COMMUNICATION. AND MODERNIZATIQN IN THREE INDIAN VILLAGES: THE INFLUENCE OF STATUS INCONSISTENCY 'I'Ilesis for the Degree of PhD MICHIGAN STA'FE UNIVERSITY IAGANMGHAN ,LINGAMNENI RAD I972 “HI ’ LIBRARY Michigan Stave University .‘ This is to certify that the thesis entitled COMMUNICATION AND MODERNIZATION IN THREE INDIAN VILLAGES: I THE INFLUENCE OF STATUS INCONSISTENCY presented by J agamnohan L. Rao has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D degreein Communication ' MaJOYprofomr Date June 2, 1972 0-7639 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. gttcttlfi ‘)7 . TZ'C'SL‘ «,-- ‘ . Director 0 esis ° \. . Guidance Committee: nggéi; 7%21 /22@yuk« , Chairman flCé/LL‘I? flf] Q44 Cc,” W W ABSTRACT COMMUNICATION AND MODERNIZATION IN THREE INDIAN VILLAGES: THE INFLUENCE OF STATUS INCONSISTENCY By Jaganmohan Lingamneni Rao The main objectives of the present study were three-fold; (EEZto propose a process-view paradigm of communication and individual modernization with special reference to status inconsistency, (:2 to develop a method of measurement of status inconsistency, and (ggiko empirically determine whether status inconsistency is positively related to the external and inter- personal communication behaviors; and attitude and behavior components of modernization. The data for the present study come from part of a larger research effort dealing with the diffusion of innovations in India. The present dissertation utilized data about 210 peasant respondents collected with personal interviews using structured instruments in three villages of Andhra Pradesh. Ritual caste rank, level of education and amount of farm income are considered the important indicators of social status and are utilized in the measurement of status inconsistency. Status inconsistency was defined as the relative lack of similarity of an individual's rank positions on relevent status dimensions. Status inconsistency was operationalized in two ways: (1) the degree of inconsistency, i.e., the amount of inconsistency which will vary as the distance between status scores of an individual varies, and (2) six patterns of inconsistency, which are all the logical combinations of high on one status and low on other statuses, among the three statuses considered. It was hypothesized that: (1) the degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with exposure to external sources of communication (2) the degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree Jaganmohan L. Rao of heterophily in the friendship and information—seeking interpersonal comm! unication (3) the degree of inconsistency is positively associated with att- itudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity (4) status inconsistents with achieved (education and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater exposure to external communication and are more modern than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores and (5) status inconsistents with investment (caste and educ- ation) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have greater exposure to external communication and are more modern than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores pattern. The hypotheses were tested utilizing a multiple regression model with dummy variable terms (1, 0, -l) for statuses and (1, O) for the patterns of inconsistency; Pearsonian product-moment correlation analysis for the relationship between degree of inconsistency and degree of heterophily; and t test for differences between means of the pattern predictions. Five theoretic hypotheses and 36 empirical hypotheses were postulated in the present dissertation. Of the 36 empirical hypotheses, seven were supported on the basis of statistical tests of significance, seven were not supported. A.major bulk of the empirical hypotheses, almost two-thirds (22) have directional support, i.e., the postulated relationship between the variables was found to be in the expected direction but not significant. External Communication For each of the five variables, viz., radio listening, movie exposure, newspaper exposure, urban contact and change agent contact a degree hypo- thesis, an ascribed-achieved pattern hypothesis and an investment-reward hypothesis were tested. Jaganmohan L. Rao Both the pattern hypotheses test results were in the predicted direc- tion but radio listening was found to be negatively related to degree of inconsistency. Only the investment-reward hypothesis had directional support for movie exposure and urban contact. Newspaper exposure and change agent contact had statistically significant support on the investment-reward hypo- thesis and directional support for the other two hypotheses. Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication There was a statistically significant relationship between degree of status inconsistency and degree of heterOphily on the dimension of farm income both in the friendship and information-seeking interpersonal comm- unication. Education heterophily in friendship communication only had a significant positive relationship with the degree of incosistency, while it is positive but not significant in the information-seeking communicas tion. Caste heterOphily in friendship and information-seeking interper- sonal communication had a positive relationship with the degree of incon- sistency which is not statistically significant. Individual Modernity The investment-reward hypothesis about political knowledgeability is supported in terms of statistical significance, while the degree hypothesis has directional support and the ascribed-achieved hypothesis is not supp— orted at all. Each of the three hypotheses predicting modernity effects in terms of empathy, secular orientation and agricultural innovation adep- tion have found directional support approaching significance in many cases. Health innovation adoption was found to be an odd ball prediction with dir- ectional support for the relationship with degree of inconsistency only. COMMUNICATION AND MDDERNIZATION IN THREE INDIAN VILLAGES: THE INFLUENCE OF STATUS INCONSISTENCY 3? J aganmohan Lingamneni Rao A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 19 72 “’3 :> :‘i‘r .J‘ ©Copyright by JAGANMOHAN 1.1le no 1972 Dedicated to "a special category of status inconsistents ... graduate students everywhere.” ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Everett M. Rogers, £232, major professor and friend. As the chairman of the author's doctoral committee his guidance in preparing this disser- tation, his encouragement and intellectual stimulation throughout the period of graduate study are invaluable. The contributions and guidance received from the members of the author's doctoral committee, Drs. Richard V. Farace, Duane L. Gibson and Lawrence E. Sarbaugh are highly recognized. The author wishes to thank them all for being helpful teachers too. Dr; Verling C. Troldahl was an admirable teacher who has given the gut feeling with research methods and the author very much enjoyed assist- ing him for a brief period, as a teaching assistant. To my fellow graduate student K. S. Sripada Raju, the patient listener, namasthe for his moral support. The author wishes to acknowledge the directors and supervisors of the Diffusion project in India, Drs. Frederick C. Pliegel, Prodipto Roy, Lalit Sen, James P. Bebermeyer and M. Sanathkumar Reddy, for the research experience and opportunities provided. Rapport with and hospitality of the native Andhra respondents in the field study was just great. I am grateful for that. Finally the author is most of all indebted to his family, particularly his wife, Uma for her patience and moral support during all these five years. His daughters Santhi and Pragathi missed a great lot of paternal socialization but always provided the escape and comfort with love, when daddy needed to get away from it all, the academics. Dhanyavad to you all. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. The Modernization Process Status Multidimensionality and Status Inconsistency Status Inconsistency and Similar Concepts Status Inconsistency and the Social Change Process Short Comings of Past Research on Status Inconsistency The Problem and Its Social Significance Social Significance of the Study Objectives of the Present Study The Present Study III PMIWMDTHEORETIC HYPOTHESES OOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... The Process view The Traditional Indian Village, A.Model Social Structural Relationships Communication Environment in the Village The Paradigm External Communication as the Prime Mover in Modernization External Communication and Status Inconsistency as Interacting Phenomena Status Inconsistency and Interpersonal Communication Status Inconsistency and the Newcomb's Model of Interpersonal Relations Status Inconsistency and Dissonance Reduction Modernity as a Consequence of Status Inconsistency Summary III. mmmLOGY ..................OOOOOOOOOOOOOUOO......OOOIOO Past Approaches in the Measurement of Status Inconsistency Assignment of Status Scores A Measure of the Degree of Status Inconsistency Patterns of Status Inconsistency The Measurement Model iv vi ix 20 20 22 23 23 25 25 28 30 32 35 38 40 42 42 47 52 54 58 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) Chapter Assumptions Underlying the Measurement Model Hypotheses Based on the Degree and Pattern Measures of Status Inconsistency Empirical Hypotheses and the Operationalization of the Dependent Variables Statistical Analysis and Hypotheses Testing Uniqueness and Usefulness of our Measurement Approach Iv. RESMCH FINDINGS 0.0.0000...............OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOO External Communication Radio Listening Reliability Problems of the Estimators of Inconsistency Variables Movie Exposure Newspaper Exposure Urban Contact Change Agent Contact Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication Individual Modernity Political Knowledgeability Empathy Secular Orientation Agricultural Innovation Adoption Health Innovation Adoption v. SUMYMDCONCIIUSIONS 0.00.00.00.00.........OOOOOOOOOOO Summary External Communication Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication Individual Modernity Discussion External Communication Individual Modernity Discussion with Reference to the Multiple Regression Measurement Model Status Multidimensionality in Indian Villages Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication Conclusions Recommendations for Future Research Implications for Change Agencies BIBLIOGRAPHY 00.......0OOOOOIOOIOOOOOOIOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO APPENDICES 000......0.0.00....0............OOOOOOOOOO00.0.0000... Page 62 64 66 86 86 88 89 89 101 104 107 110 112 115 116 118 121 124 126 129 131 131 133 133 136 136 137 139 140 142 143 145 145 149 152 161 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 3-9 3-10 3-11a 3-11b 3—12a 3-12b LIST OF TABLES Frequency Distribution and Categorization of Respondents' Ritual Caste Status Scores in the Sample Villages Frequency Distribution and Categorization of Respondents' Education Scores in the Sample Villages Frequency Distribution and Categorization of Respondents' Farm Income Scores in the Sample Villages Intercorrelation of Status Variables, Means and Standard Deviations Before and After Categorization Combinations of Status Variables Coded as Patterns of Status Consistency/Inconsistency Degree by Pattern of Inconsistency, Means and Standard Deviations Correlational, Gutman and Factor Analyses of Radio Listening Items Correlational, Gutman and Factor Analyses Agent Contact Items of Change Correlational, Gutman and Factor Analyses of Polit- ical Knowledgeability Items Correlational, Gutman and Factor analyses of Empathy Items Correlational Analysis of Secular Orientation Items Factor Analysis and Gutman Scalogram Analysis of Secular Orientation Items Correlational Analysis of Agricultural Innovation Adoption Items Factor Analysis and Gutman Scalogram.Analysis of Agricultural Innovation Adaption Items vi Page 48 49 50 51 56 57 68 7O 73 75 77 78 80 81 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 3-13 3-14 4-1a 4-1b 4-1c 4-6 4-7 4-8 4-9 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Correlational, Factor and Gutman Analyses of Health Innovation Adoption Items Hypotheses-Testing Procedures Regression of Radio Listening on Statuses and Inconsistencies Total Inconsistency Effect Within Patterns From Table 4-1 (Radio Listening) Status Effects and Inconsistency Effects by Degree Within Patterns (Radio Listening) Mean Effects of All Variables in the Regress- ion Model (Radio Listening) Regression of Movie Exposure on Statuses and Inconsistencies Regression of Newspaper Exposure on Statuses and Inconsistencies Regression of Urban Contact on Statuses and Inconsistencies Regression of Change Agent Contact on Statuses and Inconsistencies Zero-Order Correlations of Degree of Status Inconsistency With Degree of Heterophily in Friendship and Information-Seeking Interper- sonal Communication. Regression of Political Rnowledgeability on Statuses and Inconsistencies Regression of Empathy on Statuses and Inconsistencies Regression of Secular Orientation on Statuses and Inconsistencies vii 82 86a 91 95 98 99 105 108 111 113 117 120 122 125 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd) Regression of Agricultural Innovation Adeption on Statuses and Inconsistencies Regression of Health Innovation Adoption on Statuses and Inconsistencies Summary of the Hypotheses Testing Results in the Present Dissertation viii Page 127 130 134 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 4-1 LIST OF FIGURES A Notional Map Showing Location of Three Sample Villages A Comparative Paradigm of Information Flow in a Traditional and a Modern Indian Village Process View Paradigm of Communication, Status Inconsistency and Modernization A Paradigm of Communication Structure in Innovation Diffusion Among Status Inconsistents Diagramatic Representation of the Degree of Status Inconsistency Measure in Three Dimensional Space Total Inconsistency Effect by Degree of Inconsis- tency Within Patterns (Radio Listening) ix Page 17 24 26 34 53 97 Chapter I INTRODUCTION A traditional society turned the more readily to modernization if there was any articulate group of men in it with reason to be unhappy about their position. Feeling agrieved, already questioning the values and attitudes of the traditional society, they were psychologically prepared to accept new ways of life as a means of proving their worth and gaining self-satisfaction, status and prestige. (Millikan and Backner, 1961, pp. 9-10) The purpose of this study is to propose a process-view* paradigm** of communication and individual modernization with special reference to status inconsistency. Further, we aim to empirically determine some of the relationships between status inconsistency and measures of external contact, interpersonal communication behavior, and attitudinal and behavioral components of modernization. The Modernization Process To understand the process of modernization, two basic questions naturally come up: (1) What are the underlying forces impelling the process of modernization and governing its course? (2) How does the process of individual modernization occur? Explaining individual modernization, Smith and Inkeles (1966) suggest in a consequential way that "Modernization refers to a set of attitudes, values and ways of feeling and acting, presumably of the sort either generated by or required for effective participation in modern life." *Process-view implies the continuous and dynamic nature of events and relationships. A more elaborate discussion of the process viewpoint is presented in chapter II of the dissertation. **A paradigm is a model, "... a classificatory system that enables one to abstract and categorize potentially relevant parts of the process." (Miller, 1966, p. 53). Paradigm is synonymous with "model" (Kerlinger, 1964, p. 275). 2 Rogers with Svenning (1969, p. 14), attempting an interdisciplinary synthesis of modernization literature, postulate that: ”Modernization is the process by which individuals change from a traditional way of life to a more complex, technologically advanced and rapidly changing style of life." Yet in the end, as Hagen (1962, p. 3) points out, "...it must be confessed that we know very little about the forces that cause the process of change and govern its course." In order to know more about the forces that cause the process of change, we would like to propose a shift in emphasis in the modernization postulate,* on the intervening processual events. We prOpose to extend the Rogers with Svenning postulate to read: Modernization is the process by_which individuals change, as a function of an underlyigg;need created by social and psychological forces, from a relatively traditional way of life to a more complex, technologically advanced, and rapidly changing style of life.** ”Traditional" in the definition refers to the tendency of individuals to follow the prescribed ways of their ancestors. Change from the traditional to modern ways of life necessarily invol- ves extra—system communication and acceptance of new ideas.*** The basic elements of the S-MEC-R communication process model (Berlo, 1960) *We are using the term postulate in the sense that: "A postulate is an assumption that is an essential prerequisite to carrying out some operation or line of thinking" (Kerlinger, 1964, p. 420). Also, it is "... an assumption so basic in nature that it supports." (Kelly, 1963, p. 46). Its value, therefore, is embedded in utility, not in truth. **Lerner(1958, p. 89) defines modernization as "... a secular trend unilateral in direction - from traditional to participant life ways." Most definitions of individual modernization carry an implied meaning that, it is a process by which one becomes psychologically non-traditional. ***Even a traditional individual needs communication from within the system to avoid new ideas. are involved in all the multitudes of decisions that together constitute modernization. So we can also adapt the Rogers with Svenning (1969, p. 49) corollary to read: Communication is the main vehicle by which widespread modernization occurs. The motivating forces in the modernization process have not suffic— iently been explained in the literature. It appears that a relatively recent conceptual tool called status inconsistency,* derived from the sociological and social-psychological literature, may help us in this regard. Status inconsistency research in the past has generally supported the notion that status inconsistent individuals are relatively more prone to change their attitudes and behavior than status consistents, thus providing a possible intervening link in the modernization process. Before we go further, the origin and conceptual contribution of status inconsistency will be discussed. Status Multidimensionality and Status Inconsistency The theory of social stratification which grew as a reaction against Marx's unidimensional concept of "class", culminated in the notion of multidimensional stratification of social systems. Each society has a plurality of status hierarchies and all of its members are viewed as having an assigned rank in each of these hierarchies. Sorokin (1927, p. 12) was the earliest to recognize the lack of crystallization among the economic, political, and occupational status hierarchies of individuals. In his words: "Usually those who occupy *Status inconsistency is defined as the relative lack of similarity of an individual's rank positions on relevant status dimensions. the upper Strata in one respect happen to be in the upper strata in other respects, and vice versa ... such is the general rule, though there are, however, many execptions to it ... this means that the intercorrelation among three forms of stratification is far from.being perfect." weber (1947, p. 324-406) also discussed the presence of inconsistents as those who have power, but lack economic resources, those who have newly acquired wealth but lack honor. These are the early theoretical leads which contributed to the later conceptualization of status inconsistency and similar concepts in the literature. Status Inconsistency and Similar Concepts We define status inconsistengy as the relative lack of similarity of an individual's rank positions on relevant status dimensions. Thus inconsistency is explained as an individual holding high rank positions on one or more status dimensions and low on others. Dickie-Clark defines a term marginal situations as "those hierarchical situations in which there is any inconsistency in the rankings in any of the matters falling within the scope of hierarchy." Conceptualizing status crystallization, Lenski (1954) wrote: Theoretically it becomes possible to conceive of a non- vertical dimension to individual or family status, that is, a consistency dimension. In this dimension units may be compared with respect to the degree of consistency of their positions in the several vertical hierarchies. In other words, certain units may be consistently high or low, while others may combine high standing with respect to certain status variables with low standing with respect to others. Hagen (1962) explains inconsistency of status symbols as the feeling of status displacement arisen from the development and long continuance of inconsistency between economic and other status relation- ships. Brandon (1965) explains status incongruence as a divergence from expected consistency of ranks across dimensions, based on the behavioral expectations associated with each rank. Although status inconsistency and all the other concepts presented here as defined by the various authors have constitutive linkages in the broad theoretical schemata, they do differ in certain respects. The similarity in the status inconsistency and related concepts is the underlying notion of the dissimilarity of either the positional status ranks or the status associated expectations of behavior in the multidimensional status system of an individual. The concepts marginal situations, status crystallization refer to rank inconsistency which maintains that status inconsistency exists whenever the pattern of ranks across several status dimensions is variable. The concept of status incongruence is based on a model of expectancy congruence (Sampson, 1963). Expectancy congruence is used to define the conformity of the social world to the actor's expectations of status stimuli. The conceptualization of status incongruence and Hagen's inconsistency of status symbols are based at least on the researcher assumed perceived inconsistency by an actor as opposed to the status inconsistency concept which is based on the viewpoint of the observer. Kasl (1969) used a different set of labelling rules to distinguish five types from the general concept of status inconsistency based on the levels of social system analysis. He calls status incongruence as a property of a single individual, status discrepancy to refer to a "natural pair" or dyad's status variable relationship, status equilibrium as a characteristic of an interacting group, and status crystallization as a property of a collective. In spite of the proliferation of terms in the conceptualization of status inconsistency, none of the researchers directly investigated the perceived status inconsistency and its consequences. Although, Sampson's (1963) expectancy congruence, Hagen's (1962) inconsistency of status symbols, small group and laboratory studies on status incongruence implicitly usedthe notion of perceived status inconsistency, a question- able assumption of the researdher. Most of the other research done on status inconsistency is only based upon the so-called objective status rankings of the easily measurable status dimensions. Whether such a measure of status inconsistency matches with the respondent's own perception of reality or that of his relevant others' perception, is questionable. However, the behavioral consequences of status inconsistency are wholly dependent upon the individual's perception of his own inconsistent statuses and the relevant others' perception of his inconsistent status ranks. The conflict in expectations of behavior associated with each of an individual's statuses, and between individuals, and their impli- cations to the communication interaction and behavioral modernity in a social situation, are of interest to us. Let us, therefore, spell out some concepts that need explication and exploration. Selfeperceived status inconsistnecy is the actor's perception of lack of uniformity of the various status levels in his status profile and a feeling of ambiguity associated with it. Othereperceived status inconsistengy is an individual's relevant others perception of his dissimilar status ranks. Actor's perception of the other-perceived status inconsistency is an individual's perception that his relevant others in the social system perceive him to be having a dissimilar set of status ranks. Appendix A provides a paradigm of a 2 x 2 x 2 Typology of perceived status consistency/inconsistency from the three concepts discussed in the preceding paragraphs predicting some behavioral consequences for individuals in each cell. Status Inconsistency and the Social Change Process The usefulness of status inconsistency as a possible intervening link in our postulate of the modernization process stems from its theoretical and empirically demonstrated relationship to social change* and "individual improvement." Unfortunately most studies** concerned with status inconsistency and change, do not provide adequate logic to explain.ghy_status inconsistents seek social change. However, some authors have provided valuable leads to facilitate our understanding of this process, which will be briefly presented here. Sorokin (1947, p. 289—294) calls the subgroups of status incon- sistent individuals "innerly-antagonistic," made up of normally contradictory uncongenial combinations that make the social position of its members innerly contradictory and ambiguous to outsiders. He also points out that the more salient or significant the dissimilar ranks become, the greater the potential for friction, and thus the greater the potential for change. *Social changg as a broader concept refers to the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system (Rogers with Svenning, 1969, p. 17). We use the term here to refer to the individual changes. **Like Lenski (1954, 1956, 1967), Kenkel (1956), Goffman (1957), Sokol (1961), Sen (1962), Rush (1967), Bauman (1968), Fauman (1968), and Segal (1969), Zeldich and Anderson (1966). At a more global, societal level (and less directly about status inconsistents), Millikan and Backner (1961, p. 9-10) state that: A traditional society turned the more readily to modern- zation if there was any articulate group of men in it with reason to be unhappy about their position. Feeling agrieved, already questioning the values and attitudes of the tradi— tional society, they were psychologically prepared to accept new ways of life as a means of proving their worth and gaining self-satisfaction, status and prestige. Lenski (1954) should be credited for his systemic research spec- ulation and the first empirical test of the status inconsistency and social change hypothesis. His only logic for the change process is that the inconsistent might be expected to react to his situation of being perceived in a "one down" (lower status) position, by seeking to change his social environment through political activity. Another theoretical explanation of status inconsistency and the change process is a synthesis of the models of social change through collective behavior (like revolution). The models of Sorokin, Edwards, Brinton, Dawson and Gettys, Blumer, Hopper, and class lectures of Waisanen were synthesized by Geshwender (1962, p. 76), who states that the structural condition of status inconsistency creates a condition or state within the individual which predisposes him toward participa— tion in change-oriented behavior. Geshwender's (1962) synthesis is: "Status inconsistency will lead to a state of generalized individual unrest. A state of individual unrest is a necessary precondition for elementary collective behavior phenomena. Elementary forms of collective behavior are symptomatic of potentialities for social change." Another key point in Geshwender's systhesis is about the importance of communication as the main vehicle for the collective behavior phenomena. Demerath (1965), Geshwender (1967), and Heffernan (1968) suggested that the phenomena of "individual improvement" could be explained as another variant alternative of dissonance reduction by status inconsistents in attempting to raise their low status, which amounts to changing the dissonant element. Of course, this "individual improvement" is only possi- ble when "experienced opportunities" for upward mobility exist. Let us briefly summarize and categorize the logic about the linkage between status inconsistency and the process of social change. 1. Internally contradictory, salient dissimilar status ranks of individuals which are ambiguous to outsiders to evaluate, leading to conflicting demands for the individual's behavior, generate individual unrest. 2. Individual unrest motivates status inconsistent individuals toward attitudes that are change-prone for improving their lot. 3. Attitudes that are change-prone lead to the behavioral attempts to modernity by seeking external communication and becoming innovative to event- ually reduce the cognitive dissonance or achieve congruence. Shortcomings of Past Research on Status Inconsistency 1. Nearly two decades of status inconsistency research have been highly culture-bound* to the United States, and also restricted mostly to urban samples only (Heffernan, 1968). Kasl (1969) mentioned that the phenomena of status inconsistency might be peculiar to the United States only or to societies with re- latively fluid social structures and to societies with mainly achieved status. The presence of status inconsistency phenomena was doubted, *See Appendix B for a list of studies about status inconsistency. 10 theoretically, in societies characterized by a caste or estate system of stratification in which there is by definition, little or any ver- tical mdbility. This point is an empirical question needing test. Status inconsistency theory, stated in its broadest possible way, is that the inconsistency of norms or of behavioral expectations is due to the fact that an individual simultaneously occupies several posi- tions which have mutually contradictory role expectations attached to them. The consequences of status inconsistency stated in these broad terms should be applicable cross-culturally. The validity and usefulness of the conceptualization of status inconsistency must be established gg_ggyg_in other cultures and rural settings to make the concept theoretically rich. A test of the use— fulness of the status inconsistency concept with relatively tradition- al individuals is desired. 2. A second and related problem of concern is in the great variation and use of status indicators by different authors to construct a measure of status inconsistency. Although occupation, income, education, and racial-ethnicity are considered important dimensions of stratification in North American society, even with the high degree of Americanization of status inconsistency research, various authors used only some of these variables or a combination with other status variables like age, family prestige, marital status, etc., in survey and in historical analyses.* Laboratory studies of status incongruence uses such other status variables as job role, sex, personal status, etc. *See Appendix B for a list of status variables used in the different studies about status inconsistency. 11 The point here is that most authors did not provide an adequate theoretical rationale for using so many different status variables. 3. Numerous and diverse consequences of status inconsistency have been found by various authors, including the general tendency for status inconsistent individuals to be Change-prone. Lenski (1954, 1956), Goffman (1957), Millikan and Backner (1961), and Geshwender's (1962) synthesis of social change models directly bear on the point of status inconsistency being logically related to modern attitudes and behaviors of individuals. It seems to the author that we could predict hypothetical relation- ships between status inconsistency and external communication contact variables, status inconsistency and modernization variables (viz., innovativeness, political knowledge, secularism, etc.,). None of these consequences of status inconsistency have yet been predicted in past research. 4. In an earlier part of the present chapter, we pointed out that many authors did not, or at least adequately, explain why status inconsistency is related to change. Status inconsistency as a structural characteristic is used to predict behavioral consequences in past research without a theory of motivation to account for it. It was also pointed out that Geshwender (1962), in his synthesis of social change process models, mentioned the role of communication. Modernization leterature generally supports the notion that external communication is the prime mover in modernization. Also it appears to the author that interpersonal communication is a crucial link in status inconsistency and the change process, either for dissonance- reduction or to acquire the necessary information for individual change. 12 We shall try to elaborate on these points when we present our paradigm in Chapter II. 5. Finally, the methodological problem of measurement of status inconsistency by all the authors is questionable. Each of the methods of analysis has at least one fatal flaw that prevents the researcher from unequivocally specifying the effects of status inconsistency with a meaningful set of controls. More will be said about this in the Methodology Chapter of the present dissertation. Having pointed out these shortcomings, we now propose a re- search problem to test the cross-cultural generalizability of status inconsistency theories; to propose a process-view paradigm of commun— ication, status inconsistency, and modernization; and to test a series of hypotheses after proposing an improved method of measuring status inconsistency. The Problem and Its Social Significance In spite of its importance, the topic of status inconsistency and social change has only been studied twice in traditional societies. As pointed out earlier in the present chapter, the phenomena of status inconsistency as related to communication behaviors seem to be theoretically and potentially significant in understanding the process of individual modernization in traditional cultures. In a highly differentiated and particularistic society like India, with the disapperance of many caste occupations, increased industrializa- tion, and division of labor, caste has been challenged as the most power— ful status-determining dimension. The importance of caste as an 13 ascribed* characteristic (having been the means for power and privilege in the past), has diminished with the other status-determining systems (mainly achieved)** like education, income etc., coming into prominence. The shift in importance to multiple status systems is due to the dynamic forces of democratic political processes, i.e., the political parties and leaders trying to reach every individual in the nooks and corners of village systems for votes and favorable public opinion; the government land reform movements; the Naxalite*** and communistic movements even in the tribal areas; and the compulsory free elementary education. All these external forces acting upon the village social systems make individuals highly aware of events in the outside world. Thus people began to question their traditional status system of caste. All the relevant messages through external communication became partly responsible in generating status inconsistency, and mainly activating and motivating status inconsistent individuals to be modern. A case in point, cited by Aiyappan (1965) is of a low caste villager who managed to go to college, subsequently obtained a govern- ment job, educated his brothers and ran a night school. He led the *Ascribed hierarchies are those in which a rank is assigned to an individual on the basis of some attribute that he possesses. Once assign- ed, the rank cannot change unless the attribute does (e.g., age, sex, caste). *EAghigygg_hierarchies are those in which rank is "earned" by the individual by attaining some goal (e.g., income, education). ***Naxalite movements are one kind of revolutionary social movements and collective behavior phenomena that sprung up in early 60's to bring about social change with reference to land reform. It is generally felt that the left wing communists in India have activated the tribal populations in the Naxalberry region of a north eastern district in the State of Andhra Pradesh, to occupy and'harvest the crops on the land they were cultivating, as tenants or laborers for the absentee landlords. The movement has spread to other parts of India, later. 14 villagers in building a road and finally, he was instrumental in organiz- ing a ropemakers cooperative. The problem of communication, status inconsistency and modernization is not only theoretically significant but has pratical implications for Indian rural social systems. If status inconsistents are proven to be change-prone, they could be a potential group of easily identifiable target audience for change agents in the present programs of planned changes. Social Significance of the Study Developmental planning and the directed change efforts in India, through the five year plans and the community development projects aim both at the microlevel peasant modernization and the macrolevel development. But there is a constant complaint about the gap between the activities of the qualified people who execute and run the plans and projects, and the villager who is the main target of their efforts. The solution seems to be to establish a channel of communication between various levels of the government, where the plans originate, and the village. Social research in India and elsewhere indicates that people experiencing status inconsistency often are the potential innovators. In the present day India, people are aware of competing status deter- mining systems and are increasingly experiencing the status dilemma resulting from it. The potentially innovative status inconsistents could be the better qualified, to provide the liaison links of communication channels between the change agencies and the people, being a part of traditional society themselves and yet are "modern" at heart. 15 Empirical research studies in the past, explained only up to about 50 percent of the variance in the modernization dependent variables with multiple correlation techniques. The addition of status inconsistency variables in a multiple correlation equation hopefully would explain more variance in the modernization dependent variables. Research on the relationship between status inconsistency, commun- ication, and modernization in India will throw light on the general problem of modernization in India; and will provide valuable clues to the type of village leadership that could be utilized for the sucessful execution of the various governmental plans. One of the aims of the present dissertation is to develop adequate theoretical and methodological tools to locate such people. The contri- bution of the present research will be to suggest a way to bring the ideas formulated at the government level to the common villager. Objectives of the Present Study The three-fold purpose of the study is to overcome some of the shortcomings mentioned earlier for past research. The specific objectives are: 1. To propose a process—view paradigm of modernization and communication with special emphasis upon status inconsistency. 2. To develop a method of measurement of status inconsistency. 3. To determine whether status inconsistency is positively associated with communication behaviors, and attitude and behavior components of modernization. 16 The Present Study Data for this study are part of India Diffusion Phase 2* project, with personal interviews conducted using structured instruments with 680 peasants in eight villages of Andhra Pradesh, Maharastra and West Bengal states of India. Only data from 210 respondents in the three villages of Andhra Pradesh are being utilized purposively.** The three villages Manchili, Kanchumarru and Polamuru are 3 to 6 miles away from each other, with similar caste, educational and economic compositions and are culturally highly homogenous in their socio- cultural and value orientations.*** See Figure 1-1 for a map showing the location of the three villages we studied in India. These three villages are also similar in their communication (mass media, physical and change agent) facilities. In each of these three villages all peasant decision-makers aged 50 years and below and cultivating (not necessarily owning) at least 2.5 acres of land were interviewed in the collection of data. For the Indian rural social systems under consideration status systems like ritual caste rank, education, farm income are considered as the crucially important indicators of social status.**** Occupation, *Part of a three phase project on "Diffusion of Innovations in Rural Societies" in India, Brazil and Nigeria directed by Everett Rogers at Michigan State University and sponsored by USAID. **With the obvious importance of riutal caste rank as a status var— iable, the mostly Muslim inhabited villages of West Bengal could not be used. The Maharastra sample is also omitted because of their very different caste systems compared to Andhra Pradesh. ***Those villages are similar not only in their social structures but farming orientation and cropping patterns, and perhaps reference group behaviors. ****An important status variable, acres of land owned is not included because of its high correlation with farm income (.87) and the problem of a comparable measure for tenant farmers. Another status variable like social prestige as a farmer would be useful but for the inadequacy of data (see Tables 3-1 to 3-4 for descriptive statistics about the selected status dimensions in the Methodology Chapter). Manchili (Andhra P.) Kanohumarru (Andhra P.) gPolamur-u (Andhra P.) , l7 Figure 1-1 I E 60' 12° 76' so‘ s4' 00‘ 92' 06‘ s p. . I f’fll r I I I I "'3'; ae'- "'- - ' Hard“ A NOTIONAL MAP SHOWING LOCATION or 2 J A M M U 8 THREE SAMPLE VILLAGES a mm“ » DIFFUSION or INNOVATIONS: INDIA ... Ogasgmn PHASE II STUDY , ,. ”3‘, ._,,- 33'— : V‘s-$6.?) 4“? Sh 1 ‘ c .. v4, . emfga'm’t- Not to Scale cwmmmm- m, H - ‘2 1' PUNJAB " r~~a M" ‘ . N ”i I N A J" t I a" A - ‘ Balm s '-- r- t ,t... aft—- «‘3’, 5 ‘4: \ ‘.~.W‘ ‘ ’0 20¢ 0’ $ 0“ e ( 2r 1.- U‘TJ A a . we,” 4 ""éyeHurA / a, '3 «IOWA OLQCMOW f.“ ‘5 ‘ k “vhf’é-é‘g’a " FM“ ‘ «p H g - I,.‘ a A J a s r u A u .P’ka‘me s u “"" QM sultgmo“;"§.; nun . T 'QJ- I .n \ arm“ m IMO -atr 1, a a ‘ '.Mumwm3' . '~ .35.,le w e ; “Mamimm “on” PRADESH 3‘ “In“ x ‘ 4 . " I .1- ‘q q ‘ B U R M A ‘0’ I ‘ )Maha :shtra 09'55“ : :6?— DW «,I‘ ememesgm -zo'I € '3 some» 'A ' , B A Y ARAB ' AN .; gunman O F 1 ~ . "" 2n hga h2 3 “‘M’-u¢ f SEA .J-Pra es BENGAL ‘ ‘ sum ‘. .5 5 . nvsone!.,,, I ‘ ... sax/‘1“ '1 z - » ;.' ; "if _ Ego WflLZ’f‘V..a~- . mass“ = O 2 . 0 \, . . . C'n. . (..--so -- oucwsaav .n “ATE -.. 3‘ g'.'.. ,. csuc ' 2§MADRAS CAPITAL rovm ... iii-3; , 7‘41 swam ... -.. ‘ . v o " f V museum. amass : _ a: 7‘} “ ~ Impues ... I 9" ‘ 5 ': rswmoe ' ”m" " '. A. I l N D II A N CIEYLO /o i 18 although very important in the United States, is relatively invariant in the Indian rural setting With the predominance of farm population, except for the stratification of occupations associated with the caste system. Our selection of these three status variables 18 also dictated by the available data and measures, adequate variation in the variables, relatively low intercorrelation among the Status variables (which otherwise precludes the exiscence of status inconsistency). With our use of Objective criteria in determining the presence of status inconsistency, our major assumption need be mentioned at this point. In this study the condition of expectancy congruence is assumed to be highly correlated with objective status inconsistency. With our inability to determine expectancy congruence, we can only make the assumption explicit. We are utilizing two kinds of measures of status inconsistency that are implied in the literature, viz., the degree of inconsistency (Lenski, 1954, 1956; Jackson, 1960, 1962; Goffman, 1957; Geshwender, 1962; Bauman, 1968; Heffernen, 1968; Broom and Jones, 1970), and the pattern of inconsistency (Jackson, 1962; Jackson and Burke, 1965; Hyman, 1964; Geshwender, 1967). "Pattern" of inconsistency includes a reflection of the "cross-pressures” hypothesis of Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet (1948) and has not received as much research attention as "degree" of inconsistency. Jackson pointed out the importance Of patterns of status inconsistency originally with an ascribed-achieved distinction of statuses. In this study, by degree Of inconsistency, we mean the amount of inconsistency which will vary as the distance between the ranks on statuses varies. By pattern of inconsistency, we mean all the logical combinations of high on one status and low on other statuses and vice l9 versa. These two measures of status inconsistency are relatively independent except in the case of consistents where both are zero. We shall utilize a regression model which can provide an adequate set of controls, so we can explain the independent effects of status and inconsistency terms. Chapter II PARADIGM AND THEORETIC HYPOTHESES The association of effort with reward comes from the matrix of social positions, psychological beliefs, political efficiency...The association of effort with reward, of aspiration with achievement, is a communication process. People must make this association in their own daily lives—- linking what they see with whay they hear, what they want with what they do, what they do with what they get. Communication is, in this sense, the main instrument of socialization as socialization is, in turn, the main agency of social change. The modernization process begins with-- the diffusion of new ideas and new information which stimulate people to want to behave in new ways. (Lerner, 1963, pp. 347—348) The paradigm that we propose in this chapter is intended to elaborate on our modernization postulate, which states: Modernization is the process byywhich individuals change as a function of an under- lying need created by social and psychological forces; from a relatively traditional way of life to a more complex; technologically-advanced and rapidly-changing spyle of life. The Process View The notion of process in our modernization postulate implies continuous change. Our use of the words "from a relatively traditional ... to a more complex" is not intended to imply any beginning or end states for the individual, but only to suggest the directionality of change. In fact, we believe that the modernization process is universal,* occuring everywhere in the world, though our interest in the present dissertation is limited to rural India. According to a process viewpoint of modernization, events and relationships are viewed *An extensive treatment of such theses are pursued by Ascroft (1969) with his "cumulative control c"er change in environmental phenomena," and by Roling (1970) with his model of "evolving civilization." 20 21 as dynamic, on—going, ever-changing and continuous. Ingredients in the process interact; each effects all the others. Process "implies a continuous interaction of an indefinitely large number of variables with a concommitant continuous change in the values taken by these variables" (Miller, 1966, p. 13). To study a process, one has to necessarily arrest the dynamic and reduce its multivariability to intellectually manageable units. In our paradigm in Figure 2-2, we abstract distinguishing features to form relatively unchanging categories of otherwise continually changing phenomena. We specify an arbitrary time period and a problem statement in the context of which to observe specific changes. The time period at which we arrest the dynamic is the data-collection period and the problem is stated in terms of status inconsistents in the village system. We are also aware of the conceptual arrest of the dynamic in the communi- cation and modernization process. The process-view is allied to a search for underlying forces which pattern and direct the behaviors of man in certain predictable ways. Our paradigm of modernization (Figure 2-2), which derives from our modernization postulate and the communication corollary, thus presents a general classification of our concepts and variables and their expected relationships. It should be made clear that the relationships between variables in our paradigm in no way imply causality* or forcing quality and time-order among the variables. Rather, the relationships between these sets of variables are interrelated and interdependent. *Blalock (1964) points out that the concepts of forcings and causes might be considered identical in meaning and says he shall not attempt to give formal definitions of any of these terms. However, he explains causality as: "If X is a cause of Y, we have in mind that a chagge in X pggduces a chapge in Y and not merely that a change in X is followed by or associated with a change in Y." 22 Before we present our theoretical paradigm, at least a hypothetical picture of a completely traditional village might serve as a useful depart- ing point. The Traditional Indian Village, a Model It is doubtfull that any of the 550,000 villages, that today would be called traditional, completely fit the model description that follows. Although one may anticipate a relatively high degree of match for most of the villages there is considerable variation from the model in many instances. Further, it should be borne in mind that at the present time the rate of change is accelerating. And while a village may not have an elementary school, all Of the villages, as a consequence Of democratic decentralization, now belong to a panchayat samithi (block)*. What is more, each of the panchayat presidents has traveled beyond the boundaries of his own village in order to participate in the meetings of panchayat samithi. Contact with the larger society, and in particular with the block, district, and state bureaucracy has also been intensified by the visits of a gggmnggy§k_(VLW), the village level worker. The traditional village is isolated from those elements of the society that depend upon modern transport. Typically such a village has no railroads, motor roads, or water transport linking it to towns or cities. Generally such villages are more or less self sufficient, producing largely for the needs of their own populations. Within the traditional village labor specialization is minimal. There are usually a number of artisans in each village, but their specialization will serve several surrounding villages. Folk medicine is practiced by *block is a developmental administrative unit similar to a county seat in the United States. 23 local curers and there are potters, blacksmiths, weavers, and goldsmiths to be found represented among the various craftsmen. Services and craft goods are exchanged for produce at the local level. Exotic goods such as salt or oil are to be Obtained at a weekly or monthly shandy (village market) that takes place at various towns within walking distance of the village. Social Structural Relationships Within the traditional village the strictly ascriptive criteria Of status are observed. There is moreover a high degree Of consistency in the evaluative criteria because only those that have the validity of tradition are employed. Further, these traditional status systems are usually seen as having religious sanction. Communication Environment in the Village The social system is characterized by close interpersonal relation- ships and communication, which transmit the "oral culture" (tradition) from generation to generation. The village does not receive a newspaper nor have a radio receiver set. Even if a wealthier person has a treasured radio receiver, the information he derives from its programs does not circulate. The leadership in the village is predominantly authoritarian. People do not expect it to be otherwise. Therefore the viewpoints are limited. In contrast, in a less traditional village, leadership is less authori- tarian. Leaders have to recognize the persuasive function and at times co-opt informal leaders. Leaders always are receptive to public Opinion. In a traditional village there is no motivation for any new infor- mation because everybody has a high certainity of tomorrow. Degree of uncertainity in decision-making is negligible. Such villages very rarely, 24 if ever, have visitors from outside. Even in the present day panchayati £§j_set up, the block development Officials might not have visited these villags at all. Information that cirulates at the kacheris'* has its origin in the village itself. Any information flow from outside of the system generally comes through one or two leaders only. For a relative comparison, the information flows in a traditional and modern village could be diagra- matically represented as follows: External environment Traditional MOdern Village Village O Leaders 0 Non-leaders D Liaison Figure 2-1: A Comparative Paradigm of Information Flow in a Traditional and a Modern Indian Village *Kacheris' are places of assembly at three or four informally designated spots in the village. 25 The Paradigm In our modernization paradigm,* we classified our variables into four sets and labelled them as external communication variables** status inconsistency, interpersonal communication*** and modernization**** variables. External Communication as the Prime Mover in Modernization MOdernization literature generally supported the notion that external communication is the prime mover in modernization.***** "Mass media exposure provides the necessary climate for modernization" (McNelly, 1966). "It was the pressure of communication which brought about the down—fall of traditional societies” (Pye, 1963, p. 3). "Communication, coming from outside, triggers change in a hitherto self- sufficient, closed economy" (Rao, 1966, p. 111). According to Schramm (1964) an increased flow Of information plants the seeds of change and provides a climate for national development. *Our paradigm is relevant to individuals in rural social systems of the less developed world, but general enough to be extended to people in other social systems as well. **The broad category of external communication variables as used in this dissertation always specifically refers to mass media variables like radio exposure, newspaper exposure, movie exposure, urban contact, and change agent contact; where the message source is external to the village system. ***Interpersona1 communication refers to two variables called friendship communication and information—seeking communication. ****MOdernization refers to the more general process, different from modernity. Modernity is the state of individual on certain dimensions at any one point of time. In this study we have used empathy, political knowledgiability, secular orientation, agricultural adoption and health adoption variables as indicators of modernity. *****Some students Of modernization argue that literacy is the basic element of the modernization sequence. For instance Lerner (1963, p. 34) states that "Literacy, once acquired, becomes a prime mover in the modernization of every aspect of life." 26 coaumuflouomoz mom .muomumfimdoooH.moumOm .oowumuwCOEEoo wo 3OH> mmmooum “min muowwm Emfiumasoom mnemQEm 8382 fi Ema sowuaov< amusuHoOHHw< euHHHn ImmmeHSOoM HmOHuHHom oOfiumows 128500 HmoomumaumuoH wsfixomminoaumEpomsH mom oesmmcmfium oH Maesaoumumm unsca>m£mm com mucoufiuu< chemo: msoocH Show soaumoswm uomuooo swoon uomuooo uoow< owomnu woaow OH>oz wofiwmou soomomsoz meadoumfia oammm mummo Hmouam mo macamsmaaw one so honoumwmooooH moumum "coaumoaosaaoo :Hmsumoxm.n 27 Doob (1961), writing about Africa, Holmberg about the Andes area of Peru, and Rogers with Svenning (1969) about modernization in Colombia, concur about the importance of external communication sources in the modernization process. The interrelatedness of the external communication variables, and their obvious importance in the individual modernization process, is well demonstrated in Ascroft's (1969, p. 328) factor analytic synthesis of eight studies from different countries. A strong external communi— cation factor, composed Of such variables as mass media exposure, cosmopoliteness, etc., emerged. The question is what does external communication, whether it is accidental or purposively directed by change agencies, do to the individuals in traditional social systems to generate the process Of modernization and the desire for social change? Rao (1966) outlined a propositional inventory about the role of external communication in the economic, social, and political spheres of a developing community. He says: Communication aids in the process of status change from heredity to achievement, helps shift influence from age and traditional status to knowledge and ability, and makes social and cultural change a perpetuating process. These communication processes create a stir and ambiguity in a hitherto rigid status system, role prescriptions, and the expectancies in behavior of individuals. Although these developments usually open new perspectives of advancement and change of status, status necessarily becomes also a focus of insecurity, awareness, and political conflict (Parsons, 1966). 28 External Communication and Status Inconsistency_as Interacting Phenomena Communication from external sources such as change agents, mass media sources, and urban centers creates an awareness of the possibility of change and some of the possible rewards of such changes among the people of open* village systems. Communication from external sources is similar to Ascroft's (1969) ”other-communicated" or "communicative change-control" phenomena, which is the purposive communication of new or more effective methods of change-control by the broad category of change agents. Messages from external communication sources may be technological, political, economic, or social, but most are concerned with new ways of societal functioning and individual welfare. External communication thus creates "stress" in the individuals who accepted in- equality for centuries and now suddenly want to reject it because of a newly-created belief in distributive justice.** Two points of view about the relationship between external commun- ication and status inconsistency are: (1) information inputs into the village system through external channels of communication act as a potential source to generate or reinforce the perceived state of status inconsistency among some individuals, and (2) the state of status incon- sistency itself is dissonance-creating, which predisposes individuals to seek external communication. As external communication brings in *Open systems "...exchange materials or information with environ- ments" (Hall and Fagen, 1956, p. 23). We consider village systems as Open when they have developed channels to receive, process, distribute and act upon the external communication. **Distributive justice is the feeling that rewards should be proportional to investments (Homans, 1961). Homans suggests that certain status dimensions could be viewed as investments into a social situation while Others could be viewed as rewards recieved from that situation. 29 new ideas from outside of the village, explains and discusses the new ideas within the context of the local situation, structurally inconsistent positions highly predispose such individuals to purposively seek these message inputs. Thus, the relationship between communication from, and exposure to; external sources and the individual's state of status inconsistengy are interdependent and cumulative. Based on the discussion so far, we suggest our first theoretical hypothesis. Theoretical Hypothesis 1: Status inconsistency is positively associated with exposure to external sources of communication. We can also postulate differential relationships between the different sources of external communication and status inconsistency. Mass media communication in general have greater potential to inform about the events in the outside world because of their multiplicative power**, followed by change agent communication and urban contact. Because of their differential potential, status inconsistents in their dissonant state seek information from different external communication sources in the order of their potential importance for awareness-knowledge. Thus, the postulate: There is a decreasing order of positive relationship between status inconsistency and mass media sourcesl_status inconsistency_ and change agent contact! and status inconsistency and urban contact. * In one sense status inconsistency can be considered a universal phenomenon, existing in some magnitude even among those who are considered as status consistent. For example, a local status consistent individual with high caste, education, and income scores might perceive himself to be an inconsistent when comparing himself, say to a foreign- returned person earning high income outside his social system. **Multiplicative pgwer is the extensive geographical and population coverage Of a communication channel with speed and timeliness (Rao, 1972). 30 Status Inconsistency and Interpersonal Communication As the cumulative interaction between status inconsistency and exposure to external communication continues, at the same time different patterns of interpersonal communication networks arise or become functional when already existent. Two kinds Of interpersonal communication interactions are of interest to us, based on their purpose or function. One, serves the function of friendship communication and the other serves the function of information-seeking. Friendship communication refers to communication with persons chosen primarily for intimate and informal friendly associations. Information-seeking communication refers to choices of persons chosen specifically for the purpose of seeking information or advice in innovative decisions. Conceptually, these two types of communication networks based on the purpose of friendship and information-seeking interpersonal commun- ication relationships, are considered exclusive. The concept of homophily/ heterOphily* will be studied within the realm of these two types of interpersonal communication relationships specifically with regard to the status attributes of members in dyadic** relationships. Direct evidence on the friendship and information-seeking communi- cation interactions Of status inconsistents, on the relational dimensions *Homophily is the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are similar in certain attributes. Heterophily is the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are dissimilar on certain attributes. The attributes considered in this dissertation are the status scores of respondents on ritual caste, education and farm income dimensions. **and is used here to refer to at least an asymmetric oneeway relation between two individuals in an interpersonal communication situation, (e.g., A-SB and not necessarily AesB). 31 of status attributes is non—existent in the literature. However, some related research findings on the social participation and social inter- action behavior Of status inconsistents is disucssed in the following paragraphs. Lenski (1954, 1956), Demerath (1965) and Heffernan (1968) found that status inconsistents selectively withdraw from social groups and formal organizations which stress the conventional status system, in terms Of their voluntary ties. This may be characteristic particularly of status inconsistents with low ascribed status dimensions. Although certain types of status inconsistents may selectively with- draw in terms of membership and participation in conventional organizations, status inconsistents in general do have a great need to communicate with others. According to Barnlund's (1968, p. 63) survey of interpersonal communication leterature, "settings which provoke ambiguous, inconsistent or threatening perceptions of self, Object or other are likely to intensify the need to engage in interpersonal communication." Status inconsistents are in such a state of ambiguity. Status inconsistency, which is like "internal heterophily" or dissimilarity of the different status attributes of an individual, is dissonance creating or psychologically discom- forting. Thus, status inconsistents have a greater need to communicate with Others. In fact, Bauman (1968) found that status inconsistents do have "satisfactory social interaction" experiences with others in the social system. He measured "satisfactory social interaction" with such items as "how often, if ever, do you have trouble in talking to other people you meet?" Landecker (1960) noted that "the inconsistent person's closest ties will probably be with people who are from that area of class system 32 where crystallization is the weakest." Landecker's observation suggests that status inconsistents may seek other status inconsistents for social communication or friendship ties. When we include information-seeking communication in the range of interpersonal communication behavior of an individual, Landecker's observation seems to be restrictive because status inconsistents with their great need to communicate may seek a variety of communication sources, which includes status consistents too. Status inconsistents by definition have dissimilar scores on the status dimensions being studied. So, even when status inconsistents interact with other status inconsistents as Landecker suggests or when they interact with a wide variety of others in the social system as we argue, there is a greater chance for dissimilarity on the levels of the dyads' status dimensions. Thus, status inconsistents tend to interact with a greater degree of heterophily both in the friendship and infor- mation-seeking interpersonal communication. Status Inconsistency and Newcomb's Model of Interpersonal Relations The manner in which status inconsistent individuals in a social system enter into distinctive interpersonal communication behavior in the process of innovation decisions can be understood from Newcomb's A - B - X or coorientation model of interpersonal behavior (Newcomb, 1953; 1968). Newcomb's theory is considered to be more a theory of interpersonal relations and attractions than a consistency theory. Newcomb's model, unlike that of Heider and other consistency theorists suggests that people-people relations are stronger than people-object relationships. In general, innovation messages emanating from the mass media or change agents first reach a few persons, some of whom are status 33 inconsistents. It is from them that the other social system members acquire information. In addition, the very act of adoption of innovations by innovators, the majority of whom are status inconsistents, produces information, alternatives, and evaluative results for the benefit of other members (some more status inconsistents) in the social system. Indeed, these adoption acts might activate channels of interpersonal communication in a social system where status inconsistents are change- prone. These social systems are characterized by relatively change- inducing norms, and the information exchange in the interpersonal networks tend to be structured. The communication relationship between a status inconsistent individ- ual A, and another farmer B (another status inconsistent who is an opinion leader on innovation X), about innovation X, can be explained in terms of what Newcomb calls the individual system and collective system stability. Basic to Newcomb's theory is the notion that individual A will tend to maintain minimal discrepancy between his own attitudes toward the innovations and those of B's attitudes depending upon A's attraction toward the opinion leader B, and the valence or importance that is jointly attributed to innovation X by the two individuals. Newcomb posits the role of interpersonal communication in maintain- ing minimal discrepancy between interacting individuals oriented toward common objects in their environment. In other words, interpersonal comr munication invloving information seeking about innovations is one of the basic mechanisms through which individuals like Al-An will maintain minimal discrepancy between their attitude toward innovations, and those of opinion leaders Bl'Bn- If innovations are evaluated positively by opinion leaders Bl-Bn, it is expected that channels of interpersonal 34 communication will generate innovative processes in a given social system. Social System M333 Medi 1 Innovation InnJvation / _ \ I x ‘/8/ \7'2'§A3 31’ Bn A1" m ’BF‘\A\ ’/,/’V}" Interpersonal Change Agents linkages A5; A6 Figure 2-3: A Paradigm of Communication Structure in Innovation Diffusion Among Status Inconsistents Among status inconsistents, information—seeking interactions serve to diffuse information about the means by which individual improvement and economic better- ment can be attained. In these information—seeking interactions, the "informed" (modernized elite) become the key linking nodes in the network. These people are considered knowledgeable and sought for information because they receive external information. They have become influential as they are willing to pass the info- rmation about the outside world to others. The "informed" elite category includes few of the traditional high status leaders who are attempting to retain their status in the social milieu by adapt- ing to changes, and a new group of elite evolving from among the status incon- sistents who begin to function as crucial links with the mass of inconsistents. Status inconsistents thus frequently become the influential intermediaries in their role as receiver-passers of external information. They are recognized as knowledgeable, informed by the majority. Status inconsistents who have become this "new elite" generally have some high status ranks, mainly on achieved dimensions like education (e.g. Pl inconsistents in this dissertation). In the democratic set-up, the "new elite" status inconsistents become the active 35 aspirants of political power, by developing and maintaining linkages with the leadership nodes beyond the village system. Status inconsistents with their high and low status positions on different dimensions share the values of different subgroups in a village system and thus are often able to function as the linking roles between subgroups. We postulate that: Status inconsistents occupy a greater proportion of liaison* roles in a village system, although this postulate is not tested in the present study. A theoretical hypothesis from the preceding discussion is Theoretic Hypothesis II: Status inconsistency is positively_re1ated to heterophily in friendship and information-seeking interpersoanl interactions. Status Inconsistency and Dissonance-Reduction Phenomena Given the cululative interaction between exposure to external sources of communication and the state of status inconsistency, and that the information about the environment diffuses through friendship and information-seeking interpersonal interactions, status inconsistents in a social system have three alternatives for reducing dissonance.** The alternatives are: Attempting to change one of the elements; adding or deleting elements; withdrawl from the dissonant situation. In the follow- ing paragraphs an attempt is made to explain the consequences of status inconsistency within the framework of the first alternative of dissonance resolution. *A liaison person is an individual who interconnects two or more subgroups in a communication structure (Jacobson and Seashore, 1951). *#§ggnitive dissonance is the lack of a relevant relationship between pairs of cognitive elements. In Festinger's words "These elements refer to what has been called cognitions, that is what a person knpws about him- self, about his behavior, and about his surroundings"... "Two elements are dissonant if, for one reason or another they do not fit together. They may be inconsistent or contradictory, culture or group standards may dictate they do not fit" (Festinger, 1957, pp. 9-12). 36 The consequences of status inconsistency may be interpreted as one of the alternative means of reducing dissonance. Historical analysis of some social movements and revolutionary tendencies around the world (Edwards, 1927; Lasswell and Lerner, 1966), empirical research results supporting the relationship between status inconsistency and political liberalism or democratic voting (Lenski, 1954, 1956, 1957; Lazarsfeld and others, 1948; Segal, 1969; Broom and Jones 1970), left and right wing extremism and attitudes (Ringer and Sills, 1953; Rush, 1967), desire for change in the distribution of power (Goffman, 1957), all have a somewhat common arguement in explaining the consequences of status inconsistency. Our arguement is that disequilibrium or incongruence or inconsis— tency in status positions along economic, prestige, power, etc. dimensions of individuals within a social system or collectivity is a discomforting state of affairs for the individuals and for the social systems. It results in the individual's mobility efforts where possible, which is implicit in Benoit-Smullyan's status equilibration* hypothesis that is tested and confirmed (Fenchel and others, 1951), or as a precursor to political liberalism and societal revolutions through collective behavior action which are pointed out in the earlier paragraph. By these actions inconsistent individuals hope to achieve a change in the balancing of status positions. Geshwender (1967) explained some of these consequences and the leadership in other historical social movements with the help of Homan's theory of distributive justice and Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory. *Status eqpilibration is explained as the tendency of individuals holding discrepant statuses, to follow a course of action designed to bring their statuses into line with one another. 37 He observed that the over-rewarded* pattern of inconsistents, e.g., those with low ethnicity—high occupational status supported a more moderate reformist leftist position, while under-rewarded inconsistents (e.g., those with high occupation-low income) supported the rightist movements. Geshwender (1967) explains that the inconsistency among the simul- taneously—held cognitions of an individual (e.g., inconsistency due to an investment dimension like education level higher than a reward dimension like income level) results in the experiencing of a state of felt injustice. Experiencing a state of felt injustice is equated to experiencing cognitive dissonance. He then states that the empirical consequences of felt injustice (which raises a feeling of guilt or anger) may be seen as behavioral attempts to reduce dissonance. In their attempts to resolve dissonance, the over-rewarded category, feeling guilt only, express a desire for change in the power structure while the under-rewarded category, experiencing a sharper form of dissonance, resulting in stronger anger, react against the social order. Jackson (1962), Jackson and Burke (1965), reported psychosomatic symptoms of stress, Lenski (1956) found withdrawl into social isolation. Gibbs and Martin (1958) reported suicide as a consequence of status inconsistency. These extreme forms of behavior are considered due to the failure in individuals' attempts to reduce dissonance through either mobility or political reactions, thus, having to live or die with dissonance. The consequences of status inconsistency could thus be explained as attempts to reduce dissonance in terms of Festinger's three clasic alter- native mechanisms for resolution. Attempts to cope with inconsistency *Geshwender (1967) describes three sets of cognitions that an individual holds (1) reality-based cognitions, (2) definitional cognitions, and (3) normative cognitions. 38 represent behavioral attempts to reduce dissonance by the status incon- sistent individuals. Individual attempts to change one's own status through individual mobility as corroborated by the findings of "individual improvement" are the coping responses. Other responses to inconsistency may be non-coping responses, indicating an inability to reduce dissonance. Such responses as attempts to alter society through revolution, psychological illness, and suicide are the non—coping kind of responses by status inconsistent individuals. We did not attempt to pursue these non-coping attempts of status inconsistents in this disser- tation. Modernity as a Consequence of Status Inconsistengy In the discussion following our modernization paradigm, the cumulative interaction between external communication variables and status incon- sistency, and the nature of interpersonal communication were discussed. In the friendship and information-seeking interactions, messages of various kinds that come from outside begin to disseminate among the status inconsistents. Messages about government, economic opportunities, political processes, mobility possibilities (such as knowldege about the untouchable Harijans becoming members of the legislature) reach the status inconsistents either by direct contact with external communication sources or through the interpersonal networks. In their dissonance-reduction attempts, scatus inconsistents adapt simple forms of coping responses. These individuals think in terms of the possibilities of change, find out about the avenues for change, and act in ways that will turn change to their advantage, like improving their low status positions. Attitudes and behaviors associated with these 39 attempts of individual improvement among the status inconsistents are symptomatic of their state of modernity. Thus, Theoretical Hypothesis III is: Status inconsistengy is ppsitively associated with attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity. Students of modernization generally agree that modernization at the individual level is multidimensional (Rogers with Svenning, 1969, p. 15; Ascroft, 1969, p. 323; Sen, 1968). Synthesizing factor analytic studies from several countries, Ascroft concludes "micro—level factor analysis of individual modernization ... shows that modernization is multidimensional." As the individual becomes modernized, he becomes externally-oriented. More external messages might stir another pattern of inconsistency. The state of status inconsistency of an individual might still remain due to other inconsistent dimensions, even after an improvement in some status dimensions. So the process continues, as suggested in the paradigm (Figure 2-2). At the social system level, we postulate that: More modern social systems have a higher proportion of status inconsistent individuals than the less modern social systems. Lenski (1954) postulated that "the more frequent are the low status crystallization individuals in a population, the greater proportion of people whould support programs of social change." Millikan and Backner (1961) observed that social systems with articulate groups of men who are unhappy about their position, are better prepared to become modern. Ascroft (1969, p. 340-341) discusses two different modes of dissonance reduction for individuals in the traditional and modern social system. He contends that in modern villages opinion leaders are 40 facilatators of change and thus promote alteration in existing styles of life to reduce dissonance. In traditional villages where opinion leaders are oposed to change, dissonance reduction may occur through physical or psychological departure of inconsistent individuals from the environ— ment . Concurring with Ascroft's discussion we argue that in the modern settings, which are relatively open to external communication inputs, individuals begin to percieve their status inconsistency. Some of them become the influential intermediaries or opinion leaders who adopt and advocate new styles of life, which reduces dissonance among status inconsistents. Whereas in traditional settings, which are generally isolated from the main stream of external communication inputs, individuals largely agree with the ascriptive criteria of status. Opinion leaders in these settings are the traditional high status leaders who insist on and perpetuate the ascriptive status systems. In traditional settings, those few people with any perceived status inconsistency have no option other than physical or psychological departure from the envir- onmen t . Summary To sum ug,in our modernization process postulate, we emphasized the intervening processual events in terms of the social psychological forces acting upon individuals in a village system, with particular attention to the status inconsistent individuals. Communication from external sources about the outside world flows into the village system either accidentally, or is purposively directed. These messages carry information about the opportunities for individual improvement and participation in the economic, social and political 41 spheres of the larger system. Messages about the external environ- ment might stir and create a state of status inconsistency among the individuals in village systems. Alternatively Status inconsistent individuals in their attempts to cope with dissonance, seek external communication for individual improvement. Thus external communication and status inconsistency interact in a cumulative manner. These messages diffuse in the interpersonal friendship and informa- tion—seeking networks of the village system through the "informed" nodes. The role of the status inconsistents in diffusing information about innovations and "development" messages is particularly crucial and comforting to other status inconsistents in the system. Status inconsistent individuals in their efforts to reduce dissonance, adopt to coping kind of responses. With the present awareness of mibility opportunities to improve upon their low statuses, status inconsistents make behavioral attempts to innovate and participate in wide range of activities. Thus, status inconsistents become modern in their behaviors and attitudes, becoming innovative, politically knowledgeable, empathic and secular. Further exposure to external communication sources begins and the process continues. The individual modernization process continues in a cyclical manner. To quote from Rao (1966, p. 111): Information of certain kinds, once released, awakens appetites for new things or for new ways of doing things ... Economic betterment and new knowledge gives an impetus to the acquisition of more knowledge and the communication process itself is aided in its development, through more buyers of the media, more travel and the greater diffusion of interpersonal commun- ication, as well as greater urbanization and education. Chapter III METHODOLOGY Contemporary scientists tend to be less concerned with causes than with consequences, investigate wholes which are "more than" (cannot be expressed adequately as) the sum of their parts, and accord equal status, as valid knowledge, to qual- itative classifications ... and to quantitative measurements. (Lerner, 1961, p. 33) In the present Methodology Chapter we focus our attention to devise a refined method of measurement of status inconsistency. We shall also discuss the operationalization of the other communication and modernization variables depicted in our paradigm (Figure 2-2). Data accumulated about the correlates of status inconsistency are less impressive than it seems at first glance because each of the methods of analysis has at least one fatal flaw that prevents the researcher from unequivocally specifying the effects of inconsistency with a meaningful set of controls. Before we propose a method of measurement, let us review some past approaches in the measurement of status inconsistency. Past Approaches in the Measurement of Status Inconsistency The first empirical work on status inconsistency was by Lenski (1954), who selected four vertical status hierarchies (racial-ethnicity, occupation, education and income), and assigned precentile scores on each variable to individual respondents. His "status crystallization" score for an individual was a standard deviation from the mean of the four hierarchical percentile scores and substracted from 100: 42 43 (100 -J 2 (x1 —.'.\7)?-) He then classified people into high and low degree of status crystallization groups, using a "natural-breaking" point.* He discarded some extreme cases in the two ends to approximately equalize mean percentile values for the four status hierarchies so as to guard against "spurious effects." Several status inconsistency researchers (Kenkel, 1956; Goffman, 1956; Geshwender, 1962; Kelly and Chambliss, 1966; Rush, 1967; Bauman, 1968; Fauman, 1968 and Segal, 1969) essentially used Lenski's method to calculate the individual degree of status inconsistency scores. These researchers, except Geshwender (1962) and Bauman (1968), like Lenski, also chose to lose the precision in the continuous variable measure of degree of inconsistency by categorizing people into high and low status crystallization groups. Geshwender (1962) and Bauman (1968) analyzed the effects of status inconsistency on the dependent variables, trichotomizing the degree of crystallization scores into consistent, moderately incon- sistent and sharp inconsistent groups. The trichotomization method originally used by Jackson (1960) allows for at least a rough control of the effects of status pgpugg. Jackson's method, which is different from Lenski's (1954) method, is based on the trichotomization of status dimensions and the assignment of scores of l, 2, 3, on each dimension depending upon the relative *In the distribution of individual status crystallization scores Lenski found a wide gap between a crystallization score of 53 and the next lowest. So, he classified all those individuals with a status crystallization score of 53 and above as the high degree of status crystallization group. 44 rank of the individual. Jackson's measure is less precise than Lenski's degree measure. But it permits (1) calculation of dependent variable effects for each combination or pattern of ranks, and (2) allows for at least a rough control on status pg; s3, as pointed out earlier. Effects of specific patterns of status inconsistency on the dependent variables was studied using only a pair of status dimensions at a time (Jackson, 1960; Geshwender, 1962; Sen, 1962; Bauman, 1968; Segal, 1969; Broom and Jones, 1970). Jackson (1962) made a distinction between achieved (education and occupation) versus ascribed (race-ethnicity) patterns of inconsistency in the status dimensions of an individual. Geshwender (1962) and Broom and Jones (1970) made a pattern distinction in inconsistency between investment (ethnicity and education) and reward (occupation and income). Sokol (1961) and Bauman (1968) analyzed political behavior variables attempting to control the effects of status inconsistency for over-all socio-economic status. Heffernan (1968), following Jackson (1962) and Demerath (1965), constructed.two kinds of status inconsistency indices for an individual as a standard deviation measure. His Demarath type index is based on the categorization of each status dimension into five parts with values from 1 to 5, whereas his Jackson index is based on values 1 to 3 in each status dimension. Hefferman in his study used both the degree measure apd_the patterns of inconsistency on each pair of status dimensions. Mitchell (1964) criticized status inconsistency measures because they did not discriminate between the effects of separate statuses and inconsistency on the dependent variables. In fact the purpose of conceptualizing status inconsistency according to Lenski (1954), was 45 to increase the predicting power over the use of simple indices of social class or simple status measures. In spite of this, neither Lenski nor any other researcher attempted to test the predictive utility of status inconsistency until 1964. Lenski (1964) in his rejoinder to Mitchell proposed that status inconsistency effects can be thought of as statistical interaction. Mathematically in a 2 X 2 table (iiIQEél) — (ilZTERZ) # 0, indicates interaction effects. Exline and Ziller (1959) in a small group experiment manipulated task ability and voting power dimensions into high-low categories to create status incongruence; they estimated the inconsistency effect from 2 X 2 analysis of variance contrast* for interaction effects. Jackson and Burke (1965) used "dummy" variables** for the main additive effects and certain cross-product terms as interaction terms for estimating the inconsistency effect without adequate justification for the interaction terms. Broom and Jones (1970) also used dummy variable terms for the dependent variable, statuses and certain types of status inconsistency in a multiple regression analysis. Small-group studies of status congruence with laboratory experi- mentation by Exline and Ziller (1959), Sampson (1963), Brandon (1965), and Burnstein and Zajonc (1965) prove the point that status inconsis— tency could be created by manipulating rank positions on varied status dimensions in terms of a conflict of expectations. These small-group researchers compared the groups of incongruents (experimental conditions) *A contrast is an analysis of variance test which determines whether or not the items (two sets of cell values) being contrasted are sign— ificantly different from each other. **A'gummy_variable set is constructed from a categorized variable by assigning values of l for presence of an observation in a category and 0 for absence. 46 with status congruents on the dependent variables for differences. A more effective method of measurement of status inconsistency is the direct investigation of assumptions of ambiguity, conflicting expectations, or violation of norms concerning appropriate combinations of rank and perceptions of associations between rank variables from respondent's reports of their feelings. In answering questions like, "Is there consensus in the population that certain positions go together?" "Is there an association between rank variables which is regarded as morally right or acceptable?" we could define a measure of status consistency in terms of respondent perceptions. Thus, perceived status inconsistency is important, but it has not received enough attention by researchers. Kasl and Cobb (1967, 1968) used perceived social class as one of the status dimensions in their measure of status discrepancy. Kelly and Chambliss (1966) attempted measures of status inconsistency both by objective criteria and in terms of respondent perception. Theoretical and methodological discussions in status inconsistency research beginning with Lenski (1954) were concerned with the extra amount of variation in some dependent variable explained by status incon- sistency, in addition to the additive effects of statuses. But none of their methods lave tackled this problem of predictive gains. So we need a method of analysis where tests for inconsistency could be made under conditions that control for main, additive effects of statuses. Before we proceed with the discussion of our degree and pattern measures of status inconsistency, and measurement model, the assign- ment of status scores in our study is discussed. 47 Assignment of Status Scores As already mentioned in Chapter I we selected ritual caste rank, level of education, and farm income as the three status hierarchies that are important dimensions of status for our sample. We divided each of these status systems into three ranks of high, medium and low, with assigned values, 3, 2, and 1, respectively. The main reasons for restricting the values to a range of 1 to 3, and the categorization of these status variables are: 1. To arrive at a set of uniform categories for all the three variables instead of the present diverse range of raw scores. 2. No more than three equally-appearing interval categories were justifiable both for ritual caste rank and education. 3. A third reason for categorization is our measurement model which could accomodate only three values for the independent variable. This point will be elaborated in a later section of this chapter. 4. A fourth reason is because of our decision to include pattern of inconsistency variables to make specific predictions and test related hypotheses. With more than three categories for each status variable, we have to go for more than the present six patterns, which becomes too complex. Tables 3-1 to 3-4 present the frequency distributions, intercorre- lations, means and standard deviations of the respondents' status scores in our three village samples before and after categorization. 48 OHN mm mm mm Hmuos Amummu meawoaumv m m o o H uaHnsoo no «mass: .m Amanda meavonumv MH HH N o H smfiHuwm no mHmz .N AonHHu ovaaoav N N o o H mmePHmw . H aNN.mmV «Nun Aaaaumammav Ammummo H H o o N Hamxmm .o moH>Hmmv Aumnuwav AHV 304 H H o o N HHmwnaz .m Andaman BHmmV as an N MH N «HHHmnHuuom .m Aausxaaae m o H N N wHHou .N Auouuoav N H o H N Humsasm .m ANN.va mmus Ammummu N o o N m mmeHumm .m HausuHsuauw m muamwsomwmm mo % musmwaomnom mo N muamvcomwmm mo a (TwaHxsmm mummu mo mamz msumum was Bonn musmwsommom AsH:EMHomV Assumabnoqmmv aHHHnosmzv msuwum HmsuHM GOHumNHHowmumo mo * Hmuoa m mwMHHH> N mmeHH> H omeHH> mmeHH>IumuaH .musmpsonmom mo GOHumNHHowmumo was sOHuanHumHn mucosvmhm .AOHNuzv mommHHH> oHdawm was aH museum msumum momma HosuHm Him mHnt oHN as mm ma qH as H .o an spans: mm mH a HH magnum HHH> on s .m an aN HH 0H magnum ax on NH .s AmsoHaaa Hooaum amass xNN.mmV mNua mH m N m oauums no osmm .m Ame seam m H o N mmeHoo «sow .N m N o H mmuwme mmmHHoo .N aOHumNHHmwmumo mucovsommmm mo muamwcommmm mo § .wuamwaomnmm mo § muamwcommum mo * Hm>mH aOHuwuswm * kuoa Ashsstomv Asnhmszsuawxv AHHHsuamzv m mmeHH> N ommHHas H mmeHa> .AOHanV momeHH> ngswm o£u nH monoum soHuaoswm .muaocaommmm mo soHumNHHowoumo was 30HuanHumHn mucosvoum “Nun oHnoH 50 NHN No NN NN H N onHHH> H 0NNHHH> .AOHNIZV momeHH> mHmBMm mnu ad museum maoosH sham .musmwaommmm mo aOHumNHHowmumo pcm GOHu53HHumHn koamsvmhm "mum mHan 51 .vmvsHuxm mH wmsso monu< .moHamHHm> maumum mo coHumNHuowmumo Hmumm moHumHumum wnu mum mHmmsusmHmd aH mmustm « N¢q.mH OHH.m o.H cos. New. qu. vosso mouo< «N Sow. v 8.528 ANiHm. v 3mm. coo.H No¢.N o.H Hom. NHm. mummo HmsuHm ma Ammo. v AHNm. v «ANNN. wom.moNNH mom.wmnm o.H NNQ. maoosH swam NN 8:. v 83.3 maH.H Nom.H o.H soHumoswm Hfi coHumH>on smoz «N m* N% HN oHanum> msumum psmvsmum mnoHumHmusoouousH .AOHanv aoHumNHuowoumo Hmum< was muommm maoHumH>on wsmwsmum can mass: .mmHanHm> maumum on» NO GOHHMHoHHoonusH "elm mHan 52 A Measure of the Degree of Status Inconsistency In Chapter I and in our review of past measurement of status inconsistency in the present chapter, it was pointed out that the degree of inconsistency has been the widely-used measure of status inconsistency in the literature. We define the degpee of status inconsistency as the distance between status scores of an individual on different status dimensions. Thus degree of inconsistency varies with the distance between the status scores of an individual. We can try to visualize what the degree of status inconsistency means if we define a three dimensional space in which status scores define a point in the space. Because we defined consistency as equal rank on each status, a certain sub—set of points whose coordinates are equal, i.e., combinations of 1,1,1; 2,2,2; and 3,3,3; in our case would form a straight line. We call this the line of consistency (C) (Figure 3-1). We now define the degree of inconsistency as the "distance" between line C of consistent points and any point (x1, x2, x3) which does not fall on the line. The perpendicular distance between any point of status combinations and line C could be calculated with the generalized distance* formula of solid geometry. Thus, degree of inconsistency is a deviation measure from consistency with three possible values for inconsistency, given that we have three status dimensions each of which has three possible scores of 1, 2, and 3. The values for degree of inconsistency are similar to a standard deviation measure in magnitude.** *This notion of distance and the dimensional space is similar to Osgood's (1957, p. 91) semantic space, D= i: d2 **See Table 3-6 for values of degree of status inconsistency and other descriptive stastics about the inconsistency variables. 53 Status 3 Status 1 Figrue 3-l: Diagramatic Representation of the Degree of Status Inconsistency Measure in Three Dimensional Space Legend C a Line of consistency which contains all points with equal co-ordinates i.e., x1 - x2 = X3 x1x2x3 a point defined by status scores when they are unequal D - shortest distance of x1, x2, x3 from line C 54 This measure of degree of status inconsistency is similar to Jackson's (1962) categories of status consistency, moderate inconsis- tency (one step deviates) and sharp inconsistency (no like ranks, two- step deviates). The measure of degree of status inconsistency differ— entiates between the two forms of sharp inconsistency and has quanti- tative values for the three kinds of status inconsistency. Patterns of Status Inconsistency The importance of patterns of status inconsistency in explaining some of the effects of status inconsistency was mentioned in Chapter I. The diverse effects of specific patterns of status inconsistency were discussed in Chapter II in terms of Jackson's (1962) achieved-ascribed status distinctions, Geshwender's (1967) over-rewarded and under- rewarded, and Broom and Jones (1970) ascribed- achieved investment- reward types of status inconsistents, to explain the consequences of status inconsistency. Although Lenski (1954, 1956) originally did not take into account this distinction between patterns, he argued in a later study about its importance. He suggested that the inconsistency between an achieved status (e.g., occupational) and one with more ascribed characteristic (e.g., religious affiliation) produces the greatest effect on dependent variables (Lenski, 1967). In spite of its importance, in all prior research except that of Jackson (1962) and Jackson and Burke (1965), the measure of pattern of inconsistency was based on a comparison of two status hierarchies at a time. The inherent weakness in this attention to only two status hierarchies at a time, is the lack of control on other independent status 55 variables that might influence the dependent variables, and may be related to the pair of status variables. In the status inconsistency research, the status variables are expected theoretically, and shown empirically, to be of the sort of independent variables with additive effects. Then one should control for the additive effects to examine the independent effects of status inconsistency in general, and patterns of inconsistency in particular, on dependent variables like innovativeness. So a better procedure than comparison of status pairs is to conStruct a set of patterns of inconsistency, that will handle all of the statuses being used simultaneously. One working assumption about the pattern effects is that the hypotheses related to patterns of inconsistency tend to be categorical. Among the three status hierarchies that are used in this study, ritual caste is an ascribed status dimension, and education and gross farm income are achieved status dimensions. Following Jackson's theoretical lead in distinguishing patterns of status inconsistency (viz., achieved statuses higher than ascribed statuses, and vice versa) we could formulate six logical patterns of status inconsistency, given three status systems. The six patterns of status inconsistency that we define are"* P1 = Education higher than ritual caste and farm income. P2 = Education lgggg than ritual caste and farm income. P3 = Farm Income higher than ritual caste and education. *See Table 3-5 for a conventional 3 X 3 X 3 contingency table of different patterns of status consistency/inconsistency. 56 HHN 3oHuH .NNN asHNmziz .NNN HNHHuH "mum mmaHNH Nam NuNoo Naomum H H H 2 H H H H H H H_z z_H 2 H H 2. H H H _H H H H H H maooaH sham uaouNHmaou NH NH HH NH NH HH HH NH soH H H H z 2 H H 2 H H z z z z a H z 2 H 2 H z a H H 2.x oaousH swam NH NH NH NH samuNHNaoo NH NH HH NH asHvoz H H H 2 H H H H H H H a 2 H H H H 2 H H H 21H H H H H msooaH Show mH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH uamuNHmaoo HNHH mummo mummu mummu mummo mummo mummo mummo mummo mummo HOH asHNmz_ HNHH HOH auHNmz NNHH scH asHumz NNHH AuaoosH summv Noummo Hmsume.wmrumum GOHumUSpm 30H sOHumoswm EbHvoz GOHumoswm anm N msumum AsmHuwoswmv H.wsAWum F 7 7", I, 7'} .hoaoumHmaousH\hoamumHmsoo msuwum mo mshmuumm mm wmwoo moHawHHm> msumum mo mGOHumnHAEoo "mum oHan 57 NH NN NH N HoamumHNaoo mm: xx: HHH mzumum 0mm. Nmm. mNH NH mN mNH NonnumHmaooaH msumum no common How Hmuoa NNN. NNH. HN H N NN HNNH NNN. NHH. NN N N NH HNNH NNN. HNH. NN N N NN HNNH NNN. HNH. NN o N NN HNNH NHN. NNo. NH o N NH HNNH NNN. NNH. NN N N NN HNHH HOHNNHHNH :Nmz H.N Ho maumuumH HNNHN.HN NNHNH.HN NNNNN.oN H.N Ho cumuuNH NHNNNNNN HoH HNNOH H.N mamuuxm H.N mumuaeoz H.N “NNHHN .AOHNIZV chHumH>mn wHwtsmum was mammz .NosmumHmcoosH msumum mo shmuumm NA mmumon “elm mHomB 58 to II Farm Income lower than ritual caste and education. '11 ll 5 Ritual caste higher than farm income and education. '11 ll Ritual caste lower than farm income and education. These patterns of inconsistency uniquely define each individual either into one of these patterns or as a status consistent individual. The Measurement Model Our interest in the degree and patterns of status inconsistency is to be able to answer certain research questions. Having defined and operationalized the degree of status inconsistency and several patterns of status inconsistency, let us spell out these questions. In asking these questions, we are assuming that status variables have independent effects on the dependent variables. Evidence of positive relationship between social status and modernization variables exists in the literature (Rogers with Svenning, 1969; Lerner 1958; Deutschmann, 1963). So, 1. Given the additive effects of statuses in explaining a par- ticular variable, what is the total additional status inconsistency effect? 2. Given the additive effects of statuses and degree of status inconsistency, what is the effect of patterns of status inconsistency on a dependent variable? 3. Given the additive effectsof statuses and patterns of status inconsistency, what is the effect of degree of status inconsistency on a dependent variable? To answer these questions we need a measurement model which can partition the effects on a dependent variable due to the additive components of statuses and due to the degree and patterns of 59 inconsistency. A multiple regression model with terms for main effects of status variables, degree of status inconsistency, and patterns of inconsistency, is needed. With the regression model we can explain some proportion of the variance in our external communication variables and the battery of modernization variables. The regression model also helps us to see what predictive gains are achieved in providing terms for the independently-defined degree of inconsistency and patterns of inconsistency. To avoid the problems of indeterminate solutions* for status inconsistency regression coefficients, we conceputalized and operational- ized the degree and six patterns of status inconsistency variables independent of each other. The values 3, 2, and l were assigned to the status variables after categorization into high, medium and low; they are assumed to be equal interval units and the differ— ences between these categories are alike in sign and mag- nitude. In using status variables to predict dependent vari- ables like innovativeness, one has to recognize that the contributions of individual status variables to the dependent variable might not necessarily be linear. They can be *Blalock (1966a, 1966b, 1967a, 1967b) pointed out the problem of indeterminate solutions for the status inconsistency coefficients with the traditional definition of status incon- sistency as some linear combination of status. 60 curvilinear also. So, it was felt that a dummy* variable regression analysis would be best choice to minimize problems. Jackson and Burke (1965) have used a dummy variable regression analysis for developing the prediction equation in which each status dimension was converted to a pair of dummy variables. In our dummy variable regression model, adapted from Ploch (1969), each status variable is transformed into a set of dummy variables with the values** of l, 0, -l, to correspond to the status scores 3, 2, 1, respectively. Assigning values 1, 0, -l, for high, medium, and low categories of a status variable, assumes unit differences between categories. The weight of the "dummy" variable simply adds a unit to the previous score.in a cell, for the linear effects. Thus, it assumes that the dependent variable will increase uniformly as the status variable goes from low to high. The principal regression equation will be of the form: 6 Ysbo+b1x1+b2x2+b3x3+cDeg+£dP1+e i-l *Suits (1957) discussed the usefulness of dummy variables in regression analysis. In his words ... "The dummy variable is a simple and useful method of introducing into a regression analysis inform- ation contained in variables that are not conventionally measured on a numerical scale, e.g., race, sex, religion, occupation, etc. There is nothing artifical about "dummy" variables; indeed in a functional sense they are more properly scaled‘than conventionally measured variables. If we conceive the task of regression analysis to be that of providing an estimate of a dependent variable, given certain information, the use of linear regression yields biased estimates in the event of curvature. By partitioning the conventionally-measured variable into intervals and defining a set of dummy variables on them, we obtain unbiased estimates since the regression coefficients of the dummy variables conform to any curvature that is present. For example to a variable like age, the influence of which is frequently U-shaped." **Ploch (1969) used such a dummy variable. 61 Where x1, x2, and x3 are "dummy" variable sets for our status variables of education, farm income, and ritual caste, respectively. b0 = intercept; mean effect of the regression line. b1 8 estimate of additive effects of status variable 1, education. b2 = estimate of additive effects of status variable 2, farm income. b3 3 estimate of additive effects of status variable 3, ritual caste. c = increment in dependent variable per increment in degree of inconsistency. d = effect of a certain pattern of inconsistency (i). c Deg + d Pi = estimate of the total effect for inconsistency of any cell in the ith pattern variable. Values of the input matrix for this regression equation, for any combination of statuses an individual may hold are given in Appendix C. Status inconsistency effects can be assessed in three ways from the regression model. 1. R2 for status inconsistency, with effects of statuses controlled, is an estimate of the predictive utility of the status inconsistency variable as measured in this dissertation. R2 for status inconsistency controlled for statuses, tells us about the additional proportion of variance explained by status inconsistency in the dependent variable, in addition to the total contribution of status variables. 2. Status inconsistency effects could be compared to the total effect of statuses, comparing their relative contributions to the total proportion of variance explained by the regression equation, for each of the dependent variables. 3. Relative value of the degree of status inconsistency, patterns 62 of status inconsistency, and the status variables can be evaluated from their respective multiple partial regression coefficients (b's). Before we proceed further let us briefly mention the assumptions under- lying the main measurement model used in this dissertation. Assumptions Underlying the Regression Model l. Normality of error (disturbances): It is assumed that parameter estimation will be biased when the error term or residuals are not normally distributed in the population. Research done on the effects of nonnormality in population distributions of the disturbance term, show that it has little effect on obtained t values in repeated samples, given a sufficiently large sample size (Bartlett, 1935; Boneau, 1960; Gayen, 1949; Srivastava, 1958). We can also consider that the error term in our regression equation is a summary or surrogate for the additional variables that might be thought of as causally related to Y, and we can draw on the central limit theorem. For our purposes, it is not unreasonable to assume that the error term has a normal distribution in the population according to the central-limit theorem, and that the assumption is not being violated. 2. Homoscedasticity: In the regression model, we also assume a condition of constant variance for each outcome or at every level of the predictor variables. Several investigations on the effect of nonhomogeneity of variances on the F distribution conclude thay are virtually unaffected (Norton, 1952; Cochran, 1947; Goddard and Lind- quist, 1940). Even if we cannot assume homoscedasticity, estimation of the 63 intercept and regression coefficient remains unbiased regardless of the degree of heteroscedasticity (Johnston, 1963, pp. 208-209). However, the best linear unbiased estimator should also have the smallest sampling variance (minimum variance characteristic). Where heteroscedasticity is present, one would expect the estimated standard error and the t values associated with the untransformed observations to be the largest. Interpretation of regression coefficients in our analysis should be done cautiously with reference to their standard errors. 3. Errors in Measurement: The regression model assumes that the variables in the equation are measured without error. The effect of unreliability on the regression coefficient is to attenuate it, and to make the estimate of the intercept generally larger than the true underlying variables. Bohrnstedt and Carter (1971) point out that errors in measurement in the dependent variable do not affect the regression coefficients, only errors in the measurement of the independent variables do. Our use of trichotomous dummy variables for statuses and dichotomous dummy variables for patterns of inconsistency minimize these errors in the measurement of independent variables. Degree of inconsistency is the only independent variable in our equation that is not a dummy variable. The estimate of our intercept in the regression equation acts as a grand mean and predicts the dependent variable mean rather well in most cases. 4. Two other assumptions in regression analysis are that regressors are not correlated with disturbances or residuals, and that we have made no specification errors either omitting or including variables in an equation assumed to capture the true causal structure of Y. Correlations 64 of the regressors with residuals attenuate the regression coefficients as a function of the size of regressor—residual covariance. Hypotheses Based on the Degree and Pattern Measures of Status Inconsistency We now present hypotheses about the degree of status inconsistency and the patterns of status inconsistency. The theoretic hypotheses* are stated in terms of their effects on the dependent variables. THO sets of external communication variables and the indicators of modernity are used as the dependent variables in the present study to explain their variance predicting from the status variables and the status inconsistency variables. The general hypotheses for degree of status inconsistency is: Th2 degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with the dependent variables. Support for this general hypothesis is available in the research literature on dependent variables like political liberalism (Lenski, 1954; Kelly and Chambliss, 1967), and desire to change the power structure (Goffman, 1957). Jackson (1962) and Jackson and Burke (1965) found degree of inconsistency associated with symptoms of stress (though they did not call their measure the degree of inconsistency). Heffernan (1968) found the degree of inconsistency related to measures of individual improvement and participation in fraternal organizations. Theoretical Hypotheses I to I11 (presented in Chapter II) are now restated in the *Restatement of the theoretic hypotheses already discussed in Chapter II in the present Methodology Chapter may appear unusual to the reader. But the present organization is necessitated by our choice to delay the conceptualization and operationalization of the degree and pattern of status inconsistency concepts until the present Methodology Chapter. 65 light of the "degree hypothesis" because the "pattern hypothesis" is always categorical. Theoretical Hypothesis I: The degree of status inconsistency is ppsitively associated with exposure to external sources of communication. Theoretical Hypothesis II: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterpphiiy in the friendship and information-seeking interpersonal communication. Theoretical Hypothesis III: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity. Other theoretic hypotheses about patterns of status inconsistency are from the set of six logical patterns of inconsistency defined earlier in the present chapter, which were based on the simulataneous consideration of all the three status dimensions of an individual. Although the ascribed-achieved proposition about status inconsistency is the only one that has received major notice in the literature, the invest- ment-reward proposition has also been tested. Specific predictions are now attempted for these pattern comparisons. The theoretic hypotheses for the patterns of status inconsistency are: Theoretical Hypothesis IV: Status inconsistents with achieved (education and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores havepgreater exposure to external communication, and are more modernJ than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Following the investment/reward classification done by Geshwander (1962), and Broom and Jones (1970), we can consider caste as an ascribed investment dimension, and education as an achieved investment. Farm 66 income is considered as a material and social reward. We can assume these as definitional cognitions an individual may have and the normative cognition that rewards should be proportional to the investment. Thus, the theoretical hypothesis: Theoretical Hypothesis V: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores have greater erposure to external communication, and are more modern, than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypotheses and the Operationalization of the Dependent Variables Theoretical Hypotheses I to V are each extended to several empirical hypotheses with reference to specific dependent variables used in this study. Following each empirical hypothesis, the dependent variable in that hypotheses will be operationalized. In operationalizing the dependent variables that have multiple items, index construction was done in a stepwise manner. At each stage of the index construction process, at least three items were considered necessary to proceed further. 1. Consensual items with a 90 percent response in one response category are considered invariant and are excluded for the subsequent steps of the dependent variable index construction process. 2. The remaining items are subjected to a Pearsonian product- moment correlation analysis. In the inter-item correlation matrix any item.with consistent negative or consistent nonésignificant correlations with other items are excluded. Also, any item that has more than moderate or very high correlations (over .50) consistently, are also excluded from 67 further analysis. 3. The remaining items are than subjected to a principal axis and rotated factor analysis, as well as a Gutman scalogram analysis. Items that do not have more than a .30 factor score on the principal axis first factor, but load high on the second or third factors and/or items that do not have their highest loadings at least on the first two factors of rotation, are considered impure and are deleted from further analysis. At this thrid stage it was insured that the scalability of the remaining items achieves .85 minimum marginal reproducibility in the Gutman scalogram analysis. Empirical Hypothesis 1-1: The degree of status inconsistency is positively_associated with radio listening. Radio listening is the degree of communication contact of an individual with exposure to radio messages. In the present study radio listening was operationaliZed as a unit weighted index of the respondents' positive response to three program items. The questions asked were, "Do you listen to radio?", "What programs do you listen to?" The programs are: songs and recreational, news, and farm programs. A fourth item "radio listening to other programs" did not have significant correlations with any of the other three items and was dropped. Results of the correlational, Gutman and factor analyses are presented in Table 3-7. Individual scores range from 1 to 3. Empirical Hypothesis I-2: The degree of status inconsistency is peeitively associated with movie exposure. Movie erposure is the degree to which a person visits movies. Movie exposure was operationalized as the number of commerical films seen in 68 vmsHmHmNm wosmHHm> o.H HNHHHNHuaeoNHoH Ho uamHoHHHmoo mo GOHuuomon m.Hq 0 House Hmuou III mqm. Nmm. HHm. GOHumHmHHoo HmuoulaouH III III III 0 NH mmo.l NNH.I moo.| Honuo .q mam. oqo. me. o oo mHN. NHN.: mamumoum sham .m omw. oNH. NmN. o no omH. mawz .N NHN. mnm. mHm. 0 HM msmumoum HmGOHu Imuuomm w mwaom .H HH H NwaHNmoH amuH soHusHom Houomm uwHHm muouum :qu wsHmmnwm wmumuom mem HmmHosHHm wsHHmom mo * musmwsonwou N c m N H amuH mHmmHms< Houomm mHmNHfin< smfiusu NHHumz_s0HumHoHHooHouaH NchouuHH oHNmH mo mommHmn< Houomm was amauaw .HQHOHumHmHHoo “Hum mHan 69 1966. Responses to the question "How many commerical films have you seen in 1966?" were scored from 0 to 98. Empirical Hypothesis I-3: The degree of status inconsistency is peeitively associated with newepaper exposure. Newspeper exposure is the degree to which a person reads a newspaper. Newspaper exposure was operationally measured by the number of papers read in a week. Responses to the question "Did you read any newspapers in the past week?" "How many?" are scored from 0 to 8. Empirical Hypothesis I—4: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with urban contact. Urban contact is the degree to which a person is exposed to the city environment. Operationally, this variable was measured by summing the number of visits made by respondents to towns and cities during the past year. The question was, "How many times have you visited a town or a city last year?" Socres range from 0 to 98. Empirical Hypothesis I—5: Degree of status inconsisteney is positively associated with change agent contact. Change agent contact is the degree of interpersonal communication of a client with a change agent. Operationally measured, change agent contact is an index of the number of times a respondent talked with various change agents at the village and block level, and the number of times he had observed an agency-organized demonstration in agriculture during the past year. Scores range from 0 to 20. The questions were: "Last year (1966) did you talk with a block development officer, (village level worker, agricultural extension officer, block doctor, family planning worker, see agricultural demonstrations). How many times did you talk/see him?" Results of the correlational, Gutman, and factor analyses of 7O vaHmanm mosmHum> NN. HNHHHNHosNouHmH Ho NaoHoHHHmoo mo HOHuHomon m.oq mNH House Hmuou mwm. Non. won. NHN. bmo. GOHHmHoHuoo Hmu0utamuH HNH. who. mmo. NH mH me. NNH. NmN. mmq. meuos wsHsamHn HHHamH HuHs HHNH .N Hom.l com. mMN. mN mm «No. «NH. mNN. Houuov HUOHm nuHs meH .q MHm. mmm. one. NH mo mHN. oNN. m:OHumHHmsoEow HmusuHsoHme comm .m wqo. ONN. HNN. mm mm NNN. uoxuos Ho>mH mNNHHH> HNHs HHNH .N mNo. HHw. «Hm. MN mN HmUHmmo unmEQOHw>mQ HUOHm nuHB mea .H HH H NmaHNmoH onN HOHHSHom Houomm umHHm muonum swap Moguo pmumuom mem HmmHosHHm wsHHmom mo N uncommon N m N m N H amuH mHmmes< Houomm mHmmHmnMLsmmwsu P"'L KHHumz soHumHmHnooumusH nonunou unmm< owsmno mo mmthwn< Houomm was smauso .HNHOHumHmHHoo "mum oHpmH 71 change agent contact items are presented in Table 3-8. Theoretical Hypothesis II: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in friendshipiand infor- mation-seeking interpersonal communication. Empirical Hypothesis II-l: The degree of status inconsistency is pesitivelyirelated to the degree of heterophily in interpersonal commun- ication for friendship on the dimension of ritual caste. A degree of heterophily score is caluclated for each respondent as the average difference score of his status attribute and the status attribute of the other dyad members he chooses. The degree of heterophily scores are calculated separately for each of the status attributes for both friendship communication and information-seeking dyads. Empirical Hypothesis II—2: The degree of status inconsistency is positiveiy_related to the degree of heteroPhily in information-seeking interpersonal communication on the dimension of ritual caste. Empirical Hypothesis II-3: The degree of status inconsistency is ppsitively_related to the degree of heterophily in interpersonal commun- ication for friendship on the dimension of education. Empirical Hypothesis II-4: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterpphily in information-seeking interpersonal communication on the dimension of education. Empirical Hypothesis II-5: The degree of status inconsistency is pesitively related to the degree of heterophily in interpersonal commun- ication for friendship on the dimension of farm income. Empirical Hypothesis II-6: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in information-seeking interpersonal communication on the dimension of farm income. 72 Theoretical Hypothesis III: The degree of status inconsisteney is positively associated with attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity. Empirical Hypothesis III-l: Degree of status inconsistency is _pesitively associated with political knowledgeability. Political knowledgeability is the degree of awareness of the individual about persons who are chief policy-makers in government. Operationally political knowledgeability was measured by asking the following questions and summing the unit scores for correct responses across three items. "I would like to ask you now about a few people. I just want to know to what extent you are fimiliar with their names and who they are.? Who is the Prime Minister of India? Who is the Chief Minister of your State? Who is the Member of Legislative Assembly? Correct responses to these three questions are each coded as l and the incorrect responses as 0. Scores on the indexing process are presented in Table 3-9. Empirical Hypothesis III-2: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with empathy, Empathy is defined as the ability to take others' roles (Lerner, 1964, p. 49). Empathy was operationally measured as the degree of role- taking derived as a unit index from the relevant responses to a set of four questions of the form: "If you were (a role) then what would you do to (solve a relevant problem)?" The roles suggested were those of the district administrative officer, the block development officer, village panchayat president, and a day laborer. 73 N.NN HNHHHNHoaNoNHmH mo usmHonmoou wochHaxm mocmHHm> mo soHuHomoum «.mo «N soups Hmuou w««. mmw. omm. sOHumHauuoo HmuoulamuH mmm. mmN. mmN. m «w Hm«. mMH. NH: HQQOH .m o««. NNN. HNN. N NN «mm. 33m .SoH mo HoumHst moHsu .N NNH. NNm. mmw. m MN «HwaH mo uwumHaHz oEHHm .H HH H wwsvaoH :oHuom UHMHommm soHusHom Houomm umuHm muouum wsHumomwsm woumuom mem HmaHosHum wsHHmom mo N musowaoamou N m N H souH memes< Houomm mHmmHms< cmausu .l‘ xHHumz sOHumHmHuoouousH .NamuH HNHHHNNNNNNHHNHH HNUHNHHoH mo mommHmn< Houomm can amausw .HmaOHumHmuuou "min mHan 74 An index with a range of scores from 0 to 4 is obtained by summing a score of 1 when the open-ended response is suggestive of the role, a socre of zero for an irrelevant response, across the four items. Results of the indexing process are presented in Table 3-10. Empirical Hypothesis III-3: The degree of status inconsisteney is pgsitively associated with secular orientation. Secularism is the degree to which an individual deviates from tradit— ional norms. Secular orientation was operationally measured by a set of eleven questions related to "untouchability"* in the caste system, belief in evil spirits and norms about cow with responses coded as favoring secular- ism. The eleven questions used for the measurement of secular orientation are: 1. What do you do with bullocks who are too old to work? 2. Do you think people would establish goshalas for useless cattle? 3. Should non-Hindus be allowed to eat beef? 4. What did you do when someone is ill? 5. Can evil eye cause disease? 6. Did you give a sacrifice to prevent sickness? 7. Should Harijans be allowed to draw water from all common wells in the village? 8. Should Harijans and other children take meals together in schools? 9. If your son wanted to marry a lower caste girl, would you allow it? 10. Do you think Harijans should be allowed to enter and worship in all temples of the village? 11. In your opinion, is an illiterate village Brahmin superior to a lower caste college graduate? {Entouchability is the practice of denying the Harijans (the lowest caste group in the Indian caste hierarchy) access to many areas of social and religious life (Beteille, 1969, p. 93). 75 o.H HNHHHNHosuoNHoN Ho uamHoHHHmoo woaHmmem mostHm> mo :oHuHomoum H.Nm NOH nouns Hauou «mN. me. moN. moo. QOHumHouuoo HmuoulaouH mMH. NNN. w«N. mm ON moN. mN«. N««. HouomHHou uoHuuNHe... .« mwm. NNH. on. MH NH mNN. «mN. Hmuoan Nav... .m mHH. wwN. mNN. mm Ho mw«. usmw IHmoum...um%mnuamm .N mmH. omN. mwN. mN w« Now 50% vHsos Hana... 09m wuo3 50h ma .H HH H mwusmoH soHuummeWHommm, aoHusHom Houomm umHHm muchuo wsHummwwsm vmumuom mem HmQHosHHm waHHmum mo N uncommon N « m N H amuH mHmmHms< Houomm mHmmHms¢ coausw xHHumz_a0HumHoHuooumuaH .msmuH haumnsm mo momNHms4 Houomm use smausu .HNGOHumHoHHoo "OHIm oHan 76 The first three items regarding norms about cows and the fourth item about illness in the family did not have significant inter-item correlations or item-total correlations and were deleted from further steps in the indexing process. Thus, only seven items are used for the secular orientation scale. Individual scores range from O to 7, obtained by summing a score of l for each "yes" response to items 7, 8, 9 and 10, and a "no" response to items 5, 6 and 11. Results of the indexing process are presented in Tables 3-lla and 3-1lb. Empirical Hypothesis III—4: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with agricultural innovation adoption. The agricultural innovation adaption behavior of an individual concep- tually is one of the dimensions of innovativeness. Innovativeness is defined as the degree to which an individual adopts new ideas relatively earlier than others in his social system (Rogers, 1962, p. 13). Innovative- ness is the best single indicant of behavioral change in an individual's .degree of modernization (Rogers with Svenning 1969, p. 292). The progressive change behavior of an individual in our modernization process postulate is best captured by the innovativeness concept. We strongly agree with the earlier argument that innovativeness is the best single indicant of behavioral modernity. Agricultural innovation adoption is operationally measured by a set of ten questions regarding the use of agricultural innovations by the res— pondent. The question asked was "Have you used ... (an innovation)?" The ten agricultural innovations are: Ammonium sulphate, super phosphate, mixed fertilizer, green manure, cattle inoculation, improved cattle, insecticides, rat poison, high yielding variety of seeds, and steel plow. Response to two of the items, i.e., use of ammonium sulphate and insecticides, was 0mm.l OON. coo. Hmo. mmm. Nwm.l Nwm.l III III III III aOHuMHmHHOU AmfiwuH N v HauOHIEGUH 7. 7 mom.l mNO. mNm. HOO. wNm. mc«.l mm«.l mNO. O®O.I N«o. OOO.I HHOHuwHoHuoo AmsmuH HHV HmuOHISMuH mN O.H «mH.I OHH.I NHN.: me.l mmo. Hmo. NHO. 000.: woo. ONO. aHSSmHm washouHHHH mo muHHOHHmmam .HH ON O.H mH«. mmm. «Om. OOH.I wON.I ONO.I OmO. mwo. «OO.I mmHgfimu GH anmHoa ou mamfiHumm .OH O« O.H «mm. mmN. NwH.I me.I mmO.I MNH. mmH. NNH.I HHHw sumac HOBOH m hhhwa on com .m Nw O.H mm«. me.I mmH.l m«H.I ONO. ««o.l ONO.I memfi;mnHmvHH£u Hague Odd mathumm .m Nm O.H O«H.I N«H.: H«O.l N«O. OwO.t NHO.I nouns smuv ou msafiHumm .N Nm O.H New. HHH.| woo. mHN.I OHO. mmosHUHm uso>oue ou mUHwHHosm .0 mm O.H NHH.: N«H. wON.I ONO. omwomHv cases who HH>o Goo .m mN O.H HmH. ««O. «NO. HHH was odomfibm suns .« mm O.H mmo. mNO. uses.mss umo ou NewsHm .m NN O.H OOH.I oHuumo umoHoos Mom mHsnmou .N NN NH 3833 30 .H 3883 HH OH H N N N N H N N H 5H 7 " HNHSUQQ N XHHUNE fiOflumHmHHOUHMHflH HOHNuzv mfimuH soHumusmHHO HmHsoom mo mHthms< HNGOHumeHHoO "mHHtm oHasH 78 m.Nm Omchmem mocmHHm> Om. NuHHHnHosvoummm mo uemHonmmoo mo GOHHHoeon ON nouns HNHOB NHH. NNN.- NNN... N 555 333:: No HuHuoHuoHam .HH NNH. NNN. HNN. H $ng 5 H233 3 NEHHNNN .oH NNN. ONm. NHN. m Hun sumac umsoH a Nuumfi on com .m OOH. mmN. mmN. N mHmoE .msOHOHHno Hmnuo New mamfiHHm: .O OOO. NNN. mmO. O nouns smuv ou mcmnHHmm .N MNO.L HNO.I HN«.I NH mmmsonm unopoue ou oUHNHHomm .O NNN.: mmO.I «m«.| m mmmmmHO omsmo who HH>o emu .m HH H NNHNNoH Houomw Houomw Houomm umuHm muouuo SmuH SOHusHom ONuduom mem HmeHusHum wsHHmum mo N mHnwas< Houomm mHmmHma< amausu .AOHanv mamuH GOHumuamHHO HNHsoom mo mHmNHmc< SNHNOHmom smsusu New mHmNHms¢ Houumm "nHHIm mHan 79 consensual (over 90 percent) and are therefore deleted from the index construction process (see Tables 3-12a and 3-12b). For each of the other eight innovations adopted by the individual, a score of one was accumulated to form the index. Scores range from 0 to 8. Empirical Hypothesis III-5: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with health innovation adoption. Health innovation adoption was operationally measured as a set of six questions about health innovations used. The items are smallpox preven— tion vaccination, cholera prevention vaccination, bed-bug prevention with chemicals, safe drinking water either chlorinated or boiled, malaria prevention, and modern child birth practices. Of these six items the first item about smallpox vaccine was consensual, and the last item about modern childbirth practices does not have significant correlation with other items and were deleted. For each of the other four innovations adapted by the individual a score of one was accumulated to form the index (see Table 3-13). Scores range from 0 to 4. Theoretical Hypothesis IV: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status, have, greater exposure to external communication, and are more modern, than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved.status-seeres. Empirical Hypothesis IV-l: Status inconsistents-with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater radio listeningethan status inconsistents-with ascribed higher' than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-Z: Status inconsistents-with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores-higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater movie exposure than status inconsistents-with ascribed higher' 80 ON«. Nmm. NHN.- mmO. NNN. ON«. NNN. ONO. soHusHoHHoo kuoaueouH mm O.H NmO. «NH.. ONH. NOH. NNH. NOH. NOO. somHoe as“ OHN NO O.H mNO. NNN. NOH. N«O. N«H. «OH. soHumHsoosH Hman< oN NN o.H NNN. NNH. NNo. NNH. NNN. NaHNoouN «Huumo NH «N O.H .HNH. ONH. NNH. Nm«. Mouw>HuHsO NN NN O.H OOH. OmO. «NN. masses noose ON «N O.H NNN. NNH. mousutz mN NN .o.H NHN. HNNHHNONH umHsm NN NN O.H mvomm NumHHm> wsHOHmHN smHm mN Nm In moOHoHuommsH NN NH a: 3233 53855. HN omsoemou OH m N N O m « m swuH no» N NHHumz coHumHmHHooHoueH .AOHNuzv mfimuH sOHumov< aOHum>ossH HNHSHHsoHuw< mo mHmNHmsd HuaOHumHmuuoo "NNHIm mHan 81 N.NN NaaHNHHxH mosmHHm> NO. NuHHHnHosvoHemm mo usmHUHmmwoo mo soHuuoeon mmN muouuo Hmuoe N«O. OHO.r NNN. ON somHoe Hum .OH mNO.n Om«. . OOm. ON soHumHsoosH HaBHs< .m NNH. NHN. HNN. . NN NaHNooHN oHuuNo .N mNH. N«N. mOO. NH Houm>HuHso .N NN«. NOm. OON. mm onsame smouo .O mHN . NNO. «N«. . «m 3.3”.tz .N NNN. NNH. NHN. NN muaaHmoHH HNHNN .N mHH. NNN. NNN. NN manw NNuoHHm> wHHHHVHoH.N stm .m HH H NHHNNOH,.++rr , aaoH Houumm Houomm Houomm umHHm muouum HOHHSHom Omumuom mem HmmHusHHm .1 wsHHmom N0 N mHmNHme< Houomm - . mHmmHmGN casusu It .AOHNIZV msmuH aoHueoO¢ GOHum>oeaH HonsuHsOHHw< mo mHmNHms< stonmuw smsuso New NHNNHms< Houomm “nNHIm mHnma 82 N.NN 853me NH. HNHHHNHoscouHmH sossHus> mo . mo unsHOHmmsoo aOHunoeonm HO nouns HsuoH II NNN. ONO. OOO. NNN. :OHusHsnnoo Hsuoawesua III: III: III: II Om O.H «OO. «OO.: ONH. mmo. msUHuosue :uanOHHso susuoz HNH.: «mO. NNN. ON NO O.H NHN. mOO. NON. aOHuaspsue ansHsz OO«. NOO. mNN. ON Hm O.H HON. mNm. ususs wstanO smsm H«m. OHO. mN«. «m «m O.H HmO. mnsHHHx map HsoHEsno mmO. NmN. HON. N NO O.H NHOHHsHsooHHH susHono :11: ill: III: 1: Na ssHoos> xoa HHssm HH H 1 , nouosm nonosm mwsHOsOH asuH aoHusHom nouosm umnHm. muonns msmsoemsn O N « m N Osusuom mes HsaHoanm waHHsum mo N ms% N NHNMHss< nouosm mHmNHss< asanso anusE soHusHsnnounsueH .AOHNIZV mEsuH.s0HuaoO4 GOHus>ossH nuHssm mo msthss4 nouosm was smsusw .HssoHusHsnuoO umHlm ansH 83 than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-3: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have more newspaper exposure than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-4: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater urban contact than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV—S: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have more change agent contact than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-6: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater political knowledgeability than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-7: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have more empathy than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis 1V-8: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater secular orientation than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-9: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, 84 are higher on egricultural innovation adoption, than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis IV-lO: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, are higher on health innovation adeption than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved. Theoretical Hypothesis V: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores have greater exposure to external communicationi_and are more modern than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-l: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have greater radio listeningithan status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-2: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have greater movie exposure than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empiricaleypothesis V-3: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education)pstatus scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have more newspeper exposure than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-4: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, haveigreater urban contact than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. 85 Empirical Hypothesis V-S: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have more change agent contact than statuS‘inconsistentsfiwith reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V—6: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, haveigreater political knowledgeability than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-7: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have more empathy than status inconsistents with reward higher than invest- ment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-8: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and educatioh) status scores higher than rewardjfarm income) status scores, have greater secular orientation thanfstatus'inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-9: Status inconsistents-with~investment (caste and educatioh) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, are higher on egricultural innovation adoption,-than status inconsistents with reward higher than-investment status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-10: Status inconsistents with investment (paste and education) status-scores higher than reward (farm-income) status scores, are higher on health innovation adoption than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. 86 Statistical Analysis and Hypothesis Testing Table 3-14 provides a summary of the hypotheses testing procedures used.Tests for Emprical Hypotheses I-l to I-5, and 111-1 to III-5, about the relationship between status inconsistency and external communication and modernity are made by regressing each of the dependent variables on the status scores and the inconsistency terms with the regression model discussed earlier in the present chapter. Regression coefficients associated with the degree term in the equation can be interpreted as the estimate of the partial effect of the degree of inconsistency when all other variables are held constant. Thus a significant positive regression coefficient for the degree variable is interpreted as providing support for the hypotheses. A significant positive correlation between the degree of status in- consistency and degree of heterOphily measures is interpreted as providing support for the Hypotheses II-l to II-6. Tests for the Empirical Hypotheses IV-l to V-lO, about the patterns of status inconsistency, are made by a t test for difference between depen- dent variable cell means. The magnitude and direction of the multiple partial regression coefficients of the apprOpriate pattern variables provides additional evidence for the pattern hypotheses tests. Usefulness and Uniqueness of Our Measurement Approach Status inconsistency research has gained increased attention during the past eighteen years. During this period of development the field has been invloved in a two-edged controversy. On one side there are problems of method; on the other problems of substance. Though the findings are many and varied, research methodology has not deve10ped to the point that we can have confidence in“the findings as reported. 86a .manans> ousuusm susHueonees snu mo muasHonmsoo sOHmmsnwsn HsHunsa sHeHuHsa Ho oOHusnsueusuaH was msHoans> naswosmsu mo Nessa assauso suosnsmmHO now umsu H .manans> ansnusm suanaonees snu Ho mussHUHmmsou GOHmmsuwsu HsHuuse sHeHuHss Ho HOHususuensuaH was manans> unsOcsesO mo Nessa osssusn suosnsmmHO now umsu H .NoasumHmsossH mausum Ho ssnwsO was NHHaeonsuss mo ssnwsw ossBusn HOHusHsuuoo s>HuHmom unsonstHm .sHosHus> ussOssesO snu so snsmssfi NoosumHmsouoH mausum mo.mmmwmw snu mo ussHoHHmsoo 50Hmmsnwsn HsHuusm sHmHuHsa s>HuHmoa nasUHmHamHm .anans> nosvsseso sen so snsmssa NossumHmcoosH msusnm mo mmmmmm ssu Ho ucsHoHHHsou conmsumsu HsHuusm sHmHuHoa sPHuHmoa unsonHame msmsnuommm mo umsH HsoHumHusum .msnoum mausum assaums>eH swan usast Onassn suHs muesumHmsooaH Nousum ssnu .susOoa suoa sum was .soHusoHcseaoo Hsansuxs on sussonxs usussum s>s£ .msnoom msusum NsSooaH auswv Ousssn asnu usans msuoom saunas AoOHusooOs was sumsov .OHI> on H|> .m.m nasauss>sH :uHs mussuNHmsoosH nousum .msuoos msusns Os>anos swan usann Oanuoss nuHs muasumHmoouoH ssusum ssnu .ausOoE suoa sum was .o0Hus0Hc35800 Hssnsuxs on su:NOHXs usussum spun .msusum Asumsov Oanuoms osgu usan: msuoom mousus AsaooaH was GOHnsusvsv OHI>H on HI>H .m.m Os>anos nuHs muasumHmooosH sousnm .sOHusUHasaaoo HssomnseusueH waHxssmIaoHusenomsH was eHamOaanm s5» GH NHHneoususn Ho ssnmsv snu :uHs OsusHsu NHs>HuHmoe OIHH ou HIHH .m.m mH NoasumHmoousH sousum mo ssnwsO say .NuHansOoe . HssOH>HvoH snu nuH3 OsnsHsn NHs>HuHmoe NIHHH on HIHHH .m.m sH NoosanmoouoH msusus mo ssnmsw s59 .soHusOHsssaoo Ho msunsom Hssnsuxs on snsmoexs nuHs OsusHoomms NHs>HuHmoe NIH on HIH .m.m mH hoesumHmsoooH msusum mo ssnwsO ssh A.m.mv ssmsauomxm HsoHnHeem .msnswsooum wGHumsHlmsmsfiuOQNm "«Hlm sHosH "P HHHH H A.m.HV mswssuoemm oHusnoan .-.I.’II 01" .m.H 0 Ir. :J. 87 Addressing ourselves to the methodological focus here, the present study points out that research in the area of status inconsistency has not been able to test hypotheses adequately because the methods of analysis have not allowed tests to be performed with the proper controls, or have not measured inconsistency directly. The method of analysis discussed in the present chapter will attempt to measure the degree or gross amount inconsistency,of the effects of patterns and degree of inconsistency, and the main, additive effects of the statuses. Uniquely, a test can be made of the effects of the status inconsistency when controlled for the additive effects of the statuses. This will allow direct tests of many varieties of incon- sistency hypotheses which have not yet been subjected to exact, quantita- tive tests. A Our use of trichotomous dummy variables is not novel. One other study (Ploch, 1969) to the author's knowledge has used the trichotomous dummy variables in regression analysis and we owe an intellectual debt to that pioneering work. The substantive focus is to provide tests of some of the many previously researched hypotheses and some more additional or new hypotheses on a survey sample of Indian peasants. Thus, we will be able to provide a cross- cultural test of inconsistency hypotheses with an improved method of measure- ment of inconsistency. Chapter IV RESEARCH FINDINGS The more frequent are the low status crystallization individuals in a population, the greater proportion of peOple would support programs of social change. (Lenski, 1954) In reporting the findings dependent variables will be grouped as they were in Chapters II and III, when we discussed the theoretical and empirical hypotheses. We have three groups of dependent variables (external comm- unication, degree of heterophily, and modernity) and three sets of hypot- heses related to the degree of status inconsistency. In addition, two sets of hypotheses are based on the expected difference between patterns of status inconsistency, each on a composite set of ten external communication and modernity variables. As we pointed out in the Methodology Chapter, the principal method of analysis and hypotheses-testing is multiple regression model. Summary tables of the multiple regression results for each of the ten external communication and modernity variables are presented in the following pages to discuss Empirical Hypotheses I-l to I-5 and III-1 to III-5. Multiple regression coefficients associated with the pattern variable terms will also provide additional evidence in testing Empirical Hypotheses IV-l to IV-lO and V-l to V-10, and in the interpretation of pattern results. Competing hypotheses to predict response to patterns of inconsistency are tested with a t test for difference between means as a routine part of the analysis. Results are not reported unless they are relevant to the development of the data. When reported, they are incorporated in the text rather than given in tables. 88 89 External Communication External communication variables used in this study are urban contact, radio listening, movie exposure, newspaper exposure and change agent contact. The general prediction for all of the variables was that external communication scores would be positively related to the degree of status inconsistency. Predictions for patterns of inconsistency were that "achieved higher than ascribed" and "investment higher than reward" would have greater exposure to external communication, and are more modern than "ascribed higher than achieved" and "reward higher than investment" patterns, respectively. Radio Listening Table 4-1 reports the principal findings from the multiple regression analysis of the three status variables, degree of status inconsistency, and six patterns of status inconsistency on the dependent variable, radio listening. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis I—l: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with radio listening. Empirical Hypothesis IV—l: Status inconsistents with achieved (educ- ation and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater radio listenihgithan status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-l: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have greater radio listeningythan status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Regression coefficients are interperted as estimates of the partial 90 effects of a given variable when all other variables are held constant. It can be seen from the summary table of regression presented in Table 4-1 that the coefficient for degree (-.274) does not have the proper sign, so Empirical Hypothesis I-l is not supported. It was predicted that "high achieved-low ascribed" and "high invest- ment-low reward" inconsistents would have greater radio listening, i.e., P6 over P5 and P4 over P3. The most stringent tests of the effects of (l) caste different from education and income tested with the contrast are: P6 - P5 - 0; (2) income different from caste and education, tested with the contrast are: P4 - P3 - 0. The t test for the differences between means to test Empirical Hypotheses IV-l (t-0.889) and V-l (t-l.008), are not significant at the .05 level (t-2.00, d.f.-60), but are in the predicted direction. Thus Empirical Hypotheses IV-l and V-l are not supported. The problem is to interpret these tests in a way that is consonant with the pattern observed in the coefficients for the pattern of incon- sistency variables. Regression coefficients in Table 4-1 give some estimate of the meaning of the differences. Given the fact that patterns where education is higher (P1, P4, P6) are either positive or very weakly negative, it seems reasonable to assume that the important dimension is education in the pattern predictions of radio listening, i.e., when education is a higher status, inconsistents tend to have more radio listening than one would expect from the main additive effects of the statuses. As we pointed out earlier, regression coefficients are interpreted as estimates of the partial effect of a given variable when all other variables are held constant. Thus the b value of .300 for pattern 1, education 91 Table 4-1: Regression of Radio Listening On Statuses and Inconsistencies. Radio Listening: Mean 1.929 (N=210) Standard deviation .853 R =.347 R2 =.121 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) - 2.156 Variable Coefficient Std. Error F value (b) of (b) Education -.089 .209 .179 Farm Income .286 .233 1.507 Ritual Caste .105 .195 .290 Degree of Status Inconsistency -.274 .250 1.195 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: P1 (ED >FI - RC) .300 .347 .750 P2 (ED < FI - RC) ~.071 .412 .030 P3 (FI > ED - RC) —.468 .407 1.320 P4 (FI < ED - RC) -.038 .320 .014 P5 (RC > ED - F1) -.282 .356 .626 P6 (RC < ED — FI) .018 .352 .003 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F R2 Squares Regression with inconsistency 10 18.3 2.728 .121 Error 199 133.6 Total 209 151.9 Status Effects only 3 9.7 4.701 .064 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 8.6 1.727 .057 Statuses) (13.8)* (2.877) (.091) Patterns of 8.1. (controlled for 6 4.4 1.010 .049 Statuses and Degree) (11.8) (2.841) (.078) Degree of 8.1. (controlled for l 0.8 1.103 .005 Statuses and Patterns) ( 8.3) (12.022) (.055) *In this and future tables figures in parentheses are values, when those are the only independent variables or terms included in the regression equation for the dependent variable. 92 higher than caste and income, means that when all other variables are held constant the effect of this pattern of inconsistency on radio listening is .300 times the score of the respondent on this pattern. Since scores are one if the respondent has the status pattern defined by a given pattern and zero if he does not, pattern variables can assume two values: zero, if the respondent is not in that pattern, and the value of the coefficient if the respondent is in that pattern. Pattern coefficients are really constants which are added to the equation only if the respondent has the proper status pattern; they are modifications of the grand mean within status patterns defined as belonging to that pattern. A positive coefficient increases the expected value of radio listening. The magnitude of a coefficient indicates the size of its effect on the dependent variable and must be judged against the mean.and standard deviation on the dependent variable. For radio listening, the mean is 1.93, and the standard deviation is .85, which reflects a preponderance of respondents with more radio listening. 0f the three statuses, the main effects of ritual caste are weakest (F-0.864, R2- .004). Main effects of farm income are the strongest on radio listening (F-10.691, R2 - .001), while those of education (F-2.481, R2-.011) are moderate. None of the partial effects, i.e., regression coefficients for inconsistency terms, are statistically significant. But the amount of additional variation in the dependent variable, radio listening, explained by the inconsistency terms is almost as much (R2 -.057, in addition and compared to R2 -.064 for statuses), indicating the sign- ificance and practical utility of the inconsistency variables. Correlations between degree and each type variables are positive. Despite the high positive correlation between these status inconsistency 93 variables (R2 -.581) they frequently have Opposite signs. This is a function of their relationship to the dependent variable. It was generally assumed that the relationship of dependent var- iables to pattern of inconsistency would be stronger than to degree. Comparison of R2 for the degree of inconsistency (controlling for status and type) is .005, which is much less than the total pattern of inconsistency effect (controlled for status and degree), which is .049; this indicates the validity of the assumption. Neither degree nor pattern variables seem to have much effect on the total pepulation, in terms of additional variance explained over and above the additive effects of statuses, controlled for all other terms in the equation. When status inconsistency terms are regressed separately on the depen- dent variable without the inclusion of status terms they explained as much or more than the variance explained by status effects (.104 over .096). Also the pattern of inconsistency and degree of inconsistency explain a good prOportion of variance in the dependent variable, when separately regressed (.092 and .015 respectively), i.e., hgr_controll- ing for statuses and degree of inconsistency and patterns (as the case may be). Despite the uniformly higher values of R2 independently, the incon- sistency variables do not account for all of the residual variation from regression on statuses. Thus this regression equation is shown empirically not to be the equivalent of the definition of the dependent variable. Given the restricted amount of Operating space due to the high correlations, these additional status inconsistency variables have done well enough. 94 We need to mention the usefulness of our dummy variables in the regression model, to have confidence about the assumption of errors in measurement. In our regression model the dependent variable can be estimated from the grand mean (intercept) of the regression equation. When all independent variables have a mean of zero and the design is balanced, the grand mean (intercept) equals the mean of the dependent variable. The regression model used herein defines status effects and inconsistencies so that their means are approximately zero, by using dummy variables. Thus the grand mean (intercept) estimates the depend- ent variable mean rather well, e.g., from Table 4-1, the grand mean is 2.16, and the radio listening mean is 1.93. Another facet* of the data to be explored is the combined effect of degree and pattern, called the total inconsistency effect. Given that degree and type of inconsistency have seperate effects as discussed above, what is their joint effect? R2 for the total inconsistency controlling for statuses is reported in each table (it is .057 for radio listening). In addition, one can add regression coefficients, to get estimates of the pooled effect of degree and pattern for any combination of status ranks. This estimate is determined by multiplying the coefficient for degree by the value of degree for any combination of status ranks, and adding the prOper pattern coefficient. Since degree of inconsistency can only take four values: 0 for consistency; .577 for slight inconsistency, e.g., HMM; 1.155 for moderate inconsistency, e.g., HML; 1.414 for extreme inconsistency, e.g., HLL, one need only compute the values for degree *We shall not pursue a similar line of reasoning for the other nine variables using the regression model, because the value of regression coefficients as estimators is not well enough established. 95 of inconsistency and add them to the proper pattern coefficients. Both degree of inconsistency and all pattern variables are zero when the respondent is consistent. There is no inconsistency effect for such an individual and his score is that of the main effects of statuses. For slight inconsistents, the value of degree is .577 times the coeffic- ient, -.274, which is -.158; for moderates it is 1.155 times -.274, which is -.316; and for extreme inconsistents it is 1.414 times -.274, which is -.387. Total scores are given in Table 4-1a by adding the pattern coefficients. Table 4-1a: Total Inconsistency Effect Within Patterns for Table 4-1 (Radio Listening) Degree of Status Patterns of Status Inconsistency Inconsistency P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 For those patterns which have the same sign as degree, there is little problem of interpretation. The pattern effect simply acts as a general ‘mean which increases the linear effect of degree. Thus in P2, P3, P4, and P5, patterns of inconsistents the total inconsistency effect is monotonic and decreasing. But the jump from zero for consistents to the slight inconsistency is not linear, particularly for patterns P3 and P5 where the jumps are from 0 to -.626 and 0 to -.440, respectively. One would expect the regression coefficient value associated with each pattern as 96 this jump from consistent to slight inconsistent, if the relationship were perfectly linear and if the pattern coefficient were a general mean. Since all types are defined as zero for consistents, some sort of non—linear jump from consistent to slight inconsistent must be expected (see Figure 4-1). Where the pattern coefficient has a different sign from degree, one is tempted to talk of total inconsistency as having a curvilinear and sometimes, parabolic effect. The total effects within P1 and P6 patterns on radio listening can be used to illustrate this point. In these two patterns. the linking aspect is that the total inconsistency effect on slight inconsistents is to make them more radio listeners, while that on moderates and extremes is to make them non-listeners or less of radio listeners. A change of degree of inconsistency between 0 and .577 has a greater effect than a change of equal magnitude in the range .577 to 1.154, particularly as it is observed for pattern 3 and pattern 5 effects on radio listening. Curvilinearity is imposed on the total inconsistency effect by defining degree and type of inconsistency as zero for all consistents. For any status pattern, total inconsistency scores can be compared with the score of status effects by using the regression coefficients from the full model. For radio listening the main effects and inconsis- tency effects by degree within pattern using Table 4-1 are calculated (see Table 4-1b). Status 1 is education, 2 is farm income and 3 is ritual caste, in the labelling of patterns. It will be noted that there are two cells for slight inconsistency in each pattern and one cell each for moderate and extreme inconsistencies in each pattern. Total Inconsistency Effect 97 X axis - 2* inches - 1 unit Yaxis - 2% inches = i unit Scale: Y .2- ’63;’ // /,’ [II {/4 \ 0.0K § §‘ \ \ ‘“ \\ ‘\\\ \\ ...2-4 \ \ \\ ‘ \ ‘ \ ‘ \ ‘ \ \ \ \ \\ -.4J \\ \xNNNNNNNN\\\N\\\\\‘K\\\\\\f6 \ ‘ pa \\ P2 \ \“ \\ —.6‘ \ \N\\\\\\\N\\\\\\\\K\ PS I 1 4 1x -08 Figure 4-1: 414 Total Inconsistency Effect by Degree of Inconsistency Within Patterns (Radio Listening) Dotted lines are extensions of total effect due to defining degree and patterns as zero for consistents. 98 Table 4-1b: Status Effects and Inconsistency Effects by Degree within Patterns (Radio Listening) Degree of Status Patterns of Status Inconsistency Inconsistency P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 Slight Status H* -.089 .391 .286 .016 .105 .197 Effects L -.391 .089 -.016 -.286 —.l97 -.105 Inconsistency .142 -.229 -.626 -.l96 -.440 .140 Moderate Inconsistency -.016 -.383 -.748 -.354 -.598 -.298 Extreme Status Effects -.480 .480 .270 -.270 -.092 .092 *Status effect H means that the status pattern has only high and medium ranks; L means only low and medium ranks. Table 4-1b compares statuses and inconsistency effects. Both terms are interpreted as deviations from the grand mean. Where they are Opposed in sign, they push toward Opposite extremes on the dependent variable, cancelling each other. By adding values for status effects and incon- sistencies we can obtain values which are deviations from the grand mean for each inconsistent cell. Values for consistents cells are sums of marginal effects for high, medium and low on each status. Computations for any of 27 status patterns of consistents and incon- sistents in Table 3-5, is done in the following manner. In our regression model we used dummy variable values of l, 0, -l, for high, medium, and low ranks of each status variable. To obtain the effects of any status 99 pattern (cell) on the dependent variable, multiplying the regression coefficient with the dummy variable (weight) and the sum of the three statuses, gives the value of status effects. For example, for a status pattern, high education, medium farm income, and low caste (HML) will be: Dummy variable weight for high 1 X regression coefficient for ed- ucation - .089 plus weight 0 for medium X farm income coefficient .286 plus wieght -l for low X ritual caste coefficient .015 gives a value of -.104. That is the value we have for status effects for the moderate degree category of respondents in pattern 6. By adding values for status effects and inconsistencies one produces the values given in Table 4-lc which are deviations from the grand mean for each inconsistent cell. Values for consistent cells are the sums of marginal effects for high, medium, and low on each status. Table 4-lc: Mean Effects of All Variables in the Regression Model (Radio Listening) Degree of Status Patterns of Status Inconsistency Inconsistency P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P5 Slight L -.249 —.140* -.642* -.482** -.637* .035* Consistents: High - .302 Medium - 0 Low - -.302 __ *Inconsistency effect larger than status effect (17 cells). **Inconsistency effect is 50 to 992 of status effect (4 cells). lOO Relative magnitude of inconsistency compared to status effects can be read directly from these tables. Comparing cell values, it can be seen that while most inconsistent cells tend to be less in radio listening than the grand mean, this is not always due to inconsistency. For example, in slight degree of inconsistency, high status category with pattern 1 and low status category with pattern 6, the net effects are positive due to status inconsistency although status effects push individuals toward less radio listening. But the general finding is that even in the cells where the vector of status effects is a push toward greater radio listening, the vector of status inconsistency is in the Opposite direction. The interpretation is that the net effect £1 most cells is to push individuals toward less radio listening. Given a matrix of 27 positions (3 statuses with 3 ranks each) to include 24 inconsistency cells and 3 consistency cells, Tables 4-1b and 4-1c show that for 17 status combinations inconsistency has more effect than status effects. For example, in the case of pattern 3 inconsistents with moderate degree of inconsistency, status effects contribute .181 and inconsistencies -.784 for a net of -.603. For another three positions inconsistency is 50 to 99 percent of main effects. Thus, inconsistency effect, read from the b's, has a considerable effect vis-a-vis status effects. In elaborating these tables, it is assumed that the regression equation in Table 4-1 is an adequate* model. If the model is changed, *The full regression model that we have alternately tested for radio listening and the other nine variables to be discussed, included terms for curvilinear effects of statuses. We used dummy variable values 0 for high, 1 for medium and -1 for low levels of statuses. Some status variables do have curvilinear effects but weakly and the cost against parsimony to include the additiogal three terms did not change the pattern of results or add to greater R . So, these results are not reported. 101 then regression coefficients change. Further as R2 for inconsistency goes down, b's lose reliability as estimators. The less reliable the b's are, the larger the sample needs to be to try to bring them to reli— ability. Reliability Problems of the Estimators for Inconsistency Variables Any lack of reliability in measurement on the margins, status vari- ables and dependent variables, be reflected by greater lack of reliability for the inconsistency variables. This will attenuate their effect. The reliability of the difference score can be estimated by the equation: . rxx + Pyx_' zrxxi 2(1 -rxy) yy are one or if rxy is zero. Neither degree nor pattern of inconsistency in our study are differ- rdd (McNemar, 1962, p. 157). rdd is one if r 30! and r ence scores in the sense that either equals X1 - X2, but they are similar enoguh to be expected to act in similar ways. Since degree is calculated by using squares of differences, this will increase the lack of relia- bility since each difference is taken twice. Increased reliability of the "b's" as estimators does not affect the size of R2; all it does is to provide increased confidence in the interpretation of the "b's" as estimator of comparative effects of incon- sistency and status effects for any status pattern. When correlation between degree and pattern of inconsistency variables is high the magnitude and reliability of regression coefficients for status inconsistency variables drops down. A.possib1e reason for atten- uation is that degree of inconsistency may not be independent of the status effects or pattern variables. To test this, degree of inconsis- tency was regressed on both patterns of inconsistency and status effects. 102 The equations are: Deg - b0 + b1P1 + bzPZ + b3P3 + b4P4 +_b5P5 + b6P6 + e Deg - b0 + blxl + b2x2 + b3x3 + e The results show that degree of inconsistency is not completely independent of status variables (R2 - .153). Of particular concern is the substantial relationship between degree of inconsistency and pattern variables (R2 - .587). The problem is not as dangerously acute as it appears because when we categorized the status variables in the study, in effect the property space in the status variables is auto- matically reduced. In addition the definition of degree of inconsistency is such that when the sum of the pattern variables is zero, i.e., the indiv- idual is status consistent, degree of inconsistency is approximately one. But, the multiple correlation seems high enough to affect the reliability of regression coefficients where both sets of variables are used in the same equation. Let us now summarize the findings about status inconsistency and radio listening and include a brief note about our methodological excursion with the measurement model. Our predictions about the positive relationship between degree of inconsistency and radio listening and the pattern predictions (Empir- ical Hypotheses I-l, IV-l and V-l) did not find support from the data at hand. we found the opposite of what we predicted about the degree of inconsistency although not statistically significant. An encouraging finding is that our pattern predictions are in the expected direction, while statistically not significant. 103 Methodologically and pessimistically, from the standpoint of pre- dictive utility main effects are good enough (three terms, R2 - .057) than full model (ten terms, 112 - .121) and much more simple or parsimon- ious. From a standpoint of understanding forces playing on the indiv- idual, the full model may say much more. The question is whether the effects are stable enough to support such an interpretation. Probably they can not be judged stable enough from the data at hand. If, however, they remain stable in several other samples, then inter- pretation of the full model is more feasible. Methodologically and optimistically, balance of gain in predictive power or understanding in the inclusion of the degree and six patterns of inconsistency against the cost which is a movement against parsimony seems to be worthwhile. The additional proportion of variance explained by status inconsistency terms 5.7 percent over and above the additive effects of status terms 6.4 percent also makes for the case. Another note of optimism is that although three fourths of all the status inconsistents in our sample are in the slight degree category (one-step deviates), and that we do not have any extreme inconsistents in three (zero in P2 and P3; only one in P6) of the six patterns, we are doing well with the inconsistency variables. As pointed out earlier, detailed analysis of each of the otheanine variables using the regression model are presented in Table 4-2 to 4-5 and 4-7 to 4-11. Interpretation of each of these analyses can be quite short, as they will be expanded only to cover unique details. 104 Movie Exposure Principal findings from the multiple regression analysis with statuses and inconsistencies on the dependent variable, movie exposure are reported in summary Table 4-2. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis I-2: The dggree ofstatus inconsistencykis positively associated with movie exposure. Empirical Hypothesis IV-Z: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa— tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater movie exposure than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hyoothesis V—2: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm.income) status scores, have;g£eater movie exposure than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment statusfiscores. The multiple partial regression coefficient for degree on movie exposure is -9.867 and is the strongest coefficient in Table 4-2. The coefficient is not statistically significant but, the relationship between degree of status inconsistency and movie exposure is found to be negative, the opposite of what we predicted. Thus, Empirical Hypothesis I-2 is not supported. Two other predictions about movie exposure were that "high achieved- 1ow ascrbbed" and "high investment-low reward" patterns of inconsistents would have greater movie exposure than "high ascribed-low achieved" and "high reward-low investment" patterns, respectively. T tests for diff- erence between means of the ascribed-achieved hypothesis (P6 over P5) are not significant and are very weakly negative (t--.107). The regression coefficients associated with these patterns are both positive but, P5 is 105 Table 4-2: Regression of Movie Exposure on Statuses and Inconsistencies Movie Exposure: Mean 14.871 (N8210) Standard deviation 22.579 R =.215 R2 =.063 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) - 17.717 Variable Coefficient Std. Error F value (b) of (b) Education - .326 5.834 .011 Farm Income 3.833 6.752 .227 Ritual Caste 1.430 5.449 .185 Degree of Status Inconsistency -9.864 7.092 2.594 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: P1 (ED > El - RC) 2.668 9.431 .142 P2 (ED< FI -- RC) -4.849 11.488 .155 P3 (FI > ED - RC) -3.539 11.786 .037 P4 (FI < ED - RC) 6.963 8.792 .613 P5 (RC >ED - FI) 4.585 9.688 .198 P6 (RC < ED - FI) 2.768 9.896 .416 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F R2 Squares Regression with inconsistency 10 6696.1 1.335 .063 Error 199 99849.1 Total 209 106545.2 Status effects only 3 3047.4 2.022 .029 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 3648.7 1.023 .034 Statuses) (5383.4) (1.554) (.051) Patterns of S.I. (controlled for 6 1328.9 .472 .013 Statuses and Degree) (3743.3) (1.246) (.034) Degree of S.I. (controlled for 1 1301.3 2.572 .013 Statuses and Pat terns) (3251.5) (6.622) (.031) 106 more strongly positive than P6. Thus, the t test for difference between means and the regression coefficients associated with the patterns P6 and P5 are consistent in not supporting Empirical Hypothesis IV-2. For the investment-reward hypothesis the t test for difference between means has a positive value (1.289) but, the t value did not approach the .05 level of significance. The regression coefficients associated with patterns P4 and P3 are also as expected (b for P4 - 6.963 and b for P3 - -3.539), consistent with the t test results providing general support for Empirical Hypothesis V-2 in terms of direction but not statistical significance. The full regression model for movie exposure yields only 6.3 percent of total variance explained. The additive effects of statuses (R2=.029) were found to be lesser than the total inconsistency effect controlling for statuses (R2-.034). Degree and patterns of inconsis- tency explained one and a half percent variance each in the dependent variable, movie exposure. Inclusion of inconsistency terms does improve the predictive utility. When one considers the pattern of signs for the different patterns of inconsistency, it can be seen that those in which farm income is higher than education or caste (P2, P3 and P6) are negative or weaker than the others. If pattern response were to be related to the main status effect of farm income (b-3.833, the strongest positive coefficient among status effects) the above three patterns should have had strong positive coefficients. The fact that they are not clearly indicates that status inconsistency effects could be very different from the status effects on a dependent variable. The t test for (P2 + P3 + P6) - (P1 + P4 + P5) cell values on the dependent variable is -.603. i.e., patterns of 107 inconsistency where farm income is a higher score than education or caste scores, respondents have less movie exposure. Newspaper Exposure Findings of the regression analysis of newspaper exposure on statuses and inconsistencies are reported in Table 4-3. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis I-3: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with newspaper exposure. Empirical Hypothesis IV-3: Status inconsistents with ahcieved_(educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (castg) status scores have greater newspaper exposure than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Degree of status inconsistency is positively related with newspaper exposure. Regression coefficient for degree is positive (.415) but not significant. The ascribed-achieved pattern hypothesis has general support in terms of direction only. T test for P6-P5 means is 1.413 and is con- sistent with the regression coefficients in the equation, i.e., P6 is positive (.029) and P5 is negative (-.188). Empirical Hypotheses I-3 and IV-3 are not supported. Results indicate strong support for the investment-reward hypothesis. T test for difference between means (P4-P3) is positive and statistically significant (t - 3.379); t.05 - 2.00; d.f. - 60). Regression coefficient for pattern 4 is positive (.095) and that for P3 is negative (-1.509) also provides support as an alternate test. Empirical Hypothesis V-3 is supported. Inconsistency terms explain an additional one and a half percent 108 Table 4-3: Regression of Newspaper Exposure on Statuses and Inconsistencies Newspaper Exposure: Mean 1.690 (N-210) Standard deviation 2.446 R =.538 R2 =.29o Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) - 1.622 Variable Coefficient Std. Error F value (b) of (b) Education .752 .570 2.515 Farm Income 1.364 .695 2.950 Ritual Caste .154 .532 .431 Degree of Status Inconsistency .415 .692 .472 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: P2 (ED < FI - RC) -.013 1.092 .018 P3 (FI >ED - RC) -1.509 1.151 .879 P4 (FI < ED - RC) .095 .858 .011 P5 (RC > ED - F1) -.188 .946 .033 P6 (RC < ED - F1) .029 .966 .010 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F R2 Squares Regression with inconsistency 10 385.9 8.117 .290 Error 199 946.1 Total 209 1334.0 Status effects only 3 368.9 26.302 .277 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 17.0 .373 .013 Statuses) (122.8) (2.932) (.092) Patterns of S.I. ( controlled for 6 17.0 .371 .013 Statuses and Degree) (122.8) (3.436) (.092) Degree of S.I. (controlled for 1 0.3 .054 .000 Statuses and Patterns) (20.1) (3.183) (.015) 109 variance only in the dependent variable. Compared to the 27.7 percent variance explained as pooled effects of status variables, the con- tribution by pooled effects of inconsistency are infinitismally small. Thus, while there is directional support for Empirical Hypotheses I-3 and IV-3 and statistically significant support for Empirical Hypotheses V-3, predictive utility of the status inconsistency effects on newspaper exposure are negligible. As one might rightly expect education is proven to be the key var- iable in the analysis of newspaper exposure. When we just look at the regression coefficients for the status variables farm income has the coefficient with higher magnitude (1.364) than education (.752). But the coefficients associated with patterns of status inconsistency speak differently. When farm income is lower than education or caste (P2, P3, and P4) the coefficients are strongly negative or weakly positive. In fact, when contrasted with the patterns where farm income is higher than education or caste (P1, P4, and PS) the t value is found to be negative. Patterns in which education is higher than caste or income (P1, P4, and P6) all have positive values for the regression coefficients and where education is lower than caste or income (P2, P3, and P5) all have negative and sometimes stronger coefficients. The t test for difference between means of the combined sample of the first three patterns (P1, P4, and P6) against the combined sample of the other three where education is lower is positive (1.728) and almost approaches statistical significance (t 05 -1.96, d.f - 166). The point that status inconsistency, particularly patterns of incon- sistency, provide additional understanding of the inconsistents commun- ication behavior (newspaper exposure here) would have been missed if we had to just consider the simple effects of statuses only. 110 Urban Contact Results of the regression analysis of urban contact on statuses and inconsistencies do not provide any support for all the predictions (see Table 4-4). The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis I-4: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with urban contact. Empirical Hypothesis IV-4: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have ggeater urban contact than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-4: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, havehgreater urban contact than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. The regression coefficient for degree of inconsistency is negative (-l.837). Although the standard error of the coefficient is five times larger than the coefficient, which means a very insignificant t or F value still stands in not supporting Empirical Hypothesis I-4. The t test for Empirical Hypothesis IV-4 about the ascribed-achieved pattern has a negative value (-.694), although the regression coeffic- ients associated with the pattern variables are as expected (b for P6 - 1.809, b for P5 - -6.927). Neither the t test nor the coefficients being statistically significant, we can conclude that Empirical Hypot- hesis IV-4 is not supported. Pattern prediction on the investment-reward status dimensions does have a positive t value (1.498) for the difference between means as expected. But the regression coefficients are not consistent with the 111 Table 4H4: Regression of Urban Contact on Statuses and Inconsistencies Urban Contact: Mean 33.067 (N=210) Standard deviation 30.255 R =.39s R2 =.156 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) = 41.013 Variable Coefficient (b) Education 5.217 Farm Income 5.825 Ritual Caste 6.257 Degree of Status Inconsistency -1.837 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: Pl (ED > F1 — RC) -18.028 P2 (ED ED -— RC) -12.843 P4 (FI < ED - RC) -10.511 P5 (RC >'ED - FI) -6.927 P6 (RC < ED - FI) 1.809 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums 0 Square Regression with inconsistency 10 33399.9 Error 199 180998.9 Total 209 214298.8 Status effects only 3 22525.7 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 10874.2 Statuses) (22366.4) Patterns of 8.1. (controlled for 6 9393.3 Statuses and Degree) (22310.7) Degree of S.I. (controlled for 1 10.8 Statuses and Patterns) (6537.1) Std. Error of (b) 7.021 9.168 7.398 9.629 12.804 15.190 16.003 11.937 13.153 12.952 f F 8 3.635 8.064 1.542 (3.343) 1.535 (3.909) 0.010 (6.590) F value .323 .380 .576 .012 1.929 1.778 .656 .777 .283 .020 .156 .105 .051 (.104) .043 (.104) .001 (.032) 112 t test, both of them being negative (b for P4 is -lO.51l and b for P3 is -12.843). Empirical Hypothesis V-4 also is not supported. Looking at the prOportion of variance explained, the full model accounts for 15.6 percent of variance in the dependent variable. Status effects explain two-thirds of the total variance explained and status inconsistency variables accounting for an additional third (R2 -.051). Chang; hgeht Contact Table 4-5 summarizes the findings from regression analysis of change agent contact on statuses and inconsistencies. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis I—5: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with change agent contact. Empirical Hypothesis IV-5: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa— tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have greater change agent contact than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-S: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have greater chahge agent contact than status-inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores.- Degree of status inconsistency is found to be positively related to change agent contact. The regression coefficient associated with the degree variable in the equation is .240~ But the coefficient is not statistically significant and is not a reliable estimator with its high standard error (1.089). Also, degree of inconsistency does not explain but one tenth of a percent of additional variance in change 113 Table 4-5: Regression of Change Agent Contact on Statuses and Inconsistencies Change Agent Contact: Mean 5.400 (N=210) Standard deviation 4.157 R=.547 R2 =.299 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) = 6.146 Variable Coefficient Std. Error (b) of (b) Education .695 .912 Farm Income 2.670 1.014 Ritual Caste .183 .850 Degree of Status Inconsistency .240 1.089 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: P1 (ED > FI - RC) -.725 1.509 P2 (ED < FI - RC) -2.747 1.794 P3 (FI >ED - RC) -3.070 1.772 P4 (FI ED — FI) .329 1.551 P6 (RC < ED - FI) -l.945 1.532 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F Squares Regression with inconsistency 10 1081.663 8.506 Error 199 2530.708 Total 209 3612.371 Status effects only 3 968.850 25.166 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 112.813 .930 Statuses) (428.414) (3.883) Patterns of S.I. (controlled for 6 88.337 .848 Statuses and Degree) (424.107) (4.501) Degree of S.I. (controlled for 1 .620 .035 Statuses and Patterns) (170.034) (10.274) F value .518 6.935 .046 .049 .231 2.345 3.003 .019 .045 1.613 .299 .268 .031 (.119) .024 (.117) .001 (.047) 114 agent contact. Empirical Hypothesis I-5 is not supported. The hypothesis about ascribed-achieved patterns does not hold at all both in terms of the t test and the regression coefficient values for P6 and P5. The t test for difference between means (P6-P5) is -.825 and is consistent with a regression coefficient of -l.945 for P6 and .329 coefficient for P5. Empirical Hypothesis IV-5 is not supported. Pattern prediction on the investment-reward status demensions is the only one that is conclusively supported. The t test for differ- ence between means (P4-P3) has a value of 2.712 and the values of the regression coefficients are as expected (b for P4 is .193 and b for P3 is -3.070). Empirical Hypothesis V-5 is supported by the data analyzed. The story about the additional amount of variance explained by the inconsistency variables is discouraging, a mere 3.1 percent over the additive effects of statuses (26.8 percent). Status inconsistency variables do help in understanding the forces playing on the individual with reference to his change agent contact but their predictive utility is little. The signs for the pattern variables suggest that the best pre- diction of reaponse to patterns of inconsistency will be when farm income is lower than education or caste. Pattern coefficients are positive or weakly negative in one case, i.e., its partial effect is to increase change agent contact. If we had considered the status effect of farm income only, which is positive and larger in magnitude (2.670) than the other, we could have missed the pattern finding which is otherwise. The main status effect of caste on change agent contact appears to be little but analysis of the pattern contrast revealed that caste is 115 the key variable in the pattern predictions of response related to change agent contact. The finding was that when caste is higher than education or income contrasted to the patterns when caste is lower than the other (P2 + P4 + P5)-(Pl + P3 + P6) have a significant t value of 2.849. Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication We defined heterophily as the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are dissimilar in certain attributes. We computed six heterophily scores for each respondent as an average absolute differ- ence score on each of his three status attributes (education, income and caste) and the corresponding status attributes of others with whom he has friendship and information-seeking interpersonal communication. The general prediction was that the degree of status inconsistency is related to the degree of heterOphily in friendship and information- seeking interpersonal communication. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis II-l: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in interpersonal communication for friendship on the dimension of ritual caste. Empirical Hypothesis II-2: The degree of status inconsistency is positiveiy related to the degree of heterophily in information-seeking_ interpersonal communication on the dimension of ritual caste. Empirical Hypothesis II—3: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in interpersonal commun- ication for friendship on the dimension of education. Empirical Hypothesis II-4: The gegree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in information-seeking_ interpersonal communication on the dimension of education. 116 Empirical Hypothesis II-S: The degree of status inconsistency is ppsitively related to the degree of heterophily in interpersonal commun- ication for friendship on the dimension of farm income. Empirical Hypothesis II-6: The degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in information-seekihg interpersonal communication on the dimension of farm income. Table 4-6 gives a summary of the zero-order correlation coeffic- ients between the degree of inconsistency and degree of heterOphily on each of the three status attributes. All the correlation coefficients are positive which indicates support for the general prediction T. H. II. However only three of the six empirical hypotheses are supported with statistically significant correlations. Income heterophily in friend- ship and information—seeking interpersonal communication among the status inconsistents appears to be the key finding. Empirical Hypotheses II-3, II-5 and-II—6 ghiy_are supported. The weakest correlations are on the dimension of caste. Caste seggregated residential patterns in Indian rural systems and the sign- ificance of propinquity in interpersonal communication can explain the non-significant correlations between degree of status inconsistency and degree of heterophily on caste. The weak relationship on education heterophily in information-seeking communication is unexpected. Individual Modernity The five modernity variables used in this study are political knowledgeability, empathy, secular orientation, agricultural innovation adeption and health innovation adOption. The general prediction for all of the variables was that individual modernity scores would be positively 117 .pocfiauowco soon o>m£ mcofiumamueoo unmeaMHame .umou meu moo .mocmvfiwcoo mo Hm>mH no. men um unmowmaawfim we ma. omen Herman uamwofimwmoovsoaumfimuuoo m .muamceoemou cam wo swam maeamm m pom « ANIHH .m.mv «mo. AoIHH .m.mv «mma. AqIHH .m.mv wmo. coaumoaessaoo HmcomuoeumuaH wefixmomlaofiumEuomaH AHIHH .m.mv moo. AmIHH .m.mv amma. AmIHH .m.mv aqmfl. coaumUHcsesoo menacemaum Ir 7” 7t mummo Hmsufim oEooaH,EHmHJ, .doaumUswm >s7' r}? I, I7 mafismoeoumm mo moewmm uowlwmwwnfinuum msumum .aoaumowaoaaoo HmaomumeymuaH wefixmmmlcowumauomsH new efixmwsoash ca kafleeoumuom mo mmemn spas monoumfimaoooH msumum mo seamen mo maofiumaonuoo HoquIoHoN "one manna 118 related to the degree of status inconsisrency. Predictions for patter'- of inconsistency were that "ascribed higher than achieved" and "invest- ment higher than reward" inconsistents are more modern than "ascribed higher than achieved" and "reward higher than investment" patterns, respectively. Political Knowledgeability Table 4-7 summarizes the findings from regression analysis of political knowledgeability on statuses and inconsistencies. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis 111-1: The degree of status inconsistency is~ ppeitively assoicated with political knowledgeabilipy. Empirical Hypothesis IV-6: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and ineome) status scores higher than ascribed (caste) status scores, have gheater political knowledgeability than status-inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved status scores.- Empirical Hypothesis V-6: Status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm-income) status scoresL have greater political knowleggeability than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Inconsistency terms explained an additional 5.4 percent of variance in the dependent variable controlling on Statuses, all of that accounted by pattern variables only. 5.4 percent of additional variance is small compared to the 26.7 percent variance explained by the additive effects of statuses, but helps in the understanding of inconsistency effects. The multiple partial regression coefficient for degree of status inconsistency is positive (.444). The coefficient appears to be reliable 119 Table 4—7: Regression of Political Knowledgeability on Statuses and Inconsistencies Political Knowledgeability: Mean 2.210 Standard deviation 1.078 R:.567 R2=.321 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) = 2.249 Variable Coefficient Std. Error F value (b) of (b) Education .369 .233 2.519 Farm Income .503 .259 3.785 Ritual Caste -.008 .217 .002 Degree of Status Inconsistency .444 .278 2.774 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: Pl (ED >~FI - RC) -.111 .385 .084 P2 (ED < FI - RC) -.854 .458 3.483 P3 (FI >ED - RC) -l.005 .452 4.938 P4 (FI < ED — RC) .029 .355 .007 P5 (RC > ED — FI) .248 .396 .393 P6 (RC < ED - F1) -.301 .391 .592 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F R2 Squares Regression with inconsistency . 10 78.0 9.419 .321 Error 199 164.8 Total 209 242.8 Status effects only 3 64.8 24.990 .267 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 13.2 1.662 .054 Statuses) (38.2) (5.381) (.157) Patterns of S.I. (controlled for 6 13.2 1.939 .054 Statuses and Degree) (37.6) (6.199) (.155) Degree of S.I. (controlled for l 0.6 .551 .002 Statuses and Patterns) (1.2) (1.067) (.005) 120 with a low Standard error (.278), although not statistically significant. The ascribed-achieved pattern hypothesis has a negative t value for difference between means of P6 and P5 (-.052). The regression coeffic- ients associated with these patterns have signs that are the opposite of what we predicted. Empirical Hypothesis III-l and IV-6 are not supported. Results indicate strong support for the investment-reward hypothesis. T test for difference between means (P4-P3) is positive and statistically significant (t=4.262). Regression coefficient for pattern 4 is low but positive (.029) and that for P3 is significantly negative (-1.005, F=4.938) as expected. Empirical Hypothesis V-6 is supported. Support for Empirical Hypothesis V—6 is also borne out by the combined patterns contrast, i.e., patterns where farm income is lower (P1 + P4 + P5) vs patterns where farm income was higher (P2 + P3 + P6) than caste or education. The t test is positive and significant (t-2.903) indicating that whenever investment is lower than reward, inconsistents tend to acquire more political knowledge. This is quite different from what one would have expected from the main status effect of farm income which is positive and the largest in magnitude. we made no specific predictions about education vs other patterns. The finding here was that when education is higher than caste or income inconsistents tend to be politically more knowledgeable than the opposite. T test for (P1 + P4 + P6)-(P2 + P3 + P5) gives a statistically significant value 3.146. Importance of education is indicated by the coefficient for status effects but the pattern coefficients do not exactly reflect it. 121 Empathy Results of the regression analysis of empathy on statuses and incon- sistencies are summarized in Table 4—8. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis III-2: The degree of status inconsistency is positively_associated with empathy. Empirical Hypothesis IV-7: Status inconsistents with achieved (educa- tion and income) status scores higher than ascribed (easte) status scores, have gpeater empathy than status inconsistents with ascribed higher thap_achieved status scores. Empirical Hypothesis V-7: Status inconsistents with investment (eeste and education)ystatus scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have ggeater empathy than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores. Regression coefficients, associated with the degree of inconsistency (.072), the pattern variables, i.e., .146 for P6 vs -.l6l for P5 and .344 for P4 and —.862 for P3 are all in the predicted direction. But none of them are significant. Also, the t test results for difference between means of the ascribed-achieved pattern hypothesis (t-l.705) and the investment-reward pattern hypothesis (t-l.447) are in the predicted direction. They too did not reach the .05 level of significance. So, Empirical Hypotheses II-2, IV-7 and V-7 are all not supported. The full regression model for empathy yields only 7.8 percent of total variance explained. The share of the inconsistency variables (.034) controlled for the additive effects of statuses (.044) is comparable and respectable. Inclusion of inconsistency terms does improve the predictive utility, after all. 122 Table 4—8: Regression of Empathy on Statuses and Inconsistencies Empathy: Mean 1.971 (N=210) Standard deviation 1.080 R =.280 R2 =.O78 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) = 2.085 Variable Coefficient Std. Error F value (b) of (M Education —.200 .272 .542 Farm Income .550 .302 3.311 Ritual Caste —.048 .253 .035 Degree of Status Inconsistency .072 .325 .022 Patterns of Status Inconsisrency: P1 (ED >FI - RC) .420 .450 .870 P2 (EDED - RC) -.862 .528 2.663 P4 (Fl «4 ED - RC) .344 .415 .687 P5 (RC >ED - FI) —.161 .462 .122 P6 (RC ’FI - RC) 1.098 .598 3.370 P2 (ED< FI - RC) -1.126 .857 1.723 P3 (FI >ED - RC) -.722 .661 1.193 P4 (FI < ED - RC) 1.073 .670 2.562 P5 (RC > ED - FI) .051 .678 .001 P6 (RC < ED - FI) .449 .745 .359 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F R2 Squares Regression with inconsistency 10 117.6 4.404 .165 Error 199 593.6 Total 209 711.2 Status effects only 3 88.9 9.811 .125 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 28.7 1.214 .040 Statuses) (65.4) (2.923) (.092) Patterns of S.I. (controlled for 6 19.2 .939 .027 Statuses and Degree) (63.4) (3.314) (.089) Degree of S.I. (controlled for 1 5.0 1.466 .007 Statuses and Patterns) (8.2) (2.432) (.012) 126 Status inconsistency terms explained an additional four percent variance in secular orientation controlled for the 12.5 percent of variance from the additive effects of statuses. Patterns of inconsis- tency explain two-thirds (2.7 percent) of the variance explained by total inconsistency in secular orientation, as expected. As we discussed under political knowledgeability and empathy variables, education is the important variable in the best prediction of response to patterns of inconsistency. The t tests for the contrast education higher than income and caste vs education lower than caste and income (P1 - P2) has a statistically significant value (t=3.309). So also the combined patterns test (Pl + P4 + P6)-(P2 + P3 + P5) gives a t value of 4.107. Research literature did not indicate a pattern hypothesis of education higher/lower vs others to make any specific predictions in our disser- tation. Now we have statistically significant results indicating that when education is a higher status rank than caste and income, inconsis- tents are politically more knowledgeable, empathic and secualrly oriented than when education is lower than the two. A hypothesis for future research could be stated as: Status inconsistents with education status scores higher than caste and income status scores are more modern than status inconsistents who are high on caste and income but low on education. hgiicultural Innovation Adoption Table 4-10 reports the principal findings from the multiple regression analysis of the three status variables, degree of status inconsistency and six patterns of inconsistency on the dependent variable, agricultural innovation adoption. The specific predictions were: Empirical Hypothesis III-4: The degree of status inconsistency is positively associated with agricultural innovation adoption. 127 Table 4-10: Regression of Agricultural Innovation Adoption on Statuses and Inconsistencies Agricultural Innovation Adoption: Mean 4.752 (N=210) Standard deviation 1.723 R =.516 R2 ”'266 Regression Equation Grand Mean (Intercept) = 4.698 Variable Coefficient Std. Error F value (b) of (b) Education .028 .387 .005 Farm Income 1.236 .430 8.256 Ritual Caste .219 .361 .367 Degree of Status Inconsisrency .523 .462 1.281 Patterns of Status Inconsistency: P1 (ED > El — RC) -.104 .641 .027 P2 (ED< FI — RC) -.414 .761 .296 P3 (FI > ED - RC) -.796 .752 1.122 P4 (FI < ED - RC) .074 .591 .016 P5 (RC > ED - F1) -.556 .658 .714 P6 (RC FI - RC) -.094 .433 .047 P2 (ED< FI - RC) —.377 .515 .535 P3 (FI >ED - RC) -.279 .509 .300 P4 (FI < ED - RC) .190 .400 .225 P5 (RC >ED - FI) .298 .445 .449 P6 (RC < ED - FI) —.327 .440 .555 Analysis of Variance Table Source d.f Sums of F R2 Squares Regression with inconsistency 10 16.3 1.558 .073 Error 199 208.6 Total 209 224.9 Status effects only 3 12.3 3.986 .055 Inconsistency (controlled for 7 4.10 .520 .018 Statuses) (8.5) (1.117) (.037) Patterns of S.I. (controlled for 6 3.8 .585 .017 Statuses and Degree) (8.0) (1.220) (.035) Degree of S.I. (controlled for 1 0.2 .150 .001 Statuses and Patterns) (3. 5) (3.210) (.015) Chapter V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS No scientific investigation can be final: it merely repres- ents the most probable conclusion which can be drawn from the data at the disposal of the writer. A wider range of facts, or more refined analysis, experiment, and observation will lead to new formulae and new theories. This is the essence of scientific progress. (Karl Pearson, 1898 as quoted by C.R.Rao, 1948) Summary The main objectives of the present study were three-fold: (l) to propose a process-view paradigm of communication and individual modern-' ization with special reference to status inconsistency, (2) to develop a method of measurement of status incosistency, and (3) to empirically determine whether status inconsistency is positively related to the external and interpersonal communication behaviors; and attitudinal and behavior components of peasant modernity. The data for the present study come from part of a larger research effort dealing with the diffusion of innovations in India. The present dissertation utilized data about 210 peasant respondents collected with personal interviews using structured instruments in three villages of Andhra Pradesh. Ritual caste rank, level of education and amount of farm income are consisdered the important indicators of social status and are utilized in the measurement of status inconsistency. Status inconsistency was defined as the relative lack of similarity of an individual's rank positions on relevant status dimensions. Status inconsistency was operationalized in two ways: (1) the degree of 131 132 inconsiStencyi_i.e, the amount of inconsistency which will vary as the distance between status scores of an individual varies, and (2) six patterns of inconsistency, which are all the logical combinations of high on one status and low on other statuses, among the three statuses considered. It was hypothesized that: (1) the degree of status inconSistency IS positively associated with exposure to external sources of communication (2) the degree of status inconsistency is positively related to the degree of heterophily in the friendship and information-seeking interpersonal communication (3) the degree of inconsistency is positively associated with attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of modernity (4) status incon- sistents with achieved (education and income) status scores higher than ascribed(caste) status scores, have greater eXposure to external commu- nication and are more modern than status inconsistents with ascribed higher than achieved pattern of status inconsistency, and (5) status inconsistents with investment (caste and education) status scores higher than reward (farm income) status scores, have greater exposure to external communication and are more modern than status inconsistents with reward higher than investment status scores pattern of inconsistency. The hypotheses were tested utilizing a multiple regression model with dummy variable terms (1, 0, -l) for statuses and (l, 0) for the patterns of inconsistency; Pearsonian product-moment correlation analysis for the relationship between of degree of inconsistency and degree of heteroPhily; and t test for differences between means of the patterns of inconsistency predictions. 133 Five theoretic hypotheses and 36 empirical hypotheses were postul- ated in the present dissertation. Table 5-1 provides a summary of the hypotheses testing results. Of the 36 empirical hypotheses, seven were supported on the basis of statistical tests of significance, and seven were not supported. A.major bulk of the empirical hypotheses, almost two-thirds (22) have directional support, i.e., the postulated relation- ship between the variables was found to be in the expected direction but was not significant. In summarizing the hypotheses-testing results, I have used a trichotomous decision criterion of support, partial support and no support for the broad theoretic hypotheses. External Communication For each of the five variables, viz., radio listening, movie exposure, newspaper exposure, urban contact and change agent contact a degree hypothesis, an ascribed-achieved pattern hypothesis and an investment- reward hypothesis were tested. Both the pattern hypotheses test results were in the predicted direction but radio listening was found to be negatively related to degree of inconsistency. Only the investment-reward hypothesis had directional support for movie exposure and urban contact. Newspaper exposure and change agent contact had statistically significant support for the other two hypotheses. Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication There was a statistically significant relationship between degree of status inconsistency and degree of heterophily on the dimension of farm income both in the friendship and information-seeking interpersonal communication. Education heterOphily in friendship communication only had a significant positive relationship with the degree of inconsistency, Lr EV "rr' coauuouww wouoavoum coauaopm coaum>oaca nuamm: mIHHH SOfiuQOUm uuoeasm aofiuoouwp pmuowpmum coaum>ocafi amnsuaaownw< eIHHH huficuopoe Hmauumm coauomufiw wmuofiwoum coaumuamfiuo Hmaaumm MIHHH Hmsww>awafi mnu Suez pmumaou coauoouww wmuowwoum magmaem NIHHH %Hm>fiufimoa ma accoumfim coauooufiw wmuofipoum muwaanmwwvma3oax Hmoauwaom HIHHH Iaooaa msumum mo common ope ”HHH .m.H wcfixmmmlomaw wmquQQSm a“ zaasmououon mEoocH oIHH gazmaamaum wouuoamsm CH kawsaououmn maooaH mIHH wcfixommlomcfl “m, commonesm coauomuwn wmuowwoum ca mafinaououms coaumUSpm qIHH .GOHumoH::EEoo 1i magmwcmfiuw Hmcomnmaumuaa wcaxomm wouuoeesm Ga waflaaououms coaumospm mIHH Icofiumauomcfi cam darn wcflxmmmlomcfi Iwcmfium may a“ aafinaououmg coHuomHHw pmuoapmum CH %Hfismououon mummo NIHH mo omuwmw onu nuHB woumamh dfizmwcmfinw zao>fiuwmom ma zoaoumfimcoo coauumnaw amuoaamum as aaanaoumumn mummo anHH nan msumum mo monwma one "HH .m.e cowuoopwp wouofiwmum oomucou uamwm mwcmzo mIH .coaumoHaSEEoo connoQQSm wounomeam uoz uowuaoo amps: «IH mo mmousom Hwououxm uoz coauooufip wmuoflpmum musmoaxo Hmamemzmz mIH ou mpomoexo ou pmumaou wouuoamsm uoz musmomxo oH>oz NIH mao>fiufimom ma honoumfimcoo pmuuommsm uoz wcacoumfia oapmm HIH Ida woumum mo powwow one "H .m.H HmoaumuomzH HmoHHHmEm ,r+-yyrr+r>»rLrLybp-,maommwm> mommsuom%m.t, mommnuomwm ofiumyomsa muaammm waaummelmfimmnuomhm “covammmn Hmofinflmem coaumuuommfin ucommum mfiu CH muHSmmm wafiumoalmmmmSuoa%m mzu mo kHwEEsm "Hum magma 135 vmuuommsm uoz coaumowm .>ocafi :uammm OHI> coauomufiv wmuofipmvm coauaowm .>oaGH .Huw< ml> .Ammv maumum coauoouwv wmuoflpoum coaumucmfiuo Hmanomm wl> uaoEumo>aa so 30H usn msumum cowuomufiv wmuofipmum msummsm ml> pum3mu co swag mum 0:3 musou wouuoemsm mufiafinmowwmaaocx Hmofiuaaom cl> Imamcoocfi monoum can“ cumwofi phonesm wouuoaasm uomuaoo ucmwm mwcmnu ml> ouos mum cam GOHumofiGSEEoo Hmfiuumm sowuooufip wouowwonm nomucoo can“: ql> Hmaumuxo “mummuw m>m£ wouuoamsm musmoaxm Hammam3oz ml> Aqmv mSuMum wnm3mu so 30H “on :OHuooHHc wmuofiwmum ousmomxo mfi>oz NI> woumum uamEumm>afi co zwfin mum aofluomufip vmuuwcmnm wcficmumfia ospmm HI> 0:3 wuamumfimaooaa mnumum u> .m.9 pmuuommnm uoz sowumowm .>oacw auammm OHI>H coauoonflp wouoficoum coauaowm .>ocafl .Huw4 mI>H .Ammv maumum sOHDUouHc wmuuavmum coaumuaoauo amasomm mI>H vo>oanom no sea was woumum pm coauomuwp wouoflwmum knumeEm mI>H spHuomm so swan mum 0:3 mucmu pounommsm uoz %uHHHnmowpmazocx Hmofiuflaom wI>H Imamaooafi maumum saga chopoa wmuuommsm cowuomuwc wouofipmum uomuaoo ucowm swamno mI>H mHoE sum was coaumoHGDEEoo uoz wouuommsm uoz uumuaoo amps: qI>H HmsHmuxm umumosw m>m£ «omv coauoopww wouowpoum ousmomxm nommmmsmz mn>H nonsum wmnfiuomm co 30H usn commonesm uoz musmomxm ofi>oz NI>H msumum wm>mH£om Go swag mum coauooufiv wouofinmum mafiamumwa oapmm HI>H 0:3 mucoumfimcoucfi msumum “>H .m.H Hmoaumuomne Hmofiuwmmm , - ...... ----..mdnmfium> momonuommm.;t, ammonuomwm ofiumuomLH muasmmm mafiumoalmfimmnuoazm uaowammmn Hmowufidsm Aa.uaoov Hum magma 136 while it is positive but not significant in the information—seeking communication. Caste heterOphily in friendship and information-seeking interpersonal communication had a positive relationship with the degree of inconsistency which is not statistically significant. Individual Modernity The investment-reward hypothesis about political knowledgeability is supported in terms of statistical significance, while the degree hypothesis has directional support and the ascribed-achieved hypothesis is not supported at all. Each of the three hypotheses predicting modern- ity effects in terms of empathy, secular orientation and agricultural innovation adoption have found directional support approaching sign- ificance in many cases. Health innovation adoption was found to be an odd ball prediction with directional support for the relationship with degree of inconsistency only. Discussion Our data supported only a small part of our hypotheses. A major part of the predicted relationships in our precess-view paradigm of individual modernization presented in Chapter II, have directional support in terms of theoretical expectives. However, the relationship between the empirical measures of external communication and status inconsistencies in our paradigm was found to have a weak link. The question therefore arises. Why were some hypotheses supported and others not supported? This calls for a critical analysis of methodology, assumptions, theoretical frame of reference, and inter- pretation of data. 137 In general, the author has enough confidence in the accuracy of the data collected because sufficient rapport was established with the respondents and that the percent of error could not be high. Coding the structured interview schedules was not difficult, and was reliable and accurate. Construction of indices for variables with multiple items was done systematically, as reported in the Methodology Chapter. Whether the operationalization and the empirical measures used, correspond and/or are adequate in terms of the intended measures of the concepts have to be discussed with reference to specific variables. Some discussion about the assumptions of the multiple regression model and interpretative problems were briefly touched upon eariler in the Methodology Chapter and while presenting the findings. We shall elaborate on some of those later in this chapter. External Communication Movie exposure and urban contact are the two external communication variables that were not at all supported in two of the three theoretic hypotheses and have directional support only in the third. Movie exposure was measured by the response to a single item "How many commer- ical films have you seen during 1966?" and urban contact was measured by "How many times have you visited a town and a city last year?" The distribution of scores on both of these variables is heavily skewed to the left in the sample, i.e., there is a preponderance of no or very little movie goers and travelers to the urban setting. Commerical movies may not be an indicator of external communication at all. Urban contact may be far removed from the reference system of our respondents with a preponderance of low income and daily work oriented peOple. 138 The relationship between degree of inconsistency and radio listen- ing also was not supported. Radio listening was measured as a three item index of exposure to songs and recreational programs, news, and farm programs. All these three external communication variables are expensive to attain or pocess and are out of reach for an average peasant respon- dent. A related point about radio communication is that community owned receiver sets relay the broadcasts certain times only (a half hour afternoon farm program) and in the evening between 5 and 6 P.M., when most people working in the fields haven't yet returned home. Timing of the regional broadcasts of All-India Radio is inapprOprate as well as the message style itself which takes a predominant urban accent and in the pure linguistic form, eventually, is not creating or sustaining interest in the peasant audience. Perhaps newspaper exposure (even illiterates can hear somebody else reading the paper in the typical small group leisurely chat in the evenings) and change agent contact (at least a village level worker who is everybody's friend in the village) are the two critical variables in the external communication set. The three sets of hypothesized relationships between these and the degree and patterns of inconsistency are either supported or in the predicted direction. Thus the crucial variables newspaper exposure and change agent contact provide us at least partial support and to have confidence in the credence of the linkage between external communication variables and status inconsistency, in our paradigm. 139 Individual Modernity Pattern predictions about the health innovation adoption behavior of status inconsistents and the ascribed-achieved hypotheSis about political knowledgeability stand out without any support in the set of modernity variables. Non—significance but at least directional support of all other predictions for modernity variables will be discussed under the methodological factors and the measurement model later. The small negative t value (- 052) for the P6 - P5 difference on political knowledgeability is not because ascribed (caste) higher than achieved (education, income) are more politically knowledgeable but the strong positive effect education has both as a main effect and as a component of the pattern of inconsistency on political knowledgeability. In the pattern where education is a lower rank the effects on political knowledgeability are negative. Although health innovation adoption behavior is positively related to degree of inconsistency it is very weak. Pattern predictions about the health adoption are entirely different from all the other modernity variables we have studied. A status inconsistent who has education scores higher than caste or income has mgrg radio listening, newspaper exposure, change agent contact, political knowledgeability, empathy, secular orientation but not being innovative on health adOption as we measured it. So, health innovativeness may not be an indicator of modernity or that a status inconsistent individual could be modern on many but still can lag behind on health innovative behavior. The author's reflection into his first 16 years of life in the village reminds the custom and belief that such an item as "boiling the drink— ing water is for sick peOple" similar to Rogers (1971, p. 2), classic 140 example of water boiling in a peruvian Village. This 18 one of the items in our measure of health innovation adoption. Discussion with Reference to the Multiple Regression Measurement Model From a toral pOpulation standpoint there is no escaping the conclusion that neither degree nor patterns of inconsistency predict respondent behavior very well. The largest R2 reported for the full model for any variable was .313 for the regreSSion political knowledgeability on statuses and inconsistencies. For the most part R2 in total sample averaged .200. The lower R2 for movie exposure was .063. Four have done better than 25 percent; three between 12 and 16 percent and the other three around 6 to 7 percent variance eXplained. In the last three cases inconsistencies usually accounted for about 50 percent of the full model, i.e., around three and a half percent. Twice where the full model explained over 2.5 percent variance, inconsistencies explained only about 4 percent of that or aobut a per- centage point in the dependent variable. The highest proportion of variance was 5.7 percent, almost 50 percent of the total 12.1 per- cent explained for radio listening by statuses and inconsistencies together. The question at this point is whether the additional predictive power gained is worth the increased complexity of the model. Granted that inconsistency is not significant, one would have to have the same effect produced repeatedly in independent samples before it could be accepted. Even if it were significant, researchers would have to decide whether this was the mosc efficient way in creating predictive power. 141 The low values of R2 for inconSIStency prevent this research from making more of the fact in analyzing some external communication and modernity variables (radio listening, political knowledgeability, empathy, secular orientation). The status effecr of education loses its main effect value and becomes a strong component of inconsiStency. This suggests that education has a seperate meaning depending on the value of caste and farm income. The interacting influences of variables has been traditionally taken as an interaction effect. In the long run inconsistency variables defined in this study are ways of reconceptualizing interaction so that the sums of squares due to interaction can be partitioned in ways that are theoretically meaningful. It should be added that introduction of inconsistencies does not always weaken a main status effect. There are times when a strong status effect remains strong and becomes a strong component of the inconsistency as well. The regression of agricultural innovation adOp- tion on statuses and inconsistencies in our study had farm income as a strong main effect variable as well as significant effects in the patterns where farm income is a higher status than caste or education— Turning to the past, the present srudy can evaluate this research against the pattern of prior research. The effects reported here are predominantly in terms of R2 which has given them a negative cast. The pattern of findings in this dissertation are not so much different from prior reserach as it appears but for a different kind of anal- ysis and presentation, making clear the point that status inconsistency effects on the dependent variables studied are small after all. Our results are substantially better compared to those reported by Jackson and Burke (1965), who reported R2 for their full model as .041 for psychomatic symptoms. They report Status effects as R2 8.024 which leaves 1.7 percent of variance by their two-faccor interaction terms to estimate inconsistency effeCt. Broom and Jones (1970) in reporting their findings about Ausrralian liberal voting behaVior documented an R2 for full model of .172, that due to statuses .139, .003 for inconsisrency all of that by patterns with the two factor interaction terms also. Status Multidimensionality in Indian Villages In the Introductory Chapter, in the conceptualization of status inconsistency and the subsequent development of communication and modernization paradigm, we have made two theoretical assumptions. 1. The traditional role of caste as the dimension of status and the detenmining factor for other statuses is no longer true and 2. Status inconsistency based upon the earlier assumption of multidimensionality of status is the motivating factor, the social-psychological force in the individual external communication orientation and the modernization process. Empirical evidence presented in this study indicated that both of these theoretical assumptions are viable. Sen (1962) coucluded that "there does not seem to be any real status dilemma" in the four Bengal villages he studied in 1953. He also points out that even where there is a status dilemma people try to solve it not through an increased secular orientation, but being more tradition oriented vis-a-vis Srinivas's Sanskritization or ritualistic Hindu- ization indicating the influence of caste. Findings in our study have 143 different and somewhat opposite conclusions. One or all of three things would account for these changes: First, the time and place element is that our study is conducted fourteen years later in 1967 and in a different part of the country. Second, caste is no longer the sole determinant of status or the dominant influence in the individual behavior. Finally, our refined method of measurement of inconsistency. There is no denial of the fact that caste is still an important dimension of status as indicated by the strong effects it has in the patterns of inconsistency where it is higher than education or income in the case of movie eXposure, urban contact and agricultural innovation adoption. For agricultural innovation adoption farm income also was important as a main effect as well as a strong component of inconsis— tency. But the point that caste is not the only important or most important status was demonstrated by education. In the case of radio listening, newspaper exposure, political knowledgeability, empathy and secular orientation, sometimes education has a strong main effect but always was proven to be a strong component of inconsistency in terms of pattern effects where education is a higher score than caste or income, in fact, statistically significant effects on the last three modernity variables. Heterophily in Interpersonal Communication Three of the hypotheses about the relationship between degree of inconsistency and degree of heterophily in interpersonal communication are supported. The other three hypotheses are in the predicted direction but not supported. For friendship communication each individual was allowed to choose three choices. The potential number of dyads was three times the 144 respondent sample size (N=210). But the number of dyads used in the con— struction of heterophily scores was much less than half, only 273, i.e., an average of 1.3 dyads per individual. Many reSpondents chose at least two others if not all three. The author's own observation in the field was the respondents' frequent choice of over the 50 age group peOple in the village who were cut off in our original selection of respondents. We did not gather any information about them. Allowing three choices only may be too restrictive. May be we should have allowed as many choices as the respondent would have liked to choose. That would have generated a larger number of dyads and the relationships tested might have been statistically significant. Regarding information-seeking, the singular choice of non-change agents on the four specific items was definitely much too restrictive. Out of a possible 840 dyads, only 249 dyads or less than 30 percent, were used in the heterophily score construction. Caste heterophily had a weak positive relationship with the degree of inconsistency both in the friendship and information-seeking inter— personal communication. One reason is that the distribution of caste ranks was not uniform. In one of the villages 25 out of all the 33 respondents (85 percent) were high caste respondents. Seperately analyzed the relationship between degree of inconsistency and degree of heterophily is negative or there is greater homophily on caste in that one village which has affected the relationship in the total sample. Also, caste seggregated residential patterns in the Indian ruarl systems is still the rule. Propinquipty still plays a dominant role in the total amount of communication between peasants. But the range 145 and diversity of interpersonal communication contacts in recent years have gone beyond caste restrictions. The author, a native farm boy who grew up in a ruarl system very similar to the ones in our sample (less than 50 miles away), has observed these significant changes. Conclusions The postulated relationships in our modernization paradigm do have some support to merit attention. Given larger samples it might be pos- sible to find conclusive empirical evidence to support more of the relationships. The measurement model for status inconsistency has done quite well compared to any other prior research in the field. The degree and pattern measures with trichotomous and dichotomous dummy variable terms in the regression equation were a way of conceptualizing the status inconsistency effects independent of the effects of social status variables. .A major portion of the empirical relationships between degree, spe- cified patterns of status inconsistency and the external communication and modernity variables as well as hypotheses between degree of incon- sistency and degree of heterOphily in friendship and information-seeking interpersonal communication have at least directional support. Ritual caste rank is an important status but education is proven to be more important in our investigation of status inconsistency, communi- cation and modernization behaviors of peasant respondents in the Indian rural social systems studied. Recommendations for Future Research 1. Validation of the present results with different populations and larger samples should be attempted to provide a wider base for 146 theoretic generalization. Results in our study can not be generalized because of the restrictiveness in the selection of respondents, and they are applicable to the sample of respondents studied in Andhra villages only. At best they can be extended to other Andhra villages with similar socio-cultural characteristics. 2. While discussing the paradigm and the theoretical framework in Chapter II of this study we postulated that: More modern social systems have a higher pr0portion of status inconsistent individuals than the less modern social systems. Comparative analysis of social systems may provide additional leads or may provide evidence for the consistency of results and postulates presented here. 3. Our analysis of the interpersonal communication structures in the villages on the relational dimensions of homophily-heterophily is admitedly primitive. We hada postulate in Chapter II of this dissertation, suggesting that status inconsistents occupy a greater proportion of lia- ison roles in a village system. Network analysis would help us understand the internal communication structure as well as the communicative integ- ration of individuals, subgroups and liaisons to indicate what might be the relative role of status inconsistents in the innovation-diffusion in village systems. 4. It is possible that the gross measures of communication exposure are not precise and could not differentiate between respondents. This might be the reason for the weak linkage between external communication and status inconsistency variables in terms of the empirical evidence in our study. Other communication measures and research dealing with the quali- 147 tative aspects of message content are needed to provide empirical evid— ence to test propositions like: Status inconsistents show a greater degree of initiative in communicative transactions with change agents than do the status consistents. The content of the messages to which status inconsistents are exposed may differentiate between degrees of inconsistency, patterns of inconsistency and all of them from status consis- tents. Channels and sources of technical information may also diff- erentiate between kinds of inconsistents and those from status consistents. Research results of the kind indicated above would help change agencies, in their intermeadiary role between the scientist, planner and/or political sources and their peasant client receivers to become more effective in planning their communication strategies. It would help change agents to decide what kind of messages to "filter" and in what channels for different audiences under different conditions. 5. Research is also needed to ascertain the possible consequences on the change agents behavior and their acceptance and success among peasant villagers, when the change agents try to utilize the status inconsistents as liaison links in their communication strategies for innovation diffusion. 6. Specific recommendations about the improvements with reference to the regression model used in our study are discussed below: a. Methodologically it is apparent that statuses do have non-linear effects. At the very least future research needs to be concerned with specifying the nature and significance of the non—linear effects of statuses. Hamblin, 1966; Hamblin and others, 1963 propose that statuses are distributed log normally and they use a multiplicative power model. 148 b. The Specific model used in this study could be improved by better handling the border line cases in terms of pattern assignments. No matter how we do it there will be some status patterns of no like ranks that could logically belong to two patterns each (HML, LMH, MHL, LHM, HLM, MLH). In this research an arbitrary assignment was made. In the future it would be wiser to partition the effects of those patterns. This could be done most easily by weighting them 1/2 in both patterns they logically belong. For example, in this research the status pattern high education, medium farm income and low caste may belong to P1 or P6 and is assigned to P6. This gives weights of l for P6 and O for P1. With the proposed revision it would be weighted 1/2 in each pattern. c. There are two ways of increasing the reliability of the estimates of effects. One way is to get larger and larger samples until one finally passes some critical point at which all of the regression coefficients become reliable. Computers, national surveys and funds will make it a possibility. An easier methodis to elaborate the scales used for statuses. In this study statuses were scaled high, medium and low. This restrictive scaling introduces a high correlation between degree and patterns of inc- onsistency. This high correlation was not a function of the data, but a function of reduction of the property space from multi—variate normal to one that was finite and of more or less equal density throughout. For example, when degree is regressed on patterns, R2 was (.587). It is also apparent that degree and patterns of inconsistency are dependent on statuses. Thus, one solution to the question of assessing relative magnitude of effect within a given status pattern would be to score the statuses as standardized variables with a zero mean and unit standard deviation. 149 Compared to the conventional variables our use of dummy variables were better approximations of standardization but not successfully enough because of the skewed distribution in our small sample. Since incons— istency could not be standardized this same way without loss of their 1, 0 properties, their coefficients would have to be converted to beta weights after initial analysis to compare the effects directly. 7. At a theoretical level we can raise questions about the conc- eptualization of status inconsistency with reference to researcher det- ermined objective measures Vs the perception of status inconsistency. In the Introductory Chapter we have discussed the significance of perc- eived inconsistency from the respondents' view point; other mebers perc- eption in the social system; individual perception of other perceived status inconsistency. Appendix A lists some consequent behavioral tende- ncies that we might predict for these. A related question that we could raise is "status inconsistency relative to whom?" That is to say, with whom does the individual or others compare a person on the various status dimensions? If the refe- rence relative to whom is with others in the same social system, effects of that status inconsistency would be different from a comparison relat- ive to external social systems or to state or national populations. Research in these two directions is an immediate and absolute need to make status inconsistency research theoretically sound, practically relevant and socially significant. Implications for Change Agencies What suggestions do the present findings offer to change agencies who are responsible for the planning and implementation of programs of tech- 150 nological change, and to change agents who want to introduce innovations in peasant communities? Results of the present study indicated that change agent contact, newspaper exposure and radio listening to some extent are the important external communication variables related to the degree and patterns of incinsistency. So, we suggest the following considerations: 1. It is essential to provide status inconsistents, especially those who may be liaison links in the system with relevant messges regar— ding both programs of change and technological innovations. That is, they should be educational too. They should try to increase the clients know— ledge of their social roles and behavioral alternatives beyond the exper- iences of the immediate community that wouhlaid in increasing the empathy, political knowledgeability and the general change-proneness of peasants. 2. Status inconsistents who may be liaisons linked with the outside information environment serve as interpersonal channels for the social system. Change agencies in their mass media campaigns and messages should provide relevant messages that appeal to the status inconsistent liaisons. The objective in that would be the creation and/or sustenance of interper- sonal communication channels who are receptive to change. 3. The media forum strategy of communication that originated some years ago seem to be extinct in India, now. The proven ability of media forums with their complementarity of mass media and interpersonal channels could be reintroduced successfully by utilizing status inconsistents as forum leaders (Rao, 1971, p. 383). 4. Change agents must be trained to understand the role of inter- personal communication structure and the identification and potential importance of status inconsistents in the diffusion of innovations. 151 Here, Peter Blau's note (1964, pp. 50—51) may be an apprOpriate suggestion for ”change agents to consider and as a concluding remark for the present study. ...members who have positive characteristics on a salient attri- bute, which make them attractive, but negative ones on a less salient attribute, which also make them approachable, have the best chance to win informal acceptance; correspondingly, those who are negative on a more salient attribute and positive on a less salient attribute should have the least chance. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Stuart 1953 "Status Congruency as a Variable in Small Group Performance." Social Forces 32:16-22. Aiyappan, A. 1965 Social Revolution in a Kerala Village. New York: Asia Publish- ing House. Ascroft, Joseph R. 11969a "The Web of Modernization: Interrelationships Among Conceptual variables," Chapter 14 in E.M.Rogers with L.Svenning, Moderniza tion Among Peasants: The Impact of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. .19t59b Modernization and Communication: Controlling Environmental Changg, Ph.D. Dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State University. Bamlund, Dean C. l9€3£3 Interpersonal Communication: Survey_and Studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Bartlett, M. S. 19EBES "The Effect of Non-normality on the t Distribution," Proceedings of the Cambridge PhiIOSOphical Society 31:223-231. Bauman, Karl E. 1968 "Status Inconsistency, Satisfactory Social Interaction and Com- unity Satisfaction in an Area of Rapid Growth." Social Forces 47:45-52. Berlo’ David K. 1960 The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Beteiiie, Andre 19 69 Castes: 01d and New. Bombay: Asia Publishing House. Blalock, Herbert M., Jr. 1964 Causal Inferences in Non-Experimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1966a "The Identification Problem and Theory Building: The Case of Status Inconsistency." American Sociological Review 31: 52-61. J-966b "Comment: Status Inconsistency and the Identification Problem." Public Opinion Quarterly 30:130-132. l967a "Status Inconsistency and Interaction: Some Alternative Models." American Journal of Sociology 75:305-315. 196 7b "status Inconsistency, Social Mobility, Status Integration and Structural Effects." American Sociological Review 32:790—801. 152 153 Blau, Peter M. 1964 Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. Bohrnstedt, G. W. and Carter, M. T. 1971 "Robustness in Regression Analysis," pp. 118-146 in Herbert L. Costner (ed.), Sociological Methodology 1971. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Boneau, C. H. 1960 "The Effects of Violation of Assumptions Underlying the t Test." Psychological Bulletin 57:49-64. Brandon, Arlene C. 1965 "Status Congruence and EXpectation." Sociometry 28 (September) pp. 272-288. Broom, L. and Jones, F. L. 1970 "Status Consistency and Political Preference: The Australian Case," American Sociological Review 35:989—1001. Bunker, Gary L. 1966 Self-Role Copgruence and Status Congruence as Interaction Variables in Dyadic Behavior, Ph.D. Dissertation, Berkley: University of California. Burnstein, Eugene and Zajonc, Robert B. 1965 "The Effect of Group Success on the Reduction of Status Incongruence in Task—oriented Groups." Sociometry 28:349-362. Cochran, W. G. 1947 "Some Consequences When the Assumptions for the Analysis of Variance Are Not Satisfied," Biometrics 3:22-38. Demerath III, N. J. 1965 Social Class in American Protestantism. Chicago: Rand McNally. Deutchmann, Paul J. 1963 "The Mass Media in an UnderdevelOped Village," Journalism Quarterly 40:27-35. 1966 "The Marginal Situation: A Contribution to Marginality Theory." Social Forces 45. Doob, Leonard W. 1961 Communication in Africa. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Edwards, L. P. 1927 The Natural History of Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 154 Exline, Ralph K. and Ziller, Robert C. 1959 "Status Congruency and Interpersonal Conflict in Decision-making Groups." Human Relations 12:147-162. Fauman, Joseph S. 1968 ”Status Crystallization and Interracial Attitudes." Social Forces Fenchel, G. and others 1951 "Substantive Status and the Equilibration Hypothesis." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology_46:476-479. Fesringer, Leon 1957 A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson. Frey, Frederick W. 1966 The Mass Media and Rural Development in Turkey. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Center for International Studies, Rural DeveIOpment Research Report 3. Gayen, A. K. 1949 "The Distribution of 'Students' t in random samples of any size drawn from non-normal universes," Biometrika 36:353-369. Geshwender, James A. 1962 Status Inconsistency,gCognitive Dissonance and Social Changg. Ph.D. Dissertation, East Lansing: Michigan State University. 1967 "Continuities in Theories of Status Inconsistency and Dissonance." Social Forces 46:160-171. 1968 "Status Consistency,Social Isolation and Individual Unrest." Social Forces 47:477-484. Gibbs, Jack P. and Martin, Walter T. 1958 "Status Integration and Suicide" American Sociolggical Review 23:140-147. Godard, R. H. and Lindquist, E. F. 1940 "An Empirical Study of the Effect of Heterogenous Within Groups Variance," Psychometrika 5:263-274. Goffman, Irvin W. 1957 "Status Consistency and Preference for Change in Power Distribution." American Sociological Review 22:275-288. Hagen, Everett E. 1962 On the Theory of Social Chaggg: How Economic Growth Begins. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press. Hall, A. D. and Fagen, R. E. 1968 "Definition of a System" in Walter Buckley (ed.) Modern Systems Research For Behavioral Scientists. Chicago: Aldine. 155 Hamblin, R. L. 1966 "Ratio Measurement and Sociological Theory: A Critical Analysis," Paper read at American Sociological Association, Miami Beach, Florida. Hamblin, R. L. and Others 1963 "The Interference—Agression Law?” Sociometry 26:190—216. Heffernan, William D. 1968 Status Inconsistency,gDe51re for Social Change,_Participation gnd Individual Improvement for a Farm Sample. Ph.D. Dissertation Madison: University of Wisconsin. Hodge, Robert W. 1962 "Status Inconsistency of Occupational Groups." Inerican Sociolpgical Review 27:336-343. Holmberg, Allan R. (no date)"Changing Community Attitudes and Values in Peru: A Case Study in Guided Change" in Council on Foreign Relations, Social Change in Latin America Today. Homans, George C. 1950 The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company. 1961 Social Behavior: Its Elementagy Forms. London: Rouledge and Kagan Paul. Hyman, M. D. 1964 Some Attitudinal and Behavioral Consequences of Certain Forms of Rank Inconsistency. Ph.D. Dissertation. New York: Columbia UniverSity. 1966 "Determining the Effects of Status Inconsistency." Public Opinion Quarterljr30:120-132. Jackson, Elton F. 1960 Status Consistency, Veritical Mobility_and Symptoms of Stress. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. 1962 "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress." American Sociological Review 27:469-480. Jackson, Elton F. and Burke, Peter J. 1965 "Status and Stress: Additive and Interaction Effects." American Sociological Review 30:456-564. Jacobson, Eugene and Seashore, E. E. 1951 "Communication Practices in Complex Organization." Journal of Social Issues 7:28-40. Johnston, J. 1963 Econometric Methods, New York: McGraw-Hill. 156 Kasl, Stanislav V. and Cobb, Sidney 1967 "Effects of Parental Status Incongruence Over Discrepancy of Physical and Mental Health of Adult Offspring.” Journal of Per— sonality and Social Psychology 7 (whole No. 642) 1-15. 1968 "Physical and Mental Health Correlates of Status Incongruence," Unpublished Paper, Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research. Kasl, Stanislav V. 1969 ”Personal Communication to the Author." dated September 12. Yale University. Kelley, G. A. 1963 A Theory of Personality, The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton and Company. Kelly, Dennis K. and Chambliss, William J 1966 "Status Inconsistency and Political Attitudes.‘ Sociological Review 31:375-382. ' American Kenkel, William F. 1961 "The Relationship Between Status Inconsistency and Politico- Economic Attitudes." American Sociological Review 26:365-368. Kerlinger, Fred N. 1964 Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Landecker, Werner S. 1960 "Class Crystallization and Its Urban Pattern." Social Research 27:308-320. Lasswell, Harold D. and Lerner, Daniel 1966 World Revolutionary Elites. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and others 1948 The People's Choice. New York Columbia University Press. Lenski, Gerhard E. 1954 "Status Crystallization: A Non-vertical Dimension of Social Status." American Sociological Review 19:405-413. 1956 "Social Participation and Status Crystallization." American Sociological Review 21:458-464. 1964 "Comment" Public Opinion Quarterly 28:326-330. 1967 "Status Inconsistency and the Vote." American Sociological Review 32:298-301. Lerner, Daniel 1958 The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle EEEE' New York: Free Press. 1961 Quanitity andvguality. New York: The Free Press. 1963 "Toward a Communication Theory of Modernization," in Lucian W. Pye, (ed.), Communication§_§nd Political Development, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. 157 McClelland, David C. 1966 "The Achievement Motive in Economic Growth." in B. F. Hoselitz and W. E. Moore (eds.) Industrialization and Society. The Hague: UNESCO-Mouton. McNelly, John T. 1966 "Mass Communication and the Climate for Modernization in Latin America." Journal of Inter-American Studies 8:345-367. McNemar, Quinn 1962 Psychological Statistics. New York: Wiley. Miller, Gerald R. 1966 Speech Communication: A Behavioral Approach. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril. Millikan, Max F. and Backner, Donald L. M.,(Eds.) 1961 The Emerging Nations: Their Growth and U.S. Policy. M.I.T. Center for International Studies, Little Brown. Mitchell, Robert E. 1964 "Methodological Notes on a Theory of Status Crystallization” Public Opinion Quarterly 28:315-325. Newcomb, Theodre M. 1953 "An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts." Psychological Review. 60:393-404. 1968 "Interpersonal Balance," in Abelson §£_§1, Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Source Book. Chicago Rand McNally, pp. 28-51. Norton, D. W. 1952 An Empirical Invesrigation of Some Effects of Non-Normality and Heterogeneity on the F Distribution. Ph.D. Dissertation. Ames: State University of Iowa. Parsons, Talcott 1966 Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Pearson, Karl 1898 Quoted by C. R. Rao (1948) in "Problems of Biological Classification." ngal Statistical Society Journal, Series 3.10:159—203. Ploch, Donald R. 1969 Status Inconsistency} A Method of Measurement and Substantive Evaluation. Ph.D. Dissertation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Pye, Lucian (ed.) 1963 Communication and Political Development. Princetion, N.J. Princeton University Press. 158 Rao, Jaganmohan L. 1971 "Generalizations About the Diffusion of Innovations" pp. 346-385 in Everett M. Rogers with Floyd Shoemaker, Communication of Innovations: A Cross-cultural Approach. New York: Free Press. 1972 "Communication Channels in the Innovation-Decision Process: Some Dimensions of the Chanel Concept and Tentative Hypotheses," Paper presented at the International Communication Association Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia. Rao, C. R. 1952 Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometric Research. New York: Wiley. Rao, Y. V. Lakshamana 1966 Communication and Development: A Study of Two Indian Villages. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Ringer, B. B. and Sills, D. L. 1952 "Political Extremists in Iran." Public Opinion Quarterly 16:689-701. Roling, Niels G. 1970 The Evolution of Civilization: A Theoretic Approach to the Diffusion of Innovations with Special Reference to Modernization. Ph.D. Dissertation. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Rogers, Everett with Lynne Svenning 1969 Modernization Among Peasants: The Impact of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Prodipto, Roy and others 1968 Agricultural Innovation Among Indian Farmers. National Institute of Community Development, Hyderabad. Rush, Gary B. 1967 "Status Consistency and Right-Wing Extremism." American Sociological Review 32:86-92. Sampson, Edward E. 1963 "Status Congruence and Cognitive Inconsistency." Sociometry 26:146-162. 1969 "Studies of Status Congruence." in Leonard Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Psychology, Volume 4. New York: Academic Press. pp. 225-268. Schramm, Wilbur 1964 Mass Media and National Development. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Segal, David R. 1969 "Status Inconsistency, Cross Pressures, and American Political Behavior." Sociological Review 34:352-359. 159 Sen, Lalit K. 1962 Social Dimensions of Modernization in Four Indian Villages. Ph.D. Dissertation. Madison: University of Wisconsin. 1968 "The Concepts of Tradition and Modernity: A re-evaluation." Paper prepared for the second World Congress of Rural Sociology, Netherlands. Silverberg, James (ed.) 1968 Social Mobility in the Caste System in India, An Interdisciplinary SymposiumJComparative Studies in Society_and History Snpplement .III. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Singer, Milton and Cohn, Bernard 8. (eds.) 1968 Structure and Change in Indian Sociegy, Chicago: Aldine. Smith, Dick H. and Inkeles, Alex 1966 "The OM Scale: A Comparative Socio-Psychological Measure of Individual Modernity." Sociometryfi 29:353-377. Smullyan, Emile Benoit 1944 "Status, Status Types, and Status Interrelations." American Sociological Review 9:159-160. Sokol, Robert 1961 Status Inconsistenyy: Specification of a Theory. Ph.D. Disser- tation. New York: Columbia University. Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1927 Social Mobility. New York: Harper and Row. 1947 Society, Culture and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics. New York: Harper Brothers. Srinivas, M. N. 1966 Social Change in Modern India. Berkeley: University of California Press. Srivastava, A. B. L. 1958 "Effects of Non-Normality on the Power Function of the t Test." Biometrika 45:421429. Suits, Daniel 1957 "Use of Dummy Variables in Regression Equations." Journal of the American Statistical Association 52:548-551. Weber, Max 1947 The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press. Zeldich, M. Jr., and B. Anderson 1966 "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks,: pp. 244-268 in Joseph Berger, e2 31, (eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. I APPENDICES .unmumamaouafi mauMum mamas Hm can unmumwmnou usumum mauve um 161 umoao mum macaumuomnxm Um.Hmmm sundown vmauuu ou Quotas was lacuna mmaoomnbiallnl. mu>oa doom mafia. doom [[1 Iaoumn mmwsuwum Ho .aoaumflomfi 26H m>oumaa no ouaH mawuvnufia ..wdoauuvaoo “mafia ahmvoa waaaoomn mumauo mnofiuo mam noquUfidaano nus? wnaumu fiufia.wnfiumo can om mumuumaoQIIII Iago hp Ian—go .3 till. assuage—woo taut ou mownu mo>oa noon mmpoa moan monoum Hm om Hm on + vo>amouomlumnfimlwcImmwwmmmMJMLmrmmmmu. , wo>flmouvnluufimo mo nomwnoouam o.HOH9< wo>auuummhwmnuo honouuandouaH\huauuuHmaoo ‘ maumum mo mwoaomka a mo awwvmnwm "¢.NHwnwmg< 162 mama .maafimm HmGOHuma cmaamuums< mmfiuacsaaoo musuoam swan: mounH macausaopmu Mazuo HmHm>om was swammsm mumfifimuuxw HmoHuHHom m.cmuH wamuafiaosm .umficnafiou mmmcfino maowusao>mm swammsm cam noamum .amo Iwums< .wcmawam mo coauaao>mm swufiusm ummumuaH mo Gowumaoaom no mmu¢ hwsum maoozom vmumumouafi was waH Imaos vmumuwoucfi waHHo>mm mmuoufiu tum Hmwomu HmumnHA Emwam sump“; Hmuauaaom zufiasaaoo Ga coauomm Imwumm was :aOH nuomumuafi Hmwoom %Houomwmfiumm: mwamno Hmaoom mpmaowusa Io>mH MOM uuoaasm amHEmHuxm wcw3 sumo saw unwfim mouHHm mumsOfiuSHo>mm mmeSU Hm Ifioom kHMCOHuSHo>mH mafiuuomasm masouo wmuuomwm monmw ImfimcoocH msumum mo mmoawsowmmco mofivsum wmumamm cam hodoumfimdooca mDuMum mo .muoumofivafi Houuon mum mmmao Hmfioom nufia umsumwou nowumuw IHHmumhuo msumum 304 .H.m mo mmmhu vo>mfiso< 33:3... “stage \uamaumm>aH was mmummn osooaw Ho cowumoswm 30H Iaowummsooo swam Hmumamw 5H mucoumfimaooaH Hmuoamw ca mucmumwmcooaH Hmsom ca 30A asp omuau so swam Hmumcmw cH muamumfimaooaH hocowmfimcooaH moumum mo momma mmmao Hmfioom can coauwoowm .huaofianum .maooafi .QOHummsooo dowwfiamm cam maooaH .cOAumosvm .aoaumasouo maooaH can coaumoswm .GOHquSUoo moma .smesmm cama .mmaos was aooum womH .cmasmm mama mo>usm no wmmmm mmfinoumuoun HmGOHumasooo can Hmowufiaom .oHanoom maooaH .cowumasooo .aOfiumosvm umBom cam owwummum %Hfiamm .aOHumoswm .oaooaH umBom owaoaoom cam Hmowufiflom amassum mmma .afixouom Nmma .maafim was Homafim co¢a .umauwA cam Hawammmq nmma .mwumzwm mfimhamq< Hmowuoumam munmvmooua< no mcowmamafin msumum uamumamcoocH 30fi>om "m Macaommd so wmmmm mmfiwsum Honuad I63 onEmm oacfiao w cam wHaEmm HmGOHumz .m .2 mo maaamm 4 onEMm umumnao mmHm Hmaoaumz .m .D mHaEmm Eumw camcoomfiz mamamm HmGOHumz .m .D spammn Hmucma cam Hmofimzzm uoom mmmhum mo mEoumemm ofiuwaomosommm ucmam>ouaEH Hmscfl>flcafi .mwwcmzo %o«aom Eumw wcmeE How wufimmw .ooam lummmua oHumHooEmQ humfioom mnu mo cowusnfiuumfiw Hm3oa mnu SH mwcmso How moamhmmmnm mcfiumm Iwmo no mommamuomfic moumum Hmuamumm Asm>masomv GOHHmUSUQ HO GOHU landouo 30H Awmnfiuo Immv hufioficnum swam Hmumaow as mucmumfimaooaa msumum Enumuum cowummsooo Boa map ca cmau coaumamnuoo muonum m m>mn asumuum sowu Immsooo swan msu aw muomumfimcooafi msumum amaoz pow mmmao Hmaoom wo>amouma cam cowumosum name now mmmaolamfioom vm>amouwm .maooaH soaumasooo .GOHumoswm “was .psoo was Hams mama .mxnsm can someMh “moms .aomxums “oosfl .aomxums kufiofiasum cam cowumoncm .coaummsooo nuuoz 3oz Hmuou cam coaumosvm woma .mEooaH Sham mmouu .amaummmmm soaummsooo cam coaumoswm .maoocH nmma .cmfimmoo mvHoHSm Hmumsmw mxamu mmma .cwunmz c30cx uoz womBOD mufimcwmoum CH mucoumfimaoocH mnumum Hmuaume .mw< cam mnnfiu msoocw 30H :uH3 soap mucwsm>ofi HmHoom Imasooo swag "oesoafi ammflnofiz ca mumafiofiunma ou Boa Ho coaumasooo 30H moma as mmHmEMm mmuoom huflmammoua nufis cOHumoscm cm“: mEooaH can coaummoooo .Noma .moma 3mcawmm .waamcmq spoons: Hmswfi>fiwaH no hufioficcum swam .SOHumosvm .mufiofianum .Hmvaoszmmw ummhmuaH wouuommmLNmmWR, rilpr»r-xuwwumecooaH rtr mumovuomun< nocus< mo coaumasmom Ho mmH< mwsum ImflwcoocH mdumum mo mooamsummcou msumum mo momma Ho mcoamaoafia mSDMum ucmumamcoocH Ae.uaoov m xfisamaa< 164 osso .suasou maum as Assam coauumam oqma mmamamm amwamuuma< cam mwmamu .sfimsaum ..m .2 maaemm mmnm awouuma oano .msnadaoo wo mamamm m>aumuammmumwm coumcfinmmz .mauummm ca whoaumm mwmz mamfidm oaafiao m was maaamm Hmaoaumz .m.p mo maasmm 4 ummuoucH mo coaumasaom Ho moH4 mwaum mumuo> owumuooamc wo doauuonoun umnwwm wafiuo> cw Emaumucmolmo lumma no Bmaamumnfig mw>fiuoa oHSonoom Icon new cowuma Iowa Hmfloom .EmH Iamuonaa Hmofiufiaom EmHHm numnfia amususfloa sum honoumfimaoonfi mnumum Q0 03UQ n— GOHUNHflH OZ Emaam numnaa sunfiusaog cam hoawumamaoocw msumuw sowsumn afinmaofiumamu oz nufimon Hmuama Hoom wmuuomom %mdou Imamnooaa maumum mo mmoamsvmmccv Hmuocmw Ga muamumwmaooaH moHHosumo mmMHUImvaHa .mucmummu Iona mmmaolwqfixuoz maoonw Boa nufia dowu Immauuo Ho maoocfi no HmeHumosco swan news hufiowanum 30A Hmumaww nfi hucmumfimaooafi msumum nowuamouma unawaoamou hp Ho maumufiuo m>fiuomfino hp mucoumfimaoocw msumum honoumwmcoocw doaummboUOI:0fiumoswm ’ ' "'F "\P hocmuwwmdoonH msumum mo wonky rllll r moumum ofisoaooo loaoom was aofiwfiaom ocean“ IHHumm maowwfiamu can mmmau Hmsoaumnsooo hufiUHasum cam coaumaaooo .maouaw .aowumosvm wwwummnn mono wsaaamse was waaaamse mo madw> Hmucou coaumosvm .nowummsooo coaumoawm .aowumasooo .maounH aoEo3 Mom mmmao Hwfioom wm>awoumn can aofiumonwm mama How mmmaolawwuom wm>fimouma .ofiooaa coaummsooo .nOHumonwm »‘» mwdmwmomua< no mdoamaoafin msumum uamumfimaooaH domaamm up cmnhamawou mead .mumzuo can vammmumnmq mama .fixmcmq mama .smma .menmq omma .Hoxaox coma .mmaagsmgu was madam woma 9900 was HmmM nonua< As.uaoov m xasamsa< 165 coaufiucoo ucmnuwcoo mfiu Ou mmsmzo magma .m .D mnu Ga moam8u0mumm xmmu msoum mSu uw>o momH .UQOHmN mucmvsum mwmaaou as coaumuoaumuoo mononuwcooafi maumum mucosamcw .mufiafinm xmme cam cwoumausm mmusmmma cowuommma msuwum .m .D mzu :H lumm can moamsuom mGOHunaoo mufiasafiou Hmumcmm was mucmvsum mwmaaoo upon xmmu so 30A ucmouwaoocH mHou n0n .GOHumoswm coma .uoxcsm moaofiumaxm coauwmom manmum .m .2 any as msouw mcu usonm msouw Iwmma cam muH=UHMMHv mama mucmwsuw mwmaaoo mwaaammm m>Humwmz mucmumfimcoo on so“ .mnumum Hmaomumm .cowcmum mommauowumm Hmofia .m .D Inomu nufia coaumamu mzu 5H Hmaaom HmmaHHH>uso “Goa mafia unwfiam mo unsoew lumm mouom uw< Iuomwmfiumm Hmumswo mononumcoo msumum was xcmu mouow Ham .mw< mmmH .memv¢ mocmsumdou msumum mo mmeSum mwouoIHHmEm momma 30H nus? «mummma ca mafiaumuoa mo coaumoswm smfis mmsOHm uomucou vmmm>usm .mfivcH a“ mmmcmum3m "mmvsu IamEHw umfiuo no 3am» mvfimuso cam coaquSUUO wmmeHH> usom Ifiuum summoe mEom HmBOH nuHB momma swam COHumoowm .mEooaH .oummo Noma .cmm Hmsmaow cH coaumosvm c3ocx uoz mmwoufiuum wcaz pawfim mocmuwamGOUCa mouMum cam coauwasooo .mEoocH Roma .nmsm omma m3mfi> Hmoauaaom cowummsooo .NmmH as mmaaamm HmhmnHH cam mocmumm cam muHoHcSum coaummsooo cam HmGOHumz .m .3 long ofiumnooEmm cmnu Hosea cowumoswm defiumoswo .hufiofizauolmomm momH .nooam ummumucH wmuuommMqudou x, ml, -.INMMUumHmsoocH - mucmwmomun< Mozus< mo GOHumasmom ImamaoocH msumum moumum mo momma no chHmcmsfin no mmu< thum mo mmoamsmwmmco msymum uamumwmcooaH 1" 'l"rr' Aw.ucoov m xfiwcmamd 166 xmmu ao>mw msu am moamsuwcoo .m .5 am can» unmamaov whoa Hoozom coma .measm muamwoum mwmaaou mmB manmmnm> Hmaom mocmssmcoo mDuMDm a“ Hawk .mww .Kmm can nomnamm wamwamum msouw muamumwmu .m .D am «0 mahmu cm maaxGMH mxamu msumum mmsouw muamummmh m>mm Han “muoguo mucmwsum mwmdaoo ooeaoo Mom wnm>muum cm Edmuawafiomommn cm mxcmn @mumnlmamm cam Hononmm muamsuwaoo lam amfiu ucmfimmwwm .m .2 am commmsumme smsoHHm mummmnm mmmm .ummmmm mucowsum mmoaaoo was Hmmcowaou whoa museum unusuwaoo xmmu cam umBom wamuo> cam mamaxm ummnmuaH wmuhommm mummu -»L.L.LLNmememcoocH_r III , rmwmuvmmomd< Ho£u9< mo nowumasaom Ho mmnd thum ImmmcoucH maumum mo mmoamsmmmaoo Eli? moumum mo momma P’r "x'llrlrlrl’ 1 Ho maommcmafia woumum uawwmfimaooaH l r} rE Aw.ucooV m vasmma< Appendix C: Values of the Input Matrix for the Regression Equation* Dummy Variable Inputs Variable Inputs for Patterns Status For the of Inconsistency Combinations Three Statuses Degree of Ed Fi Rc x1 x2 x3 Inconsistency P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 H H H 1 1 I O 0 O O O O 0 H H M 1 1 O .5773 O O O O 0 1 H H L 1 l -1 1.4142 0 O O O O l H M H 1 O 1 .5773 0 O O 1 O O H M M 1 O 0 .5773 1 O O O O O H M L l O -1 1.1546 0 0 O O 0 1 H L H 1 -1 1 1.4142 0 O O l 0 O H L M 1 -1 0 1.1546 1 0 O 0 O O H L L l —l -1 1.4142 1 O 0 0 0 O M H H O l l .5773 O 1 O O O 0 M H M O l O .5773 O O l O O 0 M H L O 1 -1 1.1546 0 O 1 0 O 0 M M H 0 O 1 .5773 O O 0 O 1 O M M M O O O O O 0 O O O O M M L O O -I .5773 O O 0 0 O I M L H O -1 1 1.1546 0 O O 1 O O M L M O -1 0 .5773 O O 0 1 0 O M L L 0 -I -l .5773 1 O O 0 O O L H H -l l 1 1.4142 0 l O 0 O 0 L H M -1 1 0 1.1546 0 1 O 0 O 0 L H L -1 1 -1 1.4142 0 O 1 0 O O L M H -l O 1 1.1546 0 0 0 O 1 O L M M -1 0 O .5773 O 1 O O O 0 L M L -1 O -1 ~5773 O O 1 O O O L L H -1 -l 1 1.4142 0 O 0 O 1 O L L M -1 -l O .5773 O 0 O O 1 0 L L L -1 -1 -l O O O O 0 O O *Each dependent variable observation will have the independent varriable coded according to one of the rows of the matrix depending on the values of the status variables into one of these 27 combinations. 167 A a (‘ ; / U AAA x-