, were handled as separate sub-strata. Ten percent of the congregations of each stratum were selected through the use of a table of random digits (The Rand Corporation, 1955). In each case the position of the starting digit was itself selected randomly, as was the sequence of digits to be used. Through the same process, numbers were also selected randomly to identify substitutes to replace congregations chosen for the original sample, and also second substitutes to replace the first substitutes. There was no provision for further substitution. By this: procedure, a subject-congregation and the two substitutes were sure to be of the same sampling stratum, but not necessarily of the same denomination. Actual names and addresses of subjects were secured aghgh their congregations were randomly selected. This priority greatly reduced the number of individuals who had to be located. For congregations with more than one clergy- man, the one listed first in the resource used was con- tacted unless another was clearly the administrative superior. 53* Data Collection Subjects were sampled by mail, using lessons learned from Mannoia's (1962) research in which a large number of Michigan clergymen were successfully sampled with a cumber- some questionnaire by mail. The procedure was as follows: 1. A letter (see Appendix F) was mailed to each sub- ject, carrying the signature of Dr. John E. Jordan, explaining the importance of the project, acknow- ledging the time and effort it would require of the subject, and requesting the return of-an en- closed postal card (see Appendix F) reporting whether or not the subject would agree to parti- cipate. The earliest of these letters were post- marked June 7, 1966. 2. When a card was received with the indication that the subject was willing to participate, the five instruments were mailed to that subject, with a set of instructions (see Appendix F) and a stamped, addressed, return envelope. 3. When a subject's card was returned with a negative response, when his first letter was returned un- claimed, when no response at all was received with- in ten days, when the clergyman-position was vacant, or when the subject failed to return the completed instruments within a month after they were mailed, then the same procedure was followed with the substitute. 54 4. On Thursday, October 20, 1966, a second letter (see Appendix F, letter dated October 17) was mailed to all subjects to whom the instruments had been mailed, expressing appreciation and, prodding those who had not yet responded. 5. The absolute cut-off date was set at Monday, October 31, 1966. Except for two which were rejected because they contained too much missing data, all instruments received on or before that date were accepted for coding, including three received from subjects who were substitutes for other subjects who also mailed their returns after long delay. Two sets of returns were re- jected because they were received after the cut-off date. The fact that most of the contacts were made during the summer months was both an asset and a liability. On the one hand, many small churches up-state were easier to con- tact because they close during the winter and enjoy their peak of activity during the summer. Moreover, some clergy- men have more leisure during the summer, and are less likely to put things off. On the other hand, summer is the season when many ministers move, and many churches are without leadership. Some newspaper advertisements are canceled for the summer. Some churches close altogether. Some clergymen are on vacation. Because of mobility during the summer, denominational directories tend to be out of date, 55 waiting to be revised in the fall. Yet the timing is pro- bably the main reason for the 100 percent response from Methodists, the largest and most representative Protestant body in the state. In their June conferences, Methodist ministers receive assignments-for the year, with changes becoming effective almost immediately. The new lists of appointments were used for Methodists; they were absolutely accurate and up-to-date. To some extent it was necessary to follow the movement of the clergymen between churches throughout the summer. If a clergyman had moved from a congregation but was willing to participate anyway, his responses were used as belonging to the congregation from which he had moved, even if he had moved outside the state of Michigan. If the same name ap— peared on records as the clergyman in charge of two widely separated congregations, both addresses were contacted, in spite of possible embarrassment, because several pair of clergymen in the state share a common name; in such a case, if the same individual was actually contacted twice, an apology was made, the individual's response was used in association with the congregation from which he had moved, and his "new" congregation was considered as not having responded. Each item sent through the mail carried a respondent number, plainly visable. The number expressed the respon- dent's denomination within a broad category, and also his county, sex, and position in the sampling sequence. This 56 information was coded for data processing (see Code Book, Appendix G). Possibility of recovering a respondent's name and address from the number, however, was deliber- ately lost in the coding process in order to maintain confidence. Attitude of reSpondents toward the study was mixed. Some expressed hostile reactions. Six respondents altered or obliterated the respondent numbers, although infor- mation relevant to analysis could be inferred easily any- way. Several questioned the sincerity of motive for the study. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of re- spondents who expressed opinions in any way indicated friendly interest and cordial appreciation for the Oppor- tunity to participate. Many of those who declined to parti— cipate also expressed interest and sincere apologies. The pattern of response to the various stages in the data-collecting process is shown in Table 2. The 405 re- spondents constituted an 81 percent response from those of the sample who, by expressing willingness to participate, were seen to be part of the population as defined above (see page 49). Clearly, generalizations involving atti- tudes of non-participating clergymen were neither warranted nor intended. 57 TABLE 2.-—Responses to the stages of the data-collecting procedure. First Second Original Substi- Substi- Total Sample tution tution l. Clergyman-po- sitions included 513 303 146 962 2. Total of cards returned 356 196 88 640 3. Cards indicating "YES" 277 155 67 499 4. Cards indicating "NO" 79 41 21 141 5. Letters returned unclaimed l8 5 5 28 6. No response 139 102 53 294 7. Usable data returned 215 132 58 405 Percent of letters mailed 42 44 50 42 Percent of "YES" cards 78 85 87 81 1 For the distribution of these figures according to sampling strata, see Tables 3 and 4. Statistical Procedures Descriptive Procedures Because of the abundance of data involved, it was appropriate to utilize statistical programs available for the CDC 3600 computer at Michigan State University. Thus the FCC-I and FCC-II programs (Clark, 1964) were used to count the frequency of response to each alternative of each item. The MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter, 1966) provided the sum of scores, the mean, the sum of squares, the standard deviation, the sum of squared deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of each of the 69 variables; means 58 and standard deviations for these variables appear in Appendix H. Zero-Order Correlations The MDSTAT (Ruble and Rafter, 1966) program also pro- vided zero-order correlation coefficients between each pair of variables for all the respondents together and also for each of the major sampling strata, so that the data as a whole could be explored for relationships which might ap- pear to be important. Those coefficients describing re- lationships mentioned in the hypotheses were tested for significance at the .05 and .01 levels. Analysis of Variance The simple correlation coefficients were not con- sidered sufficient tests of the hypotheses related to attitude, values, and contact (see pages 29-33); because. these hypotheses, as stated, required knowledge of whether those who score very high and those who score very low on treatment variables represent different populations with respect to a criterion. The computerized one-way analysis of variance program (Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966b) pro- vided this knowledge in reSpect to hypotheses 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b, because it compared the difference between means of the treatment groups with the dispersion of scores within the groups. The four-way analysis of vari- ance for unequal N's (Ruble, Paulson, and Rafter, 1966) 59 also took into account the interaction between treatments, as required by hypotheses 4a and 4b. Use of these programs involved certain decisions. Treatment variables had to be dichotomized to form high and low groups, with scores near the mean eliminated. To do so, about the highest third and the lowest third of the respondents were used in each instance, except that effort was made to keep both groups nearly equal in size and to recognize natural groupings of scores. In the decisions to reject null hypotheses, the .05 level was selected, consistent with the international study. Analysis of variance was the appropriate procedure for hypotheses 8, 9, and 10, because for these the sampling strata were used as treatment groups so that more than two means were to be tested for significant difference. Inv these instances, while a significant overall H would lead to non—rejection of the hypothesis being tested, we still would not know whether every mean is significantly differ- ent from every other. There are several methods for determining the nature of the differences between treat- ment means. The H test used here to test for differences between the adjusted means of the "pairs-of-groups" (Ruble, Paulson and Rafter, 1966) is equal to the two-sided 2 test while also fully accounting for the other experimental factors. The adjusted mean equalizes or accounts for the variance in the size of the groups as well as the unequal distribution of one treatment within the groups of the 60 other treatment. This procedure is approximately equal to Duncan's Multiple Means test (Edwards, 1960, pp. 136-140; Kramer, 1956, pp. 307-310) for three treatment means; it is somewhat more liberal when four or more means are in- cluded, thus increasing likelihood of Type I error. The procedure does not account for non-independence among the pairs-of-treatment means. Partial and Multiple Correlations Theoretical considerations and also examination of the zero-order correlation matrix suggested that in con- nection with hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 7a it might be fruit- ful to control certain relevant variables statistically. This control was accomplished with the partial correlation program (Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966a) which also pro- vided multiple correlations of all predictor variables used and significance levels for all coefficients calcu- lated. Criteria used in selecting these variables are included in the discussions of the respective hypotheses. Scale Analysis Originally a scale analysis was proposed for the data. Such a program was not available. Meanings of this deficiency are discussed on page 87. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The raw data were coded (see Code Book, Appendix G) and analyzed with the programs mentioned in the closing section of Chapter III. Results may be described as follows. Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample Comparability of the Sample and the Substitutions Of the 405 respondents whose returns were used in the data analysis, 215 had been chosen in the original sample, 132 as random substitutions, and 58 as second random substitutions. Every respondent had exactly the same chance of being selected for sample A. Frequency of each sample in each stratum is shown in Table 3. To test the assumption that the three samples may be treated as one, the sampling sequence was treated as a continuous variable in the MDSTAT program; simple corre- lation coefficients were obtained between this sequence and every other variable in the studyy Of all the 61 62 .Hm mmmd mom .Espmsum HAOHchsmoom comm CH mmeCSOO do pmHH m pom n .Om-mz mmwwd mom .Esumsum HOOHummHmmHoom some CH mcoHumcHEocmo mo pmHH m Loam OOH m.:H m.mm O.mm mo: mm NMH mHN MHm mHmpoe OOH :.HH O.mm m.©m mmH Om mm mm NHN mmfipcdoo Hahdm .m OOH 0.0H 0.0m O.qm mzH mm m: we HNH mmecsoo swan: smnpo .m OOH m.~H 0.0m O.:: NO mH mm mm mmH mucsoo scams .H nHmOHQQMLwomO OOH m.:H O.mm o.mm mo: mm NMH mHm MHm mHMUOB OOH 0.0m 0.0: 0.0: OH m a : om onwmz .m OOH m.OH z.mm 2.5m zom Hm we FHH me onwmz pdmoxm nmcuo .5 OOH m.sH -- A.mm A H o e O emeeeeea sea epee>mm .O OOH m.om :.mm 0.0m am 5 OH NH. oz cmamnpsq .m OOH 0.0H O.mm o.mm om m m MH mm UOEhommm .: OOH m.mm O.mm O.H: Om mH 2m mm no unfinonumz .m OOH m.mH m.>m m.>: mm m mm mm mfi OHHonpmo cmEom .m OOH o.mm o.mm 0.0m e H H m m .emHzeh .H wHOOHpmmHmmHoom Hmpoe Ocoomm pmpHm deEmm Hmpoe Ocoomm umsHm deEmm meOHpeeHemesm smeHm meOHeseHumezm ethm eNHm deEmm epmppm mocmzomsm sanctum wcHHdEmm comm Sosa HmcHtho go omcnzpmm unmoeom mapsumm mHnmmO go 969632 .mocmsumm wcHHQEmm o» mocmpmmms anz .mumsum mcHHqum mcoEm magnump mo coHusoHmeHQ-I.m mqmn< HBO cpco>og a O m m m N O H Huo.mma Hue.mev HuOoHO A»..OOO Cmscnpza 2m O: :H OH NH NH O m Hns.HHO Ano.omv Hua.sov ,WOOHV . Onshoumm om Om O OH HH NH H H HuOOHO HaOOHV HMOOHO HnOOHV umHUocuoE no so Om Om mm mm m m HMH.OHO Hu:.=OV Huo.smv Hu0.000 oHHocumo cmEom Om me am mm ON mm NH Om Huo.omv HuOOHV Hue.mmv HHOU huQEm Swat—w») a m m m m m mcesumm wNHm mccsumm mNHm acesuom ouHm mcnzuom ouHm wapmspm HmoHpmmHmoHoom anmmO dee m mHnmm: oHoEmm oHnmmO cHdemm oHpmmO OHQEmO mHmuop omepcsoo Hansm nmoHucsoo smog: Locpo muczoo acme: .HHoo some 90 oNHm HmcHano map 0» voceuouon zuHx .mcHHaEmm ho avenue-mmoco on» go mHHwo on» moose weespmn oHnmm: go coHuanpumHo-o.a mam<9 70 TABLE 5.--Distribution of returns among denominations and major denominational divisions. Denomination Total Number of Returns ‘All Jewish groups 4 Roman Catholic Diocese of Detroit 24 Roman Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids 7 Roman Catholic Diocese of Lansing 10 Roman Catholic Diocese of Marquette 9 Roman Catholic Diocese of Saginaw 9 Detroit Methodist Conference 34 Detroit Methodist Conference: U. P. churches 4 Michigan Methodist Conference . 29 Christian Reformed Church 11 Reformed Church of America 9 Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod 30 Evangelical Lutheran, Joint Synod of Wisconsin 4 Seventh Day Adventist 7 United Presbyterian 21 Episcopal Church 12 United Church of Christ, and Congregational 27 American Baptist Convention 20 Evangelical United Brethren l4 Disciples of Christ 7 Assembly of God 9 Ihurch of the Nazarene UU Anderson, Indiana, Church of God 7 Free Methodist Church ‘ ll Latter Day Saints (both major groups) 14 Lutherans other than Mo. and Wis. Synods 12 Other groups except Negroa 47 Negro 10 Total ’ 405 aIn the category, "Other groups except Negro," were included at least one return but not more than five returns from each of the following denominations: Apostolic Christian, Free Will Baptist, General Association of Regular Baptists, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of the Brethren, United Brethren in Christ, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of Christ, non-instrumental, Evangelical Covenant Church, Mennonite Church, Wesleyan Methodist Church, Pilgrim Holiness Church, The Salvation Army, Seventh Day Church of God, United Missionary Church, Church of Unity, Universalist-Unitarian, Churches which are totally independent. 71 of the state. TABLE 6.--Distribution of returns among the counties Returns County County Returns Alcona 1 Kent 17 Alger 2 Keweenaw l Allegan 2 Lake 0 Alpena. 3 Lapeer 1 Antrim 3 Leelanau 2 Arenac 0 Lenawee 8 Baraga 2 Livingston 2 Barry 2 Luce 1 Bay 4 Mackinac 1 Benzie O Macomb 8 Berrien 11 Manistee 1 Branch 1 Marquette 5 Calhoun 9 Mason 1 Cass 2 Mecosta 2 Charlevoix S Menominee 0 Cheboygan 0 Midland 7 Chippewa 7 Missaukee 0 Clare .0 Monroe 3 Clinton 2 - Montcalm 3 Crawford 0 Montmorency 1 Delta 2 Muskegon 12 Dickinson 3 Newago 6 Eaton 1 Oakland 20 Emmet l Oceana l Genesee 24 Ogemaw 0 Gladwin O Ontonagon l Gogebic 2 Osceola 2 Grand Traverse 3 Oscoda 0 Gratiot 4 Otsego 0 Hillsdale 2 Ottawa 9 Houghton 2 ' Presque Isle 3 Huron 6 Roscommon 0 Ingham 13 Saginaw 15 Ionia 3- St. Clair 10 Iosco 1 St. Joseph 7 Iron 2 Sanilac 3 Isabella 1 Schoolcraft 0 Jackson 6 Shiawassee 4 Kalamazoo 9 Tuscola 7 Kalkaska 1 Van Buren 3 Washtenaw 6 Wayne 87 Wexford __3 Total 405 72 ewmswmm moan» ammo on» no pmoe wcHsso .cmezwsmHo H mm .Om>nmm 30% m>mc mnmnze "m EmpH .oAHMCGOHpmmsa chomnmmn emHOH no mH we own one on a: .mH pmnuv muse» nsom cH .as pcmsonn. no cosmos chHme so» one: change an EmuH .mnHOCGOHpmmSG Hmcomsmmm Hmm 0.0H me m.m: mmH O.mm HOH H.O am nxsoz omm O.m mm m.H: OOH O.mm Ow m.mm mOH mecnmmm .dmnm unmonmm .umsm ucmonmm .dmsm psmonom .umsm ucoonmm .omsm HHEmeOHpmHem Hmpoe anonsm mpHo szo 2309 mnpcsoo mnpcsoo .Omxpoz m>m£ use common one: man» QOan :H mmeHGSEEoo can we CQHHBOHmHmmmHo .mucmOCOQmmmlu.w MHmocom u m moococcmaoOcH u H ”COHuHcmooom n m mzuHesoucoo n O mpnoaasm u m "monHom mm .mnopucH up one: UoNHHonsmm can monomIQSm me oseH O.m O.z O.m w.: m.m O.: m.mH O.mm m.mH m.» 0.0H H.mH mm cmsmnpsq O.m O.m m.m m.m m.O H.m m.:H O.mm O.HH 0.0 m.OH H.mH OH omenomom O.m m.: ~.m u.m 3.0 v.2 u.mH m.mm m.mH :.O :.mH m.mH OO pmHnonpmz O.m :.m m.m m.m O.m m.m O.:H m.mm m.mH O.m m.om O.HH Om OHHocpmo smEom m.m 0.: 0.0 m.m O.w m.: m.:H H.:m H.mH O.s m.~H m.mH mOm oHOEmm Hmpoe H m H m o m H m H m O m c @3090 mCOprH>mQ Ohmocmpm memo: .mwcHasonw msOHwHHon pmmwan pom mmeom-nzm mmsHm> coonow on» no m:0prH>oO unaccepm one mcmmz-|.OH mHm unmocmomocH HH< 5.0m 30A ma. mm.| ma. :m.m mm>fipmcnmpa¢ mo 0.0: nwfim mafiafinmpgmooa >.Hm 304 ma. mm.| ma. HH.N pompcoo 3.0: swam co pcmEAOficm m.om 30g mo. wm.u mo. mm.w poMpcoo mo o.m: swam mocmofio>< mo mmmm 0.0m 30A om. mm.| om. mn.H mocmSGon 0.0: nmfim couscoo m2 mochHmficme .mmoo m mo .o m cam: Q5090 manmfipm> mQOHpmHmnpoo Hmfippmm mocmfinm> mo mammamc< uncommomccH .coapmommpmp Hmpcme spa: pouncoo wcfiunmwmn moanmfigw> nzom mo mmfiocmsumnm 30H com swan pom Moscow pompcoo mze¢ op pomomma CH mpcmfiofimmmoo coapmampnoo Hmfiunmo pom .mofipmflumum m .mcmwznn.ufl mqm pcmocmomocH HH¢ o.wm 30A mo>Hpmc an. no. Ha. mm.o Immua< mo A.mm zmfim mafiafinmuamooa m.mm 304 mm. mo.| mm. mm.o pompcoo mo m.mm swam pcmEAOficm m.wm 304 pompcoo mo om. mo.| om. no.a cosmofio>< H.mm cwfim mo mmmm m.mm 304 no. NH.I no. mm.: avocadmpm s.em swam pompcoo .um mocmOHchme .mmoo m mo .o m cam: ozone magmfipm> pcmocmomooH mCOHpmHmpnoo Hmfiuhmm moGMdnm> mo mfimmamc< .doaumosom npaz.uompcoo wmaonmwmp mmapMHnm> nsom mo moaocmsdmnm 30H_ocm swan mom moaoom pcmucoo somumoscm m>awmopwonm on uncommp CH mucmfiofiMMmoo coapmamnhoo Hmfiupmo pom .moaumflpmpm m .mcmmzll.ma mqm EIEI- SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES By LEONARD V. GORDON DIRECTIONS In this booklet are statements representing things that people consider to be important to their way of life. These statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you are asked to do Examine each set. Within each set. find the one statement of the three which represents what you consider to be most important to you. lilacken the space beside that statement in the column headed .\'I (for most). Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set. Decide which one of these statements represents what you consider to be least important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement. in the column headed L (for least). For every set you will mark one statement as representing what is most important to you, one statement as representing what is least important to you. and you will leave one state- ment unmarked. Example M L To have a hot meal at noon :::::: _ To get a good night's sleep :::::: :::::: To get plenty of fresh air , _ :::::: Suppose that you have examined the three statements in the example, and although all three of the statements may represent things that are important to you, you feel that “To get plenty of fresh air” is the most important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed M (for most) beside the statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would then examine the remaining two statements to decide which of these represents something that is least important to you. Suppose that “To have a hot meal at noon” is the least important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed L (for least) next to this statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would leave the remaining statement unmarked. In some cases it may be difficult to decide which statement to mark. Make the best decision that you can. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Be sure to mark only one, M (most) choice and only one L (least) choice in a set. Do not skip any sets. Answer every set. Turn this booklet over and begin. SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 8 E 259 EAST ERIE STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 Copyright 1960 © Science Research Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in U.$.A. Reorder No. 7-2760 6789/1-98765432 To be free to do as I choose To have others agree with me To make friends with the unfortunate To be in a pOsition of not having to follow orders To follow rules and regulations closely To have people notice what I do To hold an important job or oflice To treat everyone with extreme kindness To do what is accepted and proper To have people think of me as being important To have complete personal freedom To know that people are on my side To follow social standards of conduct To have people interested in my well being To take the lead in making group decisions To be able to do pretty mt‘i’ch asil please To be in charge of some important project To work for the good of other people To associate with people who are well known To attend strictly to the business at hand '1 0 have a me it deal of influence To be known by name to a great many people To do things for other people . To work on my own without direction To follow a strict code of conduct To be in a position of authority , To have people around who will encourage me , To be friends with the friendless , , , . ,,,,, To have people do good turns for me ,, , , To be known by people who are important , , ,, To be the one who is in charge To conform strictly to the rules .. ,, ,, 1 ., ,. ’l 0 have. others show me that they like me 1 . ..... To be able to live my life exactly as I wish , , ,,,,, l0 do my duty , To have others treat me with undeistandingw , To be the leader of the group I’m in , . . , , . ,,,,,, , .......... To have people admire what I do. . .................................... To be independent in my work . , ................................ To have people act considerately toward me , ,. ., , _, ,, ., To have other people work under my direction . . _ ,,,,,,,,,, To spend my time doing things for others ............................. To be able to lead my own life .......................................... To contribute a great deal to charity ............................... To have people make favorable remit ks about me ,,,,,,,,,,,, , Turn the page and go on. Mark your answers in column B ———) To be a person of influence To be treated with kindness 'l‘o always maintain the highest moral standards To be praised by other people To be relatively unbound by social conventions To work for the good of society 7 ‘o have the all'ection of other people To do things in th 1 approved manner To go around doingr favors for other people To be allowed to do whatever I want to do 'l‘o be regarded as the lcadcr 'l‘o do what is socially correct 'l'o have others approve of what I do To make decisions for the group To share my belongings with other people 'l‘o bc tree to conic and go as I want to 'l'o help the poor and needy To show respect to lll_\‘ superiors 'l'o be given coniphnn-nts by other people It) lic iii :1 \‘ct'y tcsponsllilc position ’l‘o do what is considered conventional 'l'o be ”I charge ol .'I group of pcoplc ’l‘o iiixikc :ill of III) own decisions ’l‘o It't‘t‘l\'t' i-nctiin'agcnicnt from others It: be looltctl tip to by other pcoplc 'I‘o bc tpitck Ill acccptnie othcrs as l‘ricnds 'l'o diiccl olhcrs III lllt‘lt‘ Work ’lltl lit' t'ciicl‘ottrs lo\\'.‘it'tl otlit'i’ [ictiplc 'l'o lic int ti\\t| boss 'l'o b;i\c ninlcislandnn' tiicndr. 'l'o lic :vclcclctl lot :1 ll‘lltlt‘l':»lll[) position To Iic lt't'JIlt'll 11s .'I [It‘|‘_§(i|| of sonic Iinpoi'tancc 'I‘o li.‘i\‘c tlinit's pt’i-ltt iiiiich my own \\‘;1\ lo li.’i\'t' Itlllt'l lJt'Hlilt‘ Itilctt'nll'tl It! Inc 'l‘o |i:i\'i- piopcr and correct social inannct‘s 'l‘o bc .'»\llllilllllt‘lll‘ \tith lliosc who arc in troubli- 'l‘o lic \'ci1 popiilat \\llll ollici pcoplc 'l'o lic tit-c li'oni harm:1 to obm role: In lic in it [Htwllttill to lcll otlici‘:;\\'l1:it totlo 'l'o ill\\.t>\ :1 do \\li:il is 1nora|l\ tight 'l'o no out ol ll|\ \t':i\ lo liclp others 'l‘o have people \Hllllll’ to otlci inc :1 lll‘ltiltlt'_ hand To have pi-oplc .‘itlnnit- lllt‘ 'l‘o :i|\\.r\ do the approved llltllt' 'l‘o llt' .ililc lo |c;i\‘c things lying .noltnd II I \\l.\l1 M1 Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi MI I Mil l l I i Mil l l M l l l i Mi} I l l L‘l‘l“ 03w 191‘s APPENDIX C PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE 150 0 °"‘ 66 PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all persons are important. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. study to obtain your answer to every question. I. This first question has to do with the contacts you It is important to the have had with schools, and what you know about education. Please check EACH experience that applies to you. sure to check with the parentheses for every experience that applies to you. I know little or nothing about education I have read or heard a little about schools and education . . . . . . I have studied about schools and education through reading, movies, television, lectures, or observations. A neighbor of mine works in education. . . . . . A friend of mine works in education. Some relative works in education My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband), or child works in education (in any position, professional or non-professional) . . . . I have worked in education, as a teacher, adminis- trator, counselor, volunteer, etc. Other (please specify) If you have ever worked in schools or educational settings, how long were you engaged in such work altogether? Please write in the box the approximate. number of years. If you have ever done any professional work in educa- tion, how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided this work? I could generally have avoided this work only at great cost or difficulty. . . . . . . I could generally have avoided this work, only with considerable difficulty I could generally have avoided this work, but with some inconvenience. I could generally have avoided this work without any difficulty or inconvenience . . - l “AAA ( ( VVVV 66 10. If you have ever worked in education, how have you generally felt about it? Please check the one best answer. I definitely have disliked it I have not liked it very much I have liked it somewhat I have definitely enjoyed it. VVVV If you have ever worked in education for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what Opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, something else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job? I do not know what other jobs were available or acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) No other job was available. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me. . ( ) How old are you? (Write age in box). . . . . . . . Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your youth (that is, up to the age of 15 or T6)? Please check. Country ( ) Country town (g) City ( ) City suburb ( ) What is your marital status? Please check. Married (1, Single ( ) Divorced ( ) Widowed ( ) Separated ( ) Where have you served, as a clergyman, during most of the past three years? Please check. Country ( ), Country town (#) City ( ) City suburb_( ) How many children have you? (Write number in box) . ' # ll. 12. 13. I4. 15. I6. Please answer either A or B, whichever applies best to your present situation. Please read both choices, then answer only one. A. If you are self-supporting, about what is your total yearly income before taxes (or, if you are married, the total income in the family). In- clude extra income from any regular sources such as dividends, insurance, etc. Please write approximate total in the box . . . .r- % B. If you are not self-supporting, what is the approximate total yearly income before taxes of the persons who mainly provide your support (i.e. parents, relatives, or other). r-—- Make the best estimate you can. . . . . . . . . .I 1 How do you think your income compares with that of a" most pe0ple in the community where you live? Check within parentheses. Much lower. ( ) Lower ( ) About the same. ( ) Higher. ( ) Much higher . ( ) How many brothers have you? Please write number in _m box . . . . . . . . . .5 ! How many sisters have you? Please write number in F”"'7 box . . . . . . . . .. 1_____J About how does (or did) your father's income compare with that of most people in the community in which he lives (or lived)? Much lower. Lower About the same. Higher. Much higher What is your religion? Roman Catholic. Protestant. Jewish. . . . Other (please specify) 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? Not very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Fairly important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) Think of the occasions you have to talk with other adults during an "average" day. About what percent of these contacts and conversations are with people you feel personally_close to, whom you consider to be close friends, or that are relatives of yours? None . . . . . . . . ( ) Between 30% and 50% . I do not usually make Between 50% and 70% . contact with other adults , . . . . . . ( ) Between 70% and 90% . Less than 10% . . . ( ) More than 90% . Between l0% and 30%. ( ) How important is it to you to work with people you feel personally close to? Not at all important . Not very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fairly important . Very important . VVVV Which social_class do you believe you are in? Please check. Lower ( ) Lower Middle ( 1 Middle ( ) Upper Middle( ) Upper ( ) Upper Upper ( ) Which social class do you believe your father is (or was) in? Please check. Lower (. ) Lower Middle (_) Middle ( ) Upper Middle ( ) Upper ( ) Upper Upper ( ) About how much education have you had? Check only one answer. 3 years of school or less. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) 6 years of school or less. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) 9 years of school or less. . . . . . . . . . . . . ( ) (question continued) 23. 24. 25. 26. 12 years of school or less. Some college-level work A college or university degree. Some graduate work beyond the first degree. One or more advanced degrees. Other (please specify). How do you think your education compares with that of most people? Much less than most. . . Less than most . About average. More than most . Much more than most. About how does (or did) your father's education compare with that of most people of his time? Much less than most. Less than most . About average. More than most Much more than most. What type of living arrangement do you have? Rent a house. Rent an apartment . Rent a room (meals in a restaurant, etc.) Purchase room and board (rooming house, etc.) Own an apartment. Own a house . Live in church-owned manse, rectory, parsonage,etc. Other (please specify) Please answer either A or B or C, below, whichever one applies to you. A. If you are renting the house (room or apartment) in which you 1ve, about how much money per month do you pay for rent? (Write amount in box) B. If you own the house (or apartment) in which you live, about how much money per month do you believe you could rent it for? (Write amount in box) . . . . . (question continued) AAA/\A AAAAAA AAAAA AAAAAAAA PQ VVVVV vvvvvv VVVVV 27. 28. 29. C. If you live in a manse, rectory, or parsonage, what is its generally accepted rental value? (Write amount in box). . . . . . . In every community each group (for example, schools, businessmen, labor. local government) has a distinct job to do for the community. In your community, would you say that the schools are doing an excellent, ggod, fair, or poor job, as a whole? How about businessmen? Labor? The local government? The doctors and hospitals? The religious groups? (Please answer for each group) A. Elementary Schools B. Secondary Schools Do nOt know . ( ) Do not know ( ) Poor. ( ) Poor. . . . . . ( ) Fair. ( ) Fair. . . . . . ( ) Good. . . . ( ) Good. . . . . . ( ) Excellent ( ) Excellent . ( ) C. Colleges 0. Businessmen Do not know . ( ) Do not know ( ) Poor. ( ) Poor. . . . . . ( ) Fair. ( ) Fair. . . . . . ( ) Good. . . . ( ) Good. . . . . . ( ) Excellent . ( ) Excellent . ( ) E. Labor F. Local Government Do not know . ( ) Do not know ( ) Poor. ( ) Poor. . . . . . ( ) Fair. ( ) Fair. . . . . . ( ) Good. . . ( ) Good. . . . . . ( ) Excellent . . ( ) Excellent . ( ) H. Health Services G. National Government (doctors E hospitals) Do not know . ( Do not know . . ( ) Poor. . . . . . ( Poor. . . . . . ( ) Fair. . . . . . ( Fair. . . . . . ( ) Good. . . . . . ( Good. . . . . . ( ) Excellent . ( Excellent ( ) ) ) ) ) ) I. Churches (religious groups) 00 not know . . ( ) Poor. . . . . . ( ) Fair. . . . . . ( ) Good. . . . . . ( ) Excellent ( ) How long have you lived in your present community? Please write in the box the approximate number of years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ I Have you changed your residency (from one community to another) during the past two years? Yes . . . . . ( ) No . . . . . ( ) 30. About how many times have you moved from one community to another during the past ten years? Please indicate in the box the number of times 3l. About how many times altogether have you changed positions during the past ten years? Please indicate in the box the number of times . . . . 32. Briefly, please state your title and the nature of your work: 33. About to what extent do you yourself observe the rules and regulations of your religion? Never . Seldom. Sometimes Usually Almost always 34. Health experts say adding chemicals to drinking water results in less decay in people's teeth. If you could add these chemicals to your water with little cost to you, would you be willing to have the chemicals added? Probably not. ( ) No. . ( ) Maybe ( ) Yes ( ) 35. Some pe0ple feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible." Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree. Strongly agree. AAA/K VVVV 566 (n 36. 37. 38. 39. Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many peOple. What is your feeling about a married couple's practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are doing wrong, or rather, that they are doing right? (Please feel free to omit if you object to this QUEStIP" ) It is always right. It is probably all right. It is usually wrong It is always wrong. PeOple have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business and industry) since eventually it creates new jobs and raises the standard of living." Disagree strongly Disagree slightly . Agree slightly. Agree strongly. Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an important job. What is your feeling on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job." Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree. Strongly agree. Some people believe that more local government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree. Strongly agree. PQ AAA“ AAA/K “AAA vvvv VVVV 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Some people believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree. Strongly agree. People have different ideas about over-all planning for education in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? (Please check only one.) Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents . . . . . . . Educational planning should be primarily directed by the city or other local governmental unit. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government. . Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? Please check one for your choice. I find it very difficult to change I find it slightly difficult to change I find it somewhat easy to change my ways. I find it very easy to change my ways. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly. Agree slightly. Disagree slightly . Disagree strongly . I like to do things about the same way from one week to the next. Agree strongly. Agree slightly. Disagree slightly Disagree strongly . PQ AAAA vvvv vvvv 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 10 A good son will try to find work that keeps him near his parents even though it means giving up a good job in another part of the country. Agree strongly. Agree slightly. Disagree slightly Disagree strongly . We should be as helpful to people we do not know as we are to our friends. Disagree strongly . Disagree slightly . Agree slightly. Agree strongly. Planning only makes a person unhappy because one's plans hardly ever work out anyway. Agree strongly. Agree slightly. Disagree slightly Disagree strongly . Which of the following requisites do you consider Egg; important to make gar life more happy and satisfactory in the future? (P e check the single, most important item) Nothing. More money . More friends Better job . . . . . . Better physical health Better mental health Deeper spiritual maturity. Other (specify) What do you think you can do to make this possible? Please answer one of the two alternatives below: If nothing, check: If something, please specify: PQ “AAA AAAAAAAA APPENDIX D ATTITUDE TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION SCALE 161 ATTITUDE TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION SCALE Instructions: Below are 20 statements of opinion about mentally retarded persons. We all think differently about personSIWho are mentally retarded.. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each state- ment. Please make a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement you choose. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. 1. Parents of retarded children should be less strict than other parents. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your sanswer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 2. Mentally retarded children can be as well adjusted as normals. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 3. Retarded people are usually easier to get along with than other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 2 ATMR Most mentally retarded people feel sorry for themselves. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded people are the same as anyone else. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly There should not be special schools for mentally retarded children. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly It would be best for mentally retarded persons to live and work in special communities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly It is up to the government to take care of mentally retarded persons. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 10. 11. 12. 13. 3 ATMR Most mentally retarded people worry a great deal. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded people should not be expected to meet the same standards as non-retarded people. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded people are as happy as non-retarded ones.. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Severely mentally retarded people are no harder to get along with than those with minor retardation. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly It is almost impossible for a retarded person to lead a normal life. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly, 66 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 4 ATMR You should not expect too much from mentally retarded pe0ple. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded people tend to keep to themselves much of the time. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded people are more easily upset than non-retarded people. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded persons cannot have a normal social life. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Most mentally retarded people feel that they are not as good as other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 19. 20. 5 ATMR You have to be careful of what you say when you are with mentally retarded pe0ple. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Mentally retarded people are often grouchy. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly APPENDIX E PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: MR 167 PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: MR This questionnaire deals with your contacts with mentally retarded persons, and what you know about them. have had much contact with mentally retarded persons, or you On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with mentally retarded persons, and may have studied about them. may have never thought much about them at all. For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all persons are important; even if you know very little or nothing about mentally retarded persons your answers are important. 1. The following statements have to do with the kinds of experiences you have had with mentally retarded persons. Please place a check within the parentheses following each experience which applies to you. If more than one experience applies, please check each one. I have read or heard a little about mentally retarded persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I have studied about mentally retarded persons through reading, movies, lectures, or observations. A friend is mentally retarded Some relative is mentally retarded. I have personally worked with mentally retarded persons as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, pastor, etc. My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband), or child is mentally retarded. . . . . . . . . . Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded perosns, about how many times has it been altogether? Please check the single best answer. Less than l0 occasions. Between 10 and 50 occasions Between 50 and 100 occasions. Between 100 and 500 occasions More than 500 occasions Perhaps you AAAAA vvvvv .66 When you have been in contact with mentally retarded persons, how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided being with these retarded persons? I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty . . . I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty. . . . . I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience. . . . I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without agy difficulty or inconvenience. During your contact with mentally retarded persons, did you gain materially in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain. . . . . . . . . . Yes, I have been paid for working with retarded persons. Yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain . Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit. If you have never been paid for working with retarded persons go on to the next question. If you have been paid, about what percent of your income was derived from contact with mentally retarded persons during the actual period when working with them? Less than l0%. Between l0% and 25%. Between 25% and 50%. Between 50% and 75%. More than 75%. How have you generally felt about your experience with regarded persons? I I I have liked it somewhat I have definitely enjoyed it definitely have disliked it. have not liked it very much. PQ-MR AAAAA AAAA vvvvv C)\ 3 PQ-MR If you have ever worked with the mentally retarded for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, something else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job? I do not know what other jobs were available or acceptable . . . No other job was available Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me. Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me . Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED BY ALL PERSONS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE HAD ANY PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PERSONS WHO ARE MENTALLY RETARDED. Have you had any experience with physically handicapped persons? Considering all of the time you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with physically handicapped persons, about how many times it has been altogether? Please check within the parentheses indicating the single best answer. Less than 10 occasions Between 10 and 50 occasions. Between 50 and 100 occasions Between l00 and 500 occasions. More than 500 occasions. AAAA" Have you had any experience with emotionally ill persons? Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with emotionally ill persons, about how many times has it been altogether? PTEase check within the parentheses indicating the single best answer. Less than 10 occasions Between l0 and 50 occasions. Between 50 and l00 occasions Between l00 and 500 occasions. More than 500 occasions. AAAAA VVVVV vvvvv APPENDIX F MAILING ENCLOSURES 171 172 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY IZAST LANSING . MICHIGAN mm COLLEGE OF EDUCATION 0 ERICKSON HALL For a research project now being conducted at Michigan State University we need to know the attitudes of religious leaders in Michigan toward mental retardation. This need is important enough to us to warrant our corresponding with a tenth of all clergymen in the state. You are one of the 10%, chosen at random; usefulness of the results will depend heavily on your willingness to participate. This research is part of a very large, international study of attitudes toward handicapped persons. The aim is to discover determinants of these attitudes. Using the enclosed postal card, please indicate whether or not you will participate. Ifryou check "Yesr" you will receive by return mail a set of questions calling for you simply to check your answers. The task will probably consume about an hour of your time, or at most an hour and a half. We will depend on your doing this and returning the questionnaire within a week. At no time will your name ever be associated with your answers in any way. Neither will you be contacted further, except to mail you a note thanking you for helping with this important research and a summary of the results if you request it. Thank you for whatever consideration you can give to this matter. Sincerely, éohn E. Jofljan, Ph.D. College of Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 173 H566 YES , I am willing to participate NO, please excuse me from this study (respondent number) Message side of pre-addressed postal card which was enclosed with the original letter. 174 INSTRUCTIONS Enclosed are five questionnaires which belong to the research described in the letter you received several days ago, and which you have indicated your willingness to use and return. Every question has a purpose in the effort to study determinants of attitudes toward mental retardation. Therefore your answer to every question is important. The words "mentally retarded" appear often in the questions. Where these words are used here, they will denote persons who from early childhood have been obviously below average in their general intellectual functioning. Please answer the five questionnaires in the follow- ing order: The Education Scale The Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values The Personal Questionnaire The Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation Scale . The Personal Questionnaire-—MR Ul-EUJIUH Answer each question quickly, with your first reaction, and go on to the next. After you have completed all five questionnaires, then place them in the return envelope, seal it, and mail it this week. It is already stamped with sufficient postage. The director of this research is Dr. John E. Jordan. The person handling this part of the data is William H. Heater, a clergyman who is a doctoral student. Therefore all correspondence should be addressed to William H. Heater, c/o Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823. Please remember that your answers are completely anonymous. At no time will your name ever be associated with your answers in any way. Thank you very much for your cooperation. 175 MIC H 16 AN STATE UNIVERSITY IzAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 413x25 (IOLU-‘(ili OF IFIHICA'I‘ION ' [TRICKSON HALL October 17, 1966 To: Everyone who has participated in the recent research project involving attitudes of clergymen toward mental retardation. Dear Sir: This is to thank you for cooperating with our research. No doubt you are pressed by many responsibilities. It was generous of you to take time to fill out our questionnaires. As we explained in the beginning, the purpose of the research is to investigate determinants of attitudes toward mental retardation as well as to describe these attitudes. Since educational possibilities may be broadened considerably by such investigation, your partici- pation has been very much worthwhile. In a few months, when results have been tabulated and analyzed, we shall prepare a summary of how the study was handled, what has been learned, and how it relates to a large research project now being conducted in many nations. We shall gladly mail copies to anyone interested. Meanwhile, please feel welcome to correspond with us regarding any Specific questions you may have. Considering the highly personal nature of some of the items in the questionnaires, we want to assure you that there is a sound and honest reason for each item; also, that we are taking great care to keep each response strictly anonymous. Only Mr. Heater knows how to associate your name with your response. Procedures for handling the data preclude his actually making such an association or en- abling anyone else to do so. Neither your name nor your position will ever be identified with your answers in any way. Some of you have not yet returned your questionnaires. It is so easy to forget, that if you are one of these you will welcome this reminder to return your set as soon as you can. We still need them, but only if we receive them on or before Friday, October 30, 1966. If you have mislaid your set, let us know; we will mail you another. Thank you very much. Sincerely, John E. Jordan Associate Professor William H. Heater Doctoral Candidate APPENDIX G CODE BOOK 176 H566 177 CODE BOOK Attitudes of Michigan Clergymen Toward Mental Retardation and Toward Education: Their Nature and Determinants William H. Heater College of Education Michigan State University June 28, 1966 Instructions for the Use of This Code Book Code 0 or 00 will anways mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted. Code i for a one—column no-response, or :2 for a two- column no-response, or :22 for a three-column no-response will mean there was No Information or Respondent did not answer. In each case in the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. The fifth column is reserved for indicating any recoding after the item count is finished. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. When subsequent codes are equal to a code already used, reference is made to the previous code with the word "same." Under Code, the actual code which is entered on the data sheets appears first, followed by the item alternative to which the code refers. Where the questionnaire calls for checks within parentheses, the alternative appearing first will be considered "1"; for next, "2"; etc. (Note this important change from the general Code Book for the International Study.) 178 7. The five questionnaires are often referred to with abbreviations as follows: ED--Education Scale GS--Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values PQ--Personal Questionnaire ATMR--Attitude Toward Mental Retardation Scale PQMR--Personal Questionnaire: Mental Retardation H566 Column 1,2,3 4,5 6,7 10 11,12 13,114 15,16 H566 Question Face sheet Face Face Face Face sheet sheet sheet sheet Face sheet Face sheet Face sheet Item Detail Nation and Location Sampling group number Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Eccles. Grouping Geograph. Grouping Deck or Card Number Project Direc- location and content tor, Day received 179 CARD 1 Page 1-1 Code Recode 050 - U. S., Mich., Clergy Code actual number: 01 through 99 Code actual number: 01 CDNChU'l 3'me TUI-J l I I NH 3 - 01 through 99 Masculine Feminine Jew Roman Catholic Methodist Christian Reformed and Reformed Church of America Mo. and Wis. Lutheran Seventh Day Adventist Other except Negro Other all-Negro Wayne County Bay, Calhoun, Genesee, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Macomb, Muskegon, Oakland, Saginaw, and Washtenaw Counties All other counties 99 - U. 8., Heater: Mich. Clergy, Mental Retardation Code actual day: 01 through 31 Column 17,18 19,20 21 22 23,211 25 thru 44 45 thru 64 Question Face sheet Face sheet Face sheet Face sheet ATMR - 1 thru 20 Content* ATMR - 1 thru 20 Intensity 180 CARD 1 Page 1-2 Item Detail Code Recode Month 06 - June Received 07 - July 08 - August 09 — Sept. 10 - Oct. Year 66 — 1966 Type of Admin- 2 - Self-administered istration (all) Sampling 1 - Original sample Sequence 2 — First substitution 3 - Second substitution County Code actual number indi- cated, referring to appearance of respondent's county in alphabetical order: 01 through 83 All ATMR l - l, Strongly disagree items, first 2 - 2, Disagree part of each 3 - 3, Agree item** 4 — A, Strongly agree All ATMR l — 1, Not strongly at all items, 2 - 2, Not very strongly second part 3 - 3, Fairly strongly of each A - A, Very Strongly item** *For the ATMR only, reverse the content response numbering (not the intensipy response numbering) for items 2, 5, 6, 11, and 12, only; i. e. , response of l is changed to 4 and scored as 4 on the data sheets; response of 2 is changed to 3; 3L to 2; 4, to 1. **NOTE special instructions, page 1-u for scoring ATMR items and ED items, all of which have both "Content" and "Intensity" dimensions. H566 CARD 1 Page 1-3 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 65 ED - 3,4, Educational 1 - l, Strongly disagree thru 6,10,11, Scale, 2 - 2, Disagree 74 12,13,14, Traditional 3 - 3, Agree 18,19 -- Content re- 4 - 4, Strongly agree Content sponses** **NOTE special instructions, page 1-4 for scoring ATMR items and ED items, all of which have both "Content" and "Intensity" dimensions. H566 182 CARD 1 Page 1-4 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING ATTITUDE TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION SCALE (ATMR) AND EDUCATION SCALE (ED). 1. The content part of each question is the first half of the question (i.e., the first score); the intensity part of each question is the second half of the question. 2. Where there is NO RESPONSE-—Count the number of NO RESPONSE items. If on either scale more than 6 occur in total or more than 3 in sequence, do not score the respondent for that scale at all. Otherwise, score the content part of NO RESPONSE items either 2 or 2 by the random procedure of coin flipping. If a head is obtained, assign score 2. If a tail is obtained, assign score 2. 3. Total the raw score for content for each scale for each re- spondent and write the totals on the transcription data sheet directly below the columns totaled. 4. The intensity parts of all items, and the content parts of all items except the ATMR items which are reversed as noted on the bottom of page 1-2, are to be scored exactly as marked on the questionnaire. 5. If the respondent himself has answered the content part of an item but there is NO RESPONSE to the intensity part of the item, enter a score for the intensity part of that item as follows: If content score is or 2, score intensity 2. If content score is _ or 2, score intensity just below the sample mean for intensity for that item. 1 2 6. Where there is NO RESPONSE to the intensity part of the question and a score has been entered for the content part of that item according to Instruction #2, above, score the intensity part at the highest point below the respondent's own median on the other intensity questions in the questionnaire; i.e., if the respondent generally scored intensity questions either 2 or 2, so that the median was between 2 and 2, score 2 for the NO RESPONSE; etc. 7. In any recoding following dichotomization procedures and scaling (222 Program, MSA-I), remember that ATMR content is scored 2 above the column break, and 2 below the column break. For all other scale scoring, the reverse is true: items are scored 2 above the column break, and 2 below the column break. H566 183 CARD 2 Page 2—1 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 1 Same as for Card 1, page 1-1 thru 10 11,12 --- Deck or Card 02 Number 13 Same as for Card 1, pages 1-1 and 1-2 thru 24 25 ED - 3,4, Education Scale, 1 - 1, Not strongly thru 6,10,11, Traditional, lg- at all 34 12,13,14, tensity responses** 2 - 2, Not very strongly 18,19 -- 3 - 3, Fairly strongly Intensity 4 - 4, Very strongly 34 ED - 1,2, Education Scale, 1 - 1, Strongly disagree thru 5,7,8,9, Progressive, 2 - 2, Disagree 44 15,16,17, Content re- 3 - 3, Agree 20 -- sponses** 4 - 4, Strongly agree Content 45 ED - 1,2, Education Scale, 1 - 1, Not strongly thru 5,7,8,9, Progressive, at all 54 15,16,17, Intensity re- 2 - 2, Not very strongly 20 -- sponses** 3 - 3, Fairly strongly Intensity 4 - 4, Very strongly 55,56 GS -- Gordon Gurvey, Code the actual number Raw S Support obtained using SRA Score scoring key: 01—32 57,58 GS -- Gordon Survey, Same Raw C Conformity Score 59,60 GS -- Gordon Survey, Same Raw R Recognition Score 61-62 GS -- Gordon Survey, Same Raw I Independence Score **Note Special Instructions, page 1-4. H566 184 H566 CARD 2 Page 2-2 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 63,64 GS —- Gordon Survey, Code the actual Raw B Benevolence number obtained Score using SRA scoring key: 01-32 65,66 GS -- Gordon Survey, Same Raw L Leadership Score 67,68 Adjusted 223 of dichoto- Code the actual number total of mized (O or 1) obtained from the di- ATMR items content scores chotomization program. 1 - 20, of those items Content which scaled for both content and intensity* 69,70 Adjusted 222 of dichoto- Same total of mized (O or 1) ATMR items intensity scores 1 - 20, of those items Intensity which scaled for both content and intensity* 71,72 Adjusted Sum of dichoto- Same total of mized (0 or 1) 22 items scores of the 3,4,6,10, content part of 11,12,13, the traditional l4,18,19-- items which scaled Content for both content and intensity* 73,74 Adjusted Sum of dichoto- Same total of mized (0 or 1) ED items scores of the 3,4,6,10, intensity part of 11,12,13, the traditional 14,18,19-— items which scaled Intensity for both content and intensity* *Note Special Instruction #7, page 1-4 185 CARD 2 Page 2-3 (Column Question Item Detail Code Recode '75,76 Ad usted Sum of dichoto— Code the actual number total of mized (0 or 1) obtained from the dicho- ED items scores of the tomization program. l,2,5,7, content part of 8,9,15, the progressive 16,17,20-- items which scaled Content for both content and intensity* 77,78 Ad usted Sum of dichoto- Same total of mized (0 or 1) ED items scores of the l,2,5,7, intensity part of 8,9,15, the progressive 16,17,20-- items which scaled Intensity for both content and intensity* *Note Special Instruction #7, page 1-4. H566 Column 1 thru 10 11,12 13 thru 24 25,26,27 28,29 30,31 32 33 34 35,36 37 H566 Question Same as for Same as for --- blank PQ-l PQ—2 PQ-3 PQ-4 PQ-5 PQ-6 PQ-7 186 CARD 3 Page 3-1 Item Detail Code Recode Card 1, page 1-1 Deck or Card Number 03 Card 1, pages 1-1 and 1-2 Education Contact (Kinds) Amount of con- tact with_ education Ease of avoidance Enjoyment of educational work Alternative to education work Age Community in which reared See special instructions, page 3-7 Code actual number that appears in the box 1 - 1, Great cost 2 — 2, Considerable difficulty 3 — 3, Some inconvenience 4 - 4, Without any difficulty 1 - 1, Disliked“ 2 — 2, Not much 3 - 3, Somewhat 4 — 4, Enjoyed Do not know No other available Not acceptable Not quite acceptable Fully acceptable UT-t’me I U'Iat’WNH u \- u u v Code actual number that appears in the box - Country Country town City City suburb 5’me 1?me v u u u CARD 3 Page 3—2 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 38 PQ-9 Employment 1 - 1, Country (Note shift community 2 - 2, Country town from se- (recent) 3 - 3, City quence) 4 - 4, City suburb 39 --- --- Blank 4O PQ-8 Marital 1 - 1, Married status 2 - 2, Single 3 — 3, Divorced 4 - 4, Widowed 5 - 5, Separated 41,42 PQ-lO Number of Code actual number that children appears in the box. Note special NO RESPONSE rule-- if box is blank, check question #8; if single, score 22; otherwise, score :2. 43,44 PQ-ll Yearly income 01 - Less than $1,000 02 - $1,000 to $1,999 03 - $2,000 to $2,999 10 - $9,000 to $9,999 15 - $14,000 to $14,999 etc 45 PQ-l2 Comparative l - 1, Much lower income 2 - 2, Lower 3 - 3, About the same 4 - 4, Higher 5 - 5, Much higher 46,47 PQ-13 Number of Code actual number that brothers appears in the box* *Note: If the respondent answers either 13 or 14 but leaves the other blank, score the blank one zero (00); if both are blank, score each one as NO RESPONSE (-9). H566 188 CARD 3 Page 3—3 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 48,49 PQ-l4 Number of Code actual number that sisters appears in the box* 50,51 --- Number of Code the actual number ob— siblings tained by adding the re- sponses to questions 13 and 14* 52 PQ-15 Father's 1 ~ 1, Much lower income: 2 - 2, Lower comparative 3 - 3, About the same 4 - 4, Higher 5 — 5, Much higher 53 PQ-l6 Religious 1 - Roman Catholic category 2 - Protestant (if checked) 3 - Jewish Code "other" responses as follows: 4 - Any Baptist group 5 - Episc0pal or Anglican 6 - Any Eastern Orthodox 7 - Any other Christian group 8 - Any non-Christian group 9 - Any other response 54 PQ-l7 Importance l — 1, Not very of religion 2 - 2, Fairly 3 - 3: very 55 PQ-l8 Personalism 1 - 1, None (job—amount) 2_- 2, No contact usually 3,- 3, Less than 10% 4 - 4, 10% to 30% 5 - 5, 30% to 50% 6 - 6, 50% to 70% 7 ‘ 7: 70% to 90% 8 - 8, over 90% 56 PQ-l9 Personalism l - 1, Not at all (job-impor- 2 - 2, Not very tance of) 3 - 3, Fairly 4 — 4, Very *Note: If the respondent answers either 13 or 14 but leaves the other blank, score the blank one zero (00); if both are blank, score each one as NO RESPONSE (-9). H566 C olumn 557 558 559 6C) 61. 622 63 H566 Question PQ—2O PQ-2l PQ—22 PQ-23 PQ-24 PQ-25 189 CARD Item Detail Social class (self) Social class (father) Amount of education (self) Education (self— comparative) Education (father- comparative) Housing (type) 3 Code Blank O\U'l-K:'UO1\.)l—’ I m m B m CDNChU‘I-I: WNH I 1, 2 3 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 9'9, NOTE: answer Page 3-4 Recode Lower Lower middle Middle Upper middle Upper Upper upper Three years or less Six years or less Nine years or less (top of next page:) Twelve years or less Some college Some graduate work Advanced degree Other: religious or unspecified Other: secular if more than one is checked, use the highest between 1 and 7. WSWMI-J I Same CIJNmUl-E'UUMH l 1 2 3 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 Much less Less Average More Much more Rent house Rent apartment Rent room Purchase r & b Own apartment Own house Manse or rectory Other Column 64 55 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 H566 Question PQ-26 PQ-27A PQ-27B PQ-27C PQ-27D PQ—27E PQ-27F PQ-27G PQ—27H 190 federal gov't. Institutional satisfaction health serv. Same CARD 3 Page 3-5 Item Detail Code Recode House 1 - $25 or less (monthly 2 - $26 - $50 rent value) 3 - $51 - $75 4 — $76 - $100 5 - $101 - $125 6 - $126 - $150 7 - $151 - $175 8 - $176 - $200 9 - More than $200 Institutional 2 - Do not know satisfaction 2 - Poor elementary 2 - Fair schools 2 — Good 2 - Excellent NOTE "Do not know" is scored as 3, not 1 Institutional Same satisfaction secondary schools Institutional Same satisfaction colleges Institutional Same satisfaction businessmen Institutional Same satisfaction labor Institutional Same satisfaction local gov't. Institutional Same satisfaction Column 73. 72,75 76 Question PQ-27I PQ-28 PQ-29 191 CARD Item Detail Institutional satisfaction churches Residency (current length) Residency (change- recent) 3 Page 3-6 Code Recode 2 - Do not know 2 - Poor 2 - Fair 2 - Good 5 - Excellent NOTE: "Do not know" is scored as 3, not 1. Code actual number that appears in the box; code fractions at next higher whole number. l - Yes 2 - No 192 CARD 3 Page 3-7 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR SCORING PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM #1 (REFER TO CODE BOOK PAGE 3-1) Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 28,29 PQ-l Education 01 - 1, Know nothing contact 02 - 2, Read or heard (kinds) O3 - 3, Studied O4 - 4, Neighbor works 05 - 5, Friend works 06 - 6, Relative works 07 - 7, Family works 08 - 8, I work 09 - 9, Other 10 - Impersonal* ll - Personal* 12 - Impersonal-personal* 13 - Impersonal-work* l4 - Personal-work* 15 - Impersonal-personal—work* *Procedure, if more than one alternative is checked: (a) Group the first three alternatives as "impersonal." (b) Group the next four alternatives as "personal." (c) Consider the eighth alternative alone, as "work." (d) Interpret "Other" as either impersonal, personal or work. (e) If there are two or more "impersonal" responses and no others, code as 10. (f) If there are two or more "personal" responses and no others, code as 11. (g) If there are one or more "impersonal" responses plus one or more "personal" responses, and no other code as 12. (h) Etc. H566 Column 1 thru 10 11,12 13 thru 24 25 26 27 28 193 CARD 4 Page 4-1 Question Item Detail Code Recode Same as for Card 1, page 1-1 --- Deck or Card 04 Number Same as for Card 1, pages 1—1 and 1—2 --- --- Blank PQ-30 Residency Code actual number that appears Change, last in the box; if more than 9, ten years code as 9. PQ-3l Job changes, Code actual number that appears last ten in the box; if more than 9, years code as 9. PQ-32* Part-time 1 — Full-time as clergyman (nature of (assumed if not otherwise other job) specified) 2 - Part-time in education, either teaching in religious school or teaching religion in a secular school Part-time in secular education - Part-time as institutional chaplain - Part—time in social service - Part-time in business or profession (non-religious) Part-time in industrial work - Part-time, any other .12-co I CDNI O\U'l I answer number H566 *Note: Director will write two numbers beside respondent's to PQ-32; use top number as code for Column 28; bottom , for Column 29. 194 CARD 4 Page 4-2 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 29 PQ-32* Perception of l - Generalized comment clergy role 2 - Emphasize salvation (i.e., "Help others come to a saving know— ledge of Christ," or etc.) 3 - Emphasize preaching 4 - Counseling or pastoral care 5 - Community service 6 - Administrative leader— ship of parish 7 - Administrative leader- ship of parochial school 8 — College student ministry 9 - Other 30 PQ-33' Religiosity 1 - 1, Never (perception 2 - 2, Seldom of norm con- 3 - 3, Sometimes formity) 4 - 4, Usually 5 - 5, Almost always 31 PQ-34 Change orien- 2 - Probably not» tation 2 - No (Water 3 - Maybe chemicals) 2 - Yes NOT : "Probably not," though it appears first, is scored as 2, not as 1. 32 PQ-35 Change orien- l - l, Strongly disagree tation 2 - 2, Slightly disagree (Raising 3 - 3, Slightly agree children) 4 - 4, Strongly agree 33 PQ-36 Change orien- l - 1, Always right tation 2 - 2, Probably all right (Birth 3 - 3, Usually wrong control) 4 - 4, Always wrong *Note: Director will write two numbers beside respondent's answer to PQ-32; use top number as code for Column 28; bottom number, for Column 29. H566 Column 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 H566 Question PQ-37 PQ-38 PQ-39 PQ-4O PQ-4l PQ-42 PQ—43 PQ-44 PQ-45 PQ-46 PQ-47 195 CARD 4 Item Detail Change orien- tation (automation) Change orien- tation (Politics) Education (Local tax) Education (Federal tax) Education (Planning) Change orien— tation (self) Change orien- tation (Role adher- ence) Change orien— tation (Routine) Family ties Other——orien- tation Future orientation Code thI-J I .C‘UOMI-J waI-J .1“:me Jr’UUMH “UV“ ”U99 UVUU UUUU Page 4-3 Recode Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Agree slightly Agree strongly Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree Parents Local government Federal government Very slightly Slightly difficult Somewhat easy Very easy Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Agree slightly Agree strongly Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly CARD 4 Page 4-4 Column Question Item Detail Code Recode 45 PQ-48 Value orien- 1 — 1, Nothing tation 2 - 2, Money (goal) 3 - 3, Friends 4 — 4, Job 5 - 5, Physical health 6 - 6, Mental health 7 - 7, Spiritual maturity 8 - 8, Other: religious dimension 9 — 9, Other: non-religious 46 PQ-49 Value orien- l - Nothing tation 2 — Redundency of Item 48 (means) 3 - Study 4 - Relax 5 — Discipline self 6 - Actualize self 7 - Altruism (deny self, seek more opportunity to serve, etc.) 8 — Other: religious 9 - Other: non-religious 47 --— --- Blank thru 50 51 PQMR-1* Contact 1 - Read or heard varieties 2 — Studied 3 - Friend 4 - Relative 5 - Worked 6 - Immediate family 52 PQMR—l* If more than one is checked: 1 - Impersonal contact; i.e., both of first two only 2 - Personal-work: #5 plus either #3 or #4, only 3 — Personal-family: #6, plus #3 or #4 or #5, only 4 - Impersonal and personal: #1 or #2, plus #3 or #4, only Continued next page *Note: Code for either Column 51 or Column 52, placing a 4- in the column not used. H566 Column 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 H566 Question PQMR-2 PQMR-3 PQMR-4 PQMR-S PQMR-6 PQMR-7 PQMR-8 CARD 4 Item Detail Contact amount Contact avoidance Contact-- gain from Contact-- % of income Contact-— enjoyment Contact alternatives Contact amount-- handicapped persons 197 Code 5 6 EWNH U'IELAIMI—J .1:me UIEUUIUH U'l-t—‘UUNH UltLAJIUI-J 4‘:me Pages4-5 Recode Impersonal and work: #1 or #2, plus #5, only Impersonal and family: any combination including #1 or #2, plus #6 Three responses or more which do not fit any of the above categories .1:me mtme v v v u so MUD“ tWMI—J NI‘" UI-D'WNF’ 4:me KIT-DWMH vvuvu uuvu buns.» vuvw UM U'l-C'w uvv Less than 10 Between 10 and 50 Between 50 and 100 Between 100 and 500 More than 500 Great cost Considerable difficulty Some inconvenience . Without any difficulty No gain Paid Credit Paid and credit Less than 10% Between 10% and 25% Between 25% and 50% Between 50% and 75% More than 75% Disliked Not liked Liked somewhat Enjoyed Do not know No other job Not at all acceptable Not quite acceptable Fully acceptable Less than 10 Between 10 and 50 Between 50 and 100 Between 100 and 500 More than 500 Column 60 61,62 63,64 65,66 67,68 69,70 71,72 H566 Question PQMR-9 ATMR—sum of items 1 through 20’ SEE“ tent ATMR-sum of items 1 - 20, intensity ED--sum of items 3,4, 6,10,11,12, 13,14,18, l9 -- content ED--sum of items 3,4, 6,10,11,12, 13,14,18, l9 -- intensity ED--sum of items 1,2, 5:738:9315: l6,l7,20-- content ED--sum of items 1,2, 5:728:9315: l6,l7,20-- intensity Item Detail Contact amount-— emotionally ill Total ATMR content {22 score from transcription sheet Total ATMR intensity raw score Total ED traditional content {22 score Total ED traditional intensity 322 score Total ED progressive content 322 score Total ED progressive intensity raw score Page 4-6 Recode Less than 10 Between 10 and 50 Between 50 and 100 Between 100 and 500 More than 500 Code the actual number written on the transcription sheet according to Special In- structions #3, page 1-4 Same Same Same Same Same APPENDIX H MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES OF THE STUDY FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE 199 200 Description of Item Instrument Mean s.d. 1. Support values SIV 13.518 4.87 2. Conformity values SIV 17.491 6.96 3. Recognition values SIV 7.772 3.88 4. Independence values SIV 13.070 6.59 5. Benevolence values SIV 24.070 4.03 6. Leadership values SIV 14.184 5.47 7. Closeness of contact: education PQ:1 12.910 2.91 88 Frequency of contact: education (N=291) PQ:2 11.086 10.22 9? Ease of avoidance: education (N=280) PQ:3 2.646 1.15 10? Enjoyment: education (N=300) PQ:4 3.727 0.57 11? Acceptability of alternatives (N=232) PQ:5 4.078 1.37 12. Age of respondent PQ:6 45.148 11.40 13. Number of children PQle 2.596 1.69 14. Income PQ:11 8.115 3.12 15. Income compared with community PQ:12 2.646 0.92 16. Number of brothers PQ:13 1.611 1.57 17. Number of sisters PQ:14 1.601 1.48 18. Number of siblings PQ:13,14 3.201 2.84 19. Income compared with father's PQ:15 2.885 0.90 20. Importance of religion PQ:17 2.965 0.41 201 Description of Item Instrument Mean s.d. 21. Personalism in role PQ:18 5.010 1.47 22. Importance of personalism PQ:19 3.015 0.90 23. Social classification of self PQ:20 3.385 0.76 24. Social class of father PQ:21 2.864 0.86 25. Amount of education of self PQ:22 6.303 0.97 26. Education cf. community PQ:23 4.105; 0.70 27. Father's education of. community PQ:24 2.958 1.06 28. Rent value of housing PQ:26 5.353 1.90 Institutional satisfaction: 29. Elementary schools PQ:27A 3.628 1.14 30. Secondary schools PQ:27B 3.402 1.19 31. Colleges PQ:27C 3.616 1.06 32. Business PQ:27D 3.041 1.22 33. Labor PQ:27E 2.855 1.18 34. Local government PQ:27F 2.737 1.20 35. National government PQ:27G 2.744 1.11 36. Health services PQ:27H 3.608 1.17 37. Churches PQ:27I 2.769 1.22 38. Length of current residency PQ:28 6.380 7.65 39. Number of moves, last 10 years PQ:30 1.901 1.45 40. Position changes, last 10 years PQ:31 1.344 1.36 202 Description of Item Instrument Mean s.d. 41. Conformity to religion PQ:33 4.765 0.48 Change orientation: 42. Water PQ:34 3.685 0.68 43. Child raising PQ:35 3.072 0.85 44. Birth control PQ:36 1.798 0.86 45. Automation PQ:37 3.519 0.64, 46. Government PQ:38 2.180 1.02 47. Local tax for ' ' education PQ:39 3.288 0.76 48. Federal tax for 1 education PQ:40 2.574 1.06 49. Educational planning PQ:41 1.995 0.55 50. Self change PQ:42 2.500 0.65 51. Self-directedness PQ:43 2.725 0.85 52. Flexibility PQ:44 2.459 0.81 53. Escape from family ties PQ:45 3.583 0.70 54. Helpfulness to strangers PQ:46 3.414 0.74 55. Hopefulness PQ:47 3.702 0.60- 56. Frequency of contact: MR PQMR: 2.910 1.224 57. Ease of avoidance: MR PQMR: 2.962 0.98. 58. Gain from MR contact PQMR: 1.220 0.64 59? % of income from MR work (N=31) PQMR: 1.774 1.38 60. Enjoyment of contact: MR PQMR: 2.980 0.65 618 Acceptability of alter- natives: MR (N=74) PQMR: 4.311 1.35 203 Description of Item Instrument Mean s.d. 62. Contact frequency: HP PQMR:8 2.992 1.26 63. Contact frequency: EDP PQMRz9 3.215 1.18. 64. Attitude content: MR ATMR 48.641 4.44 65. Attitude intensity: MR ATMR 59.674 8.04- 66. Traditional attitude content ED Scale 28.637 ' 4.18 67. Traditional attitude intensity ED Scale 32.091 3.99 68. Progressive attitude content ED Scale 28.784 4.52- 69. Progressive attitude intensity ED Scale 32.460 3.44- aNote that for variables 8, 9, 10, 59, and 61, response was restricted by the wording of the item to respondents who had worked in the field involved. Therefore for these items the frequency of response is given above. A total of 369 completed the Survey of Interpersonal Values; 361, the Edu- cation Scale. Otherwise, no unrestricted item was answered by fewer than 385 respondents. TATE UNIV. L "‘iiliiliiliylly 11411111121“ 0371