A SOCIOMETRJC TEST OF ASPECTS OF REFERENCE GROUP 'I’HEORY IN A SMY OF PREJUOICE AMONG YOUTH Thesis Ior ”10 Degree of pI’I. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Leah Stewart Houser 1956 \l mm“; m In Ill III I I 1| I|7l|||9||l| III [III ll 1 293 This is to certifg that the thesis entitled A Sociometric Test of Aspects of Reference Group Theory in a Study of Prejudice Among Youth presented bg Leah Stewart Houser has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Sociology & Anthropology degree in .-. ‘--4' a/. ' /[i <'\ Mtg/”9mg" Major prolessor' Ihne November 16, 1956 0-159 .~..¢_-.‘ MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A SOCIOMETRIC TEST OF ASPECTS OF REFERENCE GROUP THEORY IN A STUDY OF PREJUDICE AMONG YOUTH BY Leah Stewart Houser An Abstrct Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Require- ments for the Degree of DOCTOR OF rHILosorHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology 195 W Approved LIBRARY Michigan State University AN ABSTRACT This research is based on schedules taken from all ninth and twelfth graders in a Midwestern community who attended school on a certain day in the Spring of 19u9. It is an.g§ post facto analysis of verbalized prejudice ex- pressed toward Jews, Negroes, and Mexicans, and with atti- tudes of prejudice expressed toward ethnic groups in general as it was found in certain categorized reference groups. Students were classified according to their responses to a sociometric "seatmate" question permitting only one choice. Students who chose and were chosen by members of their own social group were considered as belonging to a "core" (memp bership) reference group; those who chose and were chosen by members of a social group other than their own were con- sidered as belonging to a "peripheral" (nonmembership) re- ference group; and those who chose into a membership or non- membership group, but remained unchosen by that group, were considered as belonging to a "core satellite" or a "periph- eral satellite”group, respectively. The social group vari- ables studied were residence, occupation, subjective socio- economic status, religious preference and participation, and sociometric status. Three general hypotheses were tested: (a) Sociometric reference groups that occupy different positions in the social structure require the expression of different degrees of prejudice or tolerance from their members; (b) Individ- Leah Stewart Houser uals who identify with a sociometric reference group in 'which they are not members and are accepted by them, take on the values of their reference group; and (c) Individuals who identify with a sociometric reference group of which they are not members tend to express its values before they begin to interact with its members. To assess these general hypotheses, null hypotheses were formulated and signifi- cance of difference scores were computed, employing White's test for the significance of difference between two groups. A level of five percent or beyond was deemed acceptable. In general, "patterns of prejudice" appeared which tended to support the hypotheses consistently. About ten percent of the time these patterns were supported by signif- icant differences. Since the County is characterized by a relatively high degree of tolerance, it must be concluded that minority group problems are not salient in this com- munity. Had the research been conducted in an area where such problems were highly salient, it is reasonable to ex- pect that significant differences might have occurred con- siderably more often. Leah Stewart Houser A SOCIOMETRIC TEST OF ASPECTS OF REFERENCE GROUP THEORY IN A STUDY OF PREJUDICE AMONG YOUTH By Leah Stewart Houser A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in Partial Fulfillment of the Require— ments for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and Anthropology 1956 fiat/'55" 11 ac; t' b PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is an analysis of the extent to which ver- balized prejudice among high school youth is associated with membership in certain specified sociometrically-determined reference groups. .In addition to being an analysis of pre- judice among adolescents in a rural county of the Midwest, it is also a partial test of the reference group hypothesis. Dr. Wilbur Brookover first called my attention to the avail- ability of the data and the need for someone to analyfiize it. Such a study gives rise to many problems and techni- calities in the process of its completion. I wish to ac- knowledge the cooperation of Dr. Charles P. Loomis in making available certain data and technical equipment through the Social Research Service of Michigan State University. I wish to express also my appreciation in having shared in his ability to impart to students his interest and enthusiasm in social research. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Wilbur Brookover, not only for the time which he has spent with me in consultation, but also for the additional service of reading the entire manuscript and making important sug- gestions for improving it. His cooperation and evaluations have been a constant source of inspiration. The writer is also indebted to Dr. Charles Hoffer for professional coun- seling, to Dr. Orden Smucker for certain criticisms of sociometric procedure, to Dr. Leo Katz for suggestions re- lative to punching, sorting and listing the data, and to Dr. iii Paul Houser for reading and criticizing the manuscript. I wish, also, to acknowledge the invaluable services of—the Davey Tree Expert Company, of Kent, Ohio, for plac- ing at my disposal their International Business Machine equipment. The writer appreciates the valuable assistance of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and that of the Social Research Service, Michigan State University, in providing professional and technical assistance. I am like- wise indebted to The American Jewish Committee and The Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, co-sponsors of the larger Research Project of which this is a part. The writer acknowledges, gratefully, the painstaking care with which the typists, Mrs. Raymond Dickinson, Mrs. Clarence Semans, and Miss Evelyn O'Brien prepared the copy. And finally, for the sympathetic encouragement of my husband, whose patience and understanding inspired me to the achieve- ment of my goal, I am grateful. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables Preface PART I Chapter I 'Introduction .......................... Orientation ................ . ................. The Problem ............................... Relation of This Study to Over-all Project- The Community Setting ..................... Procedures Employed in Selecting the County The Study Group ........................... Origin of the Study ....................... Importance of the Study ................... Review of the Literature ..................... Approaches to‘the Study of Prejudice ------ The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis ----- Reference Group Theory .................... The Relation of Reference Group Theory to the Group Norm Theory of Prejudice ----- Selection of Approach ..................... Chapter II Social Background of Maple County Youth The Ecological Setting ....................... The Educational System ....................... Socio-economic Organization Residence ................................. Occupation ................................ Subjectively-defined Socioeconomic Status ---- Religious Preference ......................... Religious Participation ...................... Sociometric Status ........................... Student and Leader Memberships in Formal Organizations ............................. Ethnic Minorities and the Attitudes of Maple County Residents Toward Them .............. Chapter III Methodology and Research Design Introduction ................................. The Orienting Idea ........................ The Instrument Used .......................... The Schedule .............................. Social Data ............................... Residence .............................. Occupation ............................. iv Subjective Socio-economic Status ......... Religious Preference ..................... Religious Participation .................. Sociometric Status ....................... The Sociometric Question Used ............... The Attitude Test ........................... The Independent and Dependent Variables ----- The Validity-Reliability of the Instrument -- The Validity-Reliability of the Attitude Test ------------------------------------- The Reliability of the Sociometric Test ----- The Validity of the Sociometric Test -----—-- Obtaining and Processing the Data .............. Administration of the Schedule .............. Organization of Data ........................ Analyzing the Data ............................. Guiding Hypotheses .......................... Analytical Design ........................... The Core Group .............................. The Peripheral Group ........................ The Core Satellite Group .................... The Peripheral Satellite Group .............. Method of Analysis ............................. Statistical Universe ........................ General Procedures .......................... Tests of Significance --——--—-—---—--_--_---- Research Models ............................. Hypotheses ---------------—_----------------_--- Hypotheses of the Research Committee -------- Levels at Which Hypotheses of the Present Study Were Formed ........................ Statements of General and Theoretical Hypotheses .............................. PART II EXPRESSIONS OF PREJUDICE IN CORE GROUPS Introduction to Part II -------------------------- Chapter IV Prejudice Among Core Groups Residence ................................... Hypothesis ............................... Findings ................................. Occupation .................................. Hypothesis ............................... Findings --------------------------------- Subjective Socioeconomic Status -—------_---- Hypothesis .............................. Findings ................................. Page Religious Affiliation ........................ 97 Hypothesis ................................ 98 Findings ---------------------------------- 98 Catholic-Protestant Differences ----------- lOO Hypothesis ................................ 101 Findings ---------------------------------- 101 Religious Participation ---------------------- 104 Hypothesis -------------------------------- 105 Findings .................................. 105 Sociometric Status and Prejudice ------------- 107 Hypothesis -------------------------------- 110 Findings ---------------------------------- 110 Summary -------------------------------------- 111 PART III Introduction 113 Chapter V Prejudice in Peripheral Sociometric Reference Groups ....................... 114 Residence .................................... llk Hypotheses -------------------------------- 114 Findings .................................. 115 Occupation ----------------------------------- 120 Hypotheses -------------------------------- 121 Findings ---------------------------------- 121 Subjective Socioeconomic Status -------------- 12S Hypotheses ................................ 126 Findings ---------------------------------- 126 Religious Participation ---------------------- 126 Hypotheses ................................ 129 Findings ---------------------------------- 129 Prejudice Among High Versus Nonattenders ----- 131 Hypotheses ................................ 131 Findings ---------------------------------- 133 Sociometric Status ........................... 13 Hypotheses ---------- . ...................... 13 Findings ---------------------------------- 138 Summary -------------------------------------- 138 Chapter VI Prejudice Among Peripheral Satellite Groups Residence .................................... 143 Hypotheses -------------------------------- 143 Findings ---------------------------------- lug Occupation ----------------------------------- 1“ Hypotheses ................................ 1&5 Findings .................................. 1h6 Subjective Socioeconomic Status -------------- lSl Hypotheses ................................ 151 Findings ---------------------------------- 152 vi leligious Partic1pation —--- ................... Hypotheses -------------------------------- Findings .................................. Differences in Prejudice Between Satellite Attenders and Nonattenders ................ iypotneses ................................ Findings .................................. Sociometric Status ----------—----------_----a Hypotheses ................................ Findings .................................. Summary ...................................... PART IV Chapter VII, Summary and Implications ............. Summary of Findings .......................... Analytical Approach ....................... Differences in Prejudice Among Core Groups ................................... Differences in Prejudice in Peripheral and Peripheral Satellite Groups .............. Peripheral Groups ....................... Peripheral Satellite Groups ............. Hypotheses Not Supported by Patterns of Prejudice ............................. Core Groups ............................. Peripheral Groups ....................... Peripheral Satellite Groups ............. Conclusion ----------------------------------- Implications --------------------------------- Comparison of Prejudice Scores Found in Core, Peripheral and Peripheral Satellite Groups ................................... ,sLevels of Conceptualization --------------- Relation of Sociometric Reference Groups to the Stability of the Parent Group -------- Social Visibility and Expressions of Prejudice ................................ Targets of Prejudice in Maple County - ----- Appraisal of the Study ....................... BibliOgraphy ...................................... Appendix A. Resource Tables ............................ B. Examples of Computations for the Kruskal- Wallis H-Test Employing the Jewish Prejudice Score for the Twelfth Grade, Maple County, 19u9 ---—-----------------—-----------. ----- vii Page 152 152 155 163 163 163 16h 167 167 170 173 173 173 17A 175 175 177 180 183 18h 18? 19h 223 viii Page Examples of Computations for White's Rank Test of the Significance of Differences of Means Between Two Groups, Employing the Jewish Preju- dice Score, Twelfth Grade, Brownsville and Johnstown Schools, Maple County, l9h9 and Tables of Tests of Significance of Differences for the Jewish Score for the Total Student Pop- ulation and for Core Groups, by Grade, Maple County, 19h9 ----------------------------------- 227 A Description of the Method by Which the Sociometric Reference Groups Were Formed and a Chart Showing the Number and Composition of the Groups so Formed --------------------------- 233 Schedule --------------------------------------- 239 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.1+. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. h.3. h.h. LIST OF TABLES Number and Percent of Persons in the Ninth and Twelfth Grade and in the County Po u- lation, by Residence, Maple County, 19 9 ---- Number and Percent of Persons in the Ninth and Twelfth Grade and in the County POpu- lation, by Occupation, Maple County, 1949 --- Number and Percent of Persons in the Ninth and Twelfth Grade and in a Sample of Adults, by Socio-economic Status (Subjectively Defined), Maple County, 19h9 ---------------- Number and Percent of Persons in the Ninth and Twelfth Grade and in a Sample of Adults, by Religious Preference, Maple County, 19h9 - Number and Percent of Persons in the Ninth and Twelfth Grade and in a Sample of Adults, by Religious Participation, Maple County, 19A9 ---------------------------------------- Number and Percent of Persons in the Ninth and Twelfth Grade, by Sociometric Status, Maple County, l9h9 -------------------------- Number and Percent of Memberships in Organ- izations and Average Memberships, by Grade, for all Students, and for Sociometric Leaders, Maple County, l9h9 ----------------- Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Farm and Core Town Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth ' Grades, Maple County, l9h9 ------------------ Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Farm and Core Nonfarm Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, l9h9 ------------------ Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Nonfarm and Core Town Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, l9h9 ---------- Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Farm and Core Blue Collar Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 19h9 ---------- Page 33 35 38 #0 1+2 #5 A? 85 86 88 9O ix 4.5. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Farm and Core . White Collar Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ----------- 4.6. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Blue Collar and Core White Collar Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 194 4.7. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Working Class Students and Core Middle Class Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple Cmngl%9 -------------- _ - 4.8. Number and Percent of Core Students Who Consider Themselves Working or Middle Class Whose Parents were Blue 0r White Collar, or Farm People, Maple County, 1949 -------------- 4.9. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Students Ex- pressing a Church Preference and Core Students Expressing no Church Preference, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------- 4.10. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Catholic and Core Protestant Students, Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------------------- 4.11. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core High and Core Low Attender Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ........... 4.12. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core High Attenders and Core Nonattenders, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ........... 4.13. Mean Prejudice Scores of Core Low Attender and Core Nonattender Students, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------- 5.1. Prejudice Scores of Farm Students, by Refer- ence Group Identification, for the Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 - 5.2. Prejudice Scores of Town Students, by Refer- ence Group Identification, for the Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 - 5.3. Prejudice Scores of Nonfarm Students, By Ref- erence Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ....... Page 91 92 95 97 99 103 106 108 109 116 117 118 5.4 505. 5.6. 507. 5.8 5.9 5.10. 5.11. 5.13. Prejudice Scores of Farm Students With Blue and White Collar Reference Group Identi- fication, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 Prejudice Scores of Blue Collar Students, By Farm and White Collar Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 — Prejudice Scores of White Collar Students, By Blue Collar and Farm Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------------------ Prejudice Scores of Core Working Class Students, and Working Class Students with Middle Class Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ————— — —--— Prejudice Scores of Core Middle Class Students, and Middle Class Students with Working Class Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------- -—- Prejudice Soores of Core High Attenders, and High Attenders with LavAttender Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ---------- Prejudice Scores of Low Core Attenders, and Low Attenders with High Attender Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ---------- Prejudice Scores of Core Nonattenders, and Nonattenders with High Attender Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ---------- PrejudiCe Scores of Core High Attenders, and High Attenders with Nonattender Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ---------- Prejudice Scores of High Attenders, By Low and Nonattender Reference Group Identifi- cation, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 .......................... Page 122 123 124 127 128 130 132 134 135 136 xi A 5.14. 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6050 6.6. 6.7. 6.8. Prejudice Scores of Pivot Leaders and Pivot- Links, By Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 -------------------------------- Prejudice Scores of Satellite Farm Students, By Residence Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 -------------------------------- Prejudice Scores of Satellite Nonfarm Students by Residence Reference Group Identi- fication, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 -------------------------- Prejudice Scores of Satellite Town Students, By Residence Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 -------------------------------- Prejudice Scores of Satellite Farm Students, By Occupational Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 -------------------------------- Prejudice Scores of Satellite Blue Collar Students, By Occupational Reference Group Identifications, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------------------ Prejudice Scores of Satellite White Collar Students, By Occupational Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------------------ Prejudice Scores of Satellite Working Class Students, Subjectively Defined, By Refer- ence Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------ Prejudice Scores of Satellite Middle Class Students, Subjectively Defined, By Refer- ence Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------ Prejudice Scores of Satellite Low Attenders of Sunday School, By Reference Group Iden- tification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------------------ xii Page 139 1M; 145 146 148 149 ISO 153 154 156 6.10. 6.11. 7.3. 7.4. 7.50 7.6. A.2. Prejudice Scores of Satellite High Attenders 'of Sunday School, By Reference Group Iden- tification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 Prejudice Scores of Satellite Nonattenders of Sunday School, By Reference Group Iden- tification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 -------------------- Prejudice Scores of Satellites, By Reference Group Identification, Combined Ninth and Twelfth Grades, Maple County, 1949 ------------ Showing Consistent and Significant Differ- ences in Prejudice Scores and Over-All Consistency of Patterns, by Core Reference Group, Maple County, 1949 --------------------- Showing Consistent and Significant Differ- ences in Prejudice Scores and Over—All Consistency of Patterns, by Peripheral Ref- erence Groups, Maple County, 1949 -------------- Showing Consistent and Significant Differ- ences in Prejudice Scores and Over-All Consistency of Patterns, by Peripheral , Satellite Reference Group, Maple County, 1949 - Number and Percent of Patterns, Significant and Consistent Differences, by Sociometric Reference Group, Maple County, 1949 ........... Number and Percent of Students in Sociometric Reference Groups, by Social Group, Maple County, 19 9 ---------------------------------- Number and Percent of Significant and Con- sistent Differences, by Prejudice Score, Maple County, 1949 ---------------------------- APPENDICES Sociometric Subgroup Categories; Prejudice Scores; and Number of Formal Group Memberships for Each Ninth Grader Adams High School (Maple County), Ranked by Total Prejudice Score, 1949 ------------------------------------------ Sociometric Subgroup Categories; Prejudice Scores; and Number of Formal Group Memberships, ;_ xiii Page 157 158 160 166 168 171 176 181 185 195 4 for Each Ninth Grader, Brownsville High School (Maple County), Ranked by Total Prejudice Score, 1949 ----------------------------------- Sociometric Subgroup Categories; Prejudice Scores; and Number of Formal Group Memberships for Each Ninth Grader, Johnstown High School (Maple County), Ranked by Total Prejudice Score, 1949 ----------- Sociometric Subgroup Categories; Prejudice Scores; and Number of Formal Group Memberships for Each Twelfth Grader, Adams High School (Maple County), Ranked by Total Prejudice Score, 1949 ----------------------------------- Sociometric Subgroup Categories; Prejudice Scores; and Number of Formal Group Memberships for Each Twelfth Grader, Brownsville High School (Maple County), Ranked by Total Preju- dice Score, 1949 ------------------------------ Sociometric Subgroup Categories; Prejudice Scores; and Number of Formal Group Memberships for Each Twelfth Grader, Johnstown High School (Maple County), Ranked by Total Prejudice Score, 1949 ----------------------------------- Computations for the H-Test, Jewish Prejudice Score Twelfth Grade, Maple County, 1949 ....... Computation for White's Test; Jewish Prejudice Score, Twelfth Grade, for Brownsville and Johnstown, Maple County, 1949 ----------------- Mean Prejudice Scores and Significance of Differences for the Ninth and Twelfth Grades, by School, Maple County, 1949 ----------------- Mean Prejudice Scores for the Ninth and Twelfth Grades, and Significance of Differences, Maple County, 1949 ---------------------------------- Jewish Mean Prejudice Scores and Significance of Differences for Core Sociometric Reference Groups, by Grade, Maple County, 1949 ---------- xiv Page 200 204 '212 214 217 224 228 230 231 232 “'1 CHA TER I INTRODUCTION ORIENTATION Thg Problem. The problem with which this thesis is con— cerned is the extent to which sentiments and beliefs ex- pressed by high school youth about ethnic groups other than their own are associated with membership in sociometrically- determined reference groups;1 and further, the extent to which reference orientations to an out group result in cor- responding differences in attitude. The sociometric refer- ence groups are categorized on the basis of choices made to a sociometric question by members of a specified social group, or stratum, for example, the farm people. Each refer— ence group is further categorized on the basis of whether its members are accepted, or not, by members 6 the group of its choice. Thus, one such sociometric reference group is comprised of sons and daughters of farm residents who chose and were chosen only by the children of farm residents; another is made up of children of farm residents who chose and were chosen only by children of town residents.2 1. A reference group may be either a membership or non- membership group. See this thesis page 28 for a def- inition of the concept. 2. A detailed description of the possible subgroups for two attributes of X variable (for example, farm and town residence) and the method by which they are de- rived is given in Appendix D. This thesis is concern- ed with only selected reference groups. The assumption is made that choices are not, individu— alistic and hence "idiosyncratic," but that groups of people make similar choices on the basis of some organizing prin- ciple steming from their group life.1 To the extend that the organizing principles underlying choosing reflect sal- ient group norms, any change in group identification on the part of a segment of students from a less prejudiced to a more prejudiced group (or vice versa) should be accompanied by a similar change in prejudice. However, if their reference group does not reciprocate by choosing them,opportunities for acquiring the role per- spectives of the reference group through direct associations are cut off. It is logical to expect, therefore, that stu- dents who identified with reference groups who did not re- ciprocate their choices would tend to have scores less like their reference group than those who identified with refer- ence groups who did reciprocate their choices. The focus of this study, however, is not on the preju- dice scores of individual students, but rather on the com- parison of the mean prejudice scores of members of certain sociometric reference groups of the student population, each being characterized by certain reference group 1._- By "idiosyncratic choice" is meant one in which the ' determining factor in eliciting the response is basic- ally, though not wholly, a need which stems from the basic drives of the individual, and not from socially derived factors, for example, the sex attraction of a boy for a girl. (Hereafter, the quotes will be omitted o) orientations. It seeks to probe such general questions as the following: 1. In which social groups are "core" members as compared with "peripheral" members more or less prejudiced? 2. Do all highly integrated members in the respec- tive categories of a social group (for example, town and farm groups) tend to have common levels of prejudice? . 3. In what kinds of sociometric subgroups are ex- pressions of prejudice found to be related to the reference group orientations of its members? 4. What effect does lack of orientation toward any reference group have upon expressions of prejudice? Although numerous studies of prejudice have been made a in the past, few of them have been concerned with express- ions of prejudice among youth in the rural communities of the Midwest, and even fewer of them have been concerned with a functional analysis of sociometric reference groups and the part they play in attitude formation. One reason for an absence of prejudice studies of the rural Midwest is the fact that the population of this region contains a below average number of members from minority groups toward whom hostility in other areas of the United States is, presumably, now being directed.1 . l. The percent of the total population which is Negro in the Midwest, by states, is as follows: United States 10.0, Illinois 7.4, Indiana 4.4, Iowa 0.7, Kansas 3.8, Michigan 6.9, Minnesota 0.5, Missouri 7.5, Nebraska 1.4, Ohio 6.5, N. Dakota —--, South Dakota 0.1, and Wisconsin 0.8. The Mexican population constitutes less than one percent of these respective populations. (From United States Census of Population, General Characteristics, ”Series 'P_-B1, 19—5'0, Table 59, p. 1-106, Table 60, p. 1-107 and Table 71, p. 1—123. The Jewish population is essentially urban. The World Almanac (1950), for ex- ample, records the Jewish population by cities only. L__ 4_ ._. Moreover, the few that live in the rural areas of this region are not concentrated, as they are in urban centers. Because there is little awareness of these minorities, the problem motif is a relatively minor factor in stimulating studies of prejudice.1 It does not follow, however, that there are no latent or manifest attitudes toward minorities held by this segment of the population, or that they have no influence on the larger society. No subarea can be considered operating in a social vacuum. It is in constant mutual interaction with other segments of the larger social system of which it is a part. As a result of this interaction, the needs of sub- areas and their definitions of situations are constantly be- ing reenforced or modified. Although there may be no race problems, as such, in rural areas of the corn belt, there are attitudes about Negroes, Jews and Mexicans which sena- tors will take to Washington, which John Doe may carry to his job in the automobile factory in Detroit, and which the community may express when the first Negro family moves in- to town. It is important to have some understanding of what these attitudes are. There are probably at least two reasons why sociometric H 0 According to Fuller and Myers the beginning of every social problem lies in the "awareness" of the group that certain cherished values are being threatened. Without this awareness, no problem can be said to exist. See Richard Fuller and Richard Myers,"The Natural History of a Social Problem," American Sociolo ical Review, Volume 6, Number 3, (June,l941 , pp.320-328. reference groups have not been the objects of intensive re- search. Although Cooley and Mead indicated the nature and importance of the primary group for both society and the in- dividual, and although Moreno deve10ped techniques for lay- ing bare both the structure and the dynamics of such groups, the great interest by social psychologists in the latter seems to have resulted in stressing the use of sociometric techniques in interpersonal relations; and its possible con- tributions to an understanding of group function and struc- ture have remained under-explored.l Secondly, those sociologists who were concerned with the "rediscovery of the primary group" were largely inter- ested in formalized interpersonal relations, that is, the formation of formal group norms and values and hence did not concentrate on the nature and function of the sociometric reference groups, themselves. This does not mean, however, that such an informal group structure is so simple and so undifferentiated that it can readily be understood without scientific inquiry. Relation.gf This Stugy_t2 Over-all Project. The larger Project of which this is a part seeks to examine some of the facets of prejudice relative to Jewish, Negro, and Mexican 4 1. See Charles Horton Cooley, Social Organization, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1909; George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1934, and J. L. Moreno and Helen Jennings, W22 Shall Survive? ‘5 New Approach tg the Problem gj Human Relations, Washington, D. 0., Nervous and Mental Di- seases Publishing Company, 1934. #— peoples in the rural Midwest.1 It was organized under the sponsorship of the Social Research Service, Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology, Michigan.State University, in cooperation with The American Jewish Committee and The Anti- Defamation League of B'nai B'rith. The Project Committee selected the region and county, and supervised the gathering of data. The over-all plan provided data for analyses of both formal and informal group structure. The research de- sign for this dissertation, however, was developed indepen- dently by the writer, making use of the raw data collected by the Committee. It may, therefore, be regarded, techni- cally, as an 35 post facto study, because the data were not collected to fulfill all of the specific requirements of this particular design. Certain minor gaps will subsequent- ly be indicated. The Community Setting. Two major limitations were placed on the community to be studied; one, that it be in the Midwest, and two, that it be rural. In addition, the aim was to select a rural county seat community, and one which was reasonably accessible. Procedures Employed ig Selectigg the County. The rural counties of the Midwest, following the classification used 1.. See John B. Holland, Attitudes Toward Minority Groupg lg Relation 33 Rural Group Structure, Ph. D. Thesis, East Lansing, Michigan State College, 1950; Wilbur Brookover, Dean Epley and G. P. Stone, Dygamics g: Prejudice Among Maple Count Youth, MimeOgrap ed, East Lansing, Michigan State Co ege, I953; and Dean Epley Adolescent Role Relationships lg the ngamics g: Preju- dIce, Ph. D. Thesis, East LansingT—Michigan State CoIIege, 1953. ——— -..a 4‘ by the United States Department of Agriculture, are defined as in the corn belt area. They are further classified as grain, livestock, and mixed grain and livestock. It was assumed that a county characterized by mixed grain and live- stock might better approximate a typical pattern1 than one of the other types. To insure rurality, all counties of the corn belt with- 1 in a specified distance of certain sized cities were elimin- ated as follows: (a) Cities of one million or more within a radius of 50 miles, (b) cities of h00,000 to 1,000,000 or more within a radius of no miles, (c) cities of 150,000 to h00,000 within a radius of 30 miles, and (d) cities of 100,000 to 150,000 within a radius of 20 miles. Neither was a county deemed typical if it was too far from a major city. Accordingly any county seat that was more than one day's trip (125 miles) from a major city was not included. Since the aim was to select a rural county seat com- munity, other variables considered in the selection of the county were: (1) That the dominant city be the county seat, (2) that the proportion of farm to nonfarm pOpulation be ‘fairly typical, and (3) that the percent of employed workers in agriculture fall in the second or third quartile, that is, be neither extremely low or extremely high and that the rural 1. "Typical" as used in this section refers to an "ideal type" derivative of one of many actual patterns which prevail in the Midwest. Although statistics may be employed in arriving at an "ideal type," it is not a statistical average. level of living indices fall in the second or third quartile. All the counties in the corn belt were examined for these characteristics and progressively eliminated until six counties remained. 0n the basis of the size and types of traditional minorities and on the basis of the nature of the trade center communities in them, one county, most accessi- ble, was selected for study.1 Henceforth it will be re- ferred to anonymously, as Maple County. The Stgdy £3222. This study is based on data from A32 ninth and twelfth graders in the Adams, Brownsville and Johnstown High Schools. These students represented the . total number in Maple County in these grades except for a fragment in a small high school which draws largely from a neighboring county. Origin 2: the §§g§y. The writer's attention was called to the sociometric data in the Maple County Project, and to the need for someone to analyze it, by Dr. Wilbur Brookover, Chairman of the Project. The present thesis design grew out of findings presented in monographs previously completed from the Maple County data.2 Three sentences, in particular, from the unpublished report of Brookover, Epley, and Stone caught the writer's interest. They were: "About one-fourth of those students with tolerant scores in l9h9 became less tolerant in 1952. Approxi- mately three out of every five with intolerant or in- termediate scores in 19h9 changed to a more tolerant category in 1952." 1. see John Holland, _2. cit., Appendix A, for detailed discussion of the method by which the region was selected, pp. 26u-267. 2. See footnote, page 6. And then, somewhat later in the report, they said, "The data suggest that sons and daughters of farmers were more likely to have changes in the direction of intolerance than sons and daughters of the nonfarm group 0 fl 1 It occurred to the writer that the concept of relative deprivation in the form of ability or inability to acquire satisfying statuses and roles in the student situation might be utilized as an intervening variable to account for these changes in the expression of prejudice. Moreover, might it not also be true that a need for satisfying informal social roles and the need to gain acceptance in informal social groups would provide even more motivation for changes in group identification than such deprivations at the formal group level? This line of thinking takes one directly into reference group theory. It did not appear that satisfactory answers to these questions would be forthcoming by simply examining the atti- tudes expressed in the formal social groups or strata within which students interact. The roots of the problem seemed to lay in the informal substructure of the educational system itself. This stimulated the writer to attempt the formula- tion of abstract sociometric reference groups based on the relationship of choices received to choices expressed, through which expressions of prejudice could be analyzed within a framework of reference group theory. The details involved in obtaining such reference groups are given in Chapter III, pp. 72-7q and in Appendix D. It is these 1. Wilbur Brookover, Dean Epley, and Gregory Stone, 22. cit., pp. 7-8; 22-23. L+ 4 10 groups which form the basic concepts of the study. Importance g; the Study. It is hoped that both prac- tical and scientific contributions may result from this re- search. 0n the practical side, such a study should increase the working knowledge of practitioners in the field of eth- nic relations by describing and generalizing findings on the patterns of sentiments and beliefs of a group which appears to have been little studied, namely, adolescents of the rural Midwest. Lack of information in any segment of a population constitutes a gap in scientific knowledge. Such gaps often are of crucial importance in that these little explored areas may contain unknown factors which become im- portant components of national destiny. Loomis and Beegle illustrate this in their observations regarding the spread of German Nazism. They state, "This finding (of high war-supporting morale) corres- ponds to the fact that immediately before Hitler came to power, the rural areas were relatively more Nazi l in political affiliations than Similar urban areas." The results of this research should be particularly timely, also, because of the changes which the recent Segre- gation Decision will initiate. Information on patterns of prejudice among adolescents of all segments of the Nation's population will be needed if a thorough reorganization is to be hoped for. 1. Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, "The Spread of German Nazism in Rural Areas," from Studies lg Applied and Theoretical Social Science gt Michigan State Col- lege, by Charles P. Loomis, East Lansing, Michigan State College Press, 1950, p. 155. This article also appeare in the American Sociolo ical Review Volum 11, Number , December'19¢5.( aren .e c 1-pfirasé mine.? ll From the point of view of the scientists, the conceptu- alization of the structural aspects of social groups into sociometric reference groups may result in the discovery of findings which will permit generalizations of underlying re- lationships in what appear now to be inconsistent data. In the review of the literature, one frequently finds research designs which make use of either "choices received" or "choices made" to set up subgroups variously employed.l Such designs are based on only one aspect of the sociometric situation. In reality, however, it is a two-way sequence. It is a matter of (l) Whom the subject chooses, and (2) Who chooses him. Some inconsistencies in current data might well be explained if both aspects of the relationship were considered. Although both "choices made" and "choices received” have been employed in a matrix analysis of interpersonal re- lations and to establish group indices of various types,2 1. See Harold Kelley, "Communication in Experimentally Created Hierarchies," pp. ##3—A61, in Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander, Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, White Plains, New York, Row Peterson and Company, 1953. 2. Sociometric theorists and methodologists have used "choices received" and "choices made" to set up matrices and have devised numerous sociometric indexes to aid in the conceptualization of sociometric data. See Gardner Lindzey and Edgar F. Borgatta, "Sociometric Measure- ments,” pp. NOS-#48, in Handbook pf Social Psychology, Gardner Lindzey, gg., Cambridge, Addison-Wesley Pub- lishing Company, Inc., 195%, for a description of sev- eral of these techniques. 12 and still more recently in scale analysis,1 the writer, as yet, has not found a study which has employed both to set up sociometric reference groups comparable to those used in this study.2 Finally, analysis through the manipulation of reference groups may contribute, not only to refinements in socio- metric techniques and reference group theory but to the in- tegration of the social sciences as well. Such integration could in turn extend the scope of usefulness of the socio- metric reference groups as paradigms, not only in the an- alysis of prejudice, but for other variables as well. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Pertinent literature is organized here around the principal relevant approaches to the study of prejudice. Attention is directed to the current status of both the general approaches and the theories currently employed in studying prejudice with emphasis on reference group theory. Empirical findings of investigators which pertain to this study are omitted and are cited at appropriate places in the analysis of findings. Approaches 32 the Study gf Prejudice. Research done 1. See Uriel Foa, "Higher Components of Dyadic Relation- ships," in Sociological Studies 3g Scale Analysis, by Matilda White Riley, John W. Riley, Jr., and Jackson Toby, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 19Sh, for a discussion of the application of scale analysis to sociometric data, pp. 183-187. 2. The core, peripheral and satellite components, each analyzed as a group, are briefly characterized in Chapter III, pp. 73-7h. gl— 13 in the area of race relations has followed numerous and de- vious paths. Harding and associates maintain that it has developed from two main points of view.1 In the first instance, the investigator is under study themselves, their cultural tradition, and their and dynamics. Robert Park is buted most to this approach. search of this type is Thomas concerned with the groups historical antecedents, their socioeconomic organization credited with having contri- An outstanding example of re- and Znaniecki's, The Polish Peasant ig Europg and America, and Gunnar Myrdal's, Ag American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democraqy. In the second instance, the research worker is con- cerned with the variations of attitude and behavior of par- ticular individuals interacting with each other within a given group context. The popularity of this approach was established by a series of attitude studies made by the sociologist, E. S. BOgardus. Admittedly influenced by Park, BOgardus developed as his basic concept "social dis- tance." An example of recent cited by these authors is The research using this focus and Authoritarian Personalifiy by See p. 1021, "Prejudice and Ethnic Relations," by John Harding, Bernard Kitner, Harold Proshansky, and Isidor Chain, in Handbook of Social Psychology, Gardner Lindzey, ERIEEET‘CEfibEidge, Mass., Addison- Wesley. 1h T. W. Adorno and Associates.1 Simpson and'Yinger suggest three approaches to the study of prejudice: (1) Prejudice viewed as a manifestation of needs of individuals, (2) Prejudice as a product of social structure, particularly of power arrangements, and (3) Prejudice derived from the cultural heritage.2 A more de- tailed conceptualization of levels or perspectives is given by Allport. He describes six levels from which the social and psychological causation of prejudice may be examined: 1. The Stimulus approach which centers upon the nature of the stimulus object itself. 2. The Phenomenological approach oriented toward ex- amining how the individual perceives the stimulus and integrates his responding behavior. 3. The Personality dynamics approach involving cate- gorization, displacement, rationalization and projection in the formation of personality structure. A. The Situational approach which deals with forces outside the person derived from the social situation and his conception of them. 1. T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel Brunswick, et al; The Author- itarian Personality, New York, Harper and“ Bros., 1950. This book is one of the Studies in Prejudice Series. It combines a psychiatric and statistical approach. The other books in the series are: Bruno Bettelheim.and Morris Janowitz, D amics of Prejudice: A Psychological and Sociological Study of Veterans; Nathan W. Ackerman and Marie Jahoda, Anti- Semitism and Social Disorder: A Psychoanalytic Interprétation"PaulW .MassIng, Re- Hearsal for DestruEtion: A Stud of Political Anti: Semitism in Imperial Germm 1, an%‘L30 Lowenthal and Norbert G_Eerman, Pro’hets of Deceit: A Study_ of the Techniques of the Americaneggitator. 2. George G. Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities, New York, New York, Harper Brothers, 1953, pp. 66-67. For a complete discussion of theories at these three levels see Chapters 3-5. 15 5. The Socio-cultural approach in which it is held that prejudice is learned by the child as a member of groups. 6. The Historical approach in which understanding of prejudice is sought in the broad social context of the culture of which the individual is a part.1 Theories currently attracting the most attention are arising for the_most part from the situational approach and that of personality dynamics, often referred to as the socialization theories. To the present writer, these two foci of interest, namely the role of the group versus that of the individual in attitude formation, do not represent antagonistic and competing schools of thought so much as conceptually differentiated but mutually interdependent approaches. Most social scientists agree that the factors causing prejudice are multiple. They agree, for example, that frustration, on the one hand, and one'a definition of the situation, on the other hand, may both be factors in its formation. Although this study is group focused inasmuch as it is concerned with expression of prejudice in selected sociometric reference groups, it is important, also, to have a working knowledge of certain theories underlying the in- dividualistic approach which impinge upon reference group analyses. The most important of these are the frustration- aggression hypothesis and related displacement theories. 1. Gordon Allport, The Nature 2; Prejudice, Cambridge, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc. 195h. chapter 13; "Theories of Prejudice," pp. 206-216. See, also, All- port, "Prejudice," in Toward a General Theory 2: Action, Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils, et al., Egg. Cam» bridge, Harvard University Press, 1952: pp. 365-387. 16 These will be discussed first, followed by an analysis of the development and current status of reference group theory, and finally by a discussion of the relation of reference group theory to the group norm theory of prejudice.1 Egg Frustration—aggression Hypothesis. The frustration- aggression hypothesis was formulated by John Dollard and his associates in the Yale School.2 In the first statement of the hypothesis the proposition was that a blocked frustra- tion always provoked an act of aggression. Miller, in an article in the Psychological Review, stated that this was an unfortunate wording and not the intent of the writer. A more accurate statement was that aggression was one of many responses which might be made. He further clarified the hypothesis by saying that no assumption was made as to whether the behavior was inate or 1earned.3 1. Persons interested in a more complete survey of theories of prejudice and critiques of them are referred to the following authors: Simpson and Yinger pp. cit., Allport, gp. cit., Lindzey, pp. cit., Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn rift Groups in Harmon and Tension, New York, New York, Harper and Bros., gub., I953, chapters 1, 2, 5 and 7; Brewton Berry, Race Relations, New York, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1951,— pp. TOE-116: Eugene Hartley, Prob- lems g3 Pre udice. N. Y. King's Crown Press, 19h6; Arnold and Caro ne Rose, Minorit Group Relations in the United States, New York, AlfredA A. Knopf, 19H8,_ pp. 277- 306; Gerhart Saenger, The Social Ps cholo PreEudice, New York, New Y3_ET arper Bros., 53: pp. 2. See John Dollard, L. Doob, N. E. Miller, 0. H. Mowrer, and R. R. Sears, Frustration and Aggpession, New Haven, Yale University Press, 3. Neal E. Miller, et a1., "The Frustration-aggression Hy- pothesis," PsychSTd‘Tcal Review, Volume h8, l9hl, pp. 337-3h0- See page 338 and page 3h0. 17 Aggression, when expressed, according to Dollard, may be covert or overt, directed against oneself, or against others. The strongest kind of aggression is directed toward one who is perceived by the actor as the individual who blocked the instigation. If circumstances in the situation :militate against direct aggression, displaced aggression may follow. Such displaced aggression may be directed toward members of minority groups in the society and may become casual factors in expressions of prejudice toward these groups. He goes on to point out that the inhibition of acts of direct aggression is an additional frustration to those already initiated which furthers the instigation to other forms of aggression in a kind of chain effect. Nicholas Pastore observes that aggression is not the direct result of frustration but is derived from the meaning which the frustrated individual attaches to the occurrence. In an attempt to demonstrate this proposition, he conducted an experiment with two groups of students who had been de- prived of 2h hours of sleep and upon whom frustrating in- cidents were inflicted. Although frustration was induced, it was his conclusion that the response was functional in nature and relative to the person's definition of the situa- tion as unjust, or was an expression of his attempt to se- cure recognition.1 1. Nicholas Pastore, "A Neglected Factor in the Frustra- tion-aggression Hypothesis: A Comment," Journal pf Psychology, Volume 29 (1950), pp. 271-275. 18 Sherif goes on to point out that certain other research findings are, as he puts it, "Out of tune" with displacement theories. For example, Lindzey has shown that highly pre- judiced persons are no more likely to show outward aggres- sion either displaced or direct, than relatively less prej- udiced persons.1 Srole found that the relationship between rigidity and ethnocentrism, on the one hand, and high test scores in prejudice, on the other, did not hold independently fer groups from the lower educational stratum of society.2 (Rigidity and ethnocentrism were hypothesized to be the re- sult of childhood frustrations.) Moreover, Christie and Garcia found that rigidity and ethnocentrism may vary within the same social strata.3 Sherif declares that the crucial test of displacement theory rests in the fact that it must prove that individuals who have prejudices have been faced with greater frustra- tions and hence have greater repressions than nonprejudiced 1. Gardner Lindzey, "An Experimental Examination of the Scapegoat Theory of Prejudice," Journal pf Abnormal and Social Psychology, Volume us (1950), PP. 296-309. 2. In. Srole, "Social Dysfunction, Personality, and Social Distance Attitudes,“ summarized in Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, Groups 3p Harmony and Tension: Ap'lp- tegration.p£ Studies on Intergroup Relations, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1553, p. 120. 3. R. Christie and J. Garcia, "Subcultural Variation in Authoritarian Personality," Journal pf Abnormal and §gcial Psychology, Volume ho (TQEIS, pp. h37-569. Summarized in Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, ibid., p. 120-121. ' ' 19 individuals. It is his opinion that such a test has not been made and that such a test would probably fail. He points to the fact that greater prejudice is reported for regular church goers and for extremely patriotic individuals. He adds that it is unlikely that individuals who are non- conformists in relation to the major institutions in which they grew up and must move are less frustrated than those who have conformed to institutional norms and values. It is Sherif's opinion that the chief defect of the frustration-aggression hypothesis is that it is monistic, that is to say, that prejudice is "sought in factors coming from within the individual,"and further, from only certain factors. 1 Talking to the same point, Zawadski poses four ques- tions concerning prejudice which he claims these theories cannot answer. "1. Why, sometimes, a certain minority is selected to pick on where there are several to choose from. 2. Why there is sometimes a striking difference in intensity of dislike toward different minorities. 3. Why certain minorities are respected, if not liked, while others are disliked and despised. h. Why it is that not only do majorities have their prejudices against minorities, but minorities also have their prejudice against majorities."2 l. Mhzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, pp. cit., p. 123. 2. From B. Zawadski, "Limitations of the Scapegoat Theory of Prejudice," Journal 23 Abnormal and Socigl Psychol- pfiy, Volume h3, 1958, p. 1327' Quoted from Muzafer S erif and Carolyn Sherif, 22°.2l30: p. 12h. 20 Insofar as the direction of hostility is concerned, Williams lists four factors which, in part, determine toward which group hostility will be directed: (a) The visibility of the group. (Visibility applies to both physical and social categories.) (b) The nature of the contacts prevailing between groups. (c) The extent to which the groups are in competition with each other. (d) The relative differences in values and behavior patterns believed to express these values.1 Allport summarizes criticisms of the frustration- aggression hypothesis and other displacement theories as follows: "1. Frustration does not always lead to aggression. 2. Aggression is not always displaced. 3. Displacement does not, as the theory seems to im-- ply, actually relieve the feeling of frustration. h. The theory says nothing concerning the choice of scapegoats. - S. It is not true that a defenseless minority is always chosen for displacement purposes. 6. Available evidence does not indicate that the dis- placement tendency is any more common among people high in prejudice than among those low in prejudice. 7. Finally, the theory itself overlooks the possibil- ity of realistic social conflict."2 1. See Robin M. Williams, Jr., The Reduction 93 Intergroup Tensions: A Survey 22 Research.pp Problems pf Ethnic, Racial, and Re igious Grou Relations, New York, Social Science Research Council, Undated, p. Sh. 2.- Gordon W. AllpOI‘t, 22. Cite, Pp. 350-351. By permission of Addison—Wesley Press, Inc., Publishers. 21 He then sounds two warnings; namely, that a single theory of prejudice is not adequate, and that the theory is stated too broadly.1 Going back to Allport's first point, the next step, seemingly, is to relate the scientific findings of this theory to others. An important question, then, is what di- rection should these new endeavors take. As was mentioned in the previous discussion, the frustration-aggression hy- pothesis does not take account of group pressures operating upon the individual and his definitions of the situation. One such factor is the role which reference group identifi- cation or aspiration plays in the development of attitudes toward minority groups. For example, do farm students who prefer to associate with town students always take on the attitudes of town students toward ethnic groups? If not, under what circumstances do they assume these attitudes? Since these and similar relationships are the basic concern of this thesis, it is important to examine the present status of reference group theory. Reference Group Theory. The concept "reference group" was first used by Hyman in 19h2 in his book The Psychology 2; Status. It is particularly useful in the analysis of a complex society which is characterized by "vertical mobility" and "multipe membership groups." This derives from the fact these societies are organized about a variety of roles and statuses many of which are often competitive or incompatible. 1. Ibid.. p. 352. F 22 Like other concepts, in the field of sociology and social psychology, the term "reference group" has come to mean a number of things. Cleavage in usage and definition is particularly apparent between the sociologists and psy- chologists. From the point of view of the psychologist, 1 Sherif has probably given the most comprehensive analysis. He defines a reference group as "those groups pp which the individual relates himself gp‘g part pp 23 which pp aspires pp relate himself psychologically."2 Hence a reference group may be a membership or nonmembership group. He goes on to say that many of the individual's so-called "weighty attitudes" are the values and norms of these reference groups which become major anchoring points for his perceptual or- ganization. But they are not the only anchoring points. Earlier studies have been preoccupied with external anchor- ings in the form of stimulus object. Thus there arises the problem of the relative weights of external versus internal anchoring. Internal anchorings may be more determinative when the situation is relatively unstructured. Sherif distinguishes between a "reference group" and a "frame of reference" which he claims are confused in the 1. Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, pp. cit., Chapter 7, pp. 157-181. See also, Muzafer Sherif "REference Groups in Human Relations," pages 203-231, in Muzafer Sherif and M. O. Wilson, Group Relations at the Crossroads, New York, Harper and Brothers, l§5§: 2. Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, ibid., p. 161. See also Muzafer Sherif and M. O. Wilson for a discussion of this material. 23 literature. He defines the latter as follows: "--- the functional relatedness of all factors, external and internal, that are operative at a given time."1 A person's refer- ence group is a part, but only a part, of his frame of reference. Since an individual has many reference groups and since the norms of these reference groups are internalized, he is faced with competing and conflicting norms and values to the extent that they do not occupy the same place in the positional hierarcy of the culture. How then are these variations in reference group perspectives to be reconciled? Benoit-Smullyan suggests what he calls the concept of "status equilibration," the tendency for various statuses to con- verge at a common level. Moreover, this level presses toward the individual's highest status.2 If a man occupies a position in which two groups are serving as points of reference, for example, a foreman in a factory, a member of a minority group, or the modern adoles- cent, he occupies a marginal position, in which he finds it necessary to identify with two reference groups. This is the basic problem of marginality. When individuals cannot identify with the scale of values of the group within which 1. Ibid., p. 165. 2. E. Benoit-Smullyan. "Status Types, and Status Interre- lations," American Scociological Review, Volume 9, l9hh, pp. 151-161} See also Eugene Hartley, "Multiple Group Membership," in John H. Rohrer and Muzafer Sherif, Social Ps cholo pp the Crossroads, Harper and Brothers, New'YorE, I§§1, pages 383-38h. 2h they have membership, there is a tendency for them to gravi- tate toward one another and hence to form informal reference groups. The attitudes of members of minority groups toward members of the majority group, or vice versa, are not so much a matter of ecological position, as Horowitz has pointed out, as one of social distance, defined in terms of the par- ticular reference group which prevailed in the formation of the attitude.1 The most exhaustive treatise of reference groups from the point of view of the sociologist, is that of Merton and Kitt. They define reference group theory as fol- lows: "... Reference group theory aims to systematize the determinants and consequences of those processes of evaluation and self-appraisal in which the individual takes the values or standards of other individuals and groups as a comparative frame of reference." These writers use a functional approach; the basic technique involved is comparison. The group used for com- parison may, or may not, be one in which the individual is a member or to which he aspires to become a member. The authors then categorize three frames of reference within which this comparison occurs: 1. Comparisons based on actual association such as a soldier who compares himself with a married civilian friend. A_.‘__. l. E. Horowitz, "Deve10pment of Attitudes Toward the Negro," Archives of Psychology, No. 19h, 1936. Discussed in Mgzafzg and Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, pp. cit., pp. 1 7 1 2. Robert K. Merton and Alice S. Kitt, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior" in Robert K. Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld, Continuities of Social Re- search; Studies in the ScOpe and Method of -"The American Soldier," Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1950, pp. [ITO-10g. (866 pp. 50 " 51. ) 25 2. Comparisons with others of the same status or social category, as captains with captains. 3. Comparisons with those of different status or social category as a noncombat soldier compared with a com- bat soldier.1 The authors state that comparison does not necessarily imply social interaction. Seemingly incongruous research findings in the analyses of attitudes of soldiers toward military life could be gen- eralized when the concept of relative deprivation as an in- tervening variable in the evaluation of status was utilized.2 For example, Northern Negro soldiers in the army, comparing their life with that of the Southern Negro civilian might well feel they were better off, whereas had they compared themselves with the Northern white soldier they would have felt differently. Reference group theory, then, is concerned with the dy- namics of the selection and the evaluation of reference groups as processes. Evaluations based on personal idio- syncracies would vary at random; but those based on group norms and values would structure numerous individuals, on the basis of some organizing principle, into some common comparative group context.3 For example, in the case of the research involving combat and noncombat soldiers, it was hypothesized that the organizing factor in the concensus of 1. Ibid., p. h7. 2. Ibid., p. 51 ff. 3. Ibid., p. 65. 26 attitudes might have been the degree of closeness to combat, or again, in the comparison of married veterans to civilian married men, the organizing factor might have been the in- stitutional norm, which the draft boards themselves recog- nized, that service was a greater hardship on married than single men.1 The writers then summarize by pointing out that refer- ence group comparisons involve the following research prob- lems: 1. The need for institutional definitions of social structure which focus attention of a group or occu- pants of a social status upon common reference groups. The problem.of the relative effectiveness of frames of reference yielded by actual associates versus hm- personal status categories. The problem.of the effects of distorted knowledge in reference group comparisons, that is, the further study of the dynamics of perception from the psycho- logical point of view and the channels of communica- tion from the sociological point of view. The further examination of the empirical status of reference group concepts; for example, there is the particular problem of converting the concept of in- tervening variable from assumption to fact. The problem.of developing techniques for uncovering the dynamics of group reference Shich is "unwittingly" made rather than consciously so. The writers contend also that the functional theory of reference group behavior could be furthered by the develop- ment of certain social indices, namely: 1. An index of actual social relations between the pres- tige stratum of a group and the newcomers to it. 1. Ibid., p. oh ff. 2. Ibid., p.- 61... ff. 27 2. An index of motivation. Current theory assumes that newcomers wish to assimilate with the prestige group. To what extent is this true? 3. An index of social cohesion and associated values. There is the pertinent question for example of whether newcomers are scattered aggregates of pfople or whether they constitute organized subgroups. The Merton-Kitt argument is not clear, however, at cer- tain points. For example, the authors differentiate between reference group theory and role theory by pointing out that the latter as developed by Mead, Cooley and others, clearly applied to the socialization process within an "in" or mem- bership group, whereas reference group theory refers to role ' orientations derived from an "out" or reference group. A bit later, however, in discussing multiple group membership, the authors hasten to add that eventually reference group theory must concern itself with membership orientation.2 In a recent article, Shibutani, in a discussion of the concept reference group and its perspectives, observes that the concept has three points of reference: 1. Ibid., p.-79 ff. 2. In discussing this problem Merton says, "There is, h0w- ever, the further fact that men frequently orient them- selves to groups other than their own in shaping their behavior and evaluations, and it is the problems cen- tered about this fact of orientation to nonmembership groups that constitute the distinctive concern of ref- erence group theory. Ultimately, of course, the theory must be generalized to the point where it can account for both membership - and nonmembership - group orienta- tions..." Ibid., p.50, For Mead's approach, see George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Societ , Chicago, The University of Chicago Press,19§ET p. 138. 28 1. It is used as a point of reference in making compari- sons or contrasts, especially in arriving at self- judgments. Thus the reference group is a standard for making a judgment. This was the sense in which Hyman used the term and likewise Merton and Kitt. 2. It is also used as a point of reference for a group in which the actor aspires or expects to gain or maintain acceptance. In other words, it is a status to be gained or maintained. . 3. It is the group whose perspective is taken by the actor; that is, an organization of the actor's ex- perience. Shibutani favors the third definition. It seems to the present writer that the third defini- tion is implied in the second. When one aspires to a group or recOgnizes his membership in a group, he ordinarily takes on the perspective of that group.1 Accordingly, for purposes of this thesis, a reference group is defined as one whose perspective is taken by the actor, to the extent that he aspires or expects to gain or maintain acceptance in it. Hence, a person's reference group may be his formal membership group, or it may be a nonmembership group. Granted that reference group orientation occurs, the problem still remains as to the nature of the forces operat- ing on an individual to induce the taking on of perspectives and the deve10pment of motives expressed in a desire "to be- long" or "to maintain the state of belonging" to a reference group. The Sherifs offer one explanation in what is called "the Group Norm Theory." l. Tamotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives," American Journal of Sociolo , Volume 60, Number 6, May. 1955. 10.7623363. 29 The Relationship pg Reference Group Theory pp the Group Norm Theory p3 Prejudice. The group norm theory as advanced by the Sherifs maintain that all groups have norms and be- liefs with respect to which subtle pressures from the group enduce conformity.1 They continue by pointing out that the factors which lead individuals to form attitudes of prej- udice are not accidental but are functionally related to be- coming a group member, one aspect of which is adopting the group's values. The individual's conformity may arise from external group pressures or, on the other hand, because he has internalized the norm and has thus made it a part of his need system. To the extent that an individual internalizes the standards of a particular group, it becomes a reference group for him. Selection p3 Approach. A basic hypothesis of reference group theory is that when an individual aspires to be in a group, or identifies with a group, he tends to take on the norms of that group. What norms are taken over, however, and the extent to which they are internalized, depends on the saliency of the norm, both for the group and for the in- dividual. This leads us back to the fundamental question with which this thesis is concerned: Are differences in reference group identifications associated with differences in verbalized expressions of prejudice. An answer to this question will not only serve to increase our knowledge about prejudiced attitudes but it will also serve to further test the applicability of the reference group hypothesis itself. l. Sherif and Sherif, pp. cit., pp. 218—219. 30 CHAPTER II SOCIAL BACKGROUND OF MAPLE COUNTY YOUTH The Ecological Setting. Maple County, with a population of 30,202, is located in the southern part of Midstate on flat to rolling terrain. Like much of the remainder of this part of the state, its soil was reclaimed from.swamps and marshland, some of which still dot the landscape. One river flows through the heart of the county, and served as a stim- ulus for trade and settlement in the early days. The county seat of Johnstown, centrally located, is built on its shores. Five miles to the east, is the small town of Adams. It has a population of 1,527, chiefly widows and retired farmers. Twelve miles southwest of Johnstown, is Brownsville, a town of 2,106 in 1950. A fourth town, Edgerton, lies to the northwest. It is about the size of Adams and similar to it in many ways. Both are high school communities. Since Ed- gerton draws a large number of students from the neighboring county, it was not included in the study. Two major highways, one running east and west, the other north and south, bisect each other at Johnstown, di- viding the city into quadrants. Two other east-west highways run to the north and to the south of the county, respectively. One large railroad runs through the county-seat, and the other towns, mentioned above, have railroad services. Al- though each of the four towns has sufficient retail services to support a rural community, social life is dominated by. the county seat, Johnstown. It has the only radio station, 31 the only daily paper, and the county hospital. The offices 01' the major farm organizations, and, of course, those of the county government are likewise located here. 313 Educational System. Like many other midwestern areas, much of Maple County has reorganized and consolidated her School facilities. This reorganization has been town- centered, following the directional patterns established by Secondary school attendance. The 121 independent rural ”11°01 districts operating elementary schools in 1935 were reduced to 53 by 1950. They had united with the Brownsville, Adams and Edgerton town districts. The Johnstown district did not encourage such reorganization and, here, rural youth came as tuition-paying students,--chief1y at the secondary level. In some instances, districts “which might have joined JOhristown were attracted elsewhere. For the most part, how- 9‘791‘ , high school attendance areas have remained relatively traditional, certain districts sending their students to certain high schools. This has provided a channel of com- munication between town and country which has probably had considerable effect in modifying the attitudes of these two groups, not only toward each other, but toward other groups as well. Socio-economic Organization: (1) Residence. Maple County is predominantly rural. Out of a total population of 30,202 in 1950 (the census was taken a year after this study), only 28.5 percent lived in the only urban center, Johnstown. The farm population comprised 32.8 percent of 7 7 x , 7 1 i 7 l , 7 32 the 150133.]— , and the nonfarm population, 38.? percent. In this Study, the nonfarm population, has been differentiated into two groups (those living in towns of 1,000 to 2,Li99 Population), and those living in smaller villages or open country.1 The town population, as defined above, included 1700 percent of the total population of the county, and the balance of the nonfarm group, 21.7 percent. For purposes or this research the urban population and the town popula- tion of the area under study have been combined into an urbar1~town population. This latter group included LL5.6 per- cent of the total county population. It should be recalled however that the town of Edgerton was excluded from the study. The total urban-town population under study in the county was 14.0.5 percent. Henceforth the urban-town group will be referred to, simply, as the town population. An examination of Table 2.1 reveals some rather sharp residence differentials in the school as compared with the total population of the county, with the farm group occupy- ing the most unfavorable position. Although about one-third of the county population is rural-farm, only a little more than one-fifth of the ninth and one-fourth of the twelfth grade are from the farm. The nonfarm population is also under-represented in the twelfth grade. In contrast, the town segment is over-represented for both grades. Although ——— 1. See Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, Rural Social Systems, New York, Prentice-Hall, 1950, p. 177 for a comp ete subclassification of the nonfarm population. 33 Table 2.11.- NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PERSONS IN THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADE AND IN THE COUNTY POPULA- TION, BY RESIDENCE, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 N County Residence (a) and Grade~ Total :Farm Nonfarm Town (100%)_ NoL Percent No. Percent No. Percent 1 2(b) 3 “(b) 5 6(b) N Countzir 30,202 9,913 32.8 6,512 21.6 13.777 h5.6 Twelfth 173 h; 26.0 26 15.0 102 59.0 Nint:r, 226 51 22.6 50 22.1 125 55.3 N°t€3 : Eleven ninth graders and three twelfth graders failed to respond to the residence question. They are not included in the totals. (a) Residence data for the County are given for nonfarm and town categories as employed in this thesis. For a def- inition of them, see Appendix A, Table l, Footnote 2, P880 197. (b) Since the population base for Maple County appears to be relatively stable, it was not considered necessary to estimate a population base for 19h9. The p0pulation as given in the Census p: Population: 1950 was employed. INote: Since the figures used in this table are based on enumerated rather than sample data, and since no inferences to hypothetical populations are intended, tests of significance were not computed. Source: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A, pages 189 ff.; United States Bureau of the Census, Census p; Population: 19 0, Volume II, "Characteristics of the Population, Part 22, Michigan, Table 6, p. 22-15, Table 12, p. 22-h . . they comprise about 14.6 percent of the county population, they represent 55 percent of the ninth and 59 percent of the twelfth grade. The farm and town students gained represen- tation, relatively, as between the ninth and twelfth grades, but the nonfarm group lost ground. Socio—economic Organization: L2) Occupation. The in- dustrial activity of the county is located chiefly in Johns- town and Brownsville. Workers in Adams not engaged in retail trade, commute to these, or other, centers for employ- ment. Industries are diversified and, for the most part, are home-owned. Johnstown, for example, has foundries, a furnace factory, a plastic manufacturing company, and a shoe factory. ASf‘litf'iculturally, the county is classified in the corn- belt region and is a mixed grain and livestock farming area. Many farm families have members who are full or part-time workers in towns. They serve as cultural links between the farm and ponfarm, and the farm and town groups. Even so, there are three distinct groups in the community which may be identified: (1) the white collar group including the business and professional people, (2) manual workers, and (3) farmers, ThOI'e were 10,706 persons in the experienced labor force in 1950. Of that number, slightly under one-half were blue c011ar workers, over one-fourth were white collar em- ployees, and about one-fourth were farmers (Table 2.2). In high school, the children of blue-collar workers greatly out-number those of farmers and of white-collar 35 Table 2.22- NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PERSONS IN THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADE AND IN THE COUNTY POPULA- TION, BY OCCUPATION, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Occupation (a) County and Grade Total Farm Blue Collar White Collar (100%) No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 1 em 3 Mb) 5 60:) County 10,7oo(c) 2,532 23.7 5.078 1.7.1; 3,096 28.9 Twelfth 156 1.7 30.1 67 113.0 1.2 26.9 Ninth 212 53 25.0 101 117.6 58 27.1; Note: __ Twenty-five ninth graders, twenty twelfth graders and 361; from the County failed to Peepond to the occupation question. They are not included in the totals. For a definition of the occupational categories, see Appendix A, Table 1, Footnote 3, p. 198. See Table 2.1, Footnote (b), page 33- This total includes employed and experienced unemployed Persons in the labor force. ..__.—‘ Since the figures used in this table are based on enumerated rather than on sample data, and since no inferences to hypothetical populations are in- tel’lded (the material being purely descriptive of MSnple County), tests of significance were not cOrmouted. $222.92: United States Bureau of the Census, Census 9_f_ Emulation: 1950, Volwne II, "Characteristics of the Population?" Part 22, Michigan, Table 113, '0. 22-137; and Resource Tables 1 - 6 (this thesis). 36 workers. They comprise 1.4.3 percent of the twelfth and 14.8 per.- cent of the ninth grade. The children of white-collar and farm parents occur in about the same proportions. Each group include a little over one-fourth of the total. Subjectively-defined Socio-economic Status. The strati- fication process in Maple County is not clearly discernable. Maple County residents believe that they are all alike. As one's familiarity with the community and its people in- creases, certain distinctions appear.1 Symbols for allocat- ing prestige are not quite the same for newcomers as for older members of the community. They are more highly secu- larized for the town and nonfarm groups. Type of occupation, 812-8 01' income, educational achievement, and differences in housing areas are important indicators of social status. To have status in the farm group, one must "belong" in the pri- mary group sense. One must have the attitudes and goals of farmers. Even so, certain secular symbols seem to be emerg- 1118- There are the "real" farmers who make farming a bus- iness, a commercial enterprise run for profit. At the top of this group are the "big" farmers who have increased their 11031111188 and exploited, fully, the advantages of mechaniza- tion. At the bottom, are the traditional farmers who farm for a living. They are partially mechanized. They have tractOrs but not bale lifters. Lastly, there are the part- time farmers who hOpe to become full-time operators when they can acquire the needed capital. A They are the sons of l. ‘ggigamaterial is taken from John Holland, 23. cit., pp. 37 real farmer-s, usually, forced off the farmstead because it was not large enough to support all its members. The nonfarm group appear similar to the town group. They fall into two major classes, the working group, who are manual workers, and the middle class, who are clerks and bus- iness or professional peOple. There are no elite families, as such, but there are a few who consider themselves upper class. At the bottom is the "no good, lazy people who won't work." They are definitely excluded from the farm community. In both the adult sample and the student universe, re- spondents were asked to evaluate their socio-economic status. Adults were asked to evaluate their own status, and students were asked to evaluate the status of their parents. The former were far more realistic in making an assessment of their status than the latter. Thirty—nine percent of the adults as compared with 61 percent of the twelfth grade and 72 percent of the ninth felt they were middle class. While it is reasonable to expect a higher percentage of individuals in the middle class in a high school group than in the gen- eral Population, differences of 22 and 33 percent seem to indicate a variation in perspective. (Table 2.3).One inter- vening Variable which might contribute to such differences in class self-identification is aspiration ideals. Students may tend to equate their status levels to their aspiration 10‘79130 As they approach maturity and are faced with the responsibility of entering the adult society, they become more realistic in their self-evaluation of class.‘ Hence 38 Table 2. 3- NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PERSONS IN THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADE AND IN A SAMPLE OP ADULTS, BY SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SUBJ'ECTIVELY DEFINED), MAPLE COUNTY, 19119 Socio-economic Status(a) Adult __g 1 3:3 3 Working :— Middle Grade ( lOO . 00) Number Percent Number Percent 1 2 3 LL Adults (b) 1.18 251. 60.8 1611 39.2 Twelfth 170 66 38. 8 1011 61 . 2 Ninth 221 62 28.1 159 71.9 fiequals 68.1(0) (d.f‘. = 21 Note: Sixteen ninth graders and six twelfth graders failed to respond to the question on socio- economic status. These were not included in the totals. (a) F01” a definition of socio-economic class categories, see Appendix A, Table l, Footnote 3, p. 198- (b) This was a stratified, proportionate sample of male and female heads, chosen randomly. For a detailed discussion of the sampling procedure, see John B. Holland, 92. Cite, pp. 6-110 (0) To be significant at the one percent level, X2 must equal 9.2, at the 5 percent level, 6.0. Source: Computed from Resource Tables 1 - 6 (this thesis) Appendix A, pp.195f‘f,and John B. Holland, Attitudes toward Minority Groups in Relation to Rural Group SEr“ucture,Th. D. Thesi‘a‘j’ “—T‘East ansTfig, Michigan State College, 1950, Table 111, page 1611. 39 twelfth graders may be less inclined to overrate their class status than ninth graders. Religi oug Preference. The majority of the people of Maple County are Protestants. Among the student pOpulation, they comprise 65 percent. Holland, in his sample of adults, found a slightly higher proportion, namely 69 percent. (See Table 2.2.1) . A large range of denominations are represented: the Methodists had the largest membership and Roman Catholics had the next largest group.1 Other denominations included the Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, F'ree Methodists, Church of God, Nazarenes, Adventists, Congregationalists, and, in the rural areas, interdenominational groups. In Johnstown, aside from the Methodist, the most active of these at’ii'peared to be the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Episco- pal churches, Those of Catholic faith are most numerous in Brownsville where a large percentage are of Polish extraction. In Johns- town, numerous ethnic groups are represented in the Catholic Church:--P0113h, Italian, German, Irish and others. For the most part, they have been acculturated.2 Both parishes main- tained elementary schools but there were no parochial schools beyond the ninth grade at the time of this study. 1. Ibid. , p. 29. 2. In 1950, there were less than 700 foreign-born whites in the ent1re county, 79 Negroes, and no Mexicans. (From the _Census of Population: 1.959, Volume II, "Characteris- tics or the—Population," Part 22, Michigan, Table 112, p- 22-129 and Table 112a, p. 22-1311.) MO Table 2.11.. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF‘ PERSONS IN THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADE AND IN A SAMPLE OE ADULTS, BY RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Religious Preference(a) Adult: SamplLea and. No Grades Catholic Protestant Preference Total (100%) No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 1 2 3 A S 6 Adults (b) 1128 62 111.5 295 68.9 71 16.6 Twelfth 171 18 10.5 111 611.9 112 211.6 Nintll 229 18 7.9 150 65.5 61 26.6 2(c) X Nquals 111.82 (d.f. = 1L) N0“ = Eight ninth graders and five twelfth graders failed to respond to the religious preference question. They are not included in the totals. \ (a) Iaor a definition of the religious preference categories, see Appendix A, Table l, Footnote 5, p. 199. (b) Iaor a description of this sample: 399 Table 2°39 FOOt' Iiote (b) of this thesis. (c) To be significant at the one percent level, X2 must equal 13.3, at the five percent level, 9.5. 3%: Computed from Resource Tables 1 - 6 (this thesis), Appendix A, p..l95 ff., and John B. Holland, Table 52, page 198. ' 111 Rural churches had felt the pressures of urbanization. Over one-third of the country people attended church in town. 1 Many of the rural churches had disbanded and others had reorganized as interdenominational congregations. Very few could be considered strong or active. This does not mean that Maple County residents did not consider religion important. Most of them had had some contact with the church. Only 17 percent of the adults said that they had no church Prefer-ence. However, about 25 percent of the students indi- cated that their parents had no church preference (Table 2.11). The distribution of the Catholic students is concen- trated in the Brownsville high school, where over a fourth 0f the group in both classes came from Catholic homes.2 In contrast, less than one percent of the Johnstown ninth grade and less than four percent of the twelfth grade were of this faith- Rel igious Participation. Since religious preference has little meaning outside a frame-work of participation, some effort was made to assess the participation factor. Students who attended Sunday School three or more times per month, or who attended church but not Sunday School, were considered church-oriented (Table 2.5.).‘There was no signifi- ca ht difference in the attendance patterns of students and \ ° John Holland, 9:9. cit., p. 31. 2. Fourteen (78 percent) of the eighteen Catholic students in the ninth grade and 13 (72 percent) of the eighteen Catholics in the twelfth grade were in the Brownsville high school. Source: Appendix A, Resource Tables 2 and 5, #2 Table 2.5. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PERSONS IN THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADE AND IN A SAMPLE OF ADULTS, BY RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION, MAPLE COUNTY, 1911.9 Religious Participation(a) Adult: Samp]_ee Church- Nonchurch- and Total oriented oriented Grade (100.00) No. Percent No. Percent 1 2 3 11 Adults (b) 1129 262 61.1 167 38.9 Twelfth 171 99 57.9 72 112.1 Ninth 227 151 66.5 76 33.5 fiequals 3.12“) (d.f. = 2) N°te=: 'Ten ninth graders and five twelfth graders failed to :respond to the religious participation question. frhey are not included in the totals. ___\ (a) Ivcxr a definition of the religious participation cate- EECJries, see Appendix A, Table l, Footnote u, p. 198. (b) UEllis was a stratified, prOportionate sample of male Eitud female heads, chosen randomly. For a detailed Ciiscussion of the sampling procedure, see John B. 'olland,{gp. gi£., Chapter I, pp, 6.11. (c) 3P0 be significant at the one percent level, X2 must equal 9.2, at the five percent level, 6.0. W: Computed from Resource Tables 1 - 6 (this thesis), Appendix A, p. 195 ff,and John B. Holland, 22. cit., Table 61, p. 222. These categories are not exaEUIy comparable as a small number of students attending less than once a month are included under "non- church-oriented" in this Table, and were included under "nominally-active" by Holland. His "active" and "nominally-active" are combined here in the category "church-oriented." 113 adult 8 - Slightly under two thirds of the members of both groups attended once per month or more. Sociometric status. Sociometric status is based upon the nature and degree of social acceptance which is extended to an individual in an informal group situation. It is de- termined by examining the choices which an individual re- ceives from the group. A sociometric leader is defined as one upon Whom there has been a concentration of three or more choices. His leadership role derives from the fact that he occupies a pivotal position in a communication net- work Of people, potential or real. Theoretically such a net- work possesses some common interest around which it was struc tux-ed. The degree of integration in an informal group can be measured in part by the relative number of members who 1"ernain unchosen. The response of the individual to ac- c”ta-Inca or nonacceptance by his associates is also an im- portant factor in determining the nature of group relations. A group made up of individuals whom the group wants and who, in turn wants to be, in the group, has a different social 011mate than one composed of members oriented to individuals Outs 16.6 the group, irrespective of whether the group accepts that“ or not. Some individuals are "Isolates." They receive no choices, nor do they make any. They occupy a detached pQ’sition, outside the usual paths of informal communication and social stimulation. Sociometric behavior showed some interesting differ— en(tes in the twelfth as compared with the ninth grade. The relative number of sociometric leaders (hereafter in this section referred to as leaders) was less in the twelfth than in the ninth grade. In the latter grade, there was an average of one leader for every 17 students, in the former, one leader for every twenty-five students. (See Table 2.6). A little under one-half of the ninth grade (113.5 percent) but a little over one-third of the twelfth grade (37.5 per- cent) both received and made choices within their grade. Approximately four percent of the students in both grades made choices outside their grade. the (This was a violation of instructions they received at the time the sociometric test was given.) For every ninth grader who received but made no choice at all, there were two twelfth graders, al- though the percentage was small for both grades, 2.1 and 501’ respectively. About five percent of the ninth and six percent of the twelfth grade were pure isolates, neither receiving nor mak- ing any choices. It should be remembered, however, that the soc'101'r1etric question permitted only one choice. On a second or th-ird choice some of these students, no doubt, would have be on selected. For these, contacts were marginal, not lack- ing s necessarily. An examination of Table 2.6 suggests the converging and consolidation of social prestige and power in the twelfth as compared with the ninth grade. At the same time, a larger group of people appear to become detached from the group in the twelfth grade carrying out roles which may be the w as Table 2 .6. NUMBER AND PERCENT OF PERSONS IN THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADE, BY SOCIOMETRIC STATUS, MAPLE COUNTY, 1919 Grade Sociome trio Status Ninth Twelfth _: Number Percent Number Percent Total 237 100.00 176 100.00 Leaders: Students Receiving 3 or More Choices 15 6.3 7 LLoO Followers :Not Leaders 222 93.7 169 C96.0 W _I_x; Grade ChO ices Made and Choices Received Within Grade 103 143.5 66 37.5 W Outside ' 2.1: $2332 15 6.3 16 9.1 ghoices Received out Choices Made uts 1de of Grade 10 h.2 7 h.o ghoiees Received but 0 Choices Made 5 2.1 9 501 W .121 Group 93 39.3 77 u3.7 Choices Received 336- Choices Made ts~1de of Grade 13 5.5 10 5.7 1:: Choices Received Wid Choices Made thin Grade 80 33.8 67 38.0 $3 Isolate N0 Choices Received Choices Made 11 14.6 10 5.7 \ S %: Computed from Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A, p. 195 ff. N%_ This table is based on an enumerated population and tests of significance were not made. See "Note," Table 2.2, p. 35. 11,6 product of their personal idiosyncracies and the fortuities of the 1r situation. Student and Leader Memberships _i_r_1 Formal Organizations. The participation patterns of sociometric leaders in formal organizations vary from those of the student body as a whole (Table 2.7).Farm oriented groups attracted the student body in higher proportions than any other set of organizations. They comprised 35 percent of all memberships held by ninth graders and 39 percent of all those held by twelfth graders. The leaders, on the other hand, participated most in school a0131V1'Lties other than athletics, 37 percent of all member- Ships of ninth grade leaders and 42 percent of twelfth grade leaders being in these groups. Athletics ranked second, however, for both students and leaders in the ninth grade. In the twelfth grade, neither leaders nor students made ath- leticS their second most important source of participation. (Athletic pursuits, comprising 30 percent of all ninth grade aeti‘fities for leaders dropped to 17 percent in the twelfth grade and was replaced by activities in farm organizations, While students as a whole participated more in other school a°t1V1ties in the twelfth grade. Leaders increased their ”mutiny activities from the ninth to the twelfth grade Whereas the reverse was true for the students as a whole. These data suggest that sociometric leadership is re- latfid to the power structure of the student body insofar as 138~I"cicipation is concerned, but it was impossible with the present data to relate this type of leadership to roles #7 Table 2 .7. NUMBER AND PERCENT OR MEMBERSHIPS IN ORGANIZA- TIONS, AND AVERAGE MEMBERSHIPS, BY GRADE, FOR ALL STUDENTS, AND FOR SOCIOMETRIC LEADERS, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Memberships in Organizations Organ 1 — zation Ninth Twelfth Leaders(a) Students(b) Leaders(a) Students(5) No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Nb: Percent Total Mem- berships 27 100.0 39h 100.0 12 100.0 269 100.0 Fam(°) 6 22.2 138 35.0 3 25.0 10L; 38.7 Athletics 8 29.6 103 26.2 2 16.7 59 21.9 Other School Organ- (d) 10 37.1 60 15.2 5 hits 70 26-0 Commity Actixer131es 3 11,1 58 1A.? 2 16.7 26 9.7 Scout Students 15 218 7 172 Number Percent . Membe r. s .of No 01-» Ban. 5 2.3 6 3.5 Mem'ber ships N211; §tudent 1.8 1.8 107 1.6 ————e~~ Nineteen ninth and four twelfth graders did not re- spond to the question and are not included in the tOtaISO (a) A leader is one who received three or more sociometric choices. (b) This column includes both leaders and nonleaders. (c) The farm organizations include Li-H Clubs, Junior Farm Bureau, Rural Youth, Future Farmers of America, and _ Future Home Makers of America. (d) Includes Hi-Y, Y—teens, and all others. %: This table is based on an enumerated population. See "NOte," Table 202’ P0 350 W: Computed from Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. LLB performed in specific school or community organizations. There is also some evidence to indicate the hypothesis that newcomers use athletic participation to gain status with their peers and then to move on to membership in other pres- tige organizations. There was no difference in the extent of membership of students and leaders in the ninth grade, but in the twelfth grade leaders averaged 1.7 memberships and all students only 1.6. There were proportionately more twelfth than ninth graders who did not have a membership in any Organization. This may derive from the fact that there were less organizations to join. Ethnic Minorities and the Attitudes 3;; Maple County W Toward Them.1 Maple County is composed essen- tially of old-American stock. Native whites comprised 97-h pechnt of the total county population. The largest ethnic group is found in the Brownsville community, and the second largeSt concentration around Johnstown. The former are Poles . the latter, Italians.2 The Poles, mostly of the second and third generation, are rapidly becoming accultu- rated into the farming and working class gI‘OHPS. Since they have not struggled to acquire higher status, little \ 1’ Unless otherwise indicated, descriptive material was taken from John Holland, 0 . £333., and from the Report of the Research Committee Unpublished), pp. cit. Per— centages were computed from the Census of P0 Elation: i350, gg鑧%§., Tables 38, p. 22:§§?_K8:-p:—g2:I§3—End ,p. ‘ 0 John F. Thaden, Map: "The Farm People of Michigan ac- cording to Ethnic Stock,"19u5, East Lansing, Michigan State College. ‘ 7 7 A9 antagonism.is expressed by Maple County residents toward them. Those minorities against whom the most animosities are directed in the United States as a whole, are scantily re— presented in Maple County, as is typical of midwestern rural communities. According to the 1950 census, the 79 Negroes in Maple County were dispersed. Twelve resided in Johnstown, one each lived in Adams and Brownsville, sixteen were found in the rural-farm population and the remainder were classi— fied as nonfarm. Practically all of the latter were in the State Home and Training School. Holland reports that except for kinship association, they had little contact with each other. They seemingly occupied low status positions, al- though Holland found some college graduates in his adult sample. With small exception, they seemed to accept their lowered status and considered Maple County (perhaps as com- pared with others) a pleasant place to live. While there is no overt hostility expressed toward the NegrOes already in the community, by whites, there is a general feeling that there are "enough of them." There are even fewer Jews than Negroes in the county, according to estimates based on Holland's adult sample. They are chiefly-urban oriented, white collar people. Even so, they are not highly visible to the residents at large. In fact, it was found that some of the Jews were not labelled such by the residents. On the other hand, some non-Jews, possessing characteristics in accord with the general Jewish 50 stereotypes (grasping junk-dealer, dry-goods merchants, jewelers, etc.), were considered Jews. There were no Mexicans at all in the county. However, some Maple County residents had vauaintance with transient Mexican laborers. It was this image of the Mexican that was ordinarily held by the people. In general, Jewish persons occupied a more favorable position in the group than either Negroes or Mexicans. Holland found middle class people more tolerant than working class individuals. Farmers were the most intolerant of both residential and occupational groups. There was no signifi- cant difference between Catholics and Pretestants, although active church members were more tolerant than nonchurch.mem- bers. Unpublished data of the Committee indicate that stu- dents were more tolerant than adults. However, the attitude tests employed were not identical and direct comparison should not be made. It may be said that Maple County residents expressed little overt hostility toward ethnic minority persons in their midst. Nevertheless potential, latent hostility is indicated in the general acceptance of common cultural stereotypes held by the larger society about minority peoples. - .‘.-‘Ir; 3., 51 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN INTRODUCTION The Orienting Idea. Social groups have many parts but in this study they will be examined in terms of three socio- metric components. The first is a core component, or subgroup, which is the interaction center of the group. It is comprised of all these individuals in a given social category who chose and were chosen by members of the same category, for example, farm students who chose and were chosen by farm students. The second is a peripheral component in which members are making use of avenues of association entirely with outsiders. It is comprised of all those students who chose and were chosen by members of a designated nonmembership category, for example, farm students who chose and were chosen by town students. The third is a satellite component comprised of individuals fixed in a position by virtue of their choosing but not having been chosen. These are of two types, core satellite and peripheral satellite groups. The core satel— lite group includes students who chose from their membership category, for example, farm students who chose farm students but received no choices at all. The other, the peripheral satellite group,is comprised of students who chose from a designated nonmembership category, for example, farm stu- dents who chose town students but received no choices at 52 all.1 Each of these sociometric groups may be thought of as reference groups, and hereinafter will be referred to as such, their reference group orientation being conceptualized on the basis of the sociometric choices they made to the question, "If you have lots of visitors in school for a program, and you have to sit two on a seat, what person in your grade do you most like to have sit with you?" The formation of these sociometric reference groups within designated social groups are for the purpose of fulfilling two objectives (1) to un— cover, if any, differences in patterns of prejudice prevail- ing in sociometric reference groups occupying different social positions and (2) to provide a test of the reference group hypothesis that individuals who identify with a given ref- erence group tend to take on the norms of that group. Be- fore developing further the orienting idea in the analysis of data, it is necessary to present some information on the instrument used and the obtaining and processing of the data. THE INSTRUMENT USED ~«\. Th3 Schedule. The schedule provided for three basic types of data: Elggt, social data, such as age, occupation, and social class; second, responses to eight near sociometric questions; and third, an attitude test comprised of responses For a description of the manner in which sociometric ref- erence groups were formed, and for a complete Chart of the sociometric subgroup types possible in a two-fold matrix of "choices made" and "choices received," based on gag choice only, see Appendix D. to 2h statements designed to reveal attitudes toward certain racial and ethnic groups.1 The schedule was prepared by a Committee comprised of professional members from the Depart- ment of Sociology and Anthropology, and graduate students. Since it was planned in terms of the entire Research Project only a part of the data were used in this study. Social Data. The social groups or strata with which we deal, directly or indirectly, are residence, occupational and subjectively-defined socioeconomic status groups, groups based on religious preference and participation, and socio- metric status groups (those sociometrically categorized in terms of leader-follower functions). Certain subcategories as used in this thesis are not classified in terms of the standardized definitions usually found in other research. They are discussed below. Residence. For purposes of this study, the rural-urban dichotomy will not be followed, nor will the census classi- fication of farm and nonfarm be used. Instead, the residence categories will include: (1) farm people, (2) nonfarm people living outside of towns, and (3) the town population.2 It has long been recognized that the terms "rural" and "non- farm" are omnibus terms, sociologically. A rural-urban 1. A COpy of the schedule may be found in Appendix E. 2. See page 32 of this thesis for a definition of the town population. dichotomy tends to blur farm-urban differences.1 The nonfarm population, conceived as a social group, is, likewise, an over-generalized concept, comprising the urban fringe, the population of small villages and unincorporated places, and the nonfarm population living in the open country. There is general concensus, however, that farm peOple occupy a differ- ent social position in the United States than urban people, and that the social position of nonfarm people relative to these two groups probably varies in some intermediate posi- tion on the rural-urban continuum. McKain and Burnight hy- pothesize that the nonfarm population is composed of what they call limited and extended fringes both of which occupy positions along the intermediate sector of the rural-urban continuum, the former nearer the urban pole, the latter nearer the rural pole. The residence categories for this study are defined in terms which conform to these hypotheti- cal refinements. Occupation. As Miller and Form indicate, studies over the last three decades have largely corroborated the white collar-blue collar dichotomy.3 But farmers appear to occupy a unique position, sometimes falling in the white collar and 1. See Paul K. Hatt's discussion of Stuart Queen and David Carpenter's paper, "From the Urban Point of View," in Rural Sociolo , Volume 18 Number 2 June 1953 pp. 102-l08, on page 118 of th6 same volume. ’ , 2. See Walter McKain and Robert Burnight, "From the Rural Point of View," Rural Sociology, Volume 18, Number 2, June, 1953, p0 110. 3. Delbert C. Miller and William H. Form, Industrial Sociol- ggx, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1951, p. 369. 55 comet 111168 in the blue collar group. This lack of stability in social position is apparently derived from the propriator- ship ftmction. Smith found, for example, that an owner- operator of a general farm had a mean score of 53.61; whereas the a core of a farm tenant operator was only 30.57.1 Deeg and Peterson found that they fell in the upper prestige ranks along with white collar workers.2 In this study, because of the farmer's unique position in the hierarchy, the analysis of prejudice according to oc- cupat; ional groupings will be based on three categories of Students, the major wage-earning parent of whom were (1) farmers, (2) blue collar workers, and (3) white collar work- era. The white collar group includes the children of busi- ness and professional people. §ubjective Socio-economic Status. Early analysis of social stratification tended to concentrate on hierarchal, $001Silly visible components of the social structure, such as Occupation or income, as differentiating factors in the formlELizion of social strata or classes. During this period, a social class was identified, more or less, as an aggregate 0f Deople. Warner and his associates attempted to objectify certain subjective and intangible prestige factors WhiCh \ 1’ Mapheus Smith, "An Empirical Scale of Prestige Status of Occupations,"American Sociolggical Review, Volume 8, Number 3, April, 1913, p. 188. M. E. Geeg and D. G. Paterson, "Changes in the Social Status of Occupations," Occupations, January, l9u7. ‘ 56 made up one's "social reputation" as determinants of class.1 Since these factors were derived from a common system of group values and beliefs, they raised the question as to when a class might be considered a social group.2 went 8 till further. Centers He hypothesized that what a person thinks is his own or another's class is as real a determin- ant of‘ his class identification and subsequent role be- havior as is any set of objective criteria based on social repute tion or socioeconomic status.3 For purpOses of this thesis , socioeconomic status is defined as the evaluation that the students made of their parents' socioeconomic sta- tus. Only two categories are employed, the middle class and the working class. The middle class includes those students identifying with the middle and upper classes, and the work- ing Cla ss, those students identifying with the lower class 01' woI'king class. Religious Preference. Religious preference is reported under three categories: Catholic, Protestant and those with no religious preference. No further break down by denomina- tion Was attempted because it was important to keep the num- ber of Social categories low. This was necessary because, N 1‘ garner, W. Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells. OCial W Class in America, A Manual of Procedure for the W Eli-Social Status, Chloe-go, Illinois, Science 2 Davial‘ch Associates, 1949. ' th 3 Allison N. and Robert J. Havighurst, Father of How Your Child Gets His Personality. Boston, 3. See 1.35. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1910. prin chard Centers,T_h_e_ W _o_f_; Social Classes, Ce ton, N.J., Princeton University Press,l9119,p.l1+8. 57 Subsequently the students in each category were broken down still further into sociometric reference groups, thus reduc- ing the theoretical size of the cells to small group prOpor- tions - Those without religious preference should not be equa- ted wi th nonattenders. Some nonattenders indicated a reli- gious preference, and some who claimed a religious preference said they were nonattenders. geligious Participation. Religious participation is measured in terms of attendance. A high attender is defined as a student who attended Sunday School (or church) twice a month or more. In contrast a low attender is one who went less than twice a month. A nonattender is one who reported flatly that he did not go at all. SOciometric Status. Sociometric status is concerned With leader-follower relations as they are revealed through SOCiOmetric choices. Status, in this sense, is relative to the number of choices one receives. The concepts currently employed by sociologist, however, have been adapted from research on institutions. It is not surprising, therefore, that they sometimes prove inadequate. This was particularly true fol" the present study which is focused upon sociometric reference groups which are theoretical abstractions, that. to th° wI’iter's knowledge, have not been used before. For this reagen the following terminolmzy has been deve10ped. l. Pivot leader: Any student who made a choice and who received three or more choices. 58 22.. Pivot-links: Students other than pivot leaders who both made and received choices, (that is, performed both leader and follower roles). .3.. Satellites: Students who made choices but received none (had no observable leadership role). Li- Self Isolates: Students who made no choices but re- ceived choices (unrecognized or repudi- ated leadership roles). 53. Group Isolates: Students who received no choices and made no choices (had no observable leader or follower roles). CDlne Sociometric Question Used. Although eight socio- mmtrfi1<3 type questions were included in the schedule, five meaSlAJPT1ng acceptance and three rejection, only one is em- P10313<3 in this research.1 It is stated as follows: "When you have lots of visitors in school for a program and you have 't<3 sit two in a seat, what person in your grade do you most like to have sit with you?" 'Pkiere were several criteria which were employed in the s“fleetiion of this particular sociometric question: 3.. The question was to be directed insofar as possi— ble toward the measurement of realistic behavior rather than toward "aspired” behavior or hero worship. £3. The question was to measure acceptance, that is, positive orientation to the group. _—___~‘__~_ 1‘ Elbe eight questions were of the near-sociometric type. hrnear-sociometric question is one which pertains to a 5130thetical situation; the sociometric question per- Ilss to a real life situation. The former reads, "if goiwere to have visitors,---,---, the latter, "we are rlég to have visitors ---,--—." we 59 :3. A single answer question was desired.' Multiple answer questions presented two serious difficulties: (1) the data, which had already been processed when this design was developed, were not tabulated to show second and third choices, and (2) a multiple answer question distributed too much of the student universe into "mixed" rather than "pure-type" socio- metric subgroups. Although a single answer question is perhaps more influenced by ”idiosyncratic choice," it was assumed, as mentioned above, that such choices would distribute themselves randomly, and would not seriously affect a sociological study of informal group structure. On the basis of these criteria, the "seat mate" question, stated above, was se- lected. Eh‘e; Attitude Test. The twenty-four statements for the attitude test are taken, verbatim, from the California Atti- tude Scale. They were developed by the Institute of Child Welfare of the University of California, for use in their studies of prejudice. The test may be broken down into four Part3: (One pertaining to Jews; a second, to Negroes; a third, tn: Mexicans and a fourth, on General attitudes of prejudice. There are six statements in each part. Each Statemerlt: ellicits a verbal response to a social situation iDVOIVirlég social distance between the respondent and the par- ticular. Iranial or ethnic group being considered, and provides for a ”681301139 on a three point scale of agreement as follows: 60 ufl disagree, (b) cannot quite agree and (c) agree com- ;fletely. They were given a weight of one, two and three, respectively. I The Independent and Dependent Variables. Three socio— metric groups, which we have identified as the core, the peripheral and the peripheral satellite groups comprise the independent variables of the study. Although these groups are theoretical constructs, they may be treated as concrete groups. The dependent variables are the mggg tolerance scores of the members of the sociometric reference groups. The in- dividual's tolerance score from which the mean tolerance score is computed is a summarization of the responses ob- tained on the individual items of the attitude test. The total score of any part of the test is the numerical sum of the weights of the responses to the six items included in that part. The theoretical score range for each part is six to eighteen, The total prejudice score is the sum of the Weights of the responses to all 2h questions. Its theoreti- °al range is 21; to 72. 2212 Vallqygy and Reliability 9;: the Instrument. The Validity Of a study rests upon two factors; (1) the extent t0 which the data collected are relevant to the problem be- ing coinsiclered, and (2) the extent to which the data are free flnmm systematic errors. Although direct estimates of validity are difficult to make, it is possible to conform t o certadJl'pperequisites which, it is known, will increase 61 ‘wflJdity, such.as, expanding the number of questions, in- creasing the size of the sample, or by using trained workers. Insofar as the schedule for the over-all Project was concerned, it was not considered feasible by the Committee to increase the number of questions. It was important to keep the size of the schedule small enough so that it could be administered within a classroom period, and so that ele- ments of fatigue would not affect the reliability of the data. Inasmuch as the schedule was given to the total uni- verse of students, problems of sampling were not applicable. However, there was a question of the extent to which absen- ces might introduce a constant bias. Since no advance pub- licity was released regarding the dates on which the sched- ules were to be given, it was assumed the effect of such absences on the arrangement of the prejudice scores would be distributed randomly. All investigators employed were care- fully trained, and the schedule was pretested several times. On the basis of these pretests, certain revisions in vocabu- lary and in the sequence of questions resulted. Insofar as this study is concerned, it is reasonable to contend that the rigid categorization of the members of a soeial category into sociometric reference groups served to 1I’l‘n‘efiatsns validity in that it contributed to the further re— finement of‘the data into "empirically visible" homoseneous subgroups which, theoretically, served the purpose of in- creasms the relevancy of the data to the problem. At the s ems time, it reduced the possibility of systematic error ¥ T .2 by uncovering subgroup classes which in this research design could not logically be classified tegether. In addition to questions concerning the general problem of validity as it applies to the design of this study and the Instrument used, there are two points at which particu- lar questions of validity might be raised: 1. In measurements derived from the attitude tests. 2. In considering the results of the sociometric tests. The Zalidity and Reliability 23 the Attitude Test. This research is concerned with an analysis of verbalized respon- ses which are assumed to be manifestations of an underlying sYstem of sentiments and beliefs prevalent in the society about racial and ethnic minorities. Employed in this sense, the verbalized responses made to the items of the attitude test are indexes of the underlying system, and hence con- sideration of questions of validity can only be correlative. One estimate of the validity of a test can be obtained by determining whether it discriminates between the tolerant and the intolerant in different situations where prejudice is known to exist. The items of the attitude test used here were taken from.the California Attitude Scale which had been used on Various groups and examined in detail by the Cali- fornia group. Furthermore, to the extent the data based on the Scale showed significant differences in prejudice. the scale could.be assumed to be valid. - HoWeVer the fact of discrimination is not enough. One must know, also, how consistently an instrument discrimin- ates. L_I Estimates of reliability for the California Attitude 63 Scale were made by Milton Rokeach, who also participated in the over-all Project of which this study is a part. Only those items showing the higheSt reliability were selected by the Research Committee for inclusion in the attitude test gm: Eloyed in this research. It was assumed that psycho-social factors contributing to bias, or non-bias, in the wording or interpretation of test items were not materially different in California than in Maple County and did not warrant the additional expense of retesting for reliability with this Population. As Myrdal has pointed out in numerous places, the United States subscribes to the American Creed which out- lines the basic norms and values of the society relative to liberty, equality, and other humanitarian rights and duties.1 The statements are worded in terms of positive stereo- types to Preclude any possible resistence or hostility which negativeiphrasing sometimes arouses.2 Since the items are not identical for each part of the test, inter-group compari- sons are not appropriate and do not comprise a part of this thesis. 2‘22 Reliability 93 the Sociometric Test. Pepinsky notes that the concept of "reliability" as currently employed by social scientists is of doubtful value in the analysis of \ __ 1' Gunner Myrdal, 33. cit. 2- See Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch and Stuart w. Cook. 0 - fiifi': pp. 163-16h, for a discussion of the effect of t e ‘3‘3f positive versus negative stereotypes in the items. ; 61L sociometric data.1 This stems from the fact that instru- ments now in use to estimate reliability are based on the assumption that the variable being measured is relatively stable and hence not subject to change. This assumption violates the basic hypothesis of sociometric theory which assumes that choice behavior is a reflection of the struc- ture of the group. Consequently if the group is unstable or is altered, this is reflected in the sociometric pattern. She continues by pointing out that estimates of reliability oftentimes result in dilemas. If the reliability coeffi- cient is high the problem is that of whether the data are free from random errors or whether the test of reliability is insensitive to the changes which have occurred in the choice patterns of the group. 'If, on the other hand, the coefficient is low, the problem then becomes one of whether the choice patterns in the data have undergone real chance, or whether the presence of random error is very high. Op- erationally, an investigator takes the steps necessary to insure reliability while securing and interpreting socio- metric data, lut it appears almost impossible in the present state of knowledge to make any definitive tests of it. Every effort was made to eliminate such random factors as failure to establish rapport, factors contributing to fatigue, inadequate motivation of the subjects, vague or l. Pauline Pepinsky, "The Meaning of 'Validity' and 'Re- liability' as Applied to Sociometric Tests," Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, Volume 9, ll9h9), PF 0 39'1“? o nonuniform instructions, and such mechanical factors as checking in the wrong box, illegibility, and mistakes in punching, coding, or computing the data. In addition, pre- vious studies in sociometry were examined for findings which might relate to problems of reliability as they pertain to this thesis. Several investigators have found a high degree of consistency in the choice status of individuals even though shifts in the individuals making these choices might occur.1 Brookover in his sociometric analysis of changes in clique structure occurring among students in Brownsville from 1919 to 1952, found them to be highly dynamic.2 But a shift in interpersonal relations does not necessarily mean a shift of reference group. Thus the choice status of an individual with respect to his reference group might be found to be relatively stable, although the individuals choosing him might vary. This furnishes empirical support for the logic behind the abstraction of the sociometric ref- erence groups as structural entities. According to Pepinsky, there is some evidence also that adults are more consistent than children in their choice behavior. Only high school students were selected for this study. And finally, 10th Criswell and Moreno report greater shifts in second and third choices in a retest situation than in first choices. 1. For a discussion of these researches see Helen Jennings, 22. cit., pp. 29-31. 2. Wilbur Brookover, A Sociology 23 Education, New York, American Book Company, 1955, Figure 8, pp. 21h-2lS. 66 In this research, only a single answer question was employed. Although the single answer question is more subject to vari- ations resulting from idiosyncratic choice, such choices, it is assumed, would tend to vary at random and would not seri- ously affect group patterns.1 The Validity 23 the Sociometric Test. Since the choice behavior resulting from a sociometric test is a direct re- sponse to a stimulus situation, its face-validity is self- evident; that is to say, it can be seen on a common sense basis that the response (choices) derives directly from the stimulus situation (sociometric questions). A more difficult problem regarding the validity of the data arises in consid- ering whether this response is a falsification, or not; that is, whether it truly represents what the respondent would do if he were confronted with the choice in a real life situa- tion. It is_in this sense that the concept has meaning for sociometric data. It is for this reason, also, that Moreno makes the destinction between the sociometric and the near- sociometric question. It could be argued, that the two types of questions serve different ends. A sociometric question, since it structures the response in terms of a future real life situ- ation, elicits a kind of behavior in which factors which ner- tain to the immediate adjustment of the individual are para- mount. The near-sociometric question, on the other hand, sets up a more permissive situation in which internalized 1. For a discussion of these researches see Pepinsky, 22. cit. 6? cultural definitions of the situation are more likely to be evoked than a particular adjustment pattern of the chooser in making choices. This should contribute to the sociolog- ical objectives of the present study. Once again, every effort was made to conduct the re- search in such a manner as to insure a maximum of validity. The eggpost facto nature of the present study permitted the writer to examine the sociometric questions of the schedule critically for incomplete answers, or blocking, or bias in the responses. These factors together with the criteria previously mentioned were considered in selecting the ques- tion which was used. OBTAINING AND PROCESSING THE DATA The raw data for this research were obtained from schedules and placed on IBM Cards as a part of the over-all project under the supervision of the Project Committee. The IBM listings and subsequent processing procedures were planned by the writer. Administration 9; the Schedule. The schedules were group-administered by a trained staff who were thoroughly familiar with the content and with the objectives of the committee. The time schedule for taking the data was so arranged that communication among the schools was reduced to a minimum, and no class discussion was permitted. The data was edited in the field and later punched onto IBM cards in the research laboratory of the Social Research Service of Michigan State University. g 68 Organization 33.2535. Three types of data are punched on the IBM cards: Personal and social data, sociometric data and results of the attitude tests. The coding of the sociometric data varies somewhat from the usual approach. These data are coded so that it can be determined exactly whom an individual chose and exactly who chose him. This is accomplished by assigning each student in a given grade, a column number on the card corresponding to his case number. The choices made by the students are then coded into this section. When the cards are sorted and listed by case num- ber, one may read down the-column number of a given student to determine the choices he received, and across his row number to determine whom he chose. Responses to each item of the attitude test, as well as the summary scores for the six items comprising each part of the test and for the twenty four items as a whole, are coded for each student. Since all eighty columns of the IBM card were used in this research, it could not be reproduced in a single list- ing. Two were required: One is a listing of the socio- metric data, the other, a listing of the responses to the attitude test and the summary scores. Both listings carry the personal and social data of the student. The listings, however, are only preparatory to the actual categorizing of the sociometric reference groups. To accomplish this, a summary sheet for each student was pre- pared from the two IBM listings, an illustrated copy of ..- 4-r.- , I 69 which is attached. Section A of Part I provides space for tabulating and coding the social characteristics of the re- spondent as compared with those of the students who chose him; and Section B of Part I provides space for tabulating and coding the social characteristics of the respondent as compared with those of the student he chose.1 The latter coding (Part I) shows his reference group orientation, and the former coding, acceptance or nonaccep- tance by his reference group. The middle section of Part I provides space for cOding the respondent into his appropri- ate sociometric reference group on the basis of these two relationships. Part II of the Summary Sheet gives the prej- udice scores of the respondent. From these, the mean toler- ance scores of each reference group can be computed and later the appropriate tests of significance can be made. ANALYZING THE DATA For convenience "analyzing the data" is defined broadly as that part of the research design which describes how to organize and test the crude data obtained, in such fashion as to carry out the purpose of the study in a scientifically meaningful way. The purpose of this particular analysis, as indicated earlier, is to organize the data so that they will show the functional relationships that may exist between l. The codes are given in Chart 1, Appendix D,pp. 23u-238. Codes in parentheses are for choices received and choices made, respectively, and the numeral above is the code of the sociometric reference group having this composition. . u.-...-_- x 70 SUMMARY SHEET (Illustrated) Part I. Sociometric Data (from IBM listing 1) ' Religious Case Resi- Occu- - Socio- Pref— Parti- Socio- Number dence pation econ. erence cipa- metric Status tion Status SECTION A Respondent 16017 F Blue Middle Cath. High Pivot-link Persons ' Choosing Respondent 16023 F Blue Middle Cath. Low Pivot Leader 16021 F White Working Cath. Low Pivot Leader Code (from.‘ ‘ Chart 1) (a) 1 3 3 1 2 2 Sociometric(b) Subgroup Code of Respondent l 7 __§__ 2 g7 5 SECTION B Code(°) 1 1 2 2 1 2 Respondent 16017 F Blue Middle Cath. High Pivot-link Person Chosen by Respondent 16013 F Blue Working Prot. High Pivot Leader Part II. Attitude Scores (from IBM listing 2) (Illustrated) Respondent's Prejudice Scores Case Number Total Jewish Negro Mexican General 16017 63 18 14_, 15 16 (a) This code is read from Chart I, Appendix A. The first entry in parentheses indicates the source of choices received, the second, of choices made. An "in-group" is a membership group, an "out-group" is a nonmember- ship group. (b) The subgroup code is found in Chart I below the word subgroup. The data in parentheses indicate its com- position. (0) See footnote (a). 71 sociometric reference group structure and differences in at- titudes expressed toward racial and ethnic groups. To avoid repetition, the discussion below will be limited to four as- pects of the analysis: (1) Guiding hypotheses, (2) Analyti- cal design, (3) Techniques of analysis and (A) Specific Hypotheses. Guiding Hypotheses. The guiding hypotheses of this study are stated as follows: 1. Sociometric reference groups that occupy different positions in the social structure, require the ex- pression of different degrees of prejudice or toler- ance from their members. 2. Individuals who identify with a sociometric reference group in which they are not members and are accepted by them, take on the values of their reference group. 3. Individuals who identify with a sociometric reference group of which they are not members tend to express its values before they begin to interact with its members. In broad theoretical terms, these hypotheses deal with problems in group solidarity. Attitudes of tolerance or in- tolerance result from the impact of group living upon per- sonality. As Parsons points out the basis on which a social group may be integrated is for the interests of its members 'To be bound to conformity with a shared system of value- orientation standards."1 a”, Not all members of such a group, however, will inter- nalize and conform to these standards equally. Individuals are selective. They may internalize norms from other groups. If these norms are incompatible to those of the group of 1. See Talcott Parsons, The Social System, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1951, p. 38. ....... which he is a member, he is a source of noncomformity and hence of instability. If he stays in the group, he is a po- tential source of social change. On the other hand, if too many members leave, it is likewise a threat. Nevertheless, if the group is to demonstrate any reef. solidarity, we may assume a core of members relatively com- pletely indoctrinated to its values, and, on the basis of role expectations, mutually committed to them, and likewise, other members in difference stages or gradations of accep- tance or disorientation. '=~ Analytical Design. The analytical design provides a basis for categorizing the members of social groups into reference groups with different degrees of group acceptance, by means of sociometric choices. If we assume that the choices which the members of a given social category make are indicative of their reference group orientation, the members may be categorized into (a) those who make choices from a membership group and (b) those who make choices from a nonmembership group.1 For example a group of farm stu- dents may choose other farm students or they may choose town students, or nonfarm students. The choices which the members of a group receive are indicative of their group acceptance. Either the "a" or the "b" group described _‘ 1. The near-sociometric question used in this study per- mitted only one choice. If second and third choices are allowed, a mixed group results, composed of members who choose both from their membership and nonmembership groups which may be reduced further to a constant though mixed number of subgroups on the basis of their compo- sition. 73 ‘ above may be further broken down according to whether they in turn were chosen by individuals from their membership group, by individuals from a nonmembership group, or by in- dividuals from both their membership and nonmembership groups. The six resulting groups are sociometrically deter- mined reference groups, representative of different degrees of solidarity. It will be recalled that only the pure types are utilized in this study. As indicated earlier, they are: 1. Core sociometric reference groups. 2. Peripheral sociometric reference groups 3. Core satellite sociometric reference groups h. Peripheral satellite sociometric reference groups They will be referred to hereafter as (1) core, (2) per- ipheral, (3) core satellite and (h) peripheral satellite groups. Their characteristics are discussed below. The Copp Group. The core group is the most ingroup- oriented of the four. In addition to the fact that its members chose from and were chosen by individuals in their own membership group, by virtue of their formal group affil- iation, they are most familiar with the role prescriptions which are handed down in their culture. The Peripheral Group. In contrast to the core group, members of the peripheral group are the most out-oriented in that they chose from and were chosen by individuals out- side their own membership group. To the extent that the norms and values of their nonmembership reference group differ from those of their formal membership group, g 7L1 peripheral members are faced not only with the responsibil- ity of acquiring new role perspectives but also of reducing or cutting off their ties with their membership group. They do have the Opportunity, however, of learning the new roles through direct participation. The Core Satellite Group. Although members of the core satellite group choose from their membership group, they are not chosen by that or any other group in return. Because of this, role learning by direct participation is limited or cut off. The individual has not withdrawn psychologically from his membership group, however. £1213. Peripheral Satellite Group. The individual in the Peripheral satellite group, chooses from a nonmembership group, but receives no choices in return. He is isolated from his own group, and he is shut out from his nonmember- ship reference group as well. Furthermore, he has oriented himself toward the group, it is reasonable to believe, he least understands. One would expect the role interpretations Of a Peripheral satellite to be the least accurate of the four. METHOD OF ANALYSIS The discussion in this section will be limited to the following tepics: (A) The Statistical Universe, (B) General Procedures, (0) Tests of Significance Employed and (D) Re- search Models, Wical Universe. The statistical universecom- pri ses the prejudice scores of members of core peripheral, and satellite sociometric reference groups for the combined ninth and twelfth grades of Maple County. This combining was necessary in order to secure even small group represen- tation in the various sociometric reference groups. It will be remembered that twenty different types of groups result from a two-fold classification based on choices received and choices made, although only four of these (the pure types) are a concern of this study. Furthermore, certain types, for example, the core groups, include a much larger proportion of the total number in the universe than other types. .Tt is believed that the combining of grades and schools wirlxmst result in any serious distortion of data because this study is concerned with patterns of prejudice rather than with magnitudes of prejudice. Moreover, the nature of the analytical design is such that by virtue of definition the specified core, peripheral and satellite groups bear the same patterned relationship to each other irrespective of where found. Since the prejudice score is used as an index of pattern, however, spurious factors influencing the prej- udice score, if severe enough, could blur the pattern. Two precautions were taken. First, the H-test was done on the total universe, by school, to test the null- hypothesis that the respective school populations were from a common universe.1 Only one significant difference re- sulted. That was for the twelfth grade Jewish prejudice 1. See Appendix B for the computation and results of the H-tBSto ‘ u -_- car.- 76 score (Table 0.1). Adams and Brownsville students had sig- nificantly lower prejudice scores (were more prejudiced) than Johnstown students. In view of this finding, a second pre- caution was taken. Tests of significance of differences for the Jewish score were computed by grade (a) for all ninth and twelfth grade students, and (b) for those in the core groups under study. With respect to the first test, the ninth grade students were significantly more prejudiced toward Jews than were those in the twelfth grade (Table 0.2). However, when tests bf significance for the core groups were made, only one of the fifteen completed was significant (Table 0.3). Ninth grade core students who considered their parents of the middle class were more prejudiced toward Jews than the corresponding group in the twelfth grade. Since there was only one exception, and since it was greatly neutralized by the formation of the sociometric groups, it was deemed acceptable to make the combination by grade and school. General Procedures. Null—hypotheses have been employed to test differences in mean prejudice scores among core, peripheral and satellite reference groups. In order to test these relationships, distribution-free tests of significance were selected for two basic reasons: First, the number of- items in some of the sociometric reference groups are small and required that the test of significance employed be ap- DPOpriate to small group analysis.‘ In the second place, the _ 1. See Appendix C, White's Rank Test of the Significance of difference of means for two groups. R 77 heoretical framework imposed restrictions on the data which ade an assumption of normality within the sociometric ref- rence grounsdubious. This arises from the fact that the esearch design categorizes individuals into subgroups on he basis of their degree of prejudice. Although it is hy- othesized that the scores of members of a given sociometric eference group will fall within a certain sector of the rejudice continuum, they are permitted to vary within the omplete theoretical range of the continuum. Under such ircumstances, a heavily skewed distribution could well re- ult. The distribution-free tests do not require any assump- ion of normality. Significance levels of five percent or eyond have been taken as indicative of a significant dif- erence. Tests pf Significance. White's rank test of the signif- cance of difference of means for two groups will be relied POn chiefly. It is a distribution-free test which may be ubstituted for the t-test when the observations are not DPmally distributed. It can be used as a one- or two-tailed eSt. Since it is important to know whether the hypotheses re either refuted or upheld, a two-tailed test will be em- 1Oyed. The distribution ”T" approaches normality as the WMber of observations become large, hence if such observa- 1°ns exceed those given in a table for T, the observed 31He of T may be expressed as a normal deviate. Since the uMber of cases in the sociometric reference group varies Peatly, the z-score rather than the "T" will be employed ‘ \J .cnut. Corrections for tied scores and for lack of .ixty have been formulated. Computations for White's '6 based on the rank rather than on the size of the :63 Kruskal—Wallis H-test is used with three or more .23 The H-test, which is also based on ranks, employs qusis of variance technique. It has the advantage, ?, of testing differences among means without requir- e assumption of homogeneity of variance. If the null- esis is rejected, it is generally possible to conclude he population means are not equal. H is distributed with.k - 1 degrees of freedom, if the observations in :roup are not too small. The X2 table may be used if tuber of observations in each group exceed five and if or more samples are used. This test may also be cor- for tied ranks. If only two groups are used, the .l-Wallis test and the White test give 'he same re- This test was used only once, namely, before com- ; the schools. Research Models. In formulating the null hypotheses, research models were followed. The first model, de- 1 to test the hypothesis that groups occupying different L positions have different degrees of prejudice, set up Llen, Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavioral :iences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 153E, p. hl7-u22, u26-u27, u2g—u30. gig-1.. pp. Les-nee». and p. A33. 79 mw.fln’selected social groups in which categories of grmn>were assigned statuses on a continuum.of social lonre§npups of these categories were then tested for dif- :e hiprejudice employing appropriate null hypotheses. (xmm.model is used when comparing two groups with dif- reference orientations; a comparison is made of the ion and degree of prejudice expressed by (a) members pacified group who identified with a peripheral ref- group, as compared with (b) the core members of their nbership group. The third model is employed for com- three or more groups occupying different positions on ;nuum in which prejudice varied directly with social in: a comparison is made of the direction and degree udice expressed by (a) members of a specified group ntified with a reference group at one point on the um, (tfl compared with members of the same group who ied with a reference group at a different point on :iJnnnn. These relationships are then expressed in Late hypotheses. HYPOTHESES otheses _o_f_ the Project Committee. The Project Com- liicti initiated the over-all project in Maple County ed the basic hypotheses. They were: rejudice is called out by the social roles which the ddiJJidual assumes as he participates in specific soup situations. )ecific positions within the social structuring of iolescence require the expression of different 80 ~grees of prejudice or toleration by different in- viduals occupying different positions. Le hypotheses of this thesis tie into both. {lg gt_which Hypotheses g: the Present Study are ;g. The hypotheses of this study are formulated at 'ferent but closely related analytical levels: ro general hypotheses which are stated in terms of :neral sociological theory. ro specific theoretical hypotheses which are re- ;atements of the general hypotheses in terms of Le abstract sociometric reference groups on which 113 research is based. nstatements of the specific theoretical hypothesis 1 terms of empirical sociometric reference groups. 1886 hypotheses are based directly on the data and Ln be tested by null-hypotheses. :ements pf General and Specific Theoretical Hypoth- iypothesisII 1formal social groups that occupy different positions >cial structure, require the expression of different as of prejudice or toleration from their members. gecific Theoretical Hypothesis I Core members in one social category have different prejudice scores than members in another social category, providing the respective social cate- gories occupy different positions in_the social group. iypothesis I; embers of a group who identify with a reference and are accepted by it, take on the core values at group. gecific Theoretical hypothesis ;_I_ Members of peripheral and peripheral satellite groups have prejudice scores unlike those of their own core membership group and like those of the core membership group with whom they are identify- ing. .‘ - gnu.- 81 pothesis III bers of a group who aspire to belong to a nonmem- reference group express the values of the refer- oup before they begin to interact with its members. gific Theoretical hypothesis III embers of peripheral satellite groups have prej- dice scores unlike those of their core membership roup and like those of the core members of their eference group. hird general and specific hypotheses apply only to satellite groups. If the second general and spe- theses are upheld in these groups, the third set ses are supported also. Hence no separate tests This is true because peripheral satellite groups aracterized by mutual interaction with their ref- up. They receive no choices. ical hypotheses based on each of the specific 1 hypotheses postulate differences in prejudice core, peripheral, and peripheral satellite refer- s, classified by residence, occupation, religious ion, subjectively-determined socioeconomic status etric status. The empirical hypotheses will be and examined in the succeeding chapters. Ly, the writer wishes to emphasize that this re- t be interpreted strictly in relation to the limi- posed by the research design, the measuring in- sed, and the analytical techniques employed. 82 PART II EXPRESSIONS OF PREJUDICE IN CORE GROUPS Phe organization of this thesis provides for two of analyses. The first one is a test of the Lation found between core reference groups oc- ng different social positions and differences rbalized expressions of prejudice. The second is a test of the association found between ver- ed expressions of prejudice and peripheral ref- 5 group identification. Part II is concerned the former and Part III with the latter an- 83 CHAPTER IV PREJUDICE AMONG CORE GROUPS er IV is concerned with differences in expressed found in selected core groups. Since these groups st in-oriented and hence the most "bound" to the values of their membership group, the expressed of core members will be taken as the most repre— of the basic norms of the social category of which part. The categories of a given social group aced on a continuum of social position on the oncensus expressed by research authorities in that ' area of investigation. Differences in the atti- 'essed by core members of these social categories emined to determine whether the guiding hypothesis Lapter, namely, that core groups occupying differ- .ons in the social structure will show differences les toward racial and ethnic minorities, is sup- Specific tests of this hypothesis will be made em- its for core groups based on residence, occupation, sly-defined socioeconomic status, religious prefer- >articipation and sociometric status. RESIDENCE udicated, in an earlier discussion of this problem, general concensus that farm peOple occupy a differ- ion than town peOple, and that the nonfarm.people l tside of towns occupy some intermediate position. is 131.31., pp. 53-51;. 8h thesis. The specific hypothesis to be tested is follows: a core farm, nonfarm and town groups occupy differ- social positions, they will have different preju- scores. iggg. In general the findings tended to support hesis. In only one instance, however, was the dif- efinitive. Town core students were more liberal in itude toward Jews than farm core students (Table fferences for the Total prejudice score and the judice score for the same core groups, though not s significant, followed the pattern established by ignificant difference, the town core students being tolerant. arm core students did not have attitudes signifi- fferent from farm core students. Neither did dif- form strongly consistent patterns. (Tables u.2). 3 compared with farm core students were more liberal th Jews and Mexicans, and their Total prejudice more tolerant. Thus the over-all pattern estab- th respect to attitudes expressed by farm versus nd town core students tended to show the core farm be the most prejudiced of the three residence Differences between nonfarm and town students were L‘— erm significant, as employed in this study, refers atistical significance. findings are in agreement with those of Meltzer; son and Burch; and Holland. Meltzer found a ten- for rural children to be less tolerant than urban. son and Burch found urban students at North Carolina 85 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF‘ CORE FARM AND CORE TOWN STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELF‘TH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 I.__ .ociometric Subgroup '__l (a) ine: One: 'arm Town Computations for itudents Students Significance of Ehoosing, Choosing, Differences: (b) thosen.by Chosen by, ”arm. Town Students Students Ho. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 7 58.6 (#8 59.3 214.5 39.53 .ub .65 7 lu.h h8 16.3 283.5 ‘38.33 2.27 .02 7 1h.0 h8 1h.1 202.0 39.03 .IM .89 7 1h.9 #8 lu.0 181.0 39.27 - .37 .71 7 1503 (4.8 114.08 180.0 39020 ‘ 0’40 .69 a description of the sociometric were formed, see Appendix D. a's test for the significance of n.two groups is employed. subgroups and how difference be- It is described in rII.. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- anal Sciences, New Iork, Rinehart and Company, See, also, this thesis, ndix Co 95h. pp. 1117432- Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OR CORE FARM AND CORE NON- FARM STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, I‘— kociometric Subgroup I: A A (a) MAPLE COUNTY, l9h9 86 fine: One: ‘arm. Nonfarm. Computations for Ltudents Students Significance ?€ :hoosing, Choosing, Differences: ) :hosen by Chosen by 'arm Nonfarm Students Students [0. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 7 58.6 6 60.7 38.0 6.97 -.SO .62 7 luau 6 1508 3505 6000 “087 038 7 1h.0 6 iu.3 u1.5 6.92 .00 1.00 7 lu.8 6 15.3 38.5 6.92 -.EB .67 7 15.3 6 15.2 h3.0 6.87 .07 .9h 1 description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. 3's test for the significance of difference be- 1 two groups is employed. 1 L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- >ra1 Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, D 195h, pp-hIY-h22o 1dix C Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. It is described in See, also, this thesis, 8? gnificant nor consistent (Table u.3). OCCUPATION dicated earlier, occupations have become relative- symbols of differential social positions.1 One ct differences in prejudice, therefore, to be as- ith differences in occupational status. For pur- his chapter, the analysis of prejudice in core a1 groups will be based On three categories com— students, the major wage-earning parent of whom mers e collar workers te collar workers they will be referred to as farm, blue and white ups. hesis. The hypothesis to be tested is stated as r— ___L College more tolerant than rural students, and d in his adult study of Maple County, reported s more intolerant than nonfarmers. They are con- to the findings of Sims and Patrick, and Harlan. lrmer found no relationship between size of comp es and attitudes toward Negroes and Harlan found subjects more prejudiced toward Jews than rural ts. See: H. Meltzer "Group Differences in ality and Race Preference of Children," Sociometr , r2, Number 1, 1939: Pp. 86-105; K. C. Garrison an Burch, "A Study of Racial Attitudes of Colle e ms," Journal of Social Ps cholo , Volume h %l933), war—"'3 John Halmand, 32'."J2_It., pi. 128; v. M. Sims R. Patrick, "Attitudes toward Negroes of Northern >uthern Colle e Students," Journal of Social Egy- 1, VOlume 7 %1936), p. 202; Howard—E. HarIan, Factors Affecting Attitude Toward Jews," American .ogical Review, Volume 7 (l9u2), p. 827. discussion of this point, see this thesis, p. 88 ’IEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF‘ CORE NONFARM AND CORE DOWN STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELF'TH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 I._ _.-— _ ._ _- A c iome tr ic Subgroup (a) FL e: One: nfarm. Town Computations for udents' Students Significance og oosing, Choosing, Differences: ) osen by Chosen by nfarm. Town udents Students 1. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P . 60.7 u8 59.3 152.0 36.27 - .3A .73 . 15.8 N8 16.3 188.0 38.92 .6A .52 s 1u.3 N8 18.1 167.0 35.81 .08 .97 s 15.3 E8 lu.0 126.0 36.05 -1.07 .28 5 15.2 L18 111.8 1L18.0 35.88 - .116 .65 description of the sociometric subgroups and how Jere formed, see Appendix D. 's test for the significance of difference be- two groups is employed. It is described in L. Edwards, Statistical Methods _f___or the Be- ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, 117% pp. 1117-822. See, also, this thesis, dixC C. esource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 89 core farm, blue collar and white collar groups ij different social position, they will have dif- ‘t prejudice scores. EEEE- In general, the data relative to differences Ere farm.as compared with core blue and white collar .spectively, tend to support the hypothesis. Core unts were significantly less tolerant of Jews than 2 of either the core blue or white collar groups J4 and u.5). The levels of significance were one respectively. Differences for the Total, the Ne- :he General prejudice scores of core farm and blue Pkers were consistent with the Jewish score; the group was the less tolerant. In the comparison arm versus white collar groups, differences for , the Mexican and the General prejudice scores were istent with the Jewish score, the farm.workers be- prejudiced. Differences between the core blue and lar groups were neither significant nor consistent 6). The over-all pattern resulting on the basis icant and consistent differences shows the core p as the most prejudiced of the occupational core Differences between core blue and white collar owever, are not apparent in the student population. indings of this study tend to support those of e and Beers. Westie, making use of a social dis- scale, made an analysis of expressions of preju- of white, male adults in the city of Indianapolis, ified'by occupation. He concluded that there was tematic relationship between expressions of preju- toward Negroes and sociometric status,-- the higher Ltatus the less the prejudice. Beers found in his sis of public opinion polls, 19u6- 1950, that farm 90 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OR CORE FARM AND CORE BLUE COLLAR STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELRTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 l__i _. ociometric Subgroup (a) ne One: arm Blue Collar Computations for tudents Students Significance og) hoosing, Choosing, Differences: hosen by Chosen by arm. Blue Collar tudents Students 0. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 0 57.1 28 59.3 235.0 30.10 1.31 .19 O lu.6 28 16.u 273.5 29.39 2.65 .01 0 13.u 28 13.9 218.0 29.69 .76 .u5 0 15.2 28 1h.0 167.5 29.92 -.90 .37 0 13.9 28 15.1 223.0 29.67 .93 .35 I: A __ description of the sociometric were formed, see Appendix D. subgroups and how '5 test for the significance of difference be- two groups is employed. It is described in L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, ‘I95E, pp.H17-u22. See, also, this thesis, dix Co esource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 91 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF' CORE WARM AND CORE VflHITE COLLAR STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND 'FWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, l9h9 r. ociometric Subgroup (a) ne: One: 'hite Farm Computations for follar Students Significance cg Ltudents Choosing, Differences: ) :hoosing, Chosen by :hosen by Farm fhite Students :ollar igudents 10. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P LL 6108 10 S701 2205 7.02 -1000 032 h 17.5 10 1h.6 14.0 6.96 -2.23 .03 h 13.8 10 13.8 32.0 6.93 .22 .83 11 111.5 10 15.2 28.5 6.97 - .11; .89 h 16.0 10 13.9 22.5 6.99 -l.OO .32 a description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. e's test for the significance of difference be- n.two groups is employed. It is described in :11.. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- (n91 Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, , 195h, pp. h17-822. See, also, this thesis, ndix C. Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 92 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE BLUE COLLAR AND CORE WHITE COLLAR STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 1949 l_1 ociometric Subgroup (a) ne: One: hite Blue Computations for ollar Collar Significance ?€ tudents Students Differences: ) hoosing, Choosing, hosen by Chosen by hite Blue ollar Collar Eudents Students {0. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P h 6108 28 5903 614.05 170,429 " 006 095 h 17.5 28 16.u 51.0 16.67 - .87 .38 h 13.8 28 13.9 79.5 17.23 .75 .85 L'. 114.05 28 114.00 58.0 170’42 "' 0’43 .67 h 16.0 28 15.1 59.0 16.87 - .39 .70 r—* .____———— L description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. 1's test for the significance of difference be- 1 two groups is employed. It is described in 1 L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- >ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, , 195u, pp. ul7-822. See, also, this thesis, 1dix C. Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. Subjecti' are of partic unlike the U parents does mould in Nb 11911111 01 ~— respox aim is be was < Hell: 93 SUBJECTIVE SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ctivelyadefined evaluations of socioeconomic status ticular importance in the United States because, cultures of Europe and Asia, the occupation of es not necessarily set the social and economic 'hich the child will operate. In this country, n material success and the belief in unlimited I’— .dents were least tolerant of Negroes and profes- ‘s most tolerant. Other writers, whose research .ed on socioeconomic indexes in which occupation Le of the items, have come to varied conclusions. Ld found that upper status persons were more tol- of both Negroes and Jews than were lower status :. On the other hand, Harding and others report .f education is controlled, socioeconomic status :itively correlated with Anti-Semitism. Bettel- Lnd Janowitz found no significant differences in Ldes expressed toward either the Jew or the Negro the various socioeconomic groups. The above dis- >n indicates that the relationship of prejudice to aconomic status is complex, and, hence, requires a .r refinement of concepts and methods which will ldequately pin-point structural differences and the :hey play in the formation of prejudice. See: Westie, "A Technique for the Measurement of Race ides," American Sociolo ical Review, Volume 18, ? 1, February, 19E3, p. 76; Howard W. Beers, "Rural- Differences: Some Evidence grom Public Opinion ," Rural Sociology, Volume 1 , Number 1, March, Table E, p. 9; H. G. Cough, "Studies of Social arance: Some PsychOIOgical and Sociological Cor- as of Anti-Semitism," Journal 23 Social Psychology, Volwme 33, p. Zuu; John Holland, 22. cit., pp. 28; John Harding, Bernard Kutner, Harold—Prochansky, sidor Chein, "Prejudice," p. 1039, in Gardner Lind- 2§., Handbook 2: Social Psychology, Volume II:.%E- pp. 1021-1061; Bettelheim and Janowitz, _p. gi_., -S6; Howard Harlan, 22. 335., p. 827; Fortune, 22. D. J. Levinson and R. N. Sanford, "A scale for easurement of Anti-Semetism,“Journa1‘3: Ps cholo , e 17, 19hh, p. 369; A. A. Campbell, "Factors Asso- d with Attitudes toward Jews,“ in Theodore Newcomb ugene Hartley, Readings in Social Psycholggy, New Henry Holt and Company,_I9E7, p . 520-521; Gordon rt, 92. 323., p. 223; and Robin Williams, 22. g_1_t_., 9h :y stimulates the child to aspire to status levels parents did not attain. TheSe ambitions, one would >u1d.be reflected in the self—evaluation which a as of his own roles and his role expectations of .ogically, the most extreme case of subjective class >n from.a sociometric point of view would be that ant who considers hrmself of a given class and then id is chosen only by individuals who likewise con- t they belong to that class. If differences in toward minority groups are associated with social ntification then such core groups should clearly iese differences. thesis. The above viewpoint may be stated as an s as follows: students who consider themselves from the middle 3 have different scores than core students who ider themselves from the working class. iggg. The data tend to support the hypothesis. he differences found are not in the direction or- postulated by other investigators. The core work- group is Significantly (P = .01) more tolerant of than the core middle class group, (Table 8.7). hing prejudice scores are also consistent with this Contrary to this pattern, Centers reported that urban and rural middle classes of his cross sec- 1e of the male, white pOpulation of the United re more tolerant of Negroes than the respective LDEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE wORKINC CLASS STUDENTS AND CORE MIDDLE CLASS STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TNELRTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19L79 95 Soc iome tric Subgroup Lfi (a) )ne : One: Jerking Middle Computations for {lass Class Significance og Students Students Differences: ) Shoosing, Choosing, Shosen by Chosen by Morking Middle Class Class Students Students No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 13 16.1 72 16.0 523.0 79.65 - .u5 .65 13 15.3 72 13.6 356.5 80.u9 -2.51 .01 13 lu.8 72 1H.1 H66.5 81.18 -1.13 .26 13 lu.9 72 14.6 580.5 80.97 - .22 .83 a description of the sociometric subgroups and how ' were formed, see Appendix D. ;e's test for the significance of difference be- en two groups is employed. It is described in In L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be— .oral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, ,19Sh, pp. hl7-h22. See, also, this thesis, indix C . Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 96 .lass groups.1 How might this reversal be explained?2 ;he first place, the subjectively-defined core socio- status groups under study in this chapter are socio- :ference groups derived not from objective social .tegories, but instead, from a student's evaluation status categories as they pertain to his situation. do not include the entire group of students who :d themselves middle class or working class respec- Sociometrically they comprise only the most in- Liddle-class or working-class oriented and hence core group, by definition, they comprised the most Inally mobile of all mobility-oriented students. . core groups are homOgeneous only at the aspiration 'hey actually include members from all three occupa- .tegories. The white collar group in a core work- , group may be considered downwardly mobile, the .ar and farm groups may be assumed to be stationary. 1 group is assumed to be largely tenant). In the Lle class group, the blue collar group may be con- .pwardly mobile, the farm and the white collar group, 'y. (The farm group is assumed to be mostly pro- ;xamination of Table u.8 reveals that the core work- group has proportionately fewer white collar A ___‘ ‘_—_‘ n._._l_ L.— .rd Centers, The Psychology 93 Social Classes, eton, Princeton University Press, 19u9, p. 1&8. .180 John Holland, pp. cit., p. 163. G”. A - 97 NUMBER AND PERCENT OF CORE STUDENTS WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES WORKING OR MIDDLE CLASS WHOSE PARENTS WERE BLUE OR WHITE COLLAR, OR FARM PEOPLE, MAPLE COUNTY, 19A9 '_ __‘ “‘bBlue =, White No Total Farm Collar Collar Reply Per- Per- Per- Per- gNo. cent No. cent No. cent No. cent No. 3 13 100.0 3 23.1 7 53.8 3 23.1 0 69 100.0 17 2n.6 32 A6.h 20 29.0 . 3 ‘ Appendix; Resource4Tab1es. than the core middle class has blue collar. Green- Pearlin found that occupationally mobile groups, downward, were more often prejudiced than station— 3.1 Since the core middle class group has propor- more upwardly mobile students (46.8 percent) than mg class has downwardly mobile (23.1 percent), it reduce the mean average score of the core middle 1p. RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION a all religions subscribe to norms of truth, jus- 3rotherhood, one might reasonably expect those ex- some church affiliation to be more tolerant of groups than those expressing none. Insofar as the I: 1 Greenblum and Leonard Pearlin, "Vertical Mobility 'ejudice: A Socio-psychological Analysis," in Rein- 3endix.and Seymour Lipset, Class, Status Egg Power, >e, The Free Press, 1953: p. 11,33. 98 11d determine, however, the more important research and to place the latter at the tolerant end of a continuum.1 It has been found, however, that in— tability in religious experience appears to be as- vith increased tolerance.2 In a rural county where behavior is approved and supported by a large per- ? the population, one would expect to find religious alatively stable influence in the life of the people, one would expect to find that individuals who ex- church preference would occupy a different social than those with no preferences. thesis. The specific hypothesis is stated as fol- students expressing a church preference have arent prejudice scores than core students ex- sing no church preference. Lngs. An examination of Table 4.9 shows that there Lgnificant differences between core students who a religious preference and those who did not for 1 various prejudice scores, but there was a rela- 1sistent pattern of differences. Except for /_- fin” —‘ -‘-. - -‘V M- A; __.. Adorno and Else Frenkel-Brunswik, 33. al., report subjects who profess some religious affiliation are >rejudiced than those who do not. 92. cit., p. Robert Merton found those with no affiTTZtion the prejudiced. See "Fact and Fictitiousness in Eth- iestionnaires," American Sociolo ical Review, a 5, Number 1, January, l9h0, p. . Gordon All- ind Bernard Kramer concluded that only the Jews led the nonaffiliates in tolerance among the groups 5 study. See "Some Roots of Prejudice," Journal 7chology, Volume 22, 19h6, p. 27. Lheim.and Janowitz, 92. cit., p. 52. ... c J L 99 9 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OR CORE STUDENTS EXPRESSING A CHURCH PREFERENCE AND CORE STUDENTS EXPRESSING N0 CHURCH PREJUDICE, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELPTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19A9 I: !A_ __ Sociometric Subgroup (a) One: One: Students Students Having no Having Church A Church Computations for Preference Preference Significance ?€ Choosing, Choosing, Differences: ) Chosen by Chosen by Students Students Having No Having a Church Church Egreference,_ Preference No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P I:_‘ 16 58.8 118 59.1 1111.0 1h0.97. .hh .66 16 16.1 11A 16.1 10h9.0 136.73 .00 1.00 16 lu.3 11h 13.8 985.5 139.89 -.hu .66 16 10.3 11A 1R.A 1121.5 1A0.01 .52 .60 16 1H.1 11A 1R.8 1216.0 139.82 1.20 .23 I; _ T a description of the sociometric subgroups and how *‘were formed, see Appendix D. .e‘s test for‘the significance of difference be- n two groups is employed. It is described in n L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- oral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, I9 95h, pp. h17-u22. See, also, this thesis, ndix Ce .Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix.A. 100 mes expressed toward Negroes, core students designating 11 preference were consistently more tolerant than core :3 who did not have any church preference.1 Ltholic and Protestant Differences. One might expect -ious religious bodies and denominations to be similar 4r attitudes toward minorities since all of them ac- common set of basic norms and values. But findings 3 respect are, as Allport puts it, "equivocal."2 The n seems to lie, not in differences in ultimate goals Lues, but in the intermediate means-ends schema by they are strived for, and the relationship which they 0 other institutional aspects of the total social of which the religious group is a part. This en- frame of reference requires the individual as a mem- numerous supporting and conflicting groups to per- and select his social beliefs according to his role finition of the social situation. Hence the more a ___ #__‘ though there are no other studies exactly comparable ithis one, if we make the assumption that core students mng religious affiliates as compared with nonaffiliates vs a more stable religious experience, the findings of ds study are in support of those of Bettelheim.and mowitz previously cited, and those of Allport (l95h), % 212°: p. #51- lthe other hand, a lack of any significant difference ntween the two groups suggests that their basic values and to converge. Actually a case could probably be do that there is no true nonreligious group, p_e_r_ _s_§_, lasmuch as religious norms are incorporated into the >le structure of every group, and hence, indirectly, very member of it receives some exposure to its ethical alues. This would be particularly true for children 1d adolescents since in their training the emphasis is Laced on the ideal rather than the actualities of adult [Vinge ardon Allport (19511), 22. 313., p. 14119. 101 eligious group relates a particular means-end schema ieving ultimate values to roles which members of the an perceive as useful and constructive in other areas a1 life, the more its members will reflect its basic Since in.most instances there is more than one nd schema available for achieving a goal, the role ption of various religious groups may vary consider- th as to type and effectiveness. Hence the social ns of various religious groups may differ also. r purposes of this study only Catholics and Protest- .ll be considered. In view of the fact that the prej- .cores of the ninth as compared with the twelfth grade :ed a completely consistent reversal of pattern, the »r this section will be presented for each grade rather pr the combined grades. [pothesis. The hypothesis to be tested is stated as :: >re students of Catholic groups will have different ’ejudice scores than core students of Protestant 'oups. Lndings. Although adequate testing of this hypothesis nited by the small number of Catholic students in the coups of the grades under study, some important obser- 3 may be made. In spite of the fact that none of the were significantly different for the two groups, all a of them, the twelfth grade Jewish score, showed con- t differences. Core students of Catholic faith in the grade were more tolerant than were those of Protestant 102 'but the reverse was true in the twelfth grade.1 (See .10.) Thus the tendency for Catholics to become more ced.than Protestants seemed to be associated with an e of age and grade levels. are are a number of factors which might contribute to eral position taken by ninth grade Catholics. As . and Yinger point out, the Catholic church has taken a1 position toward segregation and other discrimina- 'actices.2 Since many Catholic students come from 31 grade schools to the public high school, perhaps Lould more clearly represent the position of the regarding these issues than do Protestants. However, 16 Catholic students enter the public high school, linority group position and doctrinal differences '_ .port and Kramer, Merton, Sappenfield, and Prothro all 1nd college students of the Catholic faith more preju- :ed. This is in line, with the twelfth grade trend re- 'ted in this study. On the other hand, Parry, in his Ldy of anti-Semitism in Denver found Protestants more :judiced, and Holland, in his adult sample of Maple Lnty, found no difference between the two religious pups. See: Gordon Allport and Bernard Kramer, 32. cit., 27; Robert Merton, gp.lgit., p. 15; Bert Sappenfield? [6 Response of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Stu- ltS to the Menace Checklist," Journal of Social Egy- 11ogy, Volume 20, 19Lm, p. 297; and E.—T. ProtEro, 'oup Differences in Ethnic Attitudes of Louisana Col- ;e Students," Sociology and Social Reggargh, Volume 3h, {0, p. 258, cited in Gerhart Saenger, Th9 Social Egy- >logy.gf Pre udice, New York, Harper and Brothers, >1ishers, 1953, p. 98; H. J. Parry, "Protestants, :holics and Prejudice," International Journal of O in- 1 Egg Attitude Research, Volume 3, l9u9, pp. 255-2E3, :ed by Saenger, ibid., p. 98; and John Holland, gp. g., p. 196, 203-20E. orge Eaton Simpson and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and ltural Minorities: and Analysis 2; Preludice and sgrimination, New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, 53. 103 6 H.1O MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE CATHOLIC AND CORE PROTESTANT STUDENTS, NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) One: One: u- Catholics Protestants Computations for Choosing, Choosing, Significance ?g e Chosen by Chosen by Differences: ) Catholics Protestants No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P l nth 3 62.3 68 58.3 75.5 3u.95 - .92 .36 elfth 3 55.3 No 60.6 92.0 20.96 .1.22 .22 sh nth 3 16.0 68 15.8 91.0 33.89 - .u9 .62 alfth 3 16.0 no 16.6 61.5 20.10 - .20 .8h 0 nth 3 15.7 68 13.6 68.5 3u.67 -1.12 .26 elfth 3 12.7 no 1H.2 80.0 20.67 .65 .52 :an 1th. 3 1a.? 68 1u.3 96.5 3h.73 - .32 .75 ’al 1th. 3 16.0 68 1a.? 82.0 3h.66 - .7k. .86 IFor a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. hflrite's test for the significance of difference be- ‘tween.two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for th__g _B_e- turvioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, : Sh: PP-H17-h22- Appendix 0. Inc. See, also, this thesis, 2; Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 1011 zome more salient with the passage of time, giving rise to 'e-Orientation of values. In other words their attitudinal ponses become less oriented to the impersonal traditional ms of the church and more oriented to role factors found the group situation. Since these are unfavorable status- 3 they tend to encourage the develOpment of prejudice. RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION Another approach to the study of the influence of re- Lous behavior on prejudice is to compare the attitudes of lents who do not participate in religious activities with 6 who are high and low participators. If stability and anence of religious experienCe are important factors in loping tolerant attitudes, then it is logical to expect high attenders of religious activities as compared with or nonattenders, would be most exposed to and would have accepted religious norms and values and, therefore, i be more tolerant.1 This would be especially true for :ore members of the respective groups since their mem- Lip group is their most familiar anchorage point, not in selecting informal group associates, but also for act normative orientation. In such a group, the shared 3 (xf the members are believed mutually reenforcing. THua low attender group is in a different situation. rs can neither accept nor reject their religious ___ ___— [—7 liigdi attender is one who attended Sunday School (or aurch) twice a month or more, a low attender, one who ttended less than twice a month. 105 perience, and from this ambivalence, many frustrations arge. For one thing, the religious institution itself, as- ;ns such members inferior status even to the point of alying sanctions to enforce conformity. Consequently, , would expect them to be more prejudiced than high atten- 's. In contrast, from the point of view of the church, nonattender has no status. It cannot be assumed, how- r, that the nonattender represents one pole of a unidi- sional continuum of participation. It is possible that attendance is symbolic of lack of interest in certain Lgious values and goals shared with others. It is also sible that it is symbolic of deviant religious values. »ther words, the nonattender group may be a multi-dimen- :al category. Hypothesi . The hypothesis to be tested is stated as ows: Core members from the high attender group have different prejudice scores than core members of the low attender group, and core members from the nonattender group have different prejudice scores than either of the other two groups. Findings. The data consistently support the hypothesis sore high and low attenders, the latter being the more Ld.iced. It is interesting to note also that the levels gnificance for these differences are relatively high. range from a level of eight percent for the Mexican to a level of 31.1 percent for the general score. Differences for core high attenders as compared with nonattenders were not significant nor did they approach ------- 106 1e £1.11 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF‘ CORE HIGH AND CORE LOw ATTENDER STUDENTS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19M9 Soc iome tric Subgroup (a) One: One: Low High Computations for lb- Attender Attender Significance ?f Students Students Differences: b) 9 Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by Low High Attender Attender Students Students No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma 2 P 10 5H.O 55 58.6 H21.O 5H.93 1.65 .10 h 10 1M.8 55 16.0 MOO.S 53.7u 1.30 .19 10 12.7 55 13.7 388.5 Su.u7 1.06 .29 an 10 12.8 55 1H.H 827.5 SM.61 1.28 .08 11 10 13.? SS lu.5 382.5 SA.S3 .95 .BA ‘or a description of the sociometric subgroups and how :hey were formed, see Appendix D. irite's test for the significance of difference be- ween two groups is employed. It is described in llen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the _B_g- avioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, no., 19511., pp. 1417-lg22. See, also, this thesis, ppendixwn of nonfarm students, and Holland also found this :rue of adults. Hence one would expect differences Ltude. gpotheses. Assuming that prejudice differs in groups ing varying social positions according to the patterns ished among the core groups of Chapter IV, and assum- Lat students tend to assimilate sentiments and beliefs :he group with which they identify, the following hy- ses with regard to residence may be formulated to test ence group relationships. They are based on the third rch model: 1. Farm students who chose and were chosen by nonfarm students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than farm students who chose and were chosen by town students. “A“. See this thesis, pp. 73-7L1, for a discussion of this . group. 115 Down students who chose and were chosen by farm students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than town students who chose and were chosen by nonfarm students. Nonfarm students who chose and were chosen by farm students have lower prejudice scores (are'less tolerant) than nonfarm students who chose and were chosen by town students. ling . In general, differences found relative to e hypotheses are in the directions hypothesized. >e seen in Table 5.1, farm students who chose and asen by nonfarm students were consistently but not cantly less tolerant than those who identified with udents. The levels of significance for the General 3 Jewish prejudice scores came the nearest to approach- gnificance. They were eight and eleven percent re- .vely. l‘here was one significant difference among the scores wn students (Table 5.2). With respect to the General Ldice score, town pupils who identified with farm stu- 3 were significantly more prejudiced than those who 6 nonfarm persons. Differences for all the other preju- : scores consistently followed the pattern set by the eral prejudice score. Differences in the prejudice scores of nonfarm students > chose farm versus town associates were not as stable as use Of the other two residence groups. There were no sig- ficant differences, and the Mexican score reversed the Ltterns set by the other four (Table 5.3). For the latter our types of scores, nonfarm students who identified with 116 MEAN PREJ'UDICE SCORES OF FARM STUDENTS, BY - IREFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, FOR THE COMBINED ZNINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 [— u ociometric Subgroup (a) ive Five. arm. Farm Computations for tudents Students Significance ?f hoosing, Choosing, Differences: hosen by Chosen by onfarm Town tudents Students 0. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P : _— __— h8.0 11 56.0 9A.5 12.09 1.16 .25 13.0 11 15.3 99.5 11.87 1.60 .11 8 8 8 12.0 11 13.0 8h.5 12.17 .33 .7M 8 11.8 11 13.7 93.0 12.01 1.0M .30 8 11.2 11 lh.0 102.0 12.05 1.7 .075 r __k — L description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. a's test for the significance of difference be- 1.two groups is employed. It is described in 11.. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- )ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, .1958, pp.fll7-h22. See, also, this thesis, 1dix C. Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. ZMEAN'PREJUDICE SCORES OF TOWN STUDENTS, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, FOR THE COMBINED NINTH AND TNELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 1919 E. >ciometric Subgroup (a) L. 117 Lve: Five: )wn Town Computations for tudents Students Significance of Ioosing, Choosing, Differences: b) Iosen by Chosen by Arm Nonfarm tudents Students 3. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 3 55.2 5 62.6 26.5 8.16 -l.59 .11 3 15.5 5 16.8 32.5 7.97 - .88 .38 D 12.8 5 15.6 27.0 8.13 - .5h .12 D 13.7 5 1h.h 37.0 8.09 - .31 .78 O 13.2 S 16.2 22.0 8.03 “2.18 .03 description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. 's test for the significance of difference be- two groups is employed. ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, 1951+. pp. 1117-1122. dix C It is described in L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for_the Be- psource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. See, also, this thesis, 118 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF NONFARM STUDENTS, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, l9h9 {ociometric Subgroup (a) ‘ive: Five: [onfarm Nonfarm Computations for itudents Students Significance ?f :hoosing, Choosing, Differences: Ihosen by Chosen by ‘arm Town {tudents Students [0. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P S 57.6 11 61.7 50.5 8.76 .86 .39 5 1h.h 11 16.6 56.5 8.60 1.57 .12 5 13.8 11 1h.8 86.0 8.76 .38 .73 5 15.0 11 18.6 39.5 8.56 -.29 .77 5 lu.u 11 15.6 87.0 8.56 .A7 .éh '— 1 description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. 3's test for the significance of difference be— 1 two groups is employed. It is described in 1 L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- >ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, , 195R, pp. hl7-u22. See, also, this thesis, IdIX Ce {esource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 119 mpared with town students were less tolerant. ous investigators have recorded a tendency for ho are identifying with a reference group to t" their mark. For example under this condition, nts who chose farm students would tend to be even diced than the core farm group itself, or vice amination of the data shows that nonfarm and town students tended to exaggerate the norms of their group. Nonfarm students who identified with town ad a Total prejudice score of 61.7, as compared re of 59.3 for the town core group.1 Those who students had a Total prejudice score of 57.6, ore group, a score of 58.6 (Tables u.1 and 5.3). pattern prevailed for peripheral town students. chose farm.students had a Total prejudice score compared with 58.6 for the core farm group; identified with nonfarm students had a Total prej- e of 62.6, the core nonfarm group a score of 60.7 2 and 5.2). attern for peripheral farm students is quite dif- hey were not only more prejudiced than the nonfarm roups when one would expect them to be less so, the chief concern of this study is with reference behavior itself, and not with relation to frustra- nd other phenomena, and since these data are based escriptive universe of students, and not a sample, of significance were not computed; the lower the ice score the more the prejudice. 120 they were more prejudiced than the core farm group Parm students who chose nonfarm students had a To- iice score of h8.0, those who chose town students ? 56.0 (Table 5.1). The scores for the core groups , 58.6, nonfarm 60.7 and town 59.3 (Tables u.1 and important observations can be made. First, it has i that vertical mobility among farm residence groups > be associated with increases in prejudice. This gement with the findings in other research. Green- ?earlin, for example, found this to be true and at- Lt to frustration factors.1 But a second pattern 7 important. Once the scores have been depressed, Pom frustration or other causes, the patterned re- >s characteristic of reference group identification 1at is, farm students who chose nonfarm students scores than farm students who chose town students a prejudiced). But they did not have scores like >ective reference groups. Thus differences in di- are consistent with the reference group hypothesis .fferences in magnitude. However none were statis- _gnificant at the five percent level. These data 1e possibility that reference group relationship Lre highly stable and tend to persist even in ad- :umstances. agglgg. In Chapter IV, it was found that prejudice :ounty was associated with social position, and :lum.and Pearlin, QB. cit., p. 483. 121 farm groups were the most prejudiced and core Lar groups tended to be the least so. Accordingly, who identified with the core farm group should be 1diced than those who identified with the core white )up, or the core blue collar group, if the refer- ) hypothesis holds. theses. The specific hypotheses are stated as fol- ?m students who chose and were chosen by blue col- ? students have lower prejudice scores (are less Lerant) than farm students who chose and were )sen by white collar students. 1e collar students who chose and were chosen by Pm.students have lower prejudice scores (are less Lerant) than blue collar students who chose and were been by white collar students. Lte collar students who chose and were chosen by Pm students have,lower prejudice scores (are less Lerant) than white collar students who chose and ce chosen by blue collar students. ings. The data presented in Tables S.h, 5.5 and stently support the hypotheses, but differences are ficant. This was true for all prejudice scores and acupational categories. Farm boys and girls who 3 collar students were consistently but not signif- Dre prejudiced than those who chose white collar (Table S.u); blue collar students who identified students were more prejudiced than those who iden- th white collar students (Table 5.5); and white uth who chose farm students were less tolerant than chose blue collar associates (Table 5.6). as true of residence categories, farm students who 122 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF FARM STUDENTS WITH BLUE AND WHITE COLLAR REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 1989 7 A; n (a) 'I ‘_ .ociometric Subgroup 'ive: Five: 'arm Farm Computations for Ltudents Students Significance gf lhoosing, Choosing, Differences: Ehosen by Chosen by :lue White follar Collar .tudents Students To. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P .0 58.0 5 59.2 36.5 8.16 - .37 .71 .O lh.l 5 l6.h 30.0 7.91 -l.20 .23 .0 12.8 5 18.0 37.0 8.12 - .31 .76 .0 13.5 5 1k.6 38.0 8.08 - .19 .85 I: L description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. :'s test for the significance of difference be- L two groups is employed. It is described in 1 L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- >ral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, . 195h, pp. u17- u22. See, also, this thesis, 1dix C. {esource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES 0F BLUE COLLAR STUDENTS, BY FARM AND WHITE COLLAR REFERENCE GROUP IDEN- TIFICATIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELPTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 1989 '— Sociometric Subgroup (a) I— 11ive: 123 Five: Blue Collar Blue Collar Computations for 3hoosing, Choosing, Significance of Bhosen by Chosen by Differences: b) ?arm White Students Collar Students Jo. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 8 55.0 10 60.4 85.5 11.28 .80 .E2 8 lu.8 10 16.5 89.0 10.99 1.1u .25 8 13.2 10 1L.O 78.0 11.15 .13 .90 8 13.9 10 18.5 80.5 11.15 .80 .69 8 13.1 10 15.8 91.5 11.0u 1.36 .17 v___— 1 description of the sociometric subgroups and how were formed, see Appendix D. 3's test for the significance of difference be- 1 two groups is employed. 1 L. Edwards, §§atistical Methods 323 the Egg aral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, It is described in I— . 19Sh. pp. H17-u22- idix C. Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. See, also, this thesis, 12h fle 5x5 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES 0F WHITE COLLAR STUDENTS, BY FLUE COLLAR AND FARM REFERENCE GROUP IDENTI- FICATIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Soc iome tric Subgroup (a) Five: Five: White White Computations for ju- Collar Collar Significance ?f 3 Choosing, Choosing, Differences: b) 'e Chosen by Chosen by Farm Blue Students Collar Students No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 1 S 57.u 9 60.9 A9.0 7.E6 1.87 .1A 3h 5 15.h 9 16.2 hh-S 7.33 .89 .37 > 5 13.6 9 15.3 u8.5 7.39 1.82 .16 an S luoo 9 124-02 no.0 7030 027 079 'al 5' 1R.A 9 15.1 A3.O 7.3a .68 .50 For*za description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. unrite's test for the significance of difference be- bweeui two groups is employed. It is described in Lllen L. Edwards, Stgtistical Methods 1‘23 Egg fie:- 1avioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, inc., 1951;, pp. 7117-1422. See, also, this thesis, .ppendix C. : Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 125 osetflue or white collar students were consistently more ejudiced than their respective core reference groups, and efpmmm were more prejudiced than their own core farm >upgewen though differences were in the direction hypoth- Jed. The Total prejudice score of farm students in the *ipheral blue collar group was 5u.0 as compared with 59.3 Unacore blue collar group (Tables 5.u and Nah); those farm students in the peripheral white collar group was 2 as compared with 61.8 for the core white collar group Oles 5.u and u.5). The Total prejudice score of the core a group was 57.1 (Table 4.5). Of the three ocCupational lps, the prejudice scores of the white collar students identified with a peripheral reference group most nearly 'oximated the scores of core members of the groups with h they identified. These data give some weight to the ention that the members of a high status group are in a advantageous position to evaluate and emulate the at- ies and roles of others than are members of low status )8. IDifferences, however, though consistent were not ;ficani:at the five percent level. §ubjectile Socioeconomic Status. In Chapte° IV, it was tflnat adult groups in Maple County who considered them- 8 cxf the working class were more prejudiced than those oruyidered themselves of the middle class. These con- :nis erre in agreement with those of Centers. Although tugs :relative to the core working and middle class stu- grcnxps of the study did not support these data, there 126 I. evidence that this reversal derived from differences in upational composition of the two status groups. For pur- es of this analysis the hypotheses will be stated to con- n with the findings of Holland and Centers.1 Hypotheses. The hypotheses are as follows: .. Working class students who chose middle class stu- dents and were chosen by them have higher prejudice scores (are more tolerant) than those of the core working group. . Middle class students who chose and were chosen by working class students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than core students of the middle class group. Findings. The data do not support the hypotheses. Ex- for the General prejudice score, all scores of the per- 'al working class group showed them consistently but not ficantly less tolerant than members of the core working group (Table 5.7). On the other hand, the prejudice s of the middle class students who made and received as from the working class students were all consis- I but not significantly more tolerant than those of the liddle class group (Table 5.8). Thus the patterns of nce orientation found in peripheral student groups is consistent with adult patterns. Their reference be- is consistent, however, with the status patterns es- aed by the core students of this study. gligious Participation. As indicated in Chapter IV, :udents of the nonattender group had the highest Total L _- Holland, 92. cit., page 166, and Centers 9_p_. cit., 6 111.8. 127 As 5:? MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE WORKING CLASS STUDENTS, AND WORKING CLASS STUDENTS WITH MIDDLE CLASS REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TNELFTR GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 (a) " Sociometric Subgroup One: Five: WOrking Working. Computations for p»- Class Class Significance 3 Students Students Differences: e Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by Working Middle Class Class Students _Students __ __ No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P L 13 61.2 26 59.3 228.5 33.u8 -1.05 .29 3h 13 16.1 26 1509 214-500 32.58 " 06-1-5 .65 ) 13 15.3 26 13.8 20100 33022 -1076 .08 an 13 1E.8 26 1E.6 227.5 33.13 - .97 .33 a1 13 1E.9 26 15.0 27A.5 33.03 .R2 .67 [_.__ ___— Tor'za description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. Ihite's test for the significance of difference be- rweeni two groups is employed. It is described in .lltni L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for ED£.§2' .avioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, ru3., 31954, pp. N17-u22. See, also, this thesis, ppendixCL : Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 128 de 5J3 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE MIDULE CLASS STUDENTS, AND MIDDLE CLASS STUDENTS WITH WORKING CLASS REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) One: Five: Middle Middle Computations for ju— Class Class Significance pf) 3 Students Students Differences: *e Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by Middle Working Class Class No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P 1 72 58.3 IN 61.3 488.5 85.28 -1.R1 .16 sh 72 16.0 1A 16.1 599.5 83.30 - .11 .91 3 72 13.6 la lu.6 508.5 84.2A -1.19 .23 ran 72 1R.1 1A 15.3 A60.5 8u.71 -1.6A .10 ’al 72 1E.6 1E 15.3 552.0 8A.56 - .67 .50 [— _A_._ Ifixr a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. Vfliite's test for the Significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allifll L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be— navioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Iku:., 195E, pp.Hl7'-822 See, also, this thesis, \ppendix C. 3: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 129 \ prejudice score, namely, 59.2, that is, were most tolerant, core students of the high attender group were next with a score of 58.60, and core students of the low attender group had the lowest score, 5h.0. These findings are in accord with those reported upon earlier in the study.1 The core groups will be used as controls in the analysis of periph- eral reference group identification. The prejudice scores of core members will be compared with peripheral members of the same group. Hypotheses. The hypotheses to be tested are stated as follows: 1. Core students amon. high attenders have higher scores (are more tolerant than high attenders who chose from and were chosen by the low attender group. 2. Core students of the low attender group have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than low at- tenders who chose from and were chosen by the high attender group. Findings. Data pertaining to the first hypothesis are given in Table 5.9. They did not support the hypothesis as stated. To the contrary, high attenders who identified with the low attender group were significantly less prejudiced than students in the core high attender group for Ioth the Jewish and the Negro prejudice scores. They were also con- sistently more tolerant with respect to the Total and the General prejudice scores. It is possible, however, that this apparent reversal of the hypothesis is only seeming, 1. See this thesis, Emu.97-98 for a discussion of these studies, and pp.10u-109for the findings of this study. 130 Table 5.9 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE HIGH ATTENDERS, AND HIGH ATTENDERS WITHIJNJATTENDER REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMPINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 (a) Sociometric Subgroup One: Five: High High Computations for Preju- Attender Attender Significance pg dice Students Students Differences: ) Score Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by High Low Attenders Attenders No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Jewish 55 16.0 3 18.0 33.0 27.66 -1.99 .05 Negro 55 13.7 3' 16.7 29.0 28.20 -2.09 .0h Mexican 55 lh-h 3 lu.3 97.5 28.2h .30 .76 General 55 lh.5 3 16.7 hh.0 28.23 -l.56 .12 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of difference be— tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for EDE.E2' havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195R, pp. hl7-h22. See, also, this thesis, Sourc Appendix C. e: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 131 and that it still falls within a reference group context but at a different level of abstraction. It is suggested that these individuals may have as their anchorage point, the ab- stract humanitarian values of the religious system of which they were a part, and hence the values of members of a par- ticular subgroup of that system were not salient factors for them. It is the obligation of the high attender, for example, to have missionary zeal and to woo his low attender brother back to the church. The second hypothesis was supported by the data (Table 5.10). Low attenders who chose and were chosen by high at- tenders were significantly more tolerant of Mexicans and had a significantly higher Total prejudice score than core low attenders. The remaining scores were consistent with these patterns. There was a considerable tendency to over-shoot tkuarnark; for example, core high attenders had a Total prej- udice score of 58.6 whereas low attenders who identified with them had a corresponding score of 6h.8 (Tables 5.9 and 5.10). Prejudice Among High Versus Nonattenders. It will be recalled that core students of the nonattender group tended to be consistently more tolerant than core students of the high attender group. These may be utilized as control groups to test association between peripheral reference group orien- tation and prejudice. Hypotheses. Employing the second research model, the hypotheses are formulated as follows: 1. Core students of the nonattender group have higher prejudice scores (are more tolerant) than nonattenders 132 Table 5.10 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES 0? Low CORE ATTENDERS, AND Low ATTENDERS WITH HIGH ATTENDER REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 (a) Sociometric Subgroup One: Five: Low Low Computations for Prejup Attender Attender Significance pg) dice Students Students Differences: Score Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by Low High Attenders Attenders No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 10 Sh.0 u 6h.8 1A.; 7.03 -?.13 .03 Jewish 10 lu.8 A 17.2 19.5 6.8a —1.u6 .Iu Negro 10 12.7 N 15.8 18.5 6.8u -1.61 .11 Mexican 10 12.8 h 15.8 15.5 6.90 -2.03 .Ou General 10 13.7 h 16.0 22.5 7.03 -l.07 .28 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the fig: havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., lQSh, pp. Hl7-u22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. Source: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 133 who chose from and were chosen by students from the high attender group. 2. Core students of the high attender group have lower scores (are less tolerant) than high attenders who chose from and were chosen by members of the non- attender group. Findings. An examination of Table 5.11 shows that the data consistently supported the first hypothesis, namely, that nonattender students in the peripheral high attender group were more prejudiced than those in the core nonattender group but differences were not significant. The data were also consistent, but not significant, in support of the second hypothesis (Table 5.12). When the scores of high attenders who identified with the low attender group and those of high attenders who iden- tified with the nonattender group were compared, the former were consistently higher (more prejudiced) than the latter with the exception of the Mexican score, but the differences were not significant (Table 5.13). This suggests a further area of investigation with more controlled groups. Sociometric Status. An analysis of prejudice based on sociometric reference group identification is concerned with leader-follower relations.1 Since the core groups comprised of pivot-links includes all students other than pivot leaders who both made choices to and received choices from students who were not pivot leaders, it represents a lower eschelon 1. For a definition of the leader-follower concepts used in this section, see pp. 57-58 of this thesis. The socio- metric reference groups are described on pages 73-?h. 13h Table 5.11 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES 0? CORE NONATTENDERS, AND NONATTENDERS WITH HIGH ATTENDER REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TNELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19U9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) One: Five: Non- Non- Computations for Preju- attender attender Significance ga dice Students Students Differences: -) Score Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by Non- High attenders Attenders No. Mean NO. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 17 59.2 15 57.1 263.0 27.10 .55 .58 Jewish 1? 16.2 15 15.3 286.0 25.9h l.u6 1.1u Negro 17 1E.u 15 lu.0 207.5 26.01 .00 1.00 Mexican 17 lu.u 15 lu.l 2H7.0 26.22 .00 1.00 General 17 1h.2 I 15 13.7 261.0 26.28 .u9 .62 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of difference Te- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, §patistical Methqd§_fgr £12.§2' havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195a, pp.*E17-u22. See, also, this thesis Appendix C. Source: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. Table 5.12 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF CORE HIGH ATTENDERS, AND HIGH ATTENDERS NITH NGNATTENDER REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINE. NINTH AND TNELFTH GRADES, :APLE COUNTY, 19u9 (a) Sociometric Subgroup One: Eive: High High Computations for Preju- Attenders Attenders Significance f dice Choosing, Choosing, Differences: b) Score Chosen by Chosen by High Non- Attender attender Students Students -No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 55 58.6 10 60.9 257.0 5h.93 -l.32 .19 Jewish 55 16.0 10 15.9 321.5 53.57 - .15 .88 Negro 55 13.7 10 1u.5 272.0 5H.H2 -1.06 .29 Mexican 55 lu.h 10 lh.7 298.5 5h.58 - .57 .57 General 55 1E.5 10 15.8 2Hu.0 5H.7O —1.56 .12 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the g9- havioral Sciencgg, New York, Rinehart and Company, Sourc Inc., l95h, pp. E17-u22. See, also, this thesis Appendix C. e: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 136 Table 5.13 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF HIGH ATTENDERS, EY LOW AND NONATTENDER REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TEELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Five: Five: High High Computations for Preju- Attender Attender Significance f dice Students Students Differences: ) Score Choosing, Choosing, Chosen by Chosen by Low Non- Attenders attenders No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 3 65.7 10 60.9 lu.0 5.87 -1.11 .27 Jewish 3 18.0 10 15.9 10.5 5.58 -1.79 .07 Negro 3 16.7 10 18.5 12.0 5.81 -1.h6 .lh Mexican 3 lu.3 10 1L.7 26.0 5.82 .77 .EA General 3 16.7 10 15.8 17.5 5.71 - .53 .60 .A‘ (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the fig- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., l95u, pp. h17-h22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. Source: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 137 leader—follower group which provides channels of communica- tion (both direct and indirect) for the pivot leader group. On a le ader-follower continuum, this group occupies an in- termed late position, with the pivot leaders at one pole and what might be called the "true followers," or satellites, (those who made choices but received none), at the other pole. It will be recalled that the assumption is made that it is the core members of a given group who most clearly re- flect its norms and values.EL An analysis of sociometric r"93feit‘ence group attitudes is complicated by the fact that there is no core pivot leader group as defined in the re- se arch design. One must conclude that the informal power Strut: ture for this student group had not become stratified at this level and that the core values were maintained at a dL-f‘ f‘erent level. The next most homogeneous pivot leader {thou-15>, as defined by the research design, is the peripheral pivOt leader group five, whose members chose from and were Chosen by only pivot—links. They are the only group which have observable leader as well as follower roles. The prej- udice scores of this group will be assumed to be the most P6131"'esentative of the core values of pivot leaders, and in testing the hypotheses peripheral rather than core members or t3kle pivot leader group will be considered the core pivot 1 eader group. _\ l. F'Or a further discussion Of this assumption, see p. 83 Of this thesis . L 138 H37"1:>othesis. The hypothesis relative to peripheral ref- erence group identification may then be formulated as follows: Pivot-links who chose from and were chosen by pivot leaders; and pivot leaders who chose from and were 0 chosen by pivot-links have similar pre udice scores (are from a common population universe) Findings. The hypothesis was not supported (Table 5.11;). Pivot_1 inks who chose pivot leaders were more prejudiced than pivot leaders for three of the five prejudice scores, namely, the Total, the Negro and the General prejudice scores. The M33110 an score fell only a little under the five percent level I’ea‘czhing the seven percent level. Pivot-links also were more prejudiced than the core members of their own member- Ship group} Summa y. The general hypothesis for this chapter may be f‘Olsmulated as follows: The prejudice scores of students in peripheral refer— ence groups will be more like the core members of their peripheral reference group than like the core members of their membership group, and they will vary directly as the position of the core members of their refer— ence group varies. T he data employed in the testing of this hypothesis are the p *peJudice scores of the combined ninth and twelfth grades. T he Variables considered are residence, occupation, sub- Jeet31’Lve socioeconomic status, religious, and sociometric s tat11s. Core subgroups of the respective variables are p 'laced on a continuum of prejudice from low to high and \ 1. Scores computed for the core pivot-link group run as fol- lows: Total prejudice score, 58.L|.; Jewish prejudice score, 15.7; Negro prejudice score, 13.8; Mexican preju- dice score, 114.2; and General prejudice score, 1L6. 139 Tablea £3.1u MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF PIVOT LEADERS AND PIVOT- LINKS, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Five: Five: (Core) . Pivot- Pivot Computations for Pre;3r1_, links Leaders Significance pg) die e Choos ing , Choos ing, Differences : Scope Chosen by Chosen by Pivot Pivot- Leaders links _~__‘___» No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 7 511.6 13 62.5 100.0 12.33 2.11 .03 Jewish 7 19.9 13 16.’1 79.0 12.20 .111 .68 Negro 7 12.7 13 1L;.7 98.5 12.52 1.96 .05 Mexican 7 12.9 13 15¢; 97.0 12.!17 1.8L; .07 General 7 13.1 13 16.0 100.0 1245 2.09 .011 .~_‘_-__ (£1) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of tween two groups is employed. Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the fig- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195a, pp0117-4220 Appendix C. N: See, also, this thesis, Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. difference be- It is described in 1u0 these are used as points of reference in formulating and testing the nature and extent of peripheral reference group identification. Residence. Data for nonfarm and town students consis- tently supported the hypothesis but only one difference was significant. Town students who identified with farm students were less tolerant than those who identified with nonfarm students. The scores of peripheral farm students were con- sistently lower than either core farm or core town groups, but those who identified with nonfarm as compared with town students had consistently but not significantly lower scores. Occupation. There were no significant differences by occupation. Peripheral blue and white collar students ex- pressed attitudes consistently as hypothesized. Farm stu- dents whose reference group was either core blue or core white collar students had lower scores (were more prejudiced) than were core members of their reference groups although those identifying with the core white collar group as com- pared with the correspondipg blue collar were consistently more tolerant. Subjective Spcioeconomic Status. The data supported the reverse of the hypotheses, consistently but not signif- icantly. Working class students who chose from and were chosen by the middle class (sutjectively defined) were less tolerant than core members of the working class group but the reverse was true of middle class students who identified with the working class. 11.1 Religious Participation. The Jewish and Negro scores of high attenders who identified with low attenders were significantly higher than core members of the high attender group for the Jewish and Negro prejudice scores and were consistently higher for the General score and the Total score. These data did not support the hypothesis at the level of abstraction employed. The data for low attenders with high attender reference group identification for the Total prejudice score and the Mexican score supported the hypothesis and differences were significant. The remaining scores supported the hypothesis consistently. The scores of nonattenders with high attender reference group identifications and those of high attenders with non- attender identifications both tended to support the refer- ence group hypothesis consistently but not significantly. High attenders who identified with low attenders were con- sistently and significantly less prejudiced than those iden- tifying with nonattenders for all scores except the Mexican. The hypothesis was not supported. Sociometric Status. The hypothesis to the effect that pivot-links who identified with core pivot leaders had scores similar to the latter was not supported. Three out of the five prejudice scores were significantly different, and the remaining two were in accordance with this pattern. 1142 CHAPTER VI PREJUDICE AMONG PERIPHERAL SATELLITE GROUPS Chapter V was concerned with expressions of prejudice in peripheral reference groups, that is, groups in which all the members both made and received choices, and these choices were all either from or to a nonmembership reference group. This Chapter is concerned with the analysis of expressions of prejudice in peripheral satellite reference groups in which members made choices only to nonmembership reference groups but received no choices in return, neither from their membership nor from a nonmembership group. Obviously, the fact that an individual received no choices does not mean that he has no associations but it does mean that the inti- macy of the association is considerably curtailed. Such curtailment should be reflected not only in an individual's ability to evaluate the norms and values of his reference group but also in his ability to carry out his roles ac- curately. This chapter will make use of the same research models, the same guiding hypotheses (but not specific ones), and the same variables employed in Chapter V and a discussion of them will not be repeated here.1 It should be recalled however, that the specific hypotheses are so worded that support of them is likewise support of the reference group 1. For a discussion of these items see this thesis pp. 53- 58; 78-79 and hypotheses II on page 80. 111.3 Jhypothesis, namely, that students identifying with a given group by sociometric choice, tend to have attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities like the group with whom they identify. Residence. The hypotheses to be tested with respect to the association between reference group identification and residence are stated as follows: 1. Satellite farm students who chose nonfarm students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than satellite farm students who chose town students. 2. Satellite nonfarm students who chose farm students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than satellite nonfarm students who chose town students. 3. Satellite town students who chose farm students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than satellite town students who chose nonfarm students. These hypotheses employ the third research model. Findings. As indicated in Table 6.1, farm satellite students selecting nonfarm associates were significantly more prejudiced than those choosing town associates with respect to the Total prejudice score and the Negro prejudice score. The remaining prejudice scores followed the same pattern consistently, the General prejudice score having a significance level of eight percent. Nonfarm satellites who identified with farm as com- pared with town students showed neither significant nor con- sistent differences in their expressions of tolerance. One must assume that for these students residence was not a salient category in the establishing of reference group identifications (Table 6.2). Table 1hh 6.1 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES WV SATELLITE FAWN STUDENTS BY RESIDENCE REFERENCE GROUP TPENTIWICATTONS, COMFINED NINTH ARD TWELWTH SHADES, MAPLE COJNTY, 19u9 ‘ Sociometric Subgroup (3) Eleven: Eleven: Farm Farm Computations for Preju- Students Students Significance ea) dice Choosing, Choosing, Differences: Score Nonfarm Town Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Re?eived n1) No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 10 55.0 10 63.6 77.0 13.17 -2.09 .0h Jewish 10 lh.7 10 16.2 90.0 12.97 -1.12 .26 Negro 10 13.2 10 16.0 78.0 13.10 -2.02 .0h Mexican 10 13.1 10 15.3 85.0 13.15 -l.h8 .lh General 10 lh.0 10 16.1 81.5 13.09 -1.76 .08 (a) (b) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. White's test for the significance of difperence be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods For the fig- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195H. pp. hl7-u22. Appendix C. Source: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. See, also, this thesis, Table 6.2 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OE SATELLITE NONFARM STUDENTS, WITH REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) D Eleven: Eleven: NOnfarm Nonfarm Computations for Preju— Students Students Significance cg dice Choosing Choosing Differences: ) Score Farm Town Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Jewish 9 15.6 10 15.1 79.5 11.98 -.83 .ul Negro 9 1h.3 lO 1h.1 81.5 12.05 -.66 .51 Mexican 9 13.2 10 13.9 95.0 12.16 .37 '.71 General 9 1h.0 10 1h.8 93.5 11.93 .25 .80 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how . they were Formed, see Appendix D. (b) ‘White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- llavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 95H, pp. H17- A22. See, also, this thesis, Abpendix C. $322352: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 1&6 Satellite town youth who identified with farm students were consistently more tolerant, with one exception, -- the Jewish prejudice score, than were those who identified with nonfarm youth (Table 6.3). This is contrary to the findings established between the corresponding peripheral groups de- scribed.in Chapter V. However, none of the differences were significant for the peripheral satellite groups, and only one for the latter (Table 5.2). Occupation. The hypotheses to be tested relative to occupational differences in reference group identification may be stated as follows: 1. Satellite farm students who chose blue collar students . have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than satellite farm students who chose white collar stu- dents. 2. Satellite blue collar students who chose farm stu- dents have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than satellite blue collar students who chose white collar students. 3. Satellite white collar students who chose farm stu- dents have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than satellite white collar students who chose blue collar students. Findings. An examination of Tables 6.h, 6.5, and 6.6 JT‘B'Ve'els that none of the differences based on occupation were significant nor did they approach significance. How- ever, the data for the satellite farm and blue collar stu- dents consistently supported the hypotheses with only one exception. In this instance, blue collar satellites who identified with farm students were m, not less, tolerant of Negross than were those who identified with white collar Students. 1117 Table 6.3 MEAN PRE DICE SCORES 0F SATELLITE TOWN STUDENTS, BY RESIDENCE REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIEICATIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Eleven: Eleven: Town Town Computations for Prejup Students Students Significance of) dice Choosing Choosing Differences: Score Farm Nonfarm Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 12 60.9 16 57.7 1h8.0 21.51 -l.19 .23 Jewish 12 15.3 16 16.0 lBLL.5 21.01 .LLB .63 NGEIWD 12 1h.9 16 13.1 lb5.5 21.35 -l.3l .19 MeXican l2 lu.9 l6 1L1.l 1118.5 21.32 -l.l7 .214. General 12 15.8 16 111.6 1%.5 21.26 -1.18 .2L1 _ (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (PU White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the fig- Igavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195b, pp._R17-u22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. .§22££§§: Resource Tables 1 - 5. ADDendiX A. 1118 Table 6.11 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OE SATELLITE T7'ARM STUDENTS, BY OCCUPATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIEICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Eleven: Eleven: Farm Farm Computations for PI’ezju- Students Students Significance f dice Choosing Choosing Differences: M Sc ore Blue White Collar Collar Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Thaisal. 7 53.0 1h 60.2 93.5 13.36 1.20 .23 Jewish 7 114.0 111 15.8 95.0 13.18 1.33 .18 Negro 7 12.7 111 111.6 91.0 13.31 1.01 .31 Mexican 7 1g.7 1h 114.6 92.0 13.31 1.00 .28 General 7 13.6 1L4 15.2 80.0 13.28 .87 .38 (a) IFor a description of the sociometric subgroups and how ‘they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) Ennite's test for the significance of difference be- iiween two groups is employed. lkllen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the fig- Plavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Ihnc., 195M, pp. H See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. —\ o 17 - h22. Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. It is described in ...... 1’49 Thalale 6.5 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES 0F SATELLITE BLUE COLLAR STUDENTS, BY OCCUPATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP IDEN- TIFICATIONS, COMEINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Sociometric Subgroup(a) Eleven: Eleven: Blue Blue ' Collar Collar . Computations for Preju- Students Students Significance TE d 1 ce Choos ing Choos ing Differences: ) Sc ore Farm White Students: Collar No choices Students: Received No choices Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P k ch>te1 17 58.5 21 59.u 33u.0 33.98 .06 .95 Jzeeeish 17 15.5 21 15.7 338.0 33.n0 .18 .86 Negro 17 111.7 21 117.0 305.0 33.68 -.77 .m; Mexican 17 13.8 21 111.5 3511.5 33.82 .67 .50 (ieraearai 17 1a.6 21 15.2 3uo.0 33.u8 .2u .81 ¥ (a) (b) ‘For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is descri.bed in .Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Fe- ldavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., I95E, p1 K17 - A22. See, also, this thesis, Append ix C . EEEEEEEja: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 150 Tuaieie 6.6 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES CR SATELLITE WRITE COLLAR STUDENTS, BY OCCUPATIONAL REFERENCE GROUP IDEN- TIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELRTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, lane (a) Sociometric Subgroup Eleven: Eleven: White White Computations for Preju- Collar Collar Significance of d 1<3e Students Students Differences: ') Sc ore Choosing Choos inn; Farm Blue collar Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P chrtal A 65.8 15 61.3 2h.5 9.9M -l.51 .13 Jlatvish A 17.2 15 16.1 32.0 9.19 - .52 .Ml Negro A 15.5 15 111.9 35.0 0.87 .. .116 .65 Mexican '4 16.0 15 111.6 29.0 9.70 -l.08 .28 General LL 16.8 15' 15.7 28.5 0.611 -1.111 .25 (a) 'For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) TMhite's test for the significance of difference be- ‘tween two groups is employed. It is described in .Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the g;- klavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, iInc., 195E, pp. K17 - h22. See, also, this thesis, Append ix C . EEEEESESE: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 151 Among the satellite white collar group, the pattern of the scores was consistent but it did not support the hypoth- esis. Instead, these who chose farm students had higher, not lower, scores than those who chose blue collar students. This finding is also contrary to that found among white col- lar students in the peripheral occupation groups discussed in Chapter V, where, again, all differences were consistent but not significant but the hypothesis was upheld. One must assume that for white collar satellites, occupation was not a salient category in the establishment of reference group identification at this level of conceptualization. Subjective Socioeconomic Status. It will be recalled that the analysis of subjective socioeconomic status presen- ted in Chapter V made use of the first type of research model in which the direction and degree of prejudice ex- pressed by members of a specified category (such as the work- ing class) who identified with a nonmembership reference group are compared with the core members of their own group. This model will be utilized in this section. However, in- stead of using the core group (which is comprised of members who both made and received choices from their own membership group), we shall stay within our present frame of reference for this chapter and employ instead the core satellite group (which is comprised of members who chose from their own mem- bership group but did not receive choices from any group). Hypotheses. The hypotheses for this analysis of refer- ence group identification are stated as follows: 152 1. Satellite working class students who chose middle class students have higher prejudice scores (are more tolerant) than those of the core satellite working class group. 2. Satellite middle class students who chose working class students have lower prejudice scores (are less tolerant) than those of the core satellite middle class group. Findings. Data pertaining to the first hypothesis are given in Table 6.7. Differences for the Total prejudice score, the Mexican prejudice score, and the General preju- ‘diee score were in the direction hypothesized, and the dif- ference for the Mexican score was significant at the three percent level. Satellite working class students who chose middle class students were more tolerant than those who chose working class friends. The prejudice scores of satel- lite middle class students consistently supported the second hypothesis (Table 6.8). Those who identified with the work- ing class were more prejudiced than those who identified with the middle class. None of the differences were sig- nificant, however. Religious Participation. In the analysis of the rela- tion of religious participation to reference group identifi- cation, the third research model will be employed. The prejudice scores of core satellite attenders will be comp pared with those of peripheral satellite attenders. They will be classified in terms of low and high attenders. Hyppthesis. The hypotheses are as follows: 1. Low attender satellites who chose high attenders have higher prejudice scores (are more tolerant) than low attender satellites who chose low attenders. Table 6.7 153' MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OE SATELLITE WORKING CLASS STUDENTS, SUBJECTIVELY DEEIEED, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Sociometric Subgroup(a) Ten: Eleven: Working Working Class Class Computations for Preju- Students Students Significance ?€ dice Choosing Choosing Differences: ) Score Working Middle Class Class Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Received N0. Mean No. Mean T Sigma 2 P Total 9 57.6 29 60.0 200.0 20.06 .83 .hi Jewish 9 15.7 29 15.7 167.0 28.53 -.28 .78 Negro 9 1.1.1.8 29 114.01 162.5 28.85 “cu—3 .67 Mexican 9 12.8 29 15.1 237.0 28.82 2.13 .03 General 9 lh.3 29 15.0 206.5 28.81 1.06 .29 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the fig- hgvioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195u, pp. Ml? - h22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. ‘ Source : Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 'Tatfle6fi 15h MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF SATELLITE MIDDLE CLASS STUDENTS, SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIFICATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Ten: Eleven: Middle Middle Class Class Computations por I’l‘eejuy Students Students Significance pf dice Choosing Choosing Differences: M Sc ore Middle Work inn Class Class Students: Students: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma 2 P 3P<>-ts1 75 58.8 25 57.1 1122.5 1hh.87 1.10 .27 ireewaish 75 15.7 25 15.6 1306.5 1h1.66 .31 .76 Naggro 75 13.9 25 13.h 1388.0 1hh.01 .87 .38 IVIEBscican 7S lu.3 25 13.6 1392.5 lh3.88 .90 .37 C3€3116ra1 75 11.9 25 1h.6 13hu.0 1h3.53 .57 .57 \ (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (to) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., Igsu, pp. E17 - u22. Appendix C. S§£255§ggz See, also, this thesis, Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 155 ‘ 2. High attender satellites who chose low attenders have lower prejudice scores (are more prejudiced) than high attender satellites who chose high attenders. Findings. As indicated in Tables 6.9 and 6.10, the data on satellite low and high attenders consistently support both hypotheses with respect to all the prejudice scores, but none of the differences were significant. Only the findings rel- ative to satellite 1931 attenders were in accordance with the patterns reported in Chapter V for the corresponding periph- eral reference groups for which two of the differences were 3 ignificant. Peripheral high attenders who chose low at- t3eriders, in contrast to the corresponding peripheral satel- 1 its high attender group, had higher prejudice scores than those who chose high attenders, and two of the scores were 3 1 gnificant. Differenggg in Prejudice Between Satellite Attenders m Nonattenders. It will be recalled that in Chapter V the second research model was employed for the analysis of ref- eI‘ence group identification among attenders and nonattenders 34r1asmuch as there were no data for the low attender group. Sfiance these data are available for the satellite group, the tPlird research model will be used here. Hypothesis. The hypothesis is stated as follows: Satellite nonattenders who chose high attenders have higher prejudice scores (are more tolerant) than satellite nonattenders who chose low attenders. Findings. Data relative to the above hypothesis are EEicven in Table 6.11. In every instance, the prejudice Scores support the hypothesis consistently. Three of the ‘u-u- _ 156 Table 6.9 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES OF SATELLITE LOW ATTENDERS OE SUNDAY SCHOOL, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIEICA- TIONS, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, l9h9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Ten: Eleven: Low Low Computations for I?1?neral 6 lh.0 10 1h.6 58.5 8.98 .72 .h? (Ea) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (13) White's test for the significance of differedbe be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for thgigg- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195A, pp. E17 - A22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. .S ource: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 157 CPealsle 6.10 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES 0F SATELLITE HIGH ATTENDERS OE SUNDAY SCHOOL, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIPICA- TION, COMBINED NINTH AND TNELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Ten: Eleven: High High Computations for Pr 6 ju- Attenders Attenders Significance (8f <3 1.ce . Choosing Choosing Differences: b) S c ore High Low Attenders: Attenders: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P \ '1?<>ta1 5O 60.U 58.3 200.0 7.70 .76 .h5 £Teaw1sh 50 15.9 6 6 15.7 180.0 36.58 .23 .82 1Negro SO 1U.3 6 13.7 179.5 37.h5 .21 .83 6 6 bfleexioan 5O 1h.9 13.3 210.0 37.38 1.03 .30 C}€enera1 50 15.2 15-7 17E'O 37°26 ’09 '93 \‘ (£1) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (13) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the £3- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195M: PD. Al? - h22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. .S. ource: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. Table 6.11 158 MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES CF SATELLITE NONATTENDERS OR SUNDAY SCHOOL, BY REFERENCE GROUP IDENTIEI- CATION, COMBINED NINTH AND TWELETH GRADES, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 Sociometric Subgroup (a) Eleven: Eleven: Non- Non- Computations for Preju- Attenders Attenders Significance f dice Choosing Choosing Differences: b) Score High Low Attenders: Attenders: No choices No choices Received Received No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma Z P Total 26 59.7 h 51.5 95.0 16.37 1.99 .05 Jewish 26 15.8 A 13.5 9u.5 16.15 1.98 .05 Negro 26 1h.h h 10.2 10h.5 16.23 2.59 .01 Mexican 26 1h.5 h lu.0 66.5 16.21 .25 .80 General 26 15.0 h 13.8 75.5 16.06 .81 .h2 (a) For a description of the sociometric subgroups and how they were formed, see Appendix D. (b) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for t§g_ Pe- havioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 195M, pp. A17 - h22. See, also, this thesis, Appendix C. Source: Resource Tables 1 - 6, Appendix A. 159 differences were also significant; those for the Total preju- oint of View," Rural Sociology, Volume 18, Number 2, £Tune, 1953, pp. 108-117. bdead, George H., Mind, Self and Spciety from the Eitandpoint pi g Behaviorist, Chicago, Illinois, The [Iniversity of Chicago Press, 193%. bdeltzer, H., "Group Differences in Nationality and Race IPreference of Children," Sociometry, Volume 2, 1939, pp. 86-105 0 Inerton, Robert K. and Paul Lazarsfeld, Continuities 1p ééocial Research: Studies ip ppe Scope and Method 9: he :Amgrican Soldier," Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 19 O. Inerton, Robert, "Fact and Fictiousness in Ethnic Questionnaires," American Sociological Review, Volume 5, Number 1, January, 19%0. .Merton, Robert K. and Alice S. Kitt, "Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group Behavior" in Robert K. Merton and Paul Lazarsfeld, Continuities lp Social Research: Studies 1p the Scone and Method 9; Egg American Soldier," Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1950. Miller, Delbert C. and William Form, Industrial Sociology; Ap Introduction pp the Sociology pi Work Reéations, New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, 19 l. Miller, Neal E., pp. al.,"The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis," Psyohological Review, Volume % , 19%1, pp. 337-350. Moreno, J. L.(and Helen Jennings), Who Shall Survive? A_New Approach pp the Problems 9; Human Interrelations, . Washington, D. C., Nervous and Mental Disease Pub- lishing Company, 193%. Myrdal, Gunner, Ap American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democrac , New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, 195:. (2 Volumes). Newcomb, Theodore and Eugene Hartley, Readings in Social Psychology, New York, New York, Henry Ho t and Company, 19%7. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6%. 65. 66, 677. 68. 69‘. Pfiarry, H. J., "Protestants, Catholics and Prejudice," Iluternational Journal p: Opinion ppp Attitude Rp§earch, Volume 3, 19:9. pp.205—233. Pkarsons, Talcott, The Social System, Glencoe, Illinois, flfhe Free Press, 1951. Phastore, Nicholas., "A Neglected Factor in the Frustra- t:ion-Aggression Hypothesis," Journal pg PsyChOIOEY, \Iolume 29, 1950, pp. 271-279. IDepinsky, Pauline, "The Meaning of 'Validity' and 'Re- ]_iability' as Applied to Sociometric Tests," Educa- t;ional and PSYChologiqp; Measurement, Volume 9, 19%9,39-H9. I>rothro, E. T., "Group Differences in Ethnic Attitudes of Louisiana's College Students," Sociolo and Social Ilesearch, Volume 3%, 1950, pp. 252-258. Iiiley, Matilda White, John W. Riley, Jr., and Jackson Toby, Sociological Studies pp Scale Analysis; App1'- cations, Theory, Procedures, New Brunswick, Rutgers 'University Press, 19 . Rohrer, John H. and Muzafer_Sherif, Psychology pp the Crossroads, New Yo Harper and Brothers, 1951. eds., Social rk, New York, Roper, E., "United States Anti-Semites," Fortune, February, 19%6, p. 257 ff. Rose, Arnold and Caroline Rose, America Divided, Minority Group Bplations pp the United States, New York, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 19E8. Saenger, Gerhart, Tpp Social Psychology pi Prejudiop, New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1953. Sappenfield, Bert, “The Response of Catholic, Protes— tant and Jewish Students to the Menace Checklist,” Journal p; Social Psychology, Volume 20, 19%%;mu295-29£ Sherif, Muzafer and Carolyn W. Sherif, Groupp pp Harmony ppp Tpnsion; Ap Integration pg Studies pp Intergroup Hglations. New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1953. Sherif, Muzafer and M. O. Wilson, eds., Group Relations pp the Crossroads, New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1953. 73- 7%. 75. 76. 77. F7] 193 Shibutani, Tamotsu, "Reference Groups as Perspective," American Journal pi Sociology, Volume 60, Number 6, May, 1955. rSimpson, George E. and J. Milton Yinger, Racial and ‘gpltural Minorities: pp Analysis pi Prejudice and Discrimination, New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1953. Simmel, Georg, (Translated by Kurt H. Wolff), The Sociology pi Geog; Simmel, Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1950. Sims, V. M. and J. R. Patrick, "Attitudes toward Negroes of Northern and Southern College Stgdents," Journal pi Social Psychology, Volume 7, 193 , pp. 192-205. - Smith, Mapheus, ” An Emperical Scale of Prestige Status of Occupations," American Sociological Review, - Volume 8, Number 3, April, 19%3, pp. 185-192- 78. 79. 80. Srole, L., "Social Dysfunction, Personality, and Social Distance Attitudes," in Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, Groupg ip Harmony and Tension, New York, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1953. Thaden, John F., Map: "The Farm Peepletaf Michigan According to Ethnic Stock, 19%5," East Lansing, Michigan State University, 19%5. Warner, W. Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells, ppcial Class ip America, i hanppi pi Procedure for the Measurement pi Social Status, Chicago, Illinois, _ Science Research Associates, 19%9. 81. 82. 83. Westie, Frank, "A Technique for the Measurement of Race Attitudes," American Sociological Review, Volume 18, Number 1, February, 1953, pp. 73-78. Williams, Robin M. Jr., The Reduction pi Intergropp Tensions: p Survey pi Research pp Problems pi Ethnic Racial, and Religious Group Relations, New York, New ' York, Social Research Council, Bulletin 57, 19%7. Zawadski, E., "Limitations of the Scapegoat Theory of Prejudice," Journal pi Abnormal and Social PsychologY, Volume %3, 19%8, p . 127-1%1. APPENDIX A RESCURCE TABLES 191i 195 m SH SH SH SH SS m S H 3 H SS SH SSS H 3 H a SuSm m SH SH SH SH HS. H S m z S SS SH HSS - - - . m-Sm m SH SH SH SH SS HH S HH 3 HH SS SSH HSS SSH S SSH S m:uSm H SH SH SH SH mS” SH S SH 3 - s SHH SS3 SSH S SH 9 mmuSm m SH SH SH SH SSu H S S 2 - u Sm mSz SH S SH S Sm-Sm m SH SH SH SH SSn H S S a H SS 3m HSS SH S H S SmuSm m SH SH SH SH SS“ H S m 3 m HS m SSS - s u u HmuSm m SH SH SH SH SS. SH 3 HH 3 SH NS SH SSS SSH S SH 9 SHuSm H SH SH SH SH SS H S u - u u S mSz s S S a _SSuSm m SH SH SH SH SS SH S HH 3 - . SH SS3 - u - . mmuSm m SH SH SH SH SS HH S HH 3 HH SS SSH HSS SSH S HH 9 snSm m _ SH SH SH SH SS. SH S HH 3 SH mS SSH HSS SSH S 3SH 3 muSm H 1 SH SH SH SH S» m S m 3 m S S HSS 3H S 3H 3 sm-Sm m 1 AH SH SH SH SS H S m 3 u u H SS3 SH S 3H S SHuSN m . SH SH SH SH SS1 H S m 3 H SS : HSS SH S 3H 3 mH-Sm m SH SH SH SH HS. SH S SH 3 SH HS mH SSS SH 3 SH 9 ms-Sm m SH SH SH SH HS m H a z m HS SH HSS 3H S S S SSuSm H SH SH SH SH H» m H S m 3 u u H mSz SH S SH 3 SHuSm m SH SH SH SH H” m H A S H SS s HSS S 3 s a SHuSm m SH SH SH SH New SH S u s SH NS zHH HSS SSH S eHH mmuSm av adv ASS Hov Adv Hsv“ HHVHSV HHVHHV HSSHSS HHS Hov HSV Hov HSSHav.HoS SaSHSaHI r unoosoz_.qou .xoz .woz .3oh..»oai heavmpm Swapmpm moomo zcoHpSQ mGOHp NSSCQS macaw wmoaoom ooHpmfionm 11“ SHHHSE. HSHoom unogomm :HSHHHMW :SQSooo :Hmom HSEHom 30Hoom SonwHHom .02 no .02 u (111 HmoHnowopwoimsoamnfim SHApoSoaoom omwo IS SSSH .SSSSS SSHSSHSSS Haaoa HS SSSSSS .HHSZSSS SHSSSS HSSSSS SSHS SSSSS HSSSSSS Sesz SSSS SSS SSHSSSSSSSS SSSSS HSSSSS SS 196 S SH SH S S SS SH S SH 3 SH NS SH HSS SH S SH S S-Sm H S NH S S SS H S S 3 - . SS SSS H S SH S S~-Sm H S HH SH HH SS SH S SH S SH SS SH SSS SH S SH S SSuSS H NH S S SH SS H S H S - . SS SSS SH S H S SHuSm S NH S SH SH SS SH S SH S SH SS SH SSS SH S SH 9 SmuSm m NH S SH SH SS H S S 3 S SS SH SSS S S H S SmnSm S HH SH SH SH SS SH S HH S SH NS SSH HSS SSH S SH 9 SHuSm S SH SH S SH SS SH S SH S HH SS SSH HSS SH 3 SH S SSuSm .H S SH HH SH SS SH S n u - - SH SSS SH S SH S SSuSm H HH SH S SH SS H S S 3 - . SS SSS S S H a SmuSm H HH SH S SH SS H S S S - - m SSS - - u . HSnSm H SH SH S SH SS H S S 3 H SS SH SSS SH S m S HH-Sm m SH SH SH SH SS HH S HH 3 - . SHH SSS HH S HH S SHuSm S SH SH SH SH SS S S H S S SS SH SSS SH S SS 9 mm-S~ m SH SH HH SH SS H S S S H SS m HSS . u S S mHuSm H SH SH SH SH SS m S S 3 S SS SH HSS SH S SH S SuSm S SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH S SH SS SH HSS - - u - HSuSm S SH SH S SH SS SH S HH S SH SS SSH mSS SSH S SH S H-Sm m SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH S u - SH SSS SHH 3 HH S SmuSm H SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH S SH SS SH SSS - u u . SmuSm SSS SSS SSS Soy SSS SSS SHSSSS SSSSHS SSSSSS SSS Soy SSS SSS SSSSamdSSS Sagan» shonamz .aob .Noz{.moz.3mh .905 Snapwpm omfiuwpm moozo SQOSSSQ mcowp Nmocov macho mmmnoom SOSUSfioSm SSSpSE amaoom unchopm I SS SS nuancoo sumom HdEhom Iomoom SSOS «Hem .02 mo .02 HmofihomOSSo anchwnfim OHSpoSowoom omdo 197 oanwm SGQUSSm .cmzpmn :H mmoaono on om>HoooS Sn .oa QSOSmndm oanpmfiofloom GS SGSOS SH 03 monam .coSSmQ Epmhzon S omono on: nompmm ESSS w SS3 .zzoa S: Umvoo .dmnwm unocdpm .SHQESXS pom .Anv GEdHoo So Sonssc 0:» on Sonowppw panama on» SD wopwofiv 3:“ SH GBOUSSSSD Hanan ms» .SEOSOSSSU :mnmduampsh S no SSSSQ an» no UoHSHSESom onwz SQSOSMQSS oaSpoEoSoom on» woman .SonEmE S SS Scmvcommoa on» moans So Amocowamcp so Somwnv QSOSm monopomon oaameoSoom on» on mnomon ADV GESHOO GS Honshm HSSSSSESG one .QSOSS SSSpoEoSoom SoNSE S on SSSSSS :23 .QoSpSHsmom 0S0? So ooo.H mo Smowam covah noanooca GS mcH>SH mpflSGSpm SSSSHSQH SaxoBS .Sucovfimmn SSSGSOS Como USS coapwasmon ooo.a can» Smmfi So mmomam Uopmmoapoocwas So SewSSHS> CH mQS>SH mucouspm Smash HHS on mnoump SESSScoz= .mSmCoo QSSH 0:» 0p mcfivpooow USGSSSS SS :ESSS: .SQSSSSS CBOS S SS :9: Saw Snowdpm.ESSScoc S SS :2: .pcovfipm Spam S SS=S= .Smnfisc ommo Sp axonm SS on: pcmczoamoa on» So GOSSSSSSHSSSHS SocoSSSSS 03p on SSSSS ASS qESSoo CS SHOQESS was .N .Q Nfivcwgm< GS HSSpoc GS confinomov SSS Sofie .:0SSE mmowonoz Saw zoo>SoomS Smofionoz So coapwasnwp mmono on» SUSS pafimon AH .h .5 .S .U .n mafisaoov moHSommpSo adonwnzm oHSmeoaoom 039 .H S SSuSN S S-Sm m S S S S SS H S S S H NS S HSS SH S H S SSnSm m S o S 0 mm 0H m OH 2 0H Sm moa moo moa S. 20H m Sm|wm E 3 E E E S: 33 33 3:3 E E SE 3, 2:348 ommflnm { unease: .CSG .Koz .mmz .3mm .po Smdpwpm Smdpdpm nooqm Scoapwm mGOSp mmoamn macaw wmonoom SSSSSSSSS SSSSSS HSSoom two oh I o SSS nmgsooo namom HSESSS uoSSom muoS SHSS .oS Mo .02 HSOSSOMOSSO mflonwnfim oakuofioaoom 0mdo 198 .SnoccoppSzoc «hp nomono SS3 SnSV omega SSS Snova pom USS on pSnp hSpSSS USSS on SS Qsonm nouaSppS on on» GS UGS “SASUQSSSS 30H Aha aoSono SS3 UnSV omono wcS space Son ooSzp GSnp SSSS condo» uuS on MS adohw SOSSQSOSSASQ 30S on» QS SSSHSSSSSO SS om .ShwcaoppS SmSn Aha noSono SS3 SQSV oSono SGS opoE no npcofihom 00Szp nomdso So Soonom mScnsm SovcoppS 0: HS adonw OSSpoEOSooS pepSmSoSanm fian 0:» :S USSHSSSSSO SS psovaommon S .aOSpSQSoSpASm sz o: SQS ASS 30S .Amv San ho SE90» GS macaw oononcwop SSS SoNSpSEEdS Songs: on» on vosoSppS poppoS one .chOSon psoncommon ozp nOSnz on AcoSpSQSOSpmSQ SacSwSSon no USSSQV adoaw oesonowop OSApoEoSooS on» on Shmhom “my :SSSoo GS Sonshm SSOSSQESG one .. .oScomSoh oz on «nopdno on om ow pan Soonom mSvcsm on om p_con va .OSSonpSo ASS .Soonom thcsm on om p.com “my .nopwo SSSA Adv .39208 S mono Amy .SMSSB 03p hao>m «NV .3003 kno>m Adv “SKOSSOS SS GOSSSQSOSSSSQ ho opSm esp opSoSocS Sovoo SSOSSSESG one .AHGQE Son coco GSnp SSSS USSGSSSS no .SSS pS ScoppS no: SSS on Soupomog on: one .pcovfipm concoSho unopsnococ S on Saomog =02: .Soonom thcsm Soc pap nonsno wQScnoppS SS3 no .0908 no apnea Son 0020 Soofiom %Svazm wGSSsoppS SS3 053 pGSSSpS S .hSoSSG .pnovzommmh copGoSno unopsno S 0» Spomon :oo: "SmaSnSoE quZOSSom onp S>S£ on :EfiSoo CS SSOQEhS one .Qsogm USKSE S on Spmkmm zz: .Acv GEsSoo on canoSppS poupoS 03p hp vopSOSv IGS SSmdaoaw coconommp OSSSSEOSSOS =SSSSoo SsSn: SnS :EASS: onGS gzopw honSS SSSGSE on» no GSOUMSSSQ on» .h80p030Su SSSSoo opSnz u SODSH SSSGSS S on mcScaoooS UopSSQEAOH ego: SasonwnsS OSSuoEOSooS on» oocSm .choamn Snowmommog 02p SOSEB on AGOSpszooo so doSSQV gsonw moconomop OSASQEOSOOS on» on SSSMSS Any nESSoo GS Sonfihm SSOSSQESG age .080: on» Scam SGSSQS no USSSSOSU SS noszH on» ch wchhoz SS ozm MS .aofiuog on» 0» So «0203 03» S cS mcS>SS HS .pcmouommop on» So pmnpSm 03p mo GOSSSQSOOO mmSno 03» on Summop SOS» nSOSMSSSSSo noSm .ahapasoo no QBOSV Spoxmoz SSSSoo opSnz on :3: SCS “SSSSASM aSnp A0390 Ahnpcsoo Lo GSOpV Smoxmoz SSSSoo SdSn SSS 0» :m: “SGSEHSM SS3 GOSSSQSOOO thno omen: poxaoz S on Sn®m09.:m: «chSCSSE.mcS30SSow onp S>S£ on GESSOO GS SSoQEhS one 7 i i ,r QSSDDHDL 3.454.333. .3 ha HSDMOCD mm3 Ufld OmOCO 0.23 Gomhmg Shah d mm; «:24... rm: @0600 .m 199 .Soonomncon So SSSSSEEOO AMV .Senpo “NV .SOSuoSnpS Sooflom anm how .MuSm Amv .SoSSSSS So SSoxSEoEom OSSSSS ANV .SoS ISSSS So SSSESSS SSSSSS Soy .npsow SSSSm Amv .SSoSsm ESSS SoScsb Adv .m 1 Amy .mp500m “my .onoz SSV «SSOSSOS SS SoSoo SS0: maSSSSS SSnp SSSSS SSSSSSSS SQSOSS SSESOS one .oonom .Qg SSS «SSSSSpno SS0; SSSooS SSSSSSSSQ 03p 30: So SoSpSSSSQNo SS SOS .SSSSSS SSS» So Q KSSGSSQS SSS SQSOSmnsS SSSpoEoSooS can So :oSuSSOSEoo SS» SOL .xSSSnpo>SQ S SS opSSoSS.SS So SSSSSS po>SQ S Soc SS 033 SSSSSSS S .AHV SESSoo EOSS SSSSSSQSSS on SSE SSpSSoSH .SSSBOSSOS SS SSSSSSSSSo SSS SSmnpo SSS «QSOSm on» EOSS SSoSono 0SoE So SSSnp SSSSSSSS 0:3 SpcSScomSmS SSS on SSSSoS ASV SSSSSS pebSm "SQSSSOQSSS oflp mo SSSSSS AOSSSSEOSSOSV Sn» op SSHSS Amy SESSOO SS SSODESS ofie .SSonESE oSS SpcoSSOQSoS on» noSzz So SSSpSpS SSSOSooSoSooS o>SpoSnnSS So SSSSQV SSSOSm ooSoSSSSS SSSSSSOSOOS on» on SSSSS Rwy SEdSoo SS SSonEhS SSOSSSESG one .SSSSo SSSSSS So .SSS SSQSS 03p :2: SSSSSS wSS nxSoz So «SSS S030S SSS SSSSSSSS =3: «SwSScSSE SSSZOSSOS SE» S>S£ Sena .SSSSSS SSSo IoS .SpSoSSS SSS So SGSESSSSSS :20 S.SSSS5pS on» on SSSSS ASV SEdSoo SS SSonEhS one .SSSQSSS SSS SSGOSSOQSSS SS» SSSSS So ASoSoSSmoSQ SOSdno So SSSSQV SQSOSw SSSOSOSSS SSSpoEOSoom map on SSHSS “fly SESSoo SS SSOQSSS SSoSSuEz: one .SOSSSSSSSSSSS noSsno oz Axv SSS .Sonpo Sow .SS IGOSpSwochoo va .SSSSSSoz So pSSSonpSz SoSm ANV .SSSOSSSSSEoSOSSSSSH on .SSmooSSQm f So SSSSophnSoSm Amy .pSSpaSm Adv .coSnpoSm SopScD So SSOSSchS>m “my .pSSSospoz ANS .OHHoflpSo GSEom AHV «monHom SS ooSoSomoSm HSSOSMSSSEoSSS SS“SmomwMoMMMSSMSMMMMMMSMMW o 0 63238 SS3 SS 3:9 :9. SSS»mSmonmawmzmwmmwflmoNews??? Swv casHoo E 385% 25 S €250 2: SS: 8323» a: .m E .5 .m 200 H w SH SH SH SH mS H S H 2 H SS SH moo S S S S mmuSm H S SH SH SH SH mS H S m 3 H NS SH Hoo m 3 N z :-Sm m M SH SH SH SH SS m S S 2 - u S moz SH S S S mSnSm S . SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H SS SH Hoo m 3 H S SHuSm H SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH 2 u . SH moz SH S SH S mHnSm H SH SH SH SH mS SH S SH 2 SH SS SH Hoo SH S SH S m-Sm 3 SH SH SH SH SS H S m 3 H SS Sm moo m S m S HuSm m SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH 2 SH SS . - SH S SH 2 0HuSm H SH SH SH SH SS S S u - S SS S Hoo SH S S S SmuSm m SH SH SH SH SS H S H 2 H Ho SH Soo SH S H S Sm-Sm S M SH SH SH SH SS HH S HH 3 0S SS zHH Hoo SOH S 20H S SsSm H A SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H SS SH Hoo m S H S SmuSm H SH SH SH SH SS. H S z S H SS SH Hoo : S S S SHuSm H " SH SH SH SH SS 0H S HH 3 u . SHH moz HH S HH S SHuSm m w SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH 3 SH SS SH Hoo SH S SH S muSm m M SH SH SH SH 0S m S H 3 m Ho SH Sou SH S 2H 2 HSuSm m M SH SH SH SH 0S H S u u S SS SH Hoo m S m z HH-Sm H 0 SH SH SH SH 0S om S u u - - om moz om S cm 2 SuSm m M SH SH SH SH HS H S H 2 H Ho SH Soo SH S H S mmuSm m " SH SH SH SH HS 0H S SH 2 0H SS SSH Hoo HH S HH S mmnSm SSS _ SSS SSS on SSS ASS“ AHVASV SSVASS ASSASS ASS ASS ASS ASS ASVASV.Hoo SSSSSN 11 1 4 . a: HWSQESE. ..:Sm .NSS .wmz .aoh .poa SSSSSpm SSSpSpm mono SoSpSQ SOS» NooSoS QSOSS SSSoom SSSUMfiMSmh m SSSSSE SSSoom d 0 SS amazooom ISSom SSESom w w 10Soom SSoS SSom .02 So .02 41 1 Sammmmwommo QSOSman SSSMMEoSoom- SSSU SSSH .SSooS SSHSSSSSS SSSOS SS SSSSSS .ASSSSS o mandzv floox.om mem 1‘: Q! ‘> d ,’l; 201 m SH SH SH NH Sm” SH S OH 2 SH SS SSH Hoo 0H 3 SH S m-SS m SH SH SH SH SmU SH S SH 2 u . SHH moz SH 3 SH S SSuSS S SH SH SH SH SSW SH S HH S OH SS SSH Hoo HH S SSH S SmuSS m SH SH HH SH Smm SH S SH S u - SH Soz SH S SH S mSuSS S SH SH SH SH Sm“ SH S SH 2 SH SS SSH Hoo SHH 3 HH 2 SH-SS S SH SH SH SH SSW H S H S H SS SH Hou S S H S SS-SS H SH SH SH SH mmw SH S HH S OH Ho SSH Sou SSH S SSH z oS-SS H SH SH SH SH Sm. HH S SH 2 SH SS SHH Hoo SSH S SSH S SmuSS H SH SH SH SH Sm. H S H 3 S SS SH Hoo SH S SS S SmuSS S SH SH SH SH Sm. H S u - m Ho SH Sou SH S H S SSuSS H SH SH SH Sm SH S OH S - - - . SSH S SSH S S-SS S SH SH SH SH Sm H S m S S SS SH Hoo SS 3 S S -SS S SH SH SH SH Sm SH S SH 2 u u - . SSH S SSH S SHuSS H SH SH SH SH SS H S H S u . Sm moz SH S SH S SmuSS S SH SH SH SH NS. m S S S S SS SH Hoo SH S SH 2 omuSS S SH SH SH SH SS. oH S - . OH HO SSH Soc SSH S OH S SS-SS H SH SH SH SH SS. H S H 3 u . Sm moz SH S SH 2 Sm-SS m SH SH SH SH SS H S m S H NS Sm Soz SS 3 SS S SmnSS m SH SH SH SH SS H S H S u u H moz SH S m z SSuSS m SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H SS SH Hoo m 3 S S NS-SS SSS ASS SSS SSS SSS ASS. “HSSSS SSVAHV SSSSSS ASS SSS SSS SSS SSVSSV.Hoo Sufism 1% 4 1 I 0280: .cwo .xoz .wmz .30 . Smdpmum Swapwum coco uncapwa Soap Noonmw QSOSS I. mmoSoon ooavs SSS _ oaSnoE HSHoom I SSoSS Soapwlw.nmmsO00N nwmom Hdfihom m uomoom maommHHmm .02 So .02 g I S 1 moSSomuuwo QSOSwnsm OSSSQEOSoow ammo 202 Sm SSuSS W SS SSuSS H SN HS-SS v SW SNuSS m S_ HNnSS . _ H m S S S S SN” SH S u . SH HS SH SSS SH S SH S SSuSS H n S S S S SN. SH S SH S S u u - SH S SH S SSnSS H HH S S S NS~ H S H 3 S HS SS SSS SH S SH S SSuSS H S S S SH SSW SH S SH S HH HS SHH SSS SSH S SSH S SSuSS N S S SH HH SSW S S H S S HS SH SSS SH S SH S SSuSS H HH SH S NH SSW H S H S H SS SH HSS SH S S S SS-SS N SH SH SH HH SSW SH S u - SH HS SSH SSS SSH S SSH S SSuSS H H SH SH SH NH SS_ H S n u H HS SH SSS SH S S S SNuSS S m NH SH HH HH SS SN S SN S SN NS SN HSS SN S SN S SnSS S 2 NH SH SH SH SS H S H S H NS SH HSS S S S S HS-SS H H SH SH NH HH. HS SH S SH S SH HS SH SSS SH 3 SH S SSuSS S m SH HH S SH HS H S S S H NS S HSS S 3 S S SHuSS H . SH SH HH SH NS H S H S H SS SH HSS SH S S S SH-SS H SH NH HH SH SS H S S 3 S HS SH SSS S S S S NNnSS H m SH HH SH NH SS H S H S a u H SSS SH S SS S SuSS SSS H SSS HSS SSS HSS SSS .HSSSS ASSSHS SSVSSS ASS SSS HSS SSS SSSSSS.HSS SSHSS. S s magma..coc .xoz .wmz .3mh .909 hmdpwpm Swapwpm 002m ScoSpSm new» NOSCSS agono“ SoSoom SSSSSWMMMIII SHSSQS SSSoom u SSSSS a SSpSSS umadooo IHSSS SSH—SS0:h m uoaoom SSSS SHom .o Ho .02 ‘ Hmowkowopwolmdomwnsm SSSSSEoSoom 0mm 203 .S SSSSSSSS .H SHSSS SSS .S .w opocpoom .H SHQSB com .m .S SSSSSSSS .H SHSSS SSS .S .o SSOQSOSS .H oanwa com .0 .m oucCuoom .H SHDSB com .m .S opocpoom .H SHDSB omm .: .S opocpooS .H SHSSS SSS .S .N oponpoom .H SHQSH mom .N .H opocpoom .H oHpSB 00m .H S SS-SS xv Nouom XS mmlom S _S NSaSS S. HS-SS S. SS-SS ASS ASS ASS SSS SSS ASS AHSASS SSSSHS ASSASS SSSSSS SSS SSS ASSASS.HSS mmmwnm ISSQESE mama .xmz .moz‘wzmh .ummt Smspmpm endpwpm mooao :coHpSQ Soap Noomov msoSm mmmpoom SSSSSHSSS SSSSSS HSSoom ISSSSSS ofiompnwm cmmdooo uwmom HSESOS Iofioom muowmaaom .02 So .02 HSSSSommuSo msohwnam SSSSSESHSOS ‘1 ammo J .Il D4364 20h H _ SH SH SH SH SS_ SN S SN S SN SS SN HSS SN S SN S SN-HN H SH SH SH SH SS. HH S SH S SH SS SSH HSS SH 3 SH S SHuHN H SH SH SH SH SS N S S 3 - u a - S S H S SsSH H _ SH SH SH SH SS. S S S S H NS S HSS S 3 S S SH-SH H SH SH SH SH SSF H S S 3 s - N SSS S S H S HHaSH N SH SH SH SH SSS H S S S H SS H SSS S S SS S S-HN H A SH SH SH SH SSS SH S SH S SH SS SHH SSS SHH 3 SHH S H-SN H SH .SH SH SH SSS SN S SN 3 SN NS SN HSS SN S SN S SH-SH H SH SH SH SH SSS SH S SH S SH NS SSH NSS SSH S SHH S SH-SH H A SH SH SH SH SSW SH S SH 3 n . SH SSS SH S SH S SHnSH H A SH SH SH SH SS. SH S SH S SH SS SH HSS SH 3 SH S S-NN N SH SH SH SH SS HH S SH S SH SS SSH HSS HH S SH S SN-SN H SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H SS SH SSS S 3 S S SuSH H _ SH SH SH SH HS HH S SH S SH SS SSH HSS SH 3 SH S HNuHN H m SH SH SH SH HSS H S S 3 H NS S SSS - - S S SNuoN H . SH SH SH SH NSS SH S SH S SH SS SSH HSS SH 3 SH S SHuoN H SH SH SH SH NS SH S SH S HH HS SSH SSS SSH S SSH S SuoN S SH SH SH SH NS SH S HH S u - SH SSS SHH 3 SH S NNuSH H SH SH SH SH NS SH S SH S - . SH SSS HH S SHH S SH-SH N SH SH SH SH NSS S S S S H SS SH HSS S 3 S S SuSH SSS SASS SSS SSS SSS Se: SHSSSS SSSSHS ASSASS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSSSSS.HSS Smanm ImoQEoE .Goo .Koz .woz .zoh .po wmdpdpm omzpwpm mono mCoHuSQ Gown Nwonov Sacha Sonoom oofioanonm SSSSQE HSHSom I oSoSS HSHSSSS IMQSSSO namom HSSSOS m uoaoomxt, Sacmmwaom i .02 Ho .oz HSoHSowoawo adonmpfim SHSSSEOHoom omwo SSSH .SSSSS SSHSSSSSS SSSS ~DII| 'II" .“ P‘ SSS SS . SSSSSS SSSSSS SSSSSS SSHS WSNM>dfl MDS amannnflnZflS Laomw Q¢Sm0m m0 205 S SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H NS S HSS w S S S SuHN N SH SH SH SH SS N S S S H SS S HSS 3 H S SuHN N SH SH SH SH SS N S S S H SS S SSS H 3 H S SH-SN H SH SH SH SH SS SN S SN S SN NS SN SSS SN S SN S SHnSH N SH SH SH SH SS S S H S H SS SS NSS SH S SH S SuSH H SH SH SH SH SS H S N S H NS SS SSS SH S H S SaNN S SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH 3 u - SH SSS SH S SH S SHsSN H SH SH SH SH SS S S S S u - u - S S S S SHuoH N SH SH SH SH SS S N S S S H NS S HSS H 3 H S NHISH H SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH S - - - - - - HH S H-SH H SH SH SH SH SS_ HH S SH S SH NS SSH HSS HH S SH S SISH N SH SH SH SH SS S S H S H NS S NSS . u S S HnNN N SH SH SH SH SS._ H S H S H SS SH HSS SH S H S SH-SN N SH SH SH SH SSS HH S HH 3 I . SHH SSS HH S SH S SHISN S SH SH SH SH SS w N S H S u . SS SSS S S S S SHnSH H SH SH SH SH SS SH S HH 3 - . SHH SSS SSH S SH S NNuSH H SH SH SH SH SS _ H S H S H SS SH HSS SS 3 SS S SNuSH N SH SH SH SH SS _ SH S SH 3 SH SS SH HSS SH S SH S NHnSH N SH SH SH SH SS H S S 3 H SS SS SSS SH S SS S H-SH N SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH S SH SS SSH HSS HH S HH S HN-NN ASS SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS «HSSSS SSSSHS ASSSSS SSS ASS ASS SSS ASSSSS.HSS onQSSS shonsmz .Goo .Noz .moz .3oh .po Swapwpm Smdpwpm mono mcoSpwm macaw Nooaoc mzonw mmSSoom ooaddfimnm campoa Hwfioom a SSSSS «Samamm a @5000 uflmom Hasnom nowoom mdmwmwamm .02 So .02 SSSSOSOSSO aflopwnsm SSSpoEoSoom oSSo H aflazaazau .m SHQSB 206 N SSH SH SH SH NS HH S SH S - . SHH SSS HH S HH S SHISH S SH SH SH SH NS H S H S H SS SS SSS SH S SH S SNuSH H SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH S SH SS SH SSS SH 3 SH S SHuNN N SH SH SH SH SSS N S H S H SS SH HSS N S S S SHuHN N “SH SH SH SH SS H S S 3 H SS N HSS SH S S S NHuoN S “SH SH SH SH SS N S S S H SS SH HSS S 3 S S HH-SN N SSH SH SH SH SS H S S S H SS SH HSS SS 3 H S N-SN H SSH SH SH SH SS SH S - - - . SHH SSS HH S SH S SNuoH S “SH SH SH SH SS HH S SH S u . SHH SSS SSH S SHH S SaSH H “SH SH SH SH SS SH S SH 3 SH SS SH NSS SH S SH S S-SH N ”SH SH SH SH SS H S N 3 n n N SSS S 3 H S NuSS H * SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H SS SS NSS SH S SH S SNuSH H SH SH SH H SS H S H S H SS SH HSS SH S H S SH-NN S SSH SH SH H SS SN S HS S n - SN SSS a - SN S SH-HN N w SH SH SH SH SS H S H S H SS SH HSS S 3 S S N-SH N _ SH SH SH SH .SS SH S SH S SH SS SH HSS SH S SH S SHuSH N S SH. SH SH SH SS , SH S HH S SH NS SSH HSS - u u . NN-NN H . SH SH SH SH SS S N S S S - u N SSS . u - . S-NN H _ SH SH SH SH SS H S H 3 H SS SS HSS SS 3 H S NH-HN N w SH SH SH SH SS S S H S - - SS SSS - u S S HHuHN L 1 “SS SASS SSS SSS SSS SSS SHSSSS SHSSHS SSSSSS SSS ASS SSS SSS ASSASSSHSS SQSnm I onEmz .cow .Moz .woz .305 .908 Smdpwpm SmdpSpm moose Scoflpaa mnoap Noococ muonw mmoSoom ooacs.onm canvas HSSoom nSmSoSm.uSoSpfimm_uSQSSoo namom HdESom noaoow mdoSwSHom .02 So .02 Hmoapowopwo QSOSmnsm SHSSSEOSoom omau 207 m 3 OH mH OH mH Om_ H 3 H 3 - u u . 3m 3 3H 3 O-3H H 3 OH mH 3H OH Om OH 3 OH 3 OH N3 OH MOO OH .3 OH 3 OHuHN H O OH OH OH mH Om HH 3 OH 3 OH N3 3OH HOO 3OH 3 3OH 3 HuHN H OH mH OH OH Om OH 3 HH 3 OH 33 3OH NOO . - OH 3 0-0N N HH 3H mH OH om N 3 O 2 u . 3m moz N O O 3 HH-OH m M NH OH mH 3H OO H 3 - - H 33 3 HOO mm 3 3 3 NHsNN N O mH OH OH OH OO HH 3 HH 3 OH O3 3HH NOO 3HH 3 OH 3 3-HN H OH mH 3H OH OO H 3 O 3 - . 2m mOz 3 m H 3 mnHN N OH OH mH 3H OO_ HH 3 OH 3 u . 3HH mOz OH 3 OH 3 0-0N H w mH. OH OH OH OOM OH 3 u . OH N3 3HH OOz 3OH 3 3OH 3 3-0N _ _ H OH OH OH OH HOM N 3 H 3 H 33 N OOz - u m z OH-NN N OH 3H OH OH HO“ N 3 H 2 O O3 N NOO 3H 3 3H 3 OH-NN H NH 3H OH OH HO _ m 3 3 3 H O3 O HOO O 3 H 3 mN-ON N OH NH 3H OH HO OH 3 HH 3 OH m3 3OH HOO HH 3 3HH 3 NNuON N 3H OH OH OH HO HH 3 OH 3 OH m3 3OH OOO 3OH O 3HH 3 O-OH N _ OH OH OH OH HO HH 3 HH 3 OH O3 3OH NOO HH 3 OH 3 3-0H N OH OH HH OH HO 3 O H 3 H m3 3 HOO 3 3 3 3 HH-3H H OH OH OH 3H HO H 3 H 3 u - H mOz m 3 3H 3 OH-3H H OH OH OH ww HO HH 3 HH 3 OH N3 3OH HOO HH O OH 3 O-3H N OH OH OH NO H 3 H 3 H O3 zm HOO 3H 3 3H 3 mH-HN H3O «av 33V HOO «av Asvi AHOAOO HHOAHO AOOAOO A33 HOV HOO on HOOHOO.HOO ommfinm Inonsoz .nom .Nmz .woz .3on .pnm NOSpOpm endpwum moono dcoHuwQ mGoap Noocow 33036 wmohoom oOHUJHopm OHLuoS Hwaoom I3030m31130Hu3MW_aOQSOOo nfimom Hashom noHoomW‘ mswmmwwwm .02 no .02 HmuahQMopOo adepwnfim OanoEOHoom omao ‘43) :21 4. ,4): ofi D4354 208 N _ OH OH 3 OH Om“ OH 3 OH 3 OH m3 OOH HOO OH 3 3HH 3 OH-ON H OH NH NH OH Om“ OH 3 OH 3 OH N3 OH mo3 OH 3 OH 3 HNn3H H OH OH OH OH Om“ OH 3 HH 3 OH 33 OHH OO3 OOH O HH 3 H-3H N OH NH NH OH mm“ OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 3OH HOO OOH O HH 3 wHuHN N M OH OH NH mH mmw H 3 m 3 H m3 3H NOO O O H 3 HN-ON H m NH OH HH OH mmm H 3 H 3 H m3 OH HOO 3 O N 3 OH-OH O m 3H OH NH OH Om. OH 3 OH 3 OH N3 3HH HOO OH 3 OH 3 3H-HN N O NH NH 3H 3H Om“ HH 3 OH 3 a . 3HH mO3 . - OH 3 0-0H H M OH O OH OH Om“ OH 3 OH 3 OH 33 OH OO3 HH O OH 3 O-NN H m OH NH OH OH Omh ON 3 ON 3 a u ON moz ON 3 ON 3 ON-OH H O OH OH OH OH Om. H 3 O 3 H 33 O HOO m 3 3H 3 OHaOH H O OH OH OH OH Om” HH 3 OH 3 OH N3 3HH NOO . - 3HH 3 Nu3H H O OH OH NH OH 3mm OH 3 HH 3 OH m3 OH mo3 . u u . 0-0H H m NH OH 3H mH 3mm N 3 H 3 H 33 u - - u O 3 NuNN H 3 OH OH OH OH 3m“ OH 3 HH 3 u . 3HH mO3 OHH 3 OH 3 OuOH N m OH HH OH OH 3m 3 OH 3 HH 3 OH m3 - . OHH 3 OH 3 3-3H H m H OH OH 3H Om . OH 3 HH 3 u . OHH mO3 HH O 3HH 3 OnHN O M H OH OH OH Om W HH 3 OH 3 OH N3 OOH OOO HH 3 HH 3 O-ON H 3 OH 3H NH OH OO 3 ON 3 a - u - ON mo3 ON 3 ON 3 OH-OH H O OH OH OH OH Om M OH 3 OH 3 e . 3HH mO3 HH 3 3OH 3 H-OH Oi OS 33 33 35 :5“ 3:5 33:: 3:3: CO 33 33 3 3:348 madam w I 03802,.306 .30: .wmz .303 .909 3mdpwpm OOSpOpm coco whoapam c033 meadow @5036 machoom 0033: 033 033908 Hmaoom I 03033 OOHpMMW ummdooo namom 338303 aomoom maofimwaom .oz 30 .oz Hmoapowopdo mdonwnsm 0333050300m omao 1‘11 11 3H334HZDD 0“ 04384 209 H HH NH OH OH OO' H 3 m 3 I I H mO3 3m 3 m 3 OHION N .OH HH HH OH om, O O H 3 H N3 OH OOO 3 3 3 3 OHINN H NH OH OH NH om" OH 3 HH 3 I I OHH m03 HH O 3HH 3 OHIHN H NH HH OH OH OO O 3 H 3 I I 3m m03 O O H 3 NIHN H _ OH O HH 3H OOH OH 3 OH 3 I I OH mOz OH O OH 3 OHIOH N OH OH O OH Omw H 3 O 3 H O3 3 HOO I I H 3 OIOH H _OH OH NH HH OmO H 3 m 3 I I Om mOz OH 3 m 3 OHI3H N OOH HH HH OH HO” OH 3 OH 3 I I 3HH m03 3OH 3 3OH 3 OHIOH N OH OH OH HH Hm“ H 3 3 3 H N3 3 HOO I I I I 3-3H H OH HH OH OH NO“ O O H 3 H N3 3 HOO N 3 O 3 NNIHN H NH NH OH OH NOO OH 3 OH 3 OH m3 OH NOO OH 3 OH 3 ONION H _ OH O 3H HH NO“ OH 3 HH 3 OH 33 OHH HOO OHH 3 HH 3 mIOH H NH HH OH 3H Omm 3 O H 3 H m3 OH HOO 3 3 H 3 OHINN H OH HH O OH OO O O 3 H 3 H O3 O HOO OH O m 3 ONIHN O OH NH OH HH Om W N 3 H 3 H m3 3H HOO O 3 H 3 3HION H HH NH OH 3H OmA OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 OH NOO OH 3 OH 3 ONIOH H tOH OH NH OH OO O H 3 H 3 I I H m03 O O 3H 3 OHIOH H OH HH OH NH Om O OH 3 OH 3 OH m3 3OH OOO HH O OH 3 OHINN H OH 3H HH OH Om OH 3 HH 3 I I OHH moz OH 3 OH 3 OIHN O OOH HH NH 3H OO O 3 m 3 H O3 3H HOO O O H 3 ONION 333 OOO 333 Oov 333 Osv OHOAOO AOOOH 333333 33v 303 AOO 303 AOOAOO.HOO mmwnm 4 I J 1 41 1 4 I magma .now .302 .mmz .303 .30 N.OSOOpm oOSqum 00:0 uncapmg soap Neococ Q3030 O0300Wimm305fimmm 033308 Hwaoom I 03033 303333 I 3000 Iwmom 336303 O m Iofioom Osoa Haom .oz .30 .03 VI :11 I4 Ammanomgmd .mdmnwmsflaoa3posm300m .1 I OOOO 210 H W O O O OH OO _ H 3 3 3 H N3 N mO3 O 3 3H 3 HNIOH .H 3 O O O OH HO _ OH 3 OH 3 I I OH mOz I I I I ONINN H O3 O O 3 HO O ON 3 ON 3 ON 33 ON HOO I I ON 3 HHINN H 3O O 3 NH HO M OH 3 HH 3 I I OH mO3 3OH O 3OH 3 3INN H _.O 3 3 HH OO O H 3 H 3 H O3 OH NOO OH 3 m 3 OHI3H H W O OO HH 3 O .OO O ON 3 ON 3 ON N3 ON NOO ON 3 ON 3 OI3H H .HH O OH O OO O H 3 O 3 H O3 N HOO O 3 N 3 3IOH H .OH O OH HH OO M HH 3 OH 3 OH N3 OOH HOO OH 3 OH 3 ONIHN N 3O HH O NH oO M H 3 H 3 H N3 OH OOO m 3 3H 3 3HIOH H 3OH 3 HH O OO O OH 3 OH 3 OH 33 3HH Oo3 HH O 3OH 3 OHIOH 3 m H .OH OH O HH OO m 3H 3 OH 3 I I 3H mOz 3H O 3H 3 ONIOH H “O OH O OH OO O H 3 O 3 H m3 O NOO OH O H 3 ONI3H H O O HH OH OO _ H 3 H 3 H 33 OH HOO 3H O 33 3 3HI3H N ”OH OH O HH NO _ ON 3 ON 3 I I ON mO3 ON O ON 3 OION H “NH OH O HH OO M H 3 H 3 I I Om mOz 3H 3 3H 3 OIOH N OOH HH NH OH OO O H 3 H 3 I I H moz OO 3 3H 3 OHIOH H ONH O OH HH 3O O N 3 I I H N3 3 OOO N 3 O 3 OHINN H WOH OH OH 3H 3O m OH 3 HH 3 OH N3 3OH NOO OOH O 3HH 3 NHIOH H “OH HH OH OH NO H OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 3OH OOO 3OH O 3OH 3 mINN H “NH NH OH OH O O OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 OH mo3 I I 3HH 3 INN 3.: TE 3 3O 3 353+ :35 :3: 333 E E 3: 3 335.30 3 3 003333“ w W I3onS0ZOI30w .K0z I 02 .303 .309 paupmpm mapmum 00:0 303303 303» 00303 @5030_ mmo300m 0033:3033 033308 ©30300m IM030mmw303p3mw Im3500o NI3mom 308303 _ I0300m m503w33om .03 Ho .02 O .HI 00330mopdo Odo3wnsm 0333080300m 0000 _I H [_—‘A_ 211 .0 03033003 .3 03909 000 .0 .O 00000003 .H 0HO03 000 .O .3 00003003 .H 0H003 000 .3 .O 00000003 .H 0HOO3 000 .O .m 03033003 .3 03909 00m .m .3 03033003 .3 03903 000 .d .m 03033003 .3 03903 00m .m .N 03003003 .H 0H003 000 .N .3 03033003 .3 03903 000 .3 3“ OION 3 ONI3H 330 303 330 300 any 333 3H3333 OOOAHV 330303 333 303 303 303 AOO303.H00 03390 I 0 . I 09E0z .300 .30: .002 .303 .303 3033030 0033030 0030 m303303 m3033 Noocov @5030 @003000 00305fi03m 033303 30300m I 03033 3033303 I 05000 I3003 308303 0 I03oom 0303m33om .oz 30 .02 w 300330w030o @303m9sm 03330503000 0000 333333300 .O 0H003 212 m _ 23 03 m3 03 0m 03 3 03 2 33 30 203 000 33 3 203 3 m3I3m m m :3 m3 :3 m3 2m 3 3 3 2 I I 2m 202 I I 2 3 3NI3~ 2 m 23 03 03 03 02 03 3 03 2 03 03 233 300 I I 03 3 03I3m m _ :3 23 m3 33 mm 03 3 03 2 03 N3 03 000 03 3 03 3 3I3m m m 33 23 33 33 mm 03 3 03 2 03 03 033 300 I I 233 3 03I3m 3 I 33 03 23 33 00 3 3 2 2 3 33 2 300 2 3 23 3 00I3m m M 33 33 03 03 00 03 3 33 2 03 m3 203 300 303 2 333 3 3I3m m u 03 33 m3 33 30v 3 3 m 2 3 03 3 000 m 2 2m 3 mmI3m m _ 23 23 03 33 00 3 3 3 2 3 03 2 000 23 3 23 3 00I30 m . 33 03 23 03 m0 00 3 00 2 I I 00 m02 00 3 00 3 m0I3m 3 m3 m3 m3 23 no 2 3 3 2 I I 3 m02 03 3 m 3 03I3m m 33 23 33 3 30 03 3 03 2 03 03 203 300 033 2 03 3 03I3~ m 3 03 23 03 3 30 33 3 33 2 m3 03 33 300 23 2 33 3 mI30 m _ 23 33 23 33 00 3 3 m 2 3 03 3 000 I I m 2 m3I3m m _ 33 23 m3 03 00. 33 3 23 2 m3 03 03 202 33 3 33 3 mI3m 3 m3 03 03 03 mo 3 3 3 2 3 03 3 202 0 2 2 2 00I3m 3 03 33 m3 03 00 3 3 0 2 3 23 2 202 I I 3 2 00I3m m . m3 23 33 23 00 m 3 2 2 3 03 m 300 03 3 m 3 30I3m m 0 33 33 33 23 00 3 3 3 2 3 m3 0 300 2 3 2 3 00I3m m m 23 33 23 33 03 03 3 03 2 03 33 233 300 I I 33 3 2I3m 230 . 200 230 200 200 223 230220 230230 220220 200 200 200 200 230200.300 03330 I 09802 .300 .202 .w0z .302 .3mfl N.03303m ©03303m 0030 Q303303 3033 N03000 33030 00300m 003033033 033308 30300m I 03033 3033303 Im330oom I300m 308303 m I0300m 030323302 .02 30 .oz 2 300330M0300 33032932 0333080300m 0000 0003 .22000 203000223 02303 32 022222 .2332000 302020 000.00 2032 02202 .220220 2332223 2022 203 03320222222 30020 022203 30 222202 222 3022000 203200223 30232002320 30020200 03232203000 .2 03303 213 .0 00000003 .3 03003 000 .0 .2 03023003 .3 03909 00m .2 .3 00020003 .3 03003 000 .3 .0 00000003 .3 03003 000 .0 .m 03083003 .3 03909 002 .m .3 03023003 .3 03303 oom .: .3 00020003 .3 03003 000 .3 .N 00020003 .3 03203 000 .m .3 00000003 .3 03003 000 .3 . 2 2I3m 3 _ N3 33 3 03 33 03 3 03 2 03 03 03 200 I I 03 2 33I3m 3 w 03 0 33 N3 33. 33 3 33 3 I I 23 302 I I 23 3 m3I3m 3 m 33 03 3 33 33 _ 3 3 3 2 3 m3 3 300 3 2 33 3 23I3m 3 2 33 33 3 N3 03 3 0 . 3 2 I I 3 302 33 2 33 3 mI3m 3 m 0 33 3 33 33 03 3 33 2 4 I 03 302 303 2 333 3 02I3m m M 33 33 3 33 23 03 3 03 2 03 03 03 302 03 2 03 2 33I3m m 2 33 03 33 33 23 33 3 33 2 03 33 233 200 203 3 33 3 0I3m 3 m 33 33 03 33 23 03 3 03 2 I I I I 33 3 233 3 0I3m m 33 33 33 33 33 03 3 03 2 03 03 033 302 303 2 303 2 33-33 330 300 330 300 3:0 320 330320 330330 320220 330 300 300 200 300300.300 mnmwzm I30380z .200 .302 .M02 .302 .pmb 305303m omdp0pm 0020 #:03303 mn03p Nooaoc @5030 wmohoom 003033033 033908 H03oom I 03033 I303pnflm I @3000 I300¢ 308303 . I030om macawmaom .02 no .02 m 30033Qw030o adonmnfim 0333080300m 0000 320233200 .3 03003 214 3 233 33 33 33 N2 03 3 33 2 33 30 203 200 303 3 303 3 33I33 0 W33 23 33 33 02 03 3 03 2 03 23 203 300 333 2 333 3 33I33 3 333 23 33 23 N2 03 3 03 2 03 23 203 300 303 3 303 3 0mI33 m 333 33 33 33 m2 3 3 3 2 3 30 23 200 33 2 33 3 2NI33 3 3 ”33 23 33 33 N2 03 3 03 2 I I 233 302 303 3 303 3 3mI33 3 ”23 33 33 33 32 3 3 3 2 m 30 m 200 23 2 m 3 33I33 3 "23 23 33 23 32 03 3 03 2 03 30 203 200 203 2 03 3 03I33 3 W23 33 23 23 32 A 3 3 3 2 3 30 3 200 3 2 3 3 3NI33 m .33 23 23 33 32 N 3 3 2 3 30 3 200 23 2 3 3 NI33 3 .23 33 23 23 32 3 3 3 2 3 23 3 300 23 3 3 3 23I33 m 23 33 33 23 32 m 3 I 2 m 23 23 302 3 2 m 2 33I33 m 33 33 23 23 22 3 33 3 I I I I I I 33 3 203 3 33I33 m 23 33 33 23 22 _ 3 3 3 2 3 30 3 200 23 3 23 3 03I33 3 .33 23 23 33 22 3 3 3 2 I I 23 302 23 3 3 3 33I33 3 23 33 33 33 32 03 3 I I I I I I 203 2 233 3 3mI33 3 33 23 23 33 22 33 3 33 2 33 w3 33 000 33 3 33 3 3mI33 m 23 33 23 33 22 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 300 3 3 3 3 3I33 m 23 33 23 23 02 03 3 03 2 03 30 203 200 33 2 03 3 0I33 m .33 23 23 23 02 23 3 23 2 23 30 23 200 23 2 23 2 33I33 222 320v 332 202 322 322 232322 23223 202202 232 202 202 202 302302.300 0332013 I 0280: .202 .202 .woz .302 .309 3023032 2023032 0020 3203302 2033 N00202 2203a . 00300m 003U2fi033 033308 30300m I 03033 I3033303 Im22ooo I3002 308303 2 2 I03oom 0203M33om LI .oz 30 .oz 3 300330m0300 22032320 03330803000 0000 0303 .22000 303220233 32303 32 222223 .3332200 323322 300200 2032 33332022022 .322020 2332223 2022 203 03320222232 32030 322203 30 332222 220 3022000 203220323 30233003330 32020220 03232203000 .3 03003 _T 215 3 33 m3 0 33 333 33 3 03 2 23 30 03 200 33 3 33 3 23I33 3 33 03 2 33 23” 3 3 3 2 3 30 3 200 23 2 3 3 23I33 3 N3 33 03 33 233 3 3 2 2 3 33 2 300 23 2 3 3 03I33 m 33 33 0 33 23; 03 3 03 2 03 23 303 200 33 3 203 3 03I33 3 N3 33 33 23 03 3 3 2 2 3 23 3 300 m 3 23 3 33I33 3 m3 23 33 23 33V 03 3 03 2 03 33 03 300 203 2 33 2 2I33 3 33 33 33 33 33. 3 3 3 2 3 30 3 200 33 3 3 3 23I33 3 23 23 33 23 33 03 3 33 2 33 23 203 200 303 3 303 3 03.33 m 33 33 33 33 233 33 3 I I I I I I 33 3 203 3 33I33 m A 33 33 33 23 23w 3 3 3 2 3 33 3 300 33 3 3 3 02I33 3 33 33 33 33 23” 03 3 33 2 33 03 203 200 303 2 303 2 3I33 3 33 33 23 23 23 3 3 3 2 I I 3 302 23 2 3 3 2mI33 3 33 33 33 33 23 03 3 03 2 03 03 303 300 303 2 303 2 2I33 3 33 33 23 23 03 23 3 23 2 23 33 23 302 23 2 23 3 33I33 3 33 33 03 33 03 3 3 3 2 3 23 3 300 33 2 23 2 30I33 m 33 23 33 33 02 3 3 2 2 3 33 3 300 2 3 23 3 32I33 3 33 33 33 33 02 3 3 3 2 I I 3 302 33 3 33 3 22I33 3 33 33 23 33 02 3 3 m 2 I I 23 302 23 2 m 3 33I33 m 33 33 23 33 32 3 3 3 2 3 33 3 300 33 3 3 3 33I33 332 302 332 302 322 322 332322 322332 322302 332 302 302 302 322303.300 02320 I 02802 .202 .202 .202 .302 .309 3023032 2023032 m0020 3203302 m2033 N00202 22032 2003002 0030220321Ll 033302 303002 I303022 I3033Awm I022000 I3002 302202 I03002 020323H02 .oz 30 .02 30032020300 22032322 03230203002 0000 QHDZHBZOU .m 0H30a 216 .m opoapoom .H oHnaa mom .3 .w opocpoom .H oanme 0mm .m .3 opocpoox .H mange com .5 .0 opoapoom .H cande mmm .o .m ouoapocm .a oanwa mom .m .: eponpoom .H manna com .d .m opocpoom .H opre com .m .m muocpoom .H oHnae mom .m .H opocgoom .H oHnaa com .H 3 x a oarmm “ x u m:umm M K n NHImM _ 3 x m HH-mm x “ wnmm m w m w 3 mm _ 3H 3 3H 3 wH 33 NH moo wH 3 wH z :zan H 3 OH OH HH 0 o: 3 0H 3 0H 3 0H :3 3HH moo mOH m 0H 9 omumm H 0H m HH NH H: _ om 3 om z om Ho om coo - - - . mumm H .NH mH 3 mH ::_ 0H 3 0H 3 0H om HHH moz HH m 0H 9 mmumm : o :H w :H m3“ H 3 m 3 u a H moz 3H 3 m m mH-mm H33 Hay 33v Hog Hcv Hev HHVHxV HfiVHHV HnVHmv Amy 30v Hwy Hov HnVva.Hoo madam I 02805 .cow .30: .woz .3oh .uoeV NmSpwpm omduwpm ease mcoprm chHp moocov macaw mmopoow OOHUSfionm OHApoE Hwfioom I omomm «cavnwm a @5000 namox Adenom IoHoom macawaamm .02 mo .02 { Humanomopwo anchmnfim cannoanoom omwo QMDZHBZOO .m oanwa 217 H NH OH OH OH OOW m 3 H 3 - u H mOz - - 3 OmuOH O OH OH NH OH OOM HH 3 OH 3 OH NO 3HH moz . . wH 3 NOIOH H OH NH OH NH OOW H 3 m 3 H mm 3m OOO 3 3 H 3 OO-OH H OH OH OH OH NO, OH 3 HH 3 OH «3 3OH OOO OH 3 OH 3 OO-OH H NH OH NH OH NOW H 3 N 3 H :3 Hm HOO mm 3 O 3 OmuOH O OH OH NH OH NOW OH 3 OH 3 OH 3 OH HOO OH 3 OH 3 OmuOH H OH OH OH OH NO. H 3 H 3 H 3 3m :O3 O O m 3 OH-OH H NH NH OH OH NO“ HH 3 OH 3 OH :3 3OH HOO OHH 3 OH 3 NuOH m O OH OH OH OH OO“ HH 3 OH 3 OH 33 3OH HOO OHH 3 OH 3 m0-0H O O OH OH OH OH OOM OH .3 HH 3 HH 33 3HH moz OOH O OH 3 30-0H m O OH OH OH OH OOM OH 3 OH 3 OH 33 3OH OOO HH 3 HH 3 quOH H OH OH OH OH OO. H 3 H 3 H :3 3m NOO OH O H 3 OmuOH H OH NH OH OH OO” NH 3 OH 3 OH HO OH OOO NH O OH 3 0-0H O NH OH NH OH OO. OH 3 OH 3 OH m3 3OH HOO 3HH 3 3HH 3 OuOH O NH OH OH OH OO” OH 3 OH 3 OH m3 OH Ooz OH O OH 3 monOH H O _ OH NH NH OH ON. 3 H N 3 H :3 N HOO O O H 3 mm-OH m _ NH OH NH OH ON OH 3 HH 3 u . 3HH mOz . . OH 3 OmuOH O _ OH NH NH OH ON_ OH 3 OH 3 OH 33 OH HOO 3H 3 mH 3 HmuOH O OH OH OH OH ON. OH 3 OH 3 OH :3 3OH NOO 3OH O 3OH 3 OOaOH O OH OH OH OH ON OH 3 HH 3 OH :3 3HH HOO OOH O OH 3 ON-OH HOO may H3O HOO HOO Hey, AHOHOO HOOAHO HOOOOO HOO HOO HOV on HOVAOO.HOO ommanm= unoQEmE 3:06 .302 .moz .303 .pmbl mapdpm mdpmpm mocm Cowpaa soap women @5030 wmmhoom moavsfiohm woappms waxwoom nMohmpm uHOHpfimw nmasooo NIHmom Hmenom noaoom Ozoamuaom .02 no .02 Hmoanovawo adoHMQSm OproEoHoom omwu ode.mOOOO 3OHOOOOOO Hnaoe 33 333313 .33333OO 33333O HOOOOO 3OH3 33O3O33OO .OOOOOO 333HO33 moOO OO3 O3H30333303 3303O HO33O3 3O OOO333 333 “OOOOOO OOHOOOOOO “OOHOOOOBOO 33O3OOOO OH3333OHOOO .O OHOOO 218 O OH OH OH OH 3O 3 H 3 H 3 H :3 OO HOO O O H 3 OO-OH O OH OH NH OH 30” HH 3 n . OH 33 3OH HOO OHH 3 OH 3 ONaOH H O OH OH OH OH 30_ OH 3 OH 3 a . OH OOz OHH 3 OH 3 OOuOH H W NH OH OH OH 3O m HH 3 OH 3 - - 3HH OOz OHH 3 OH 3 NOuOH H NH NH OH NH 3O NH 3 OH 3 NH 33 NH NOO OH 3 NH 3 OOnOH H OH OH OH OH OO O OH 3 HH 3 OH O3 OOH HOO 3OH O 3HH 3 OOnOH O _ OH OH OH OH 3O “ OH 3 OH 3 OH :3 3HH OOO HH O OH 3 O0-0H H _ NH OH OH NH 3O _ H 3 H 3 H :3 3O :o3 OO 3 H 3 OOuOH 3 3 OH OH NH OH 3O 3 HH 3 OH 3 OH :3 3OH HOO 3OH O 3HH 3 OOnOH H 3 OH NH OH OH 3O 3 HH 3 OH 3 OH 33 3HH Ooz 3HH 3 3OH 3 OH-OH O 3 OH OH NH OH 3O _ OH 3 HH 3 OH O3 OH OOz OH 3 HH 3 OHuOH H H OH OH NH NH OO . H 3 O 3 a u H OOz OH O O 3 N0-0H H . NH OH OH NH OO . m 3 H 3 u - m OOz . . 3O 3 3OHuOH H 3 NH OH OH OH OO OH 3 OH 3 - u 3HH OOz OH 3 3HH 3 OOHgOH 3 m OH NH OH OH OO H 3 O 3 H 33 m OO3 m 3 m 3 OosOH 3 W OH OH OH OH OO H 3 H 3 - - H OOz OH O O 3 O0-0H H M OH OH HH OH OO . NH 3 OH 3 NH :3 OH NOO NH 3 NH 3 OznOH 3 O OH OH NH OH OO OH 3 OH 3 OH 33 OOH OOO HH 3 3OH 3 OO-OH m 3 OH OH OH OH OO O OH 3 HH 3 OH O3 3HH OOz OH 3 OH 3 N-OH H 3 OH OH OH OH OO 3 ON 3 ON 3 O3 O3 O3 OOz O3 3 ON 3 dNaOH 333 m 3OO AOO HOV «av 3333 HHOAOO 33v3HO HOOAOO 333 3oO 3OO AOO HOOAOO.HOO . O omaaan w ImonEoz .:00 .30: .moz .303 .909 NOSpOpm OOSqum coco :coHpOQ mGOHp Noumea Qsonw mmonoow 0036:3033 OHpuoe Hmfioom u 03033 sHOHpAOm awmnooo aHOom Omahom toaoom afloawwaom .02 no .02 HumanoMOpwo adoawnsw owpposowoom omdo 3333H33OO .O OHOO3 219 O NH OH OH OH OO OH 3 OH 3 u . OH OOz OH 3 OH 3 HN-OH N . OH OH OH NH OOH N 3 N 3 H O3 N HO» O 3 H 3 ONuOH O 3 OH OH OH OH OOn N 3 H 3 H O3 N HOO O 3 O 3 OHuOH N . OH OH OH OH OOH OH 3 HH 3 OH O3 3HH HOO HH O HH 3 NHuOH O . OH OH OH NH OO. OH O OH 3 OH O3 OH HOO OH 3 OH 3 OuOH H O OH HH OH OH OO. H O H 3 O O3 O HOO - - H _ t 3 u H OH NH OH NH OO_ H 3 N 3 H O3 3O HOO H 3 O 3 Omuww O OH OH OH NH OO H 3 O 3 H O3 O HOO O 3 O 3 NOuOH N OH NH OH OH OO . H 3. N 3 - u N O03 3H O N 3 OHuOH N OH OH OH OH OO H O 3 H 3 H 33 H HOO OH O H 3 OHuOH H OH OH OH OH HO OH 3 HH 3 - . 3HH OO3 HH O OH 3 O-OH H OH OH OH OH HO . OH 3 OH 3 u . OH OOz OH 3 OH 3 mOuOH N NH NH NH OH NO ” OH 3 HH 3 OH N3 3HH NOO OHH 3 OH 3 OO-OH H . OH OH OH NH NO 3 H 3 O 3 H O3 O HOO O 3 O 3 OOuOH H O OH OH OH OH NO . H 3 H 3 H N3 H NOO OH O H 3 NNuOH O _ OH OH OH NH OO M ON 3 ON 3 ON O3 ON OO3 ON 3 ON 3 HOHuOH H m NH OH OH OH OO O NH 3 OH 3 u . OH OOz NH O NH 3 OOuOH H 3 OH OH OH OH OO H 3 O 3 u n H O03 OH O 3O 3 HOuOH H O OH NH OH OH OO OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 3OH NOO OH 3 OH 3 OO-OH N H OH OH OH NH OO H 3 H 3 - . 3O OOz OH O H 3 NOuOH HOV AOO 333 30v 333 3333 AHOAOO 33v3HO AOOAOO 33v 303 HOO AOV 3OOHOV.HOO mmmOSO I30QE02 .G0w .302 .w0z .303 .309 NOSOOum Omanmpm m00Q0 3303303 mcowp N00G0U @5033 mmopoom 003OSW033. 033308 Hwfioom 1303033 :30Hp3mm 1035000 33003 flagpoh toaoom mfionHaom .03 no .02 H00H30m0300 machmndm ofimpofiofloom 0000 QMDZHBZOU .0 0H309 220 H NH OH O OH OO OH 3 HH 3 OH 33 3HH O03 HH O OH 3 OOnOH N OH OH O OH OO OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 OOH O00 OHH 3 OH 3 OOuOH H OH O OH OH OO. H 3 O 3 a u N O03 H 3 O 3 O0-0H O OH OH NH NH OO H 3 H 3 n - H O03 - u u . OuOH H OH OH OH OH OO O O H 3 H O3 N H00 N O N 3 OuOH H OH OH NH OH NO H 3 H 3 H 33 H HOO OH O H 3 OOuOH N OH OH NH OH NO H 3 O 3 n u H O03 N O O 3 NOuOH H OH HH OH OH NO OH 3 OH 3 OH O3 OH N00 OH 3 OH 3 N0-0H N OH OH NH NH OO, OH 3 OH 3 u . 3HH O03 OOH O 3HH 3 OOHuOH N NH OH OH OH OO HH 3 OH 3 OH O3 30H HOO OOH 3 HH 3 ONuOH H OH OH OH NH OO HH 3 OH 3 - - OH O03 OOH O 3HH 3 OO-OH H OH NH NH OH OOO H 3 H 3 H O3 N H00 3O 3 3O 3 OOsOH N OH OH OH OH OO. ON 3 ON 3 u . ON O03 ON O ON 3 OOnOH H OH OH HH NH OO HH 3 OH 3 OH O3 OH N00 OOH O OH 3 NNuOH H OH OH OH NH OO N 3 H 3 H O3 O HOO N 3 N 3 HNuOH H OH OH OH OH OO H 3 O 3 u . 3O O03 3H O N 3 HHuOH H NH NH NH NH OO N 3 O 3 H N3 3O O03 O 3 O 3 HnOH N NH OH HH OH 3O H 3 O 3 O HO N N00 N O N 3 OOuOH O NH OH NH OH O H 3 N 3 u u N O03 N O H 3 NNuOH H _OH OH OH NH OO _ OH 3 OH 3 HH H0 3HH O00 OOH O OH 3 ON-OH 33v OOO AOO on Aav 3330 AHOAOO AOOAHO AOOAOO 33v 30v 300 300 AOOAOO.H00 Imman0 nsi.lllc :303802 1305 .302 .302 .305 .003 030000 050030 0030 303303 3030 00300 @5036 003000 00305m03m 033308 H0300m u30303m 33033303 3035000 aamom H0S3om noaoom 05030HH0m .oz 30 .oz 00O3Qw000u @303wnsm 03330503000 0000 QszHBon .0 0HQ0B 221 H . NH O NH OH OO O OH O HH 2 OH OO zHH HOO OOH O zOH O OOuOH H O NH NH OH OH OO . OH O OH O u . OHH OOz OOH O OH O NOuOH O . OH OH OH HH OO OH O HH 3 - - OH OOz OOH O OOH O OOuOH H _ NH HH O OH OO N O H O H NO H NOO O 3 O O OOuOH N HH NH OH NH OO . ON O u . ON NO ON OOz ON O ON 2 NOHuOH H _ OH NH NH OH OO HH O HH 3 OH NO - . OOH O OH O OOuOH N O OH O OH OH OO _ OH O OH 2 OH OO OHH OOO OOH O OHH O OOuOH O OH HH HH OH OO OH O OH 3 OH NO OH Ooz OH O OH O OOuOH H O OH OH O OH HO OH O HH 3 HH xO OOH NOO OOH O zHH O OOuOH N NH OH OH OH OO OH O HH 3 - - OHH OOz HH O zHH O O0-0H N w HH OH O OH OO . ON O ON 2 u . ON Ooz ON O ON O OmuOH H M HH OH NH OH .OO OH O OH O OH NO OH NOO - - OH O OOnOH N _ OH NH NH OH OO H O O O H OO H OOO H O O O OOuOH H H OH HH NH OH OO ON O ON O ON NO ON OOz ON O ON O H0-0H H O OH O OH OH OO _ H O N O - . O OOO OO 2 H O ONuOH H _ OH OH O OH . OO _ ON O u - ON OO ON OOz - . ON O ONuOH H m OH NH HH OH OO OH O HH 2 HH HO OHH OOO . . OH O OOnOH H . OH HH NH OH OO ON O ON 3 s . ON OOO ON 3 ON O N0-0H N OH OH OH OH OO OH O OH O OH OO OH NOO OH 2 OH O OHuOH O OH OH OH OH OO ” N O H O H OO H OOO O O N O HOnOH AOO OOO OOO, on Any Aevm AHOAOO OOOAOV AOOAOO AOV HOO AOV on OOOAOO.HOO Omanm W 14 a mafia: .qoo .xmz .woz .3OO .poe OOSOOOO OOSOOOO monm :coOpOm soap Noocov QSOOO wmonoOm ooavmfionm oHOpoe HOOoom n OOOOO umbmwOOO a QSOOO aamom HOEOoO noHoom A ,tL msonHHomr .02 O0 .02 HmowhomOPOo afloHMQSm oaOuoEonoom omOo QMDZHBZOO .0 OHDOB 222 .0 epocpoom wands 0mm .0 .w mpocpoom wands com .w .O OOOOOOOO OHOOO OOO .O .0 epozaoom OHQOB cow .0 .m Oponoom OHQOB com .m .3 opo:poom oHQOB mom .3 .O OpocpooO OHOOO OOO .O .N OOOOOOOO OHOOO com .N .H OOOOOOOO OHOOO OOO .H O N O O OH O OH: OH NO OH 32 OH O OHO OmuOH H O O N O O 2 O NO O OOz - u N O OHsOH N O O OH HH O OH 2 u u OHH Ooz OOH O OH O HOuOH N . NH O OH O OH O n u OH OOz . u n u OOgOH AOO AOV OHOAOO OOOOHO OOVOOO OOV OOO OOO on AOOAOV.HOO nOonEoz .cow .Koz .woz .SOO .opE mmonoom ooavzfioam‘ll OOSpOpm Omdpwum macaw :nowawm mcoap oOOpoE HOOoom nOmeOO nHOOpOOO uwmzooo uoaoom OsoamHHom Hmownowopwo Odommnzm oaOpoEOHoom Nooaoc -Omom 002 came QszHazoo .0 OHQOB APPENDIX B EXAMPLES OF COMPUTATIONS FOR THE KRUSKAL-WALLIS H- TEST EMPLOYING THE JEWISH PREJUDICE SCORE FOR THE TWELFTH GRADE, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 223 22h Table 3.1. COMPUTATIONS FOR THE H-TEST, JEWISH PREJUDICE SCORE, TWELFTH GRADE, MAPLE COUNTY, 19h9 Adams ‘__A§rowngv111e Johnstown Jewish Tot. Score NumO No. Nump No. Nump No. Preju- No. Rank: ber Times ber Times ber Times dice with All with Bank: with Bank: with Rank: Score Given Cases Given (Col. Given (Col. Given (Col. _§gore Score 1.2) Score 1.h) Score 1.6) Col. 1 __2 3 u 5 6 7 18 61 31.0 7 217.0 7 217.0 A7 1.u57.o 17 an 83.5 9 751.5 12 1,002.0 23 1,920.5 16 23 117.0 u u68.0 6 702.0 13 1,521.0 15 1n 135.5 2 271.0 6 813.0 6 813.0 1a 15 150.0 A 600.0 u 600.0 7 1,050.0 13 8 161.5 - - 2 323.0 6 969.0 12 8 169.5 3 508.5 a 678.0 1 169.5 11 1 17u.0 - - — — 1 174.0 10 - - - - - - - - 9 1 175.0 - - 1 175.0 - - 8 1 176.0 — - 1 176.0 - - ,_ Total ‘ Cases 176 29 #3 10h Mean 16.0 15.u 16.7 Sum of Ranks (T) 2,816.0 h,686.0 8,07h.0 (T)2 7.929.856 21,958,596 65.189.u76 (T)2/n 273.uu3.310 510,665.023 626,821.88u Source: Computational procedure for the H-test was taken from Allen Edwards, Statistical Methods £22,522 Behavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Com- panY9 Inc-9 195E: Pp. h23-h2h.h26-427. and “330 See formulas 19.25, 19.26, and parafiraph "The Kruskal-Wallis Test and Tied Ranks, p. #33. 225 CORRECTION FOR TIES C= k3 - k , where k equals the number of observations 12 in a group tied for a given rank. (Edwards, formula 19.26) Jewish Number M— Correction Prejudice of Factor Score Cases with Score ~_ 18 61 18,910.0 17 an 7,095.0 16 23 1,012.0 15 11 227.5 In 15 280.0 13 8 82.0 12 8 12.0 Total 27,608.5 226 COMPUTATIONS FOR THE H-TEST (continued) Twelfth Grade Jewish Prejudice Score ( k T1 ) 12 (sum ) - 3 (n + 1) (Formulas: nfn + 1) ( 1 n1 ) 19.25 H = and p0 #330) 1 _ Sum of C n3 - n 12 where: = the number of groups k §1= the number of observations in the ith group ‘3 = the sum of n1, the total number of observations T1= the sum of ranks for the‘ith group C = the correction factor for tied ranks, where C = k3 - k : where'g equals the num- 12 ber of observations in a group tied for a given rank. (19.26) 12 ( 1.4101930.217 ) - 3 (177) H = 17 177) 1 _ _1 27,608.S (176)3 - 176 12 16.931.162.60u - 531 H 2 31,152 1 _ 27,608.5 5.h§%.7l§ ' 176 H = 5h3dflnz- 531 _ 2 608. } "=‘5;fi5136g0‘ 12 H = 12,502 ' 1 _ 23:603.; = 12. 02 = 12. 02 = = H 1'2270607 {__:335 13.311 P <:.01 df II R) APPENDIX C EXAMPL"S OE COMPUTATIONS FOR WHITE'S RANK TEST OE THE SIG- NIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES OF MEANS FETWEEN TWO GROUPS, EM- PLOYING THE JEWISH PREJUDICE SCORE, TWELETH GRADE, BROWNS- VILLE AND JOHNSTOWN SCHOOLS, and TABLES OF TESTS OF SIGNIEICANCE 0F DIFFERENCES EOE THE JEWISH SCORE FOR THE TOTAL STUDENT POP— ULATION AND EOE CORE GROUPS, BY GRADE, MAPLE COUNTY, 19u9 227 228 Table C. COMPUTATIONS FOR WHITE'S TEST: JEWISH PREJ'UDICE SCORE, TWELFTH GRADE, FOR BROWNSVILLE AND JOHNSTOWN, MAPLE COUNTY 1989 School Jewish All Cases EFOwnsville Johnstown Preju— ‘TOtal Rank Score "C" Nump No. Nump No. dice Nump Range Rank: Correc- ber Times ber Times Score -ber of Both tion with Rank: with Rank: with 'Cases: Schools for Given (Col. Given (Col. Given Both ties Score 3.5) Score 3.7) Score Schools 1 2 3 8 S 6 7 8 18 58 1-58 27.5 13,117.5 7 192.5 87 1,292.5. 17 35 55-89 72.0 3,570.0 12 868.0 23 1,656.0 16 19 90-108 99.0 570.0 6 598.0 13 1,287.0 15 12 109-120 118.5 183.0 6 687.0 6 687.0 18 11 121-131 126.0 110.0 8 508.0 7 882.0 13 8 132-139 135.5 82.0 2 271.0 6 813.0 12 5 180-188 182.0 10.0 8 568.0 1 182.0 11 1 185-185 185.0 - - - 1 185.0 10 - O n 9 1 186-186 186.0 - 1 186.0 - N=187 N1=83 N2=108 Sum of Ranks T=3397305 fl Sum of C 17,562.5 C = k3 - k where k represents the number of observations 12 in a group tied for ranks. (formula 19.26, Edwards) Source of Formulas: Allen Edwards,'§tatistical Methods for the thavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958, PP- 820-822, 826-827. and 829-830. 229 Table C. CONTINUED .— n1 (n + 1) ,where n1 is the :roup (Edwards, T = ‘2' with the smaller num- formula 19. 22) ber of observations and T = sum of ranks of n1 = 83 (187 + 1) 2 = 82.1%8‘2 :: %— = 3182 6’: ( n1 n2 ) (n3 - n __Sum of) (Edwards, (n(n - 1) ) ( 12 C ) formula 19.28) = 83(108) .(118313- 1111)- 17.562.5) 187(186) ( 12 ) = 1//§%f%%§_ ' £311{g1523 ' 1h? - 17,562.53 = V .2088 . W " 1738—25—3 ’“ V2088 . (268.698 - 17,562.51 = l/ .2088 . 287,135.5 = 'V51,503.0382 = 226.98 Z = (T -'T) - .5 (Edwards, formula 19.28, plus cor- rection for continuity, p. 822.) $29 2;. a; 9%182) ' ’5: E% Bong (P = .000”) 230 Table 0.1. MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES FOR THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, BY SCHOOL, MAPLE COUNTY, 1989 Prejudice Schools Score and Total Adams Browns- JOhns- He Grade ville town (df. =2) Ninth (CaseS) (237) (82) (55) (180) Total 5709 5705 5705 58.2 0092 J8W13h 1502 15.2 1,409 1503 .276 Negro 1309 1305 164.00 Ill-00 0331 M61103“. 114.03 1,407 114-02 1,402 10688 General 18.5 18.2 18.5 18.7 .555 Twelfth (Cases) (176) (29) (83) (108) TOtal 5809 S709 S707 5908 1.670 J8W18h§ufi 16. 3 lb .0 150“- 16 07 13 o 31).]. Negro 13.8 13.3 13.8 13.9 .287 M6X1can 1401 Incl 18.0 18.2 .115 General 1“. 8 1“. '1" 11L. 5 15 .0 205,46 * The significance of the Kruskal-Wallis H-Test is read from.a X2 table. To be significant at the five percent level with two degrees of freedom, H must equal 5.991; at the one percent level, 9.210. A description of the Kruskal-Wallis H-Test is given by Allen Edwards in Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958. Ppfifi23-827. See, also, this thesis, Appendix B. White's test yielded significant differences between Johnstown and each of the other two schools, but no sig- nificant difference between Adams and Brownsville. For Adams and Johnstown, "2" equals 1.92 and P equals .05; for Brownsville and Johnstown, "2" equals 3.89 and P equals .0008; and for Adams and Brownsville, "2" equals 1.08 and P equals .30. See Edwards, ibid., pp. 817-822, for a description of White's test, ana this thesis, Appendix B. ‘ Source: Resource Tables, Appendix A. 231 Table C.2. MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES FOR THE NINTH AND TWELFTH GRADES, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES, MAPLE COUNTY, 1989 Grade L Preju- 2 dice I Score : i Ninth i Twelfth E L 1 if T No. Mean 3 NO. Mean? T Sigma 2(5) P L _.‘ 0 Total 237 57.9 E 176 58.9% 36,378.0 1198.53 - .05 .96 Jewish 237 15.2 176 16.3i 32,095.0 1175.81 -3.69 .0001 Negro 237 13.9 Mexican 237 18.3 176 13.8% 36,069.5 1191.96 - .30 .76 176 18.1% 38,299.5 1191.52 1.57 .12 176 18.8; 36,589.0 1189.88 .13 .90 1 General 237 18.5 IIWH—flt.‘ cur-_— -- -—" v-H--- M (a) White's test for the significance of difference be- tween two groups is employed. It is described in Allen Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958, 55. 817-822. See, also, this thesis, Appendix B. Source: Resource Tables, Appendix A. Source: 232 Table 0.3. JEWISH MEAN PREJUDICE SCORES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES FOR CORE SOCIOMETRIC REFERENCE GROUPS, BY GRADE, MAPLE COUNTY, 1989 Group Grade Ninfih TfieITtH No. Mean No. Mean T Sigma 2(a) P Residence Farm 8 18.5 3 18.3 - - - - Nonfarm 6 15.8 0 - - - - - Town 32 16.0 16 16.9 361.5 83.87 - .68 .50 Occupation Farm 5 18.8 5 18.8 27.0 5.00 .00 1.00 Blue Col. 17 15.9 11 17.1 181.5 20.28 - .86 .39 White Col. 3 17.3 1 18.0 - - - - Subjective Socio- Economic Status Working 7 15.0 6 17.3 29.5 21.33 - .56 .58 Middle 88 15.8 28 17.1 637.5 81.68 -2.92 .008 Religious Affiliation Catholic 3 16.0 3 16.0 - - - - Protestant 68 15.8 80 16.6 2031.5 152.38 - .97 .33 Religious Partici- pation None 8 15.1 9 17.1 89.0 909“- 1066 010 High 80 15.9 15 16.2 883.0 51.58 .88 .66 LOW 6 114.07 LI- 1590 2100 (+052 - 011 091 Church Preference With 71 15.8 83 16.7 2385.5 165.78 - .76 ~85 Without 8 15.1 8 17.0 58.0 9017 “loll-7 ell-‘- (a) White's test for the significance of difference between It is described in Allen Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, New York, Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1958, pp. 817-822. See, also, this thesis, Appendix B. two groups is employed. Resource Tables, Appendix A. APPENDIX D A DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD BY WHICH THE SOCIOHETRIC REFERENCE GROUPS WERE FORMED 233 238 APPENDIX D A DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD BY UHI H THE SOCIONETRIC REFERENCE GROUPS WERE FORMED The two paradigms below illustrate the steps taken to abstract the sociometric reference groups on the basis of a two—fold classification where only one choice is permitted. The example presented is for two religious groups, Catho- lics and Protestants. As shown in the paradigm, each re- ligious group may be divided into two kinds of reference Paradign l. Categorization of the Members of Two Religious Groups Who Made Choices In Response To a Near-sociometric Question, In Which Only One Choice Was Allowed. Religious Group Sociometric Reference Groups De- Affiliation rived on the Basis of Choices Made by Members of a Respective Reli- gious Group to a Near-sociometric Question Permitting One Choice to be Made From Either Group. 1. Who Chose Catholics (Membership reference group) Catholics 2. Who Chose Protestants (Nonmembership reference group) groups, one a membership type group in which Catholics choose Catholics, and Protestants choose Protestants; the other a nonmembership type group in which Catholics choose Protestants, and Protestants choose Catholics. Since only one sociometric choice was allowed, there is no mixed group in which the members made choices to both Catholics and 235 and Protestants. In Paradigm 2, the four sociometric reference groups formed in Paradigm l are submitted to further reduction based on the source of the choices received by members of the four sociometric reference groups. (Choices received reflect the source of group acceptance.) Paradigm 2. Categorization of the Religious Subgroups Abstracted in Paradigm A According to Sources of Choices Received Reference Groups from Sources of Choices Received Paradigm l l. Catholics who A. from Catholics chose Catholics B. from Protestants C. from both Catholics and Protestants D. No choices received 2. Catholics who E from Catholics chose Protestants F. from Protestants G. from both Catholics and Protestants H. No choices received 3. Protestants who I. from Protestants chose Protestants J. from Catholics L. from both Protestants and Catholics L. No choices received 8. Protestants who M. from Protestants chose Catholics N. frOm Catholics 0. from both Protestants and Catholics P No choices received 236 Since an individual making only one choice could re- ceive more than one choice, or no choice at all, four instead of two additional subgroups can be abstracted from each of the four sociometric reference groups shown in Paradigm 1. This classification results in 20 mutually- exclusive subgroups. These groups, coded and labelled on the basis of their respective sociometric composition, are shown in Chart 1. In examining the Chart, it should be noted that the first word in the descriptive title under the subgroup number describes the origin of choices re— ceived, and the second word, the origin of choices made. For example, in subgroup 2, characterized as an In-Out subgroup, all members of the subgroup received choices from their "in" or "membership" group, but they made choices wholly to an "out" or "nonmembership" group. This thesis, however, will be concerned with only four of the twenty subgroups: Sociometric subgroup l referred to as a core group; subgroup 5, designated as a peripheral group; subgroup 10, called a core satellite group; and sub- group 11, referred to as a peripheral satellite group. These are all pure types.1 They are schematized for one social category in Paradigm C. 1. For a more complete description of each of the four groups, see p.72zfi; of this thesis. Chart 1. 237 Theoretical Sociometric Reference Groups Formed From a Twofold Matrix of Choices Made and Choices Received to a Sociometric Question in which Only One Choice Was Allowed Ctoices Received Accepted Accepted Accepted No by Member- by Refer- by Member- Choices ship (In) ence (Out) ship and Received Group Group Reference (Isolate) Group (Mixed) . Row Col. 1 2 L 0 l All Choices Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Made In 1 8 1 Membership (1) (In-In) (Out-In) (Mixed-In) (Iso.-ln) Group (In) (1 - l) (2 - l) (3 - l) (O - 1 All Choices Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Made 2 11 Outside (2) (In-Out) (Out-Out) (Mixed-Out)(lso.-0ut) Membership (1 - 2) (2 - 2) - 2)(O - 2) Group (Out) Choices Made In Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Membership (3) 6 l2 and Refer- (In-Mix.) (Out-Mix.) (Mix.-Mix.)(lso.—Mix.) ence Groups (1 - 3) (2 — 3) (3 - 3)(O - 3) (Mixed) Choices Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Made 13 18 1 16 Outside (8) (In-Out— (Out-Out- (Mix.-Out- (Iso.-Out- Grade side side) side) side) No Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Subgroup Choices (5) l7 l8 1 20 Made (In-None) (Out—None) (Mix.-None)(Iso.-None) <1 - 0) (2 - 0) <3 — 0M0 -0) Note: The first entries within the parentheses (Columnsl-O) refer to choices received; the second,to choices made. This study will be concerned with sociometric reference groups 1, 5, 10 and 11. 238 Paradigm 3. Showing the Derivation of the Four Types of Sociometric Reference Groups Employed in this Thesis, Numbered According to Chart I (1, 5, 10 and 11), for One Social Category, Religious Preference. (Based on One Choice Only) SOCIAL GROUP (Religious Preference) Concrete Social 1 fl Groups SOCIAL CATEGORIES ’ or . Strata Catholic ' a Protestant {' SOCIONETRIC REFERENCE GROUPS ,Constructed from choices made and choices received to I .a near-sociometric question comprise the independent !variables of this study L PERIPHERAL (5) i F“ CORE (1) q SATELLITE . Chose Protestant,‘ EChose Catholic, ‘Choices made Chosen by Protestf ;Chosen by Cath- ,No choices ant students. A ' :olic students. .received. lTheore- nonmembership re—? 1A membership fHo expressed"tical Terence group § ;reference group. éGroup .GPOUDS 5 ' iAcceptance.§ I J _ CORE SATELLITE (10) ;PERIPHERAL (11 Chose Catholic Stud- SATELLITE ents. No choices re-- hose Protest- ceived. A membership nt students. reference group. :No choices re- iceived. A non- (membership ‘reference group. . 1. Theoretical groups are obtained from concrete social groups by the application of logic to sociometric choice phenomena; and are capable of empirical cate- gorization and analysis. 239 MICHIGAN STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE SOCIAL STATE RESEARCH COLLEGE SERVI CE S-LI-AC) - WB/CO/BC The questions below are being asked by people from Mich- - igan State College. It is a scientific study of how you ~think and feel. Your school superintendent has given us per- mission to take enough time from your other work to have you answer the questions. The questions will be read to you. If you don't under- stand raise your hand and the question will be explained. When you have answered all the questions, the papers will be put in an envelope. The envelope will then be sealed and delivered directly to the person in charge at Michigan State College. Your Name Name of yourSchool (First) (Last) 1. Are you a boy or girl? (Put a circle around 1 or 2 below) 1 0 Boy 2. Girl 2. How old are you? (Put a circle around the number that is our age. 8 9 10 ll l2 l3 1K 15 16 17 l8 19 20 3. What grade are you in? (Put a circle around the number that is your grade.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 A. What is your postal address? Name of town where you get your mail? Rural Route No. Name of street or road House No. 5. How far do you live from school? (Put a circle around the right number.) Number of miles: 1 1% 2 3 84 S 6 78 9 10 ll 12 13 1h 151617 18 6. What direction is your home from school: (Put a circle around both directions if you live south and east, north and west, etc.) 1. North 2. South 3. East u. West 7. What is the name of the neighborhood you live in? .. . a_oI-. 10. ll. 12. 13. 111. 15. lb. 240 -2- What is the first and last name of each of your parents? Father (first name) (last name) Mother (first namej' ITlast name) Are the people you live with your parents? 1. Yes 2. No If no, who do you live with? What does your father do for a living? Does he do anything else to earn money? _ 1. Yes 2. No If yes, what else does he do? If your father farms, does he do his own farm work or does he work for another farmer? 1. He doesn't farm 2. He does his own work 3. He works for another farmer b. He hires other men to do his farm work If yorr father is a farmer, does he rent or own the farm you live on? (Put a circle around the number of the right answer.) 1. He does not farm. 2. He owns the farm. 3. He is buying the farm, but it isn't all paid for. . he rents the farm. 5. I don't know whether he owns the farm or not. If your father is not a farmer, where does he work How many automobiles does your family own? (Put a circle around the right number.) 0 1 2 3 h S or more How many radios does your family own? (Count radio in your automobile if you have one there.) 0 1 2 3 h 5 or more 2&1 -3- How many tractors does your family own? O 1 2 3 h S or more 18. Does your family own a deep freeze? 1. Yes 2. No 19. Where does your family do most of its trading? 1. Name of town 20. About how often do yom?folks go to Goldwater? (Put a circle around number of the right answer.) 1. Every day 2. Twice a week 3. Once a week h. Twice a month 5. Once a month 6. Less often than once a month 21. Do you folks go to church anywhere? If yes, what church? 22. Do you go to Sunday School? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, what church? 23. If you go to Sunday School, about how often do you go? 1. Every week 2. Every two weeks 3. Once a month A. Less often than once a month 2h. How many schools have you gone to besides this one? 1. This is the only school I have gone to. Besides this one I have gone to l 2 3 h S 6 7 8 other schools. 2H2 4,- 25. Most families sometimes go to other people's homes just to talk and visit. Write the names of the families. where your folks go most often. If any are related to you, put a circle around those names. 1. (first name) (last name) 2. 3. how” ._ 26. What families come to talk and visit with your folks most often? l. (first name) (last name) 2. 3. u. 27. Have you ever known a boy or girl who is: (Put a circle around each of A. German the ones you B. Negro have known.) C. Italian D. Jewish E. Mexican F. Polish Now I want you to tell me about some of the people you know. This helps us to know what kinds of people there are. None of the people you know, 222 ever your teacher, will ever be told what you have said. So just write down what ygg think. 28. Who are the most friendly boys or girls among your class- mates? Name the most friendly first, then the next, and so on. (first name) (last name) 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3L). 35. 214-3 -5- Who are the least friendly boys or girls among your classmates? Name the Beast friendly first and then the others who are not friendly. 1. (first name) (last name) 2. 3. Who are some of the well dressed boys and girls among your classmates? Boys Girls (first name)(last mama) (first name)(1ast name) If you had a new sweater, which of your classmates would you want most to like it? (Name several if you want to) (first name) (last name)) When you have lots of visitors in school for a program, and you have to sit two in a seat, what person in your grade do you most like to have sit with you? (first name) (last name) When you have lots of visitors in school for a prOgram, and you have to sit two in a seat, what person in school ~ would you least like to have sit with you? (first name) (last name) Who is the most high hat, stuck up, or snobbish boy or girl in your school? (first name) (last name) Suppose your folks are making a trip to see a sick re- lative who lives in another town. You would like to go along, but it is on a school day. Would your parents let you miss school to go? 1. Yes 2. No 36. 37. 38. 39. ’40. Al. h2. “-3 0 4’4. -6- What boy or girl would you pick if your school wanted to send someone to Lansing to talk with the Governor? Remember, your school will be judged by the person you select. (first name) (last name) Why would you pick this person? Write your answer in your own words. What person in the whole school would you least like to have go to meet the Governor? (first name) )(last name) Why would you not like to have this person go? Write your answer in your own words. Of all the children who live right around where you live, which ones do you like the best? List as many as you want to. (first name) (last name) Why do you like them? Write your answer in your own words. Of all the children who live right around where you live, which ones do you not like so well? List as many as you want to. (first name) (last name) Why do you not like these? Write your answer in your own words. Are there any kinds of people that your folks think are a bad influence? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, why do your folks think they are a bad influence? (Write your answer below) ’45. 1+7 . -7.. Sometimes people talk about upper or lower classes in the community, and say that a family is in one or an— other of these classes. Which one of the following classes would you say your own folks belonged in? (Put a circle around the one you think) Middle class Lower class Working class Upper class What organizations do you belong to? (Put a circle around each one that you belong to.) 1. Boy Scouts 2. Girl Scouts 3. h-H Club . Junior Farm Bureau 5. Rural Youth 6. FOIPOA. 7e F‘OHOAO 8. High Y 9. High School basketball, football, baseball, or track team X. Other (name) ~ FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS: Here are some things on which a lot of people have different opinions. This is not a test, and there are no right or wrong answers. You may disagree with some of these statements and you may agree with others. If you disagree with the statement, put an "X" in the space in front of "I disagree". you are not sure or cannot quite agree with the statement, put an "X" in front of "I cannot quite agree". If you agree completely with the statement, put an "X" in front of "I agree completely". Remember, this is not a test and there are no right or wrong answers. So just write down what you think. "I would have just as much fun if Jewish kids went to the same parties that I go to." No I cannot quite agree ————-————¢———-—— Iagree completely #9. SO. 51. S2. 53. 5M. 2M) -8- "It would make no difference to me if I were to go to a swimming pool where there were Negroes." It would make a difference It would make a little difference It would make no difference "I would be just as satisfied if I were in a class which had a Mexican school teacher." No I cannot quite agree I agree completely A dance hall should allow all kinds of people from all races to go into the dance. I disagree I cannot.quite agree I agree completely Most Jewish people act very much the same as other people. I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely "It would make no difference to me if I took a job where I had to take orders from a Negro." It would make no difference It would make a little difference It would make a difference Mexicans should be allowed to eat in the same restau- rants with white people. I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely "I think that my family should allow those Mexicans who want to move onto the farm next to ours to do so." No I cannot quite agree I agree completely 55. S6. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 247 -9- "The county I live in should allow different kinds of people from different races to stay in the same hotel." I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely It would be better for everybody if Negroes and white people were allowed to go to the same churches. No I cannot quite agree I agree completely "I think it would be perfectly all right if a Mexican tried to dance with a girl or boy in my family or with a girl or boy I like." No I cannot quite agree I agree completely Any kind of people, such as Negroes, Jews, and Mexicans can become 100% Americans. I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely If more Mexicans want to come to Michigan, they should be allowed to enter. I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely The Jewish people are just as honest and warm and friendly as other people. I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely The white and Negro people would get along better if they both ate in the same restaurants. No I cannot quite agree I agree completely 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. 68. 248 -10- Most Mexicans are kind and Lood and honest people. I disagree I cannot quite agree I agree completely When white people are sick and need blood transfusions, they should be happy to get blood from other races and religions. I agree completely I cannot quite agree I disagree Thousands of Jewish people have sacrificed unselfishly and generously and heroically to make America great. I disagree . I cannot quite agree I agree completely White Americans should become friends with Negroes, Jews, and Mexicans and stick up for all of them. No, white Americans should look out for them- selves I cannot quite agree I agree completely When a Jewish person wants to eat in a restaurant he should be allowed to eat in any restaurant. No I cannot quite agree I agree completely "I would have just as much fun at a party where there were Negroes". No I cannot quite agree I agree completely The black and yellow races should be given as much chance to rule the world as the white race. No I cannot quite agree I agree completely 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 75. 76. 249 -11- "It is all right with me if more Jewish people move into my neighborhood." I disagree I cannot cuite agree I agree completely Sending the Negroes back to Africa is a poor way to improve American civilization. No, it is a good way to improve america “__— . . ‘ Ilm not 8 re, but it Mlhht be a goes way It is a poor way to improve America Clothes make the man. I agree completely I disagree I cannot quite agree H! a person is often judged by the clothes he wears. I agree completely I disagree I cannot quite agree If In order to keep up with the gang you must wear the right kind of clothes. agree completeiy uisegree cannot quite agree HHF1 Li Being well dressed makes a difference in how a person 301330 I agree completely I disagree I cannot quite agree W Clothes make the woman. ___I agree completely ~‘__I disagree I cannot quite agree You can tell what a person is like by the clothes he wears. I agree completely _ I disagree I cannot quite agree ROOM USE 0qu Date Due T TE UN . LIBRQRIES WWI” “WWW 101 5858 753 89 IV 538 MICHIGAN WWW 3'12