ABSTRACT RACIAL ATTITUDES AND EMPATHY: A GUTTMAN FACET THEORY EXAMINATION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND DETERMINANTS By David Lloyd Erb The purpose of the dissertation was to empirically test Allport's theory that empathy and prejudice are inversely related and to study the relationship between prejudice and the following predictor variables: per- sonal contact, change orientation, religiosity, and efficacy. A socio-psychological theoretical framework was used to investigate attitudes towards Negroes. Four research instruments were employed to assess racial attitudes and predictor variables. The Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro was used to measure racial attitudes. The ABS: W/N was designed according to Guttman and Jordan's facet theory which provides a systematic a priori method of attitude item construction. Attitudes were measured on six levels ranging on a con- tinuum from societal stereotype to personal action. The ABS: W/N-Personal Characteristics and Education content areas were used. David Lloyd Erb The predictor variables were operationalized by the ABS: W/N Personal Data Questionnaire. Empathy was assessed by the Affective Sensitivity Scale, a video tape situational test which requires respondents to identify the feelings of clients in counseling interviews. The sample for the present study consisted of white college seniors in the last stage of their preparation to enter the teaching profession. The students were en- rolled in a large lecture course entitled "School and Society" at Michigan State University. There were a total of five hypotheses which were divided into three categories: (a) empathy and prejudice; (b) the contact variable, including nature of, amount of, avoidance, amount of income gained from contact, possi- bility of alternatives, and enjoyment; and (c) the psycho- sociological variables-~religiosity, change orientation, and efficacy. Frequency distributions were provided for every item in the ABS: W/N. The means and standard deviations on every item, level and total score were supplied, as well as item-to-total and level-to-total correlations for the ABS: W/N. Relational and predictive statistics were obtained by zero-order, partial and multiple correlation analyses. The zero-order correlational analysis was derived from simple correlations among all variables employed in the David Lloyd Erb present study. Partial and multiple correlations were used to examine the relationships of selected variables to racial attitudes. The findings indicated that the hypothesized in- verse relationship between empathy (affective sensitivity) and prejudice was not supported. Statistical analysis revealed little, if any, relationship between the two constructs. The relationship between the contact variable and prejudice was supported. Levels 4 (personal hypothetical behavior), 5 (personal feeling), and 6 (personal action) on the ABS: W/N proved to be highly correlated with contact. Enjoyment of, nature of, and amount of contact with Negroes were the most Significant contributors to the contact variable. It was hypothesized that change orientation would be Significantly negatively correlated with prejudice. The findings supported this hypothesis. Levels A, 5, and 6 of the ABS: W/N, the behaviorally oriented end of the continuum, were significantly correlated with the change orientation variable. Of the five aspects of the change orientation variable, perceived ability for self change and the need for structure were most important. It was hypothesized that religiosity and prejudice would be significantly related. The findings failed to support this hypothesis. David Lloyd Erb Efficacy, the degree of control that a person feels he has in his relationship to the social and physical environment, was Significantly negatively related to prejudice. High scores on efficacy, indicating a feeling of being in control, were related to positive racial atti- tude scores. Recommendations were made regarding instrumentation, administration procedures, statistical analyses, and find- ings of the study. It is hoped that the results of the present study will be of value in understanding racial attitudes among college students preparing to enter the teaching profession. RACIAL ATTITUDES AND EMPATHY: A GUTTMAN FACET THEORY EXAMINATION OF THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AND DETERMINANTS By David Lloyd Erb A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology College of Education 1969 PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators, as an example of the "project" approach to graduate research. A common use of instru- mentation, theoretical material, as well as technical and analysis procedures were both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many aspects although the data were different in each study (Gottlieb, 1969; Hamersma, 1969; Harrelson, 1969; Maierle, 1969; Morin, 1969) as well as certain design, procedural, and analyses methods. The interpretations of the data in each study are those of the author. 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful to many people for their help with the present study. I especially want to thank Dr. John E. Jordan, my major advisor, for his constant encouragement and assistance throughout the doctoral program. He has extended himself far beyond the re- quired obligations of a major professor. I am indebted to Dr. Jay M. Allen, Dr. Alfred G. Dietze, and Dr. Edgar A. Schuler for their liberal offerings of time and assistance as members of the doctoral committee. I also appreciate Dr. William E. Sweetland's valuable contribution in helping to pro- cure the sample. I wish to thank my fellow students, Steve Danish, Dick Hamersma, Paul Maierle, and Paul Schauble for their encouragement and help in various aspects of the study. Appreciation is also expressed to Jim Hanratty for his assistance with the computer programs. This study was supported in part by training grant no. U77-T—68, 69 from the Rehabilitation Services Adminis- tration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, D. C. iii I am also thankful for the constant love, inspir- ation, and understanding given by my wife Marty and son Jon. This thesis is dedicated to them. iv PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . II. Nature of the Problem . . Statement of the Problem . Need for Racial Research . Purpose. . . . . . . Hypotheses. . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . Organization of the Thesis Definitions . . . . . . Definition of Prejudice Definition of Empathy . . Major Psychological Studies on Prejudice . . . . . . Studies of Empathy . . Studies Relating Prejudice and Empathy. . . . . Predictor Variables. . . . Contact. . . . . . . Religiosity . . Change Orientation . . . Efficacy . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH. Page ii iii viii xi I.._.| l—‘\0\O CD'QUON H 12 12 14 Chapter III. IV. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . Instrumentation. . . The Attitude Behavior Scale: Guttman' s Four Level Theory. White/Negro . . . Jordan' 3 Six Level Theory The Personal Data Questionnaire, ABS: W/N. I O O 0 Contact with Negroes . . Change Orientation. . . Religiosity . . . . . Efficacy . . . . . . The Affective Sensitivity Scale Sampling Procedures and Research Population . . . . . Data Collection. . . . Major Affective Sensitivity and Prejudice Research Hypotheses Contact and Prejudice. . Change Orientation and Prejudice Religiosity and Prejudice Relating Attitudes and Values Analys Des es Procedures . . criptive Statistics Correlational Statistics. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . Descriptive Data . . . . Item Analysis . . . . Simplex Analysis . Descriptive Characteristics of the Sample . . . . Hypothesis Testing. . . H-l Affective Sensitivity and H—2 Prejudice. . . . . Contact and Prejudice vi Page 88 88 Chapter H- 3 Change Orientation and Prejudice . . . . . H-A Religiosity and Prejudice . H- 5 Efficacy and Prejudice . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. REFERENCES APPENDICES Summary. . . . . . . . . . . Nature of the Problem . . Methodology . . . . . Statistical Procedures. . Hypothesis Construction Discussion of Results . . . . . . Hypothesis Testing . . Affective Sensitivity and Prejudice Contact and Prejudice . . Change Orientation and Prejudice Religiosity and Prejudice. . . Efficacy and Prejudice. . Summary of Hypothesis Testing Other Relevant Data. . . . Amount of Prejudice. . . Limitations of the Study . Data Collection . . . Sampling Procedures. . . 8 O O 0 Recommendations . . . . . . . Appendix A. Appendix B. Appendix C. Recommendations Relating to Instrumentation . . . Recommendation Regarding Adminis- tration Procedures . . . Recommendation Regarding Statistical Analysis . . Recommendations Regarding Findings of the Study . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . Code Book . . . . . . . . . Zero-Order Correlation Matrices. vii Page 93 97 97 100 101 101 101 102 103 10H 105 105 105 106 108 109 110 111 112 112 llu 11H l15 115 115 116 116 117 118 128 191 229 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Basic Facets Used to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude Item . . . . Facet Profiles of Attitude Subuniverses. . Hypothetical Matrix of Level—By—Level Correlations Illustrating the Simplex Structure. . . . . . . . . . . Guttman's Simplex of the Bastide and van den Berghe Data. . . . . . . . Basic Facets Used to Determine Conjoint Struction of an Attitude Universe. . . Levels, Component Profile Composition, and Component Labels for a Six—Component Universe of Attitudes. . . . . . . Five—Facet Six-Level System of Attitude Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Pro- files, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Permutations . . . . . . Hypothetical Correlation Matrix Illustrat- ing EXpected Simplex Ordering of Items Constructed on Basis of Figs. 1 and 2 . One Attitude Item at Each Level from the ABS: W/N--Personal Characteristics scale 0 O O O I O O O O O O 0 Variables Operationalized by the Personal Data Questionnaire. . . . . . . . ABS—BW/WN Scale. Basic Variables List by IBM Card and Column . . . . . . The Inter-Item and Item—to—Total Corre— lation Matrix for Levels 1-6 of the ABS: Characteristics Scale for the Education 450 Group . . . . . . . viii Page AA 145 A7 A8 “9 50 52 53 57 62 7A 79 Table 13. 14. 15. l6. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. The Inter-Item and Item-to-Total Corre— lation Matrix for Levels l—6 of the ABS: Education Scale for the Edu- cation 450 Group . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents on the ABS: W/N According to Sex, Age, Marital Status, Religious Affiliation, Politi— cal Affiliation, and Racial Group . N's, Means, and Standard Deviations of the Variables for the ABS: BW/WN Empathy Study . . . . . . . Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Empathy Variable for Education “50 Students on the ABS: W/N Characteristics . . . . Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Empathy Variable for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Education . . . . . . Multiple and Partial Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Contact Variables for Education “50 Students on the ABS: W/N Characteristics. . Multiple and Partial Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Contact Variables for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Education. . . . Multiple and Partial Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Change Orientation Variables for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Characteristics . . . . . . . Multiple and Partial Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Change Orientation Variables for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Education . . . . . . . . . ix Page 81 86 87 89 89 91 91 9A 9A Table Page 22. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Religiosity Variables for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Characteristics . . . . 98 23. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Religiosity Variables for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Education . . . . . . 98 2A. Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Efficacy Content Variable for Education 450 Students on the ABS: W/N Characteristics . . . . 99 25. Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Negroes and Efficacy Content Variable for Education A50 Students on the ABS: W/N Education . . . . . . 99 26. Frequency Distribution and Percentages of Respondents on the "Amount of Preju- dice" Question . . . . . . . . . 113 27. Correlation Matrix for Variables on the Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro- Characteristics, Personal Data Question- naire, and the Affective Sensitivity Scale for Education 450 Students . . . 230 28. Correlation Matrix for Variables on the Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro- Education, Personal Data Question— naire, and the Affective Sensitivity Scale for Education 450 Students . . . 232 Figure 1. 2o 3. A. LIST OF FIGURES Correlation Matrices Resulting from the Attitude Behavior Scale: Mentally Retarded O O O O O O O I O O I A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Conjoint and Disjoint Struction of Blacks' and Whites' Attitudes Toward Each Other . . . . . . . . . . Correlation Matrix (Simplex) from the ABS: W/N-C with Education A50 Students. Correlation Matrix (Simplex) from the ABS: W/N-E with Education A50 Students. xi Page 5A 56 8A 8A CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION One easily observable phenomenon in human relations is the categorical rejection of one group of people by another group because of their membership in that group. "Polish people often called the Ukranians 'reptiles' to express their contempt for a group they regarded as un- grateful, revengeful, wily and treacherous" (Allport, 195A, p. 3). White people in America often regard Negroes as lazy, immoral, and stupid. The term which social scientists have chosen to identify this rejection phenomenon is "prejudice." One aspect of this is "racial" or "ethnic" prejudice which means that the rejection is based upon the race or ethnic identity of the individual or group involved. Social scientists have long been involved in the struggle to identify and understand racial attitudes. One emphasis of this research effort has been to identify some of the psychological and sociological determinants of prejudice. Nature of the Problem In some studies of prejudice, a distinct group of psychological characteristics has emerged which serves to distinguish groups of more or less prejudiced and non- prejudiced peOple (Adorno, Frenkel—Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford, 1950; Bettelheim and Janowitz, 1950). For example, Adorno relates one finding of their study by stating: Regardless of whether the specific tOpic was that of ambivalence, or aggression, or passivity, or some other related feature of personality dynamics, the outstanding finding was that the extremely un- prejudiced individual tends to manifest a greater readiness to become aware of unacceptable tenden- cies and impulses in himself (p. A77). Enough studies of this nature were conducted to allow Gordon W. Allport, in his book The Nature of Preju- dice (195A), to create a picture of both the "prejudiced personality" and the "tolerant personality." As Allport suggests: Prejudice . . . may become part of one's life tissue, suffusing character because it is essen- tial to the economy of a life‘. . . often it is organic, inseparable from the life process (p. 395). Allport also claims that there are peOple who are tolerant of other people who likewise have the attribute of tolerance running through their life style. He defines the tolerant person as one who is: . . . on friendly terms with all sorts of people. . . . He makes no distinction of race, color, or creed. He not only endures but, in general, approves his fellow men (p. A25). Using information gained both through longitudinal and cross-sectional research, Allport describes some of the characteristics of a tolerant person. He claims that the tolerant person usually comes from a home with a safe, loving, permissive atmosphere. A high respect for life and personhood is an important part of his early training. His political views usually tend toward the liberal end of the political spectrum, and he places a high value on education. The tolerant person also has a high tolerance for ambiguity and is able to possess some self insight (pp. A25—AA1). Some important information has been acquired con- cerning the characteristics of both the tolerant and prejudiced personalities. Unfortunately, more infor— mation must be gained before we can thoroughly under- stand what psychological characteristics distinguish these two groups of people. Consequently, more research is needed in this area. Statement of the Problem Impetus for this research was provided by Allport's work on prejudice (195A). Under the section of his book entitled "The Tolerant Personality," Allport discusses various characteristics of people who are tolerant to- wards others. One important characteristic of the tolerant personality is the ability to empathize with another person. Allport describes empathy by saying: . . we might call it 'the ability to size up people,’ 'social intelligence,‘ 'social sensi- tivity,‘ or to borrow the expressive German term Menschenkenntnis (p. A35). Allport ties the concepts of empathy and tolerance to— gether in the following statement: Let us ask why empathic ability leads to tolerance. IS it not because a person who correctly sizes up another has no need to feel apprehensive and in— secure? Able to comprehend accurately the cues he perceives, he feels confident that he can side step unpleasant involvements if need arises. Realistic perception endows him with the ability to avoid friction and to conduct successful relationships. On the other hand, a person lacking this ability cannot trust his skill in dealing with others. He is forced to be on guard, to put strangers into categories, and to react to them en masse. Lacking subtle powers of discrimination, he re- sorts to stereotyping (p. A36). Other authorities on interpersonal relationships agree with Allport concerning the importance of empathy. Strunk wrote in 1956: There is nearly complete agreement on the part of psychologists and social psychologists that empathy is an important aspect of personality study and social intercourse and as such deserves priority in terms of research (1957). Speroff, an industrial psychologist, states that: Only recently has the field of empathic ability been sufficiently explored as a possible 'key' for bringing about a more effective understanding between and among individuals and groups (1953). In the field of counseling or psychotherapy, the importance of empathy has been well documented. Truax and Carkhuff claim that: The central ingredient of the psychotherapeutic process appears to be the therapist's ability to perceive and communicate accurately and with sensitivity, the feelings of the patient and the meaning of those feelings (1966, p. 285). The concept of empathy is becoming an increasingly Signifi- cant variable in the study of all human interaction. Allport postulates that empathy and prejudice are inversely related. A person who has a high degree of prejudice will have a low ability to empathize. In order to validate this theoretical notion, Allport cites two empirical studies: Scodel and Mussen (1953) and an un- published study by Novick (p. A35). Both of these studies use very inadequate measuring devices, making interpre- tations of the findings rather confusing and tenuous. Therefore, the theory that prejudice and empathy are inversely related needs further empirical validation. The first task of the present research will be to empiri— cally validate Allport's notion. In order to test Allport's hypothesis, new and more adequate measuring devices were employed. To measure racial attitudes or prejudice, a recently developed scale by Jordan and Hamersma (1969) was used. Guttman's recent contribution to attitude scaling and facet design (Guttman and Schlesinger, 1966; Guttman and Schlesinger, 1967) were used in the development of the scale. The method of development is thoroughly reviewed under the "Instrumentation" section in Chapter III. The Affective Sensitivity Scale (A.S.S.) was used to assess the person's ability to empathize. Kagan and Krathwohl developed the scale which requires respondents "to detect and describe the immediate affective state" of the client (1967). This study not only investigated the relationship between empathy and prejudice, but also looked at other variables which might correlate highly with racial atti- tudes. Jordan (1968) reviewed the literature on attitude research and found that four classes of variables seem to be important determinants, correlates, and/or pre- dictors of attitudes: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, and income, (b) socio-psychological factors such as one's value orientation, (0) contact factors such as amount, nature, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of the contact, and (d) the knowledge factor, i.e., the amount of information one has about the attitude object. This study investigated two of the variables men- tioned in Jordan's review: (a) contact, and (b) the following socio-psychological factors: religiosity-- the importance of religion and the amount of partici- pation in religious practice; the value one holds towards changes in oneself, child rearing practices, birth contrsl, automation, and political leadership; and the attitude one holds toward man's effectiveness in the face of his natural environment. Need for Racial Research The importance of racial research has been intensi- fied in the last decade because of the increased tension between the black and white communities. Racial conflict has heightened since 195A when the United States Supreme Court ruled to end educational segregation in the public schools in the Brown vs. Board of Education case. The severity of the crisis was underlined by the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, com— missioned by President Lyndon Johnson in July, 1967. This is our basic conclusion: Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal. . . . This deepening racial division is not inevitable. The movement apart can be re- versed. Choice is still possible. . . . From every American it will require new attitudes, new under- standing, and, above all, new will (p. 2). The commission placed the responsibility for the current racial struggle upon the shoulders of white Americans. What white Americans have never fully understood . . . is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it (p. vii). The racial attitudes of the white community are an extremely important variable in the racial conflict. Therefore, it is necessary that social scientists con- tinually attempt to understand them. As the late Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in the American Psycholo- gist; mt. For social scientists, the opportunity to serve a life-giving purpose is a humanist challenge of rare distinction. Negroes too are eager for a rendezvous with truth and discovery. . . . If the Negro needs social science for direction and for self-understanding, the white society is in even more urgent need. White America needs to under- stand that it is poisoned to its soul by racism, and the understanding needs to be carefully docu- mented and consequently more difficult to reject. . . . All too many white Americans are horrified not with conditions of Negro life but with the proggct of these conditions--the Negro himself (19 ). Purpose The purpose of the present study was to empirically validate Allport's theory that empathy and prejudice are inversely related, and to assess the relationship between a series of predictor variables and prejudice. The pre— dictor variables are as follows: 1. The amount, nature of, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of whites' contacts with blacks. 2. The importance of religion and adherence to religious practices. 3. The attitude one holds towards changes in oneself, child rearing practices, birth con— trol, automation, and political leadership. Some ancillary purposes are also included in the study. These are specifically: (a) to provide further data on the Guttman approach to attitude scaling through the use of Jordan and Hamersma's scale, (b) to provide specific information on the racial attitudes and empathic ability of senior Education majors. Hypotheses H:l; Persons who score high on affective sensi- tivity will tend to score low on prejudice. Scores on affective sensitivity will be significantly negatively correlated with scores on prejudice. ngz Persons who score high on the contact vari- able will tend to score low on prejudice. Scores on the contact variable will be significantly negatively corre- lated with scores on prejudice. 31;: Persons who score high on change orientation will tend to score low on prejudice. Scores on the change orientation variable will be significantly nega- tively correlated with scores on prejudice. 3:5: Persons who score high on religiosity will tend to score high on prejudice. Scores on the religiosity variable will be significantly positively correlated with scores on prejudice. H—5: Persons who score high on efficacy will score low on prejudice. Definition of Terms Attitude.-—Guttman (1950, p. 51) defines an attitude as a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to 10 something" (p. 50). For example, the attitude of a person toward Negroes could be said to be the totality of acts that a person has performed with respect to Negroes. Empathy.-—Dymond defines empathy as "the imagi— native transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and action of another and so structuring the world as he does" (19A8). This study will employ the more restrictive concept of Affective Sensitivity since the broader concept of empathy has not been successfully Operationalized as yet. Affective Sensitivity.--"The ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another, or in terms of communication theory, the ability to receive and decode effective communication" (Kagan, Krathwohl, and Farquhar, 1965). Prejudice.-—Allport (195A, p. 9) defines prejudice as ". . . an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an indi- vidual because he is a member of that group." Since the Guttman approach to attitude scaling is discussed in Chapter III, the specific technical terms used by Guttman, Jordan, and Hamersma are included in the context of that discussion. 11 Organization of the Thesis The dissertation is organized into five chapters. The statement of the problem is discussed in Chapter 1. Chapter II is a summarization of the theory and research related to this study. The chapter is divided into the following divisions: 1. Definitions of prejudice and empathy. 2. Major psychologically oriented studies in prejudice 3. Studies on the nature of empathy A. Studies relating prejudice and empathy 5. Predictor variables Chapter III describes the methodology and procedures of the study. Information is included and the statistical procedures used in Chapter IV presents the research of the analysis of the data in tabular form. Chapter V is a discussion of the clusions and recommendations. on instrumentation the data analysis. data and results and explanatory data with con- CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH The importance of theory in science is stressed by Kerlinger: "The basic aim of science is theory" (1966, p. 11)° Theory explains phenomena. Theory provides a set of constructs or propositions which are used as tools for understanding various aspects of reality. Many theoretical formulations have been proposed to explain prejudice, and a host of research projects have been designed to verify the theory. This particular re- search project is concerned with only a small portion of that theory and research. Definitions Definition of Prejudice An important part of theory is definition. Many social scientists have defined prejudice. Simpson and Yinger, in their book Racial and Cultural Minorities, define prejudice: . . . as an emotional, rigid attitude (a predis- position to respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way) toward a group of people. . . . 12 l3 Prejudices are thus attitudes, but not all atti- tudes are prejudices. They both contain the ele- ment of prejudgment, but prejudiced attitudes have an affective or emotional quality that not all attitudes possess (1958, p. 13). They continue their analysis by saying that: . prejudice involves not only prejudgment . . . but misjudgment as well. It is categorical thinking that systematically misinterprets the facts (p. 1A). The rigid, inflexible, emotion laden, and misinforma- tional characteristics of prejudicial attitudes are emphasized by Simpson and Yinger. Samuel Lowy, in his book Co-OperationL Tolerance, and Prejudice, emphasizes the affect which accompanies the attitudes. In this work prejudice signifies a bias coupled with an aggressive attitude for which an inade- quate reason is given. Bias alone, without the element of aggressive resentment, and without a quasi—delusional stereotyped concept, is some— thing different (l9A8, p. 15). Ackerman and Jahoda, in their book Anti—semitism and Emotional Disorder, stress the cognitive dimension by stating that: . prejudice . . . is a term applied to cate— gorical generalizations based on inadequate data and without sufficient regard for individual differences (1950, pp. 3-A). Gordon W. Allport (195A) defines prejudice as: . . . an antipathy based upon a faulty and in- flexible generalization. It may be felt or ex- pressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group (p. 9). 1A Allport also states: . . . an adequate definition of prejudice contains two essential ingredients. There must be an atti— tude of favor or disfavor; and it must be related to an overgeneralized (and therefore erroneous) belief (p. 13). Each of these definitions indicates there are two components to prejudice: beliefs and attitudes. The beliefs are bits of information which have been over- generalized or distorted. They are rigidly held by the individual and are not easily examined. The attitudinal component is the affectively ladened direction of the individual's total behavior towards the attitude object. There seem to be both negative and "over—favorable" attitudes in prejudice, but only the hostile attitudes are considered in the present research. Prejudice, therefore, is an attitude in which a person responds to an entire group of peOple or a member of that group in a negative way when there is little realistic evidence for the negative response. Guttman's definition of attitude as the "totality of behavior with respect to something" (1950, p. 50) provides a useful tool for examining prejudice, because his definition in- cludes both cognitive and affective aspects of behavior. Definition of Empathy Even though the concept of empathy has been used in a variety of fields, there exists no one commonly held definition. Lipps (1909) coined the word 15 Einfuhlung to refer to an aesthetic process whereby a person took a stimulus (work of art) and integrated it within himself, causing a feeling of "being at one with the object" to occur. Einfuhlung has since been trans- lated into the terms "empathy" (Buchheimer, 1963), "feeling into" (Gompertz, 1960), and a "feeling of one- ness" (Katz, 1963). The aesthetic process described by Lipps has been transferred into the interpersonal realm and is usually translated as "empathy." However, the term "empathy" has become embellished with a multitude of meanings not originally intended by Einfuhlung. As Allport states: The term empathy is a fair translation, provided it is understood to mean only elementary motor mimicry and is not employed in the broad sense of 'a gift of understanding people' as is sometimes the case today (Handbook, 195A, p. 20). The importance of motor mimicry was simply that: Kinesthetic cues were originally associated with subjective experience, and now when the cues recur in an imitative response they reinstate the same original experience (Allport, 1937, p. 532). Others have taken Lipps' original concept of "empathy" and have added dimensions in order to describe more fully what takes place in the interpersonal situ- ation. Dymond and others (Warren, 193A; Woodson, 195A; Johnson, 1957) have conceptualized the empathic process as "putting yourself into another person's place," or as role playing. Dymond emphasizes that empathy is: 16 . . the imaginative transposing of oneself into the thinking, feeling, and acting of another and so structuring the world as he does (19A8). Role taking ability requires both emotional and intel— lectual effort. The imagination is used to integrate the cues from the other person; it employs both cognitive and affective abilities in order to feel, think, and act like the other person. Some writers emphasize the intellectual, objective aspects of the empathic process. English and English (1958) define empathy as: . . . apprehension of the state of mind of another person without feeling (as in sympathy) what the other feels. While the empathic process is pri- marily intellectual, emotion is not precluded, but it is not the same emotion as that of the person with whom one empathizes. The parent may empathize with the child's puny rage, feeling pity or amuse— ment, whereas in sympathy he would feel rage along with the child. The attitude in empathy is one of acceptance and understanding of an implicit "I see how you feel." Some psychoanalytic definitions also stress these intellectual aspects of empathy. Fenichel (195A, p. 511) states that empathy: . . . consists of two acts: (a) an identification with the other person, and (b) an awareness of one's own feelings after the identification, and in this way an awareness of the object's feelings. Some current analytic authors use Fenichel's definition (Chessick, 1956). Other definitions stress the interactive component of the empathic process. Stewart (195A, 1955, 1955) defined empathy as mutual transference. 17 For where transference can be mutual as in empathy (not in counter-transference) rather than a one- way process, communication thrives. Messages are returned as well as sent out in effective comuni— cation (195A, p. 217). Rogers (1952) emphasized interaction variables when he stated that: it is the counselor's function to assume, in so far as he is able, the internal frame of reference of the client . . . and to communicate something of this empathic understanding to the client (p. 29). The empathic process involves peOple interacting. In the midst of the exchange, a person is able to identify what the other person is feeling and acts in relationship to that person according to his own experi- encing of the other's feelings. It is evident that despite a variety of definitions, the concept of empathy is still shrouded with a conglomer- ation of meanings. Allport's statement, published in 1937, still describes the present state of theorizing and defining the concept of empathy. The theory of empathy is a peculiar blend, and must in fact be regarded both as a theory of inference and as a theory of intuition depend- ing somewhat on the coloring given it by differ- ent authors. Kagan, Krathwohl, and Farquhar (1965) examined the various definitions of empathy and decided that: "Most of these definitions in some way require that a person be able to detect and identify the immediate affective State of another" (p. A63). 18 Therefore, they narrowed the concept of empathy to the trait of affective sensitivity. This trait is defined as: The ability to detect and describe the immediate affective state of another, or in terms of communi- cation theory, the ability to receive and decode effective communication (Kagan, 1967, p. A63). The present study will use the more restricted trait of affective sensitivity rather than empathy because it is more easily operationalized. Other authors have originated new phraseology for the empathic process in order to avoid some of the semantic confusion in the more general definitions of empathy. Examples of this are Gage and Cronbach's (1955) "interpersonal perception" and Smith's (1966) "sensi- tivity to people." Major Psychological Studies on Prejudice After the horrors of Germany's extermination camps during World War 11, social scientists felt impelled to discover more about the nature of prejudice. Four im- portant studies on anti-Semitism were conducted. The books which record the results of those studies are: The Authoritarian Personality by T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and R. Nevitt San- ford, 1950; Qynamics of Prejudice by Gruno Buttelheim and Morris Janowitz, 1950; Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder by Nathan Ackerman and Marie Jahoda, 1950; and l9 Prophets of Deceit by Leo Lowenthal and Norbert Guterman, 19A9. The classic endeavor in this area was begun in May, 19AA, when the American Jewish Committee invited a group of American scholars to a two-day conference. The scholars outlined a research program whose results were published several years later in The Authoritarian Per- sonality (Adorno g£_§1., 1950). Through the use of questionnaires, interviews, and clinical techniques, over two thousand subjects were examined. Two instru- ments which have been used in many subsequent studies emerged from the research. The Ethnocentrism Scale (E) Was designed to discover a "tendency in the indi- vidual to be 'ethnically centered,' to be rigid‘inthis acceptance of the culturally 'alike' and in his re— jection of the 'unlike'" (p. 102). The Fascism Scale (F) was also developed in an attempt "to measure the potentially antidemocratic personality" (p. 228). Some of the findings of The Authoritarian Person- glihy study are applicable to the present research. Adorno g£_§l. found that those subjects who scored high on the E and F scales tended: . . . toward a moralistic condemnation of other people . . . they have a readiness to condemn others on such external bases as absence of good manners, uncleanness, 'twitching the shoulders,‘ saying 'inappropriate' things . . . and so forth (p. A06). [The original did not include the word "they."] 20 Another comment on high scorers is that: Typical high-scoring subjects tend to manifest distrust and suspicion of others. Theirs is a conception of people as threatening in the sense of a? oversimplified survival—of-the-fittest idea (p. 11). One possible reason for this behavior was offered. This indignation seems to serve the double purpose of externalizing what is unacceptable in oneself, and of displacing one's hostility which otherwise might turn against powerful 'ingroups,' e.g., the parents (pp. AO6-AO7). Those persons who scored low on the E and F scales tended: . . . to be permissive and tolerant toward indi- viduals (although not necessarily toward insti- tutions). Or at least they make an attempt to understand behavior from a common sense (if not professional) psychological or sociological point of View; and they show generally more empathy (p. 09). Another characteristic of low scorers was: The tendency to focus on internal and intrinsic values of the individual must be seen as being directly connected with lack of prejudice. Rather than taking a stereotyped view of people and judg- ing them on the basis of their place in the social hierarchy, low scores are, in the manner described, more open to immediate experience and to an evalu- ation of peOple on the basis of individual and intrinsic merits (p. A21). In discussing reasons for more empathy and less suspicion in low scorers, the authors said that: . . . regardless of whether the specific topic was that of ambivalence, or aggression, or passivity, or some other related feature of personality dynamics, the outstanding finding was that the extremely unprejudiced individual tends to manifest a greater readiness to become aware of unacceptable tendencies and impulses in himself (p. A7A). 21 The primary difference seems to lie in the ego functioning, and particularly in the relation of the ego to the deeper levels of personality. . . . The ego defenses of the lows are relatively more impulse—releasing: at best we find consider- able sublimation. . . . In the highs on the other hand . . . the ego defenses are characteristically more counter-cathectic;there is less sublimation and more use of defenses such as projection, denial, and reaction-formation, defenses which aid the individual in maintaining a moral facade at the expense of self-expression and emotional release (p. 595). These findings plainly indicate that persons who have low scores on the E and F scales are more open toward and tolerant of others than those who score high on the scales. Low scorers experience less fear about their relationship to people and the world than do high scorers. This is important information for this study, since it supports Allport's thesis (195A) that empathy and prejudice are inversely related. The Authoritarian Personality has stimulated an abundance of research. It has also been severely criti- cized (Kirscht and Dillehay, 1967). Shils (195A) and Rokeach (1960) claimed that the researchers did not study general authoritarianism, but in fact studied only "right" authoritarians and neglected to study those persons who are authoritarians but hold to middle or leftist political views. Shils called for a study of "left" authoritarianism while Rokeach focused on the general characteristic of all forms of authoritarianism. 22 Peabody (1966) stated that the Authoritarianism Scales are not measuring what they purport to measure, but are measuring a tendency on the part of the subject to agree with an item regardless of its content. This methodological criticism has engendered a great number of inquiries into the whole area of response set. There are some legitimate reasons for concern in using the E and F scales for current research. The de— gree of criticism cannot be ignored in interpreting the results. Another major study of the prejudiced personality was undertaken by Bettelheim and Janowitz (1950). The central question of their research was "What are the factors essentially associated with anti-Semitism and are these factors also associated with anti-Negro atti— tudes" (p. 106)? Using a structured interview as their means of acquiring the data, the researchers interviewed 150 male veterans of World War II who were living in Chicago. The results of the study indicated that: . . . of the six psychological attributes, three (controls, security, and ego strength) were posi- tively associated with tolerance toward Jews. Three others (hostility, frustration, and iso- lation) were negatively associated with tolerance toward the Jews (pp. 211-212). The tolerant men may thus be seen in their majority as relatively strong in controls, markedly low in hostility and frustration, and high in security (p. 213). 23 AS a group, the outspoken and intense anti-Semites were characterized by the inadequacy of their con— trols. Their hostility was as high as their con- trols were inadequate to contain a high degree of hostility. The majority of them were low in security . . . (pp. 2lA-215). In regard to Negroes, Bettelheim and Janowitz discovered that: . . . even relatively adequate controls were not strong enough to permit tolerance toward the Negro. In general only those who possessed truly internalized controls seemed to have genuinely tolerant attitudes towards Negroes (p. 257). These findings parallel those of the Authoritarian study and suggest that those persons who have adequate ego strength (consequently feeling more secure in their interpersonal relationships) have less prejudiced atti- tudes toward minority groups. The Dynamics of Prejudice suffers from two important deficiencies. First, some of the psychological concepts lack precise operational definitions, e.g., anxiety. Second, the sample is restricted to veterans attempting to reintegrate themselves into society. Although the sample has a cross-section of America's males, they are undergoing a rather unique stage of readjustment. Thus, the findings of the study are not generalizable to the male population in general. However, the study did avoid some of the methodo- logical difficulties inherent ln The Authoritarian Per- sonality study. By gathering data through a structured interview some of the scaling problems in the Adorno et a1. study were absent. 2A Hirst (1955), in a broad review of the two works mentioned above, writes: Since most of the memories of the prejudiced person converge on his unrequited need for pro- tection and belonging, most of his adult thoughts are laced with the desire for safety and security and the determination to exclude others as others had once excluded him (p. 30). One result of this great need for security is the creation of interpersonal barriers. Distinctions must be made: lines must be sharply drawn between those who are like himself and those who are not. Divisions must be defined. If neces- sary, divisions must be created. And, in any case, divisions must be staunchly maintained (Hirsh, 1955, p. 30). The other two studies mentioned, PrOphets of Deceit and Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder, do not have findings which are relevant to this study. Studies of Empathy The study of empathy has focused primarily on two stages: the theoretical and the methodological. The theoretical focus is not germane to this discussion. The methodological focus is crucial to any empirical investigation. Empathy has been a very difficult con- cept to Operationalize. Therefore, it is more profitable to discuss measurement than substantive findings due to the many inadequacies and differences in measurement. Much of the substantive material is contradictory and totally dependent upon the weaknesses in measurement. 25 Previous research has pursued the measurement of empathy in two ways: predictive tests and situational tests. Predictive measures have generally followed the form of Dymond's (19A9) approach which required that a subject attempt to empathize with someone else by re- sponding to a personality measure or an adjective check list in the same way that the other person would have responded. Empathy then is measured by assessing the degree of similarity between the subject's empathic rating and the other individual's actual responses on the personality measure. Dymond's (19A9) study was followed by many others using the same method of assess- ing empathy (Cowden, 1955; Hawkes and Egbert, 195A; Halpern, 1955; Weiss, 1963). The predictive type empathy test has been severely criticized. Cronbach (1955, p. 191) suggests that this means of testing empathy conceals important variables which confound the results. Campbell (1967) is also critical of this method and contends that such procedures have failed to produce a reliable or valid instrument (p. 26). A second approach to the measurement of empathy is through Situational tests. These approaches provide some real-life or simulated real-life situations involv- ing a variety of stimuli to which the subject can respond. For example, Astin (1967) developed a situational test 26 that required a subject to respond to ten recorded client statements. These statements "were chosen primarily because they verbalized feeling experiences. . . ." A professional actor recorded the ten statements, and each subject was asked to listen to the recording and respond to the statements as if their counseling client was issuing them. The subject's responses were then rated according to "the extent to which the response communi- cates an understanding of the essential feeling and con- tent expressed in the client's statement" (Astin, 1967). Situational tests employing both audio (Stefflre, 1962; O'Hern and Arbuckle, 196A) and audio visual stimuli (Rank, 1966) have been developed. Campbell (1967) indi- cates that: . . the situational test procedures, particularly those which confront the subject with as much of the total stimuli from the situation as possible by using film or video tape, come closest to mea— suring operational definitions of empathy which are consistent with most theoretical conceptuali- zations of the term. Few situational tests have been develOped thus far, but the procedures certainly hold more promise than the predictive tests. The scale used in this study is a Situational test using video tape scenes of counselor- client interactions. The Affective Sensitivity Scale provides the respondent with a variety of stimuli to assist him in ascertaining the feelings of the client (Kagan et a1., 1967). 27 Studies Relating Prejudice and Empathy Some studies have related authoritarianism and empathy. In Allport's (195A) discussion of empathy as a characteristic of the tolerant personality, he cites the Scodel and Mussen (1953) study as evidence for his theory. Scodel and Mussen (1953) paired authoritarian and nonauthoritarian individuals with each other in order to test their judgments about each other. The subjects had conversed informally for approximately 20 minutes prior to responding to the California F test as they thought the other person would respond. Authori- tarianism and nonauthoritarianism were defined by high and low scores on the California F test. The results show that the authoritarian subjects imputed authoritarian attitudes to the nonauthoritarians. Judgments by nonauthoritarians were Significantly more accurate than authoritarian judgments. Allport concludes that "the tolerant students seemed in general to 'size up' their interlocutors better than did intolerant stu- dents" (195A, p. A35). Scodel and Freedman (1956) duplicated the Scodel and Mussen (1953) study but added another dimension. Authoritarian subjects were paired with other authori- tarians as well as nonauthoritarians; nonauthoritarian subjects were also paired with both types. The findings indicate that nonauthoritarian subjects were also 28 perceiving stereotypically because nonauthoritarians tended to make inaccurate estimates of other nonauthori— tarians. Crockett and Meidinger (1956) replicated both studies, but changed the operational definition of "accuracy of judgment." The former studies had defined accuracy as the extent to which the subject estimated his partner's total score on the California F scale. Since a total score may be obtained in many possible ways, Crockett and Meidinger defined accuracy as "the degree to which the S reproduces the pattern of his partner's responses." The results of this study were strikingly similar to the two previous studies. Rabinowitz (1956) responded to the Scodel—Mussen (1953) and the Scodel—Freedman (1956) findings by stating: Apparently, F-scale scores judged on the basis of a brief interaction reflect the assumptions of the judge, not the objective characteristics of the S judged. The findings . . . may arise from a difference in the beliefs held by authori— tarians and nonauthoritarians about the F- scale responses of an 'average' college student. Rabinowitz asked college students with known scores on the F scale to give the responses to the F scale which they believed a typical student would give. The findings of this study evidenced that: . low-scoring S's tend to estimate low scores, and high—scoring S's tend to estimate high scores . . . these results . . . are consistent with those of the Scodel—Mussen and Scodel-Freedman experi- ments (1956). 29 Rabinowitz thus concluded that the judges were not re- sponding to their partner as a distinct individual but only as a typical college student. The results in this area of inquiry are described accurately by Cronbach (1958) in his summary of results in the whole area of interpersonal perception as being ". . . interesting, statistically Significant, and exasperatingly inconsistent" (p. 353). Schulberg, in an attempt to clarify the situation, argues that the previous studies have ignored some information on re— sponse set with the F scale. He replicated the other studies (Scodel-Mussen, Scodel-Freedman) and also iso— 1ated those persons who were highly agreeing subjects. Schulberg's results added further evidence to the other findings which indicated that there is no difference in the ability of authoritarians, nonauthoritarians, or highly agreeing subjects to accurately judge another. Kirscht and Dillehay (1967) sum up the research efforts in this area by stating: Much of the research used a guessing game in which the subject . . . filled out another F scale as he thought someone else would. Presumably this guessing enabled the investigator to measure 'accuracy' since he had actual responses available from stimulus objects. In reality, this approach often involved invalid analyses (p. 81). The only valid conclusion is that authoritarians and nonauthoritarians differed in the F scale responses they attributed to people (p. 82). 30 These attempts to relate empathy and authoritarianism have all used predictive—type empathy tests. As noted earlier, predictive approaches have failed to produce a valid or reliable measure of empathy (Campbell, 1967). Consequently, any interpersonal research (Jones, 1955; Taft, 1966) using situational type empathy tests must be considered suspect. All of the studies mentioned above used the Cali- fornia F scale, which contains significant difficulties. Therefore, we can conclude that the results of the re- search on the relationship between empathy and authori- tarianism is confusing, inaccurate, and useless. No other research investigating the relationship between empathy and prejudice has been found. Hopefully, the present investigation will generate further studies of this important relationship. Predictor Variables Social psychologists, in the past 20 years, have been extremely interested in the measurement of attitudes. They have investigated many variables which have been theorized to have some significant relationship to the develOpment or maintenance of certain attitudes. Jordan (1968) comprehensively reviewed the litera- ture on attitude research, including racial attitudes, and found that four classes of variables or factors seem to be important determinants, correlates, and/or predictors 31 of attitudes: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, income, geographic location, etc., (b) socio-psycho- logical factors such as one's value orientation, (c) contact factors such as amount, nature, and enjoyment of contact, and (d) the amount of factual knowledge one has about the attitude object. This study investigated some of the variables mentioned in Jordan's review. Contact Brophy (19A6) found a marked reduction in anti- Negro prejudice among white merchant marines who had worked with Negro sailors at sea. Determinants of low prejudice were found to be: (a) the number of times the seaman had been to sea, (b) the number of times under enemy fire, (c) the number of times that Negroes were on the ship, and (d) the particular seaman's union that a person belonged to. The study was weak methodologically since an interviewer subjectively decided whether the seamen evidenced prejudice while answering a series of ten questions. Konopka (19A?) studied the nature of children's racial attitudes after being placed in a therapy group with children of other races. Racial attitudes became more positive in this setting, and KonOpka attributed the changes to the close contact and the expression of feelings about that contact. 32 Harding and Hogrefe (1952) conducted a study of the attitudes of white department store employees toward Negro co-workers. Subjects were classified into three groups, depending upon their experience with Negro employees: unequal status contact group, equal status contact group, and no contact group. Their findings indicated that equal status work contacts produced favorable attitudes towards Negroes at work, but the favorableness did not continue for social relationships outside the work situation. The no contact group was more favorable than the unequal status group but less favorable that the equal status group. Several studies have concentrated upon the effect of interracial housing on racial attitudes. Deutsch and Collin (1951) studied two interracial low-rent public housing projects in New York and compared them with two segregated bi—racial housing projects in New Jersey. Their findings indicated that the integrated housing was more conducive to positive racial attitudes than was the segregated housing. The findings of the Wilner, Walkley, and Cook (1952) study of interracial housing coincided with the Deutsch-Collin (1951) findings. Winder (1955) measured the attitudes of whites toward Negroes moving into their community in the Chicago suburbs. The results indicated that white: 33 . . . attitudes towards biracial contact are more hostile where there is residential contact, but they become less crystallized in the presence of increasing residential contact. Low class whites in this study evidenced the highest degree of prejudice since they were competing with low class Negroes for low-income housing. In an attempt to reduce prejudice, Holmes (1968) divided prospective secondary teachers into three groups: those who participated with blacks in discussion groups on campus, those who visited Negro homes, businesses, etc. as field work, and a control group. His findings indicated a significant reduction in prejudice in both the campus and field groups, with the greatest amount of reduction occurring in the field group. Brink and Harris (196A) found in their first survey for Newsweek that their respondents indicated a readiness to have more contact with Negroes. Eighty-four per cent, however, stated that they would object to a relative or friend marrying a Negro, and 90 per cent would be upset if their daughter dated a Negro. Fifty per cent mentioned that they would be upset by interracial housing in their area. In another survey in 1966, Brink and Harris found approximately the same percentages of peOple objecting to dating, marriage, and interracial housing. In the third attitude survey (1969), Newsweek assessed only Negro attitudes. The authors indicated 'that since 1966, Negroes have enjoyed positive changes 3A in the areas of jobs and education. Few changes have occurred in the areas of housing and personal respect. Cook and Selltiz (1955) reviewed 30 studies on ethnic interaction and discovered two important vari- ables. First, the characteristics of the contact situation are crucial. It appears that the contact situation is most productive for intergroup relations if it offers the opportunity for equal status, mutually independent persons to become well enough acquainted so that they can "know each other." Second, the charac- teristics of the individuals who are in contact are significant. The contact will be enhanced if the indi- viduals differ from the commonly held stereotypes about their groups and if they resemble each other in back- ground and interests. The research that has been conducted since the Cook and Selltiz review seems to substantiate their find- ings. As Saenger writes: Not all types of contact will lead to a reduction of prejudice. . . . While we have seen that prejudice makes us perceive minorities in an unfavorable light, it is unquestionably true that some experiences reinforce prejudices and others help to erase them (1953, p. 213). Religiosity Religious preference and church attendance have consistently yielded significant results in relationship to prejudice. Some of the important studies in this area are reviewed in this section. 35 Allport and Kramer (19A6) report finding Protestant and Catholic students more anti-Negro than those students who claim no religious affiliation. They also discovered that students who come from strong religious families are the most intolerant of all students studied. The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950) authors state that church attenders have significantly higher ethnocentrism scores than non-church attenders (p. 212). They also write: There seems to be no doubt that subjects who reject organized religion are less prejudiced on the average than those who, in one way or another, accept it (p. 209). Kelly, Person, and Holtzman (1958) investigated racial attitudes in the South. They report that those people who attend church twice a month are most un- favorable toward desegregation; those who never attend church are most positive; and those who attend regularly are in between. In an attempt to distinguish various aspects of religious life and their relationship to prejudice, Maranell (1967) studied both anti-Semitism and anti— Negro attitudes. He found that several religious vari- ables correlate positively with bigotry: mysticism, theism, ritualism, fundamentalism, superstitious atti- tudes, and church attendance. A Using a behavioral measure of attitudes, Engel (1968) found white college students more willing to 36 accept Negroes who are of the same religion than Negroes from other religious groups when considering Negroes for membership in a civil organization, neighborhood housing, or office sharing. Allport and Ross (1967) questioned the apparent paradox between the research findings and the teaching of tolerance inherent in many religious beliefs. In an attempt to understand this paradox, they distinguished between an extrinsic and an intrinsic approach to reli- gion. Persons who have an extrinsic orientation "are disposed to use religion for their own ends." Persons with an intrinsic orientation "find their master motive in religion." The findings of this study suggest that those who have an extrinsic orientation to religion are significantly more prejudiced than those persons with an intrinsic orientation. Allen's (1966) use of the terms "committed" and "consenual" are equivalent to Allport's intrinsic and extrinsic orientations to religion. Allen also found that committed religious people score significantly lower on prejudice measures than consenual religious people. Unfortunately, neither of these studies compare the two religious groups with non—religious people. Consequently, we do not know if intrinsic or committed religious people score as low as non-religious people do on measures of prejudice. 37 Change Orientation Another variable which appears to be related to racial attitudes is a person's attitude toward change. Does a person welcome change in himself and his en— vironment or does he resist change and hold rigidly to stabilized patterns? The authors of The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno e£_§1,, 1950) suggest that persons who score high on the authoritarian scales tend to be signifi- cantly more rigid in their thinking and behavior than those who score low on the scales (p. A63). They write that: "One of the most pervasive formal aspects of the personality organization of the extremely prejudiced individual is his rigidity" (p. A79). Other studies have tested the relationship between measures of rigidity and the F scale. Rokeach, 19A8; Brown, 1953; French, 1955; Jackson, Messick, and Solley, 1957; all used the Lukin's water jar problem as a measure of rigidity and related it to measures of authoritarian— ism. The results of these studies are inconsistent. Lewitt and Zuchenian (1959), after reviewing many of the studies, concluded that the water jar problem is an invalid test of rigidity and thus accounted for the in— consistent results. Millon (1957) found that those who score high on the F scale resist change in a perceptual task. Harvey 38 (1963) also found authoritarianism and rigidity to be related. Allport (195A) reviewed studies on rigidity and prejudice and concludes that: All these experiments point in the same direction. Prejudiced people demand clear—cut structure in the world, even if it is a narrow and inadequate structure. Where there is no order they impose it. When new solutions are called for they cling to tried and tested habits. Whenever possi- ble they latch onto what is familiar, safe, simple, definite (p. A03). Efficacy A person's perception of the physical and social environment seems to be correlated with prejudicial attitudes. AdOrno g£_§1. (1950) cites that high scorers on the authoritarian scales have an "emphasis on the 'jungle-character' of the world . . . a world in which one has to destroy others to prevent them from destroy- ing oneself . . ." (p. All). Bettelheim e£_§1. (1950) indicated that those veterans who were most intolerant were fearful of the world and its opportunities for them. They were pessi— mistic, afraid that they would be exploited, and con- cerned that they would be unemployed. If a person is threatened by his world, it would be logical to assume that he might hold negative attitudes toward those who differ from himself. 39 Summary and Conclusions The majority of these studies on racial attitudes suffer from severe limitations in the areas of measure- ment, rationale, and sampling. These difficulties will be examined individually. There are several reasons why the assessment of prejudice is weak in many of the studies. First, except for the Authoritarian scales (Adorno g£_§l., 1950) and the Harding and Schuman scale (Allport and Ross, 1967), most of the instruments were designed for a particular study, with no validity or reliability data available. Without validity or reliability information it is diffi- cult to ascertain what the scores on the tests mean. Second, many of the studies used the inadequate California F test. Its availability has often been the primary consideration for its use. Third, since a different scale was often designed for each study, it is difficult to compare findings across studies. Do the scores from study one using scale A mean the same thing as the findings from study two using scale B? This is an impossible question to answer without correlation coefficients to indicate how two scales relate. Fourth, Guttman (1959, 1961) analyzed the components of an attitude item and distinguished several different types of items. Using Guttman's original analysis, A0 Jordan (1968) categorized attitude items into six differ- ent classes. An analysis of the current measurement literature indicates that many of the attitude items might be classified in one of Jordan's six types; i.e., the stereotypic. It is often unclear what attitudinal components are being measured. Thus, it appears that much of the attitude measurement has been quite narrow in its scope and confusing in its direction. Another serious limitation of racial attitude studies is that they are often isolated from the theo- retical notions about prejudice. Rather than being con- nected with several emerging theories of prejudice, the studies were often conducted from isolated theoretical ideas. Allport's work, The Nature of Prejudice (195A), was the last attempt to coordinate the isolated bits of information into a coordinated whole. Further work in this area is badly needed at the present time. Also, many of the studies used inadequate sampling procedures, thus failing to permit valid generalizations to larger populations. The availability of subjects often dictated the sampling procedures, rather than any adherence to sampling theory. A common criticism of racial attitude studies is that the results are usually not consistent with overt behavior. La Piere (193A), Merton (19AO), Blumer (195A) De Fleur and Westie (1958), and Deutscher (196A) all Al indicate that their studies reveal an inconsistency be- tween people's verbalized behavior on attitude measures and their actual behavior in a social situation. Guttman (1950) operationally defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to some- thing" (p. 50). Attitude items based on this definition include both verbalized behaviors and actual behaviors. Guttman's scaling theory provides one possible explan- ation for the apparent inconsistency mentioned above. Jordan (1968), using Guttman's theory, prOposed six types of attitude statements. These types or levels are arranged on a continuum from belief about the atti- tude object to actual behavior towards the object. An analysis of many attitude measurement devices reveals that the majority of attitude items are written at the stereotypic level which is at the belief end of the continuum. Thus it is understandable that an incon- sistency exists between a response to the verbal stereotypic attitude items and the actual behavior. Using Guttman's approach to scaling, attitude items can be written ranging from belief-about—others to actual personal behavioral experiences: "Have you ever loaned money to a Negro?" This method will enable researchers to investigate further the differences between what people say they believe and will do, and what they have actually done behaviorally. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES This research was primarily conducted to assess various determinants of prejudice. Therefore, it was necessary to adOpt measures of both the determinants and prejudice. Logical procedures were developed to select the sample, administer the instruments, and analyze the results. These aspects of the study are described in this chapter. Instrumentation One of the major difficulties in former attempts to empirically assess the relationship between prejudice and empathy has been inadequate instrumentation. Consequently, the instruments used in this study are extremely important. This section will provide an extensive description of the measuring devices used in this study: (a) The Attitude 'BehaVior'Scale: ‘White/Negro (ABS: W/N) develOped by Jordan and Hamersma (1969) was used to measure racial attitudes, (b) The Personal Questionnaire which accom- panies the ABS: W/N assessed the predictor variables, and (c) The Affective Sensitivity Scale developed by Kagan et al. was used to measure affective sensitivity (empathy). A2 A3 The Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro The Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro was con- structed according to Guttman's facet theOry (Guttman and Schlesinger, 1967). This theory guides the construction of attitude items by a systematic a priori design instead of using intuition or judges. It allows a researcher to construct an attitude scale according to Guttman's speci- fic guidelines and then empirically check how successful the efforts have been. Guttman's Four Level Theory Guttman (1959) analyzed the findings of a racial attitude study by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) and distinguished three facets which are inherent in any atti— tude response. The three components or facets are the following: (a) the subject's behavior, (b) the referent, and (c) the referent's intergroup behavior. In each facet are two elements, one weaker than the other. For example, under the facet "subject's behavior" are the elements al "belief" and a2 "overt action." The elements are arranged along one of two continua, other-self or belief-action. Belief,in the example, is weaker than overt action. Table 1 indicates Guttman's three facet system. Note that the elements with the subscript l are weaker on the above two continua than elements with the subscript 2. AA TABLE l.--Basic facets used to determine component structure of an attitude item. (A) (B) (C) Subject's Referent Referent's Facets Behavior Intergroup Behavior al belief b1 subject's cl compar- Elements group ative a2 overt b2 subject c2 inter— action himself active One element from each facet must be represented in any given attitude item. Since there are three facets, any statement has the possibility of having none, one, two, or three strong facets--a total of four combinations. Guttman indicated the logical reason for only four permutations of strong and weak facets. If the two ele- ments in each facet are ordered, and if the facets are ordered in relation to each other, then with n dichotomous facets there would be n + 1 types or levels of attitude items. The levels are ordered according to the number of strong or weak facets that each level possesses. As Guttman noted: "In a scalable series of leveLs, each pro- file differs from its predecessor on only one facet" (1959). Since there are three facets and two elements in each facet, there are 2x2x2 or eight possible combinations of strong and/or weak facets. The eight combinations A5 range from (1) al bl cl, (2) al bl c2, (3) al b2 c2, (83) a2 b2 c2. Only four of the eight combinations are Lused.in the scale construction: Guttman chose the "best" ccnnbinations on the basis of logic, semantics, and in- tuition. Table 2 contains the four combinations that Guttman chose in facetizing the Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) research findings. The descriptive names were chosen by Guttman to best represent the nature of the attitude items with a particular combination of strong and weak elements. TABLE 2.-—Facet profiles of attitude subuniverses. Subuniverses Profiles 1. Stereotype al b1 01 II. Norm al b1 02 III. Hypothetical Interaction al b2 02 IV. Personal Interaction a2 b2 c2 The definitions that Guttman (1959) has given to the four levels are: 1. Stereotypic: Belief of (a white subject) that his own group (exceIs--does not excel) in com- parison with Negroes on (desirable traits). 2. Norm: Belief of (a white subject) that his own group (ought-~ought not) interact with Negroes in (social ways). 3. Hypothetical Interaction: Belief of (a white subject) that hg himself (will--will not) interact with Negroes in (social ways). A6 A. Personal Interaction: Overt action of (a white subject) himself (to--not to) interact with Negroes in (social ways). Two examples of attitude items belonging to a parfidcular level follow. The statement "Negroes are more trustworthy than whites" is a level 1 (stereotypic) item. The behavior of the subject is a belief about how the attitude object Compares with other persons such as the subject's own E32223 The item, "I have invited Negroes for dinner at my home," comes from level A (personal interaction). The response indicates an interaction of the subject himself, a specific overt action. According to Guttman's theory, the attitude items on level 1 should be closer in semantic meaning to those items on level 2 than to those on level A. Since the levels are ordered, the order is inherent in the semantic structure of the attitude items themselves. Guttman (1959) suggested further that the semantic relationship among levels is reflected in the statistical correlations among them. This phenomenon was identified as the "principle of contiguity" (p. 32A). This means that the correlations between levels should decrease in relation to the number of steps the two levels are removed from each other. The semantic structure of the attitude universe provides a social-psychological basis for predicting the structure of the empirical intercorrelation matrix. A7 Guttman called the intercorrelation matrix a "simplex." The semantic structure predicts the order of correlations but does not predict their exact size. Table 3 contains an example of a hypothetical simplex for Guttman's four levels. TABLE 3.—-Hypothetica1 matrix of level-by-level corre- lations illustrating the simplex structure. Level 1 2 3 A 1 ___ 2 .60 --- 3 .50 .60 ___ Ll .HO 050 .60 --- The characteristics of the simplex are: (a) start- ing from the zero point (where the two coordinates meet), the correlations increase as they extend to the end of the axes, and (b) adjacent levels will correlate more highly with each other than with more remote levels. Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) were not aware of facet analysis when they interpreted their data. Guttman translated their data into facet theory. Table A illustrates the simplex that resulted. The Simplex indicates that there is one correlation which does not follow the predicted structure: the r iv iii (=.A9) does not quite exceed r (=.51). Guttman (1959) iv 11 A8 TABLE A.-—Guttman's simplex of the Bastide and van den Berghe data. Level 1 2 3 A 1 ___ 2 .60 --- 3 .37 68 --— A .25 .51 .A9 --— indicated that this small exception is not an "actual contradiction of the contiguity principle" (p. 325). He attributes the error to sampling and other biases in selection. Jordan's Six Level Theory Jordan (1968) suggested that Guttman's three facets need to be expanded. He proposed that two more facets be added to Guttman's original three. Therefore, using Guttman's formula for number of levels (n facets + l = number of levels), Jordan expanded the number of levels from four to six. Tables 5 and 6 indicate the facets, elements of facets, and levels identified by Jordan. The expansion of facets to ABCDE leaves 32 possible combinations of strong and weak elements. Jordan (1968) suggests that sOme of the combinations are not logically or semantically feasible. Choosing the best Six combi- nations is still a matter of judgment. Maierle (1969) is A9 mama .s gods: cosmomom Hmfioom UOHHQQ< mo moduapmcH HomLmH swappso mfisoq mpfiwgo>fics mumpm cmeQOHz coupon .m 230% .:0fiuomlamnnm> ocw maom uponpo ”mpoomm on» cmsopnu cap mscfipcoo 039 .pcoewosh mo pounds w mappmd Haapm ma meow mo dsosw zpmonz a mo coapomaom one .Hmoawoa mam mcofiumcfinEoo Ham poc page Umpoc on omam oasocm pH .OUSDprm on» mo =£pwsoppm= on» ampmopw on» .mcfimpcoo pom m mucoanm am: pofigomQSm shoe one .mamsoocmuasefim mpmomm O>Hm Ham mmopow swan on 30H Eopm mpoomm o>Hd omonp mo mpom pogopho one mm oocfimoo SHHBCOHmeOQo "coaposmpm pCHOmcoon .Am canoe ommv Havapcooa ohm pouch ocm .ucopomon .DQOnQSm .m .m .: Ho>oq CH mAODOm one spas poc p32 .pcmpow not on» spas HmOHpcooa ma pothSm on» m Ho>oq CH mEocp psonw phonop Op ooxmw ma pooh Insm map .HBOHpQOUH mum Loves was ucopomop m sea a Ho>oq CH .o.a mom mafipmmmmoo: no: 939 .cpoo so moved so ucopommp Lonpfio spas HmOchooH ma whamCCOHumOSU map 930 wcHHHfim pommnsm on» moEHpoEom page Umpoc on oasocm pH . mam mascawoaafi Emom mcoapmcfinEoo mEom .o.H =.ucoumfimcoo= on pmse m was m .momwo £05m CH .HmOfipcooH Ohm 0 was ¢ .mafipmmmoomc no: pan .zaucosvomm .moa>mcop m.o mmHMHHmsv m om .pofi>mnon m.< moanaamsv m m¢m . coapom HmQOHBMLOQo mo coapomLOch mp maom mo upo>o mp maom mm mucoanm OAHOQEmm Ho comfipdeoo Ho mpocpo Ho moaaon an whocuo Hm poa>mnom, poa>m£omi mPWowom amogmpoucH Loa>m£mm mucosa mo chEOQ m.hOpo< gono< pcmpmmom economom Amv Adv gov Ame Aev .mmho>fics opzpfippm cm mo coaposppm chOncoo ocfispmpmp on pom: wmpoomm oammmll.m mqmoH msoHum> Ho denmcoHumHmL masoHocH mommcpCOAma CH moss: muscumuHmcon macaw Hm5p0< HHHmcoHpmgooo pownwucH o3 Apom mzv mo mo Ho No Hm L0H>mcon HMOHpmchch Hmcompoms: aamHHmOHHonEHm usMLOch H o>oHHmn H Ho mp mo Hp mm : AmwcHHoou asopw Hmspomv HpHpcooH anono HHHnOHHooEmm pompoucH m3 Auom ozv Ho mu Ho mp Hm AmcoHumuowam asocwv mzmH omEHmHoopd HHHmOHHopEHw pompmch H m>mHHon m3 Ho mu mo Ha Ha Hmsomom . - . H H m H m HmCOmLoa oocmemmuHHHmcompoov deuCOonuHom HHHmOHHonme opquoc H o>oHHmp H m o o n m AmosHm> oo>HmoLOQV COHpmsHm>o Hmtoe Hmcomnomsa **HHHmOHHohEHm poMLOch o3 m>oHHma H Hm mp H0 H2 mm m . mapwpm Hmcompmd pocmemBIQBOLo HHHBOHHOQEHw onwasfio H w>mHHon m3 Ho Ho mo Hp Hm Ego: HdeHoomos gmmHHmoHHooEHm pompmch m3 m>oHHmn 03 Ho mo Ho Hp Hm mspmum macaw omcmemmlmHHmCOmhom HHHROHHODEHm oudeOO m3 o>oHHon H Ho Ho H0 H9 mm m , Amspmpm . . macaw omcmemMIasoswv mamuoopoum HmuoHo we: asmHHmOHHooEmm ogmano o: m>mHHon o3 Ho Ho H0 H9 Hm H .omesz m>HuoHpomoo popcoEoumpm HmCOHuHcHHmo «OHHHoLm poomm Ho>oq .mQOHpmpSEth O>Ho3u Dom mucosmpmum HBGOHpHcHHOU cam .mOHHHomQ poomm .mHo>OH mquOHumNHHmnAm> coupappw Ho Empmzm Ho>manHm poowHIO>Hmll.s mqmoq ELDB m>HpQHLomoo Hmmmv snoronoe ooNHHom Hmmmv .som ooom .om .s.m.z Ammo .som sosmsomso .s.m.s R .oOULMHOm HHHmucoE uonom AOH>mcom OUSppr< on» Eonu wchHsmop mOOHmeE COHpmHmnpoonl.H opstm 55 areas of involvement with the object are explored. The attitude item, "Would you ask a Negro to your home for dinner?" includes the following disjoint struction ele- ments: (a) the attitude object, "Negro," is identified, and (b) the area of involvement is Specified, "ask to your home for dinner." The disjoint struction of the ABS: W/N defines whites' attitudes toward Negroes in seven areas of in- volvement. These areas are: (a) "0" Characteristics, personal, (b) "E" Education, (c) "H" Housing, (d) "J" Jobs, (e) "L" Law and order, (f) "P" Political activism- racial, and (g) "W" War and military service. A separate six level attitude scale was develOped for each of the seven areas. Conjoint and disjoint struction are both guides to the development of attitude items. In order to illustrate how both of these aspects of item construction relate, Jordan and Hamersma prepared a visual guide called a Inapping sentence, illustrated in Figure 2 (Hamersma, 1969, p. 77). To illustrate a typical attitude item at each level :1n the ABS: W/N, Table 9 presents one item which is :followed through all six levels. The present study used only the scales for white attitudes toward Negroes, but identical scales have also been develOped to measure black attitudes toward whites. £56 - mmpfiflx one .ZZ,..._ range a; a.o Tiszyg u;:cH Lngp cu parquet ssz an HE t, > I. _ . . H .. l .1 . .. a JV « v . d... L. . z, : .. ,...r_££ 1C5. ,.,.. _Lm CwaigLJtm Jo ._ .wCfiQD , 4. . ,. . .. .1. t 1.... . .. 1,) .2 . V . s p. . .. I . A...“ rd V. ,J;.:.. V PHI," H.....30Hpm\c W ..,._»¢.k33\1\ .y>Humn®; ,. LAMS ,... :2. H. . 1....» H .v r . .pL ., p“ :onHrb Amv Ounnmv m: . :ch mm u I m. Ho rwzmouh (x :oHpmer>¢ flstwE m w... ”.0 00 C :Hch \oHozz a .mxomHm Ho COHHozgpm Li _AHOOLV on ocean ch; NHmeem ELM: nuortop TH ”1.7; ..,., . p4 QZHADU _Hugncw>«xcqj HrlxcEzLHmcw .H OJ 'H es DHc.H Hazpun pm c>Hpoommn “rap UluzhHLpud Hw Hwy HHV o>Hpch0o H Ho>i HhmuHHHa can as: 5H ansHsomsHooHsHHod ma house can ImH H s , nooH ma ucH>Ho>cH wchzoc u ’ COHumosoo mu mOHanLouommeo Hm acoHosspHm Amy mafia 0L ,, W“: ,5... \c .na -s~ moon HHHscoHpmpoao mo H .sw “rm” Asapwasr T.Hmnremoo ’ . . . H H no xean nthoEos ,t pcm30\UHso3\mHHROHHonahm o n;w>n:0h Hwoansnnnw ,.L0nu< L3H>nzom n.pooo< no chEoo is. Hus ..:u .. hHmm cm u_;, t ‘ azpwm . no OHHC3 .xomH: . can ’ccwoon wit>o on. LOH>xEon .xosHmIDHonz pCOAOHOL ms .uoa H I neg» . HQTLOHOL a as .aoq a on nupspfihppm 5L;;po 0. win v hzwflth Hh' ccp mLoch rm Axv pownnzm Logo: , L “page: unopened Hamhvmom How Are HHpfimcmm o>Hpoouh< on» an Botswana mm azumaemo .m>onm via 90 kuoen .mHm u 2m Ham. omm. mac. mmm. mom. cam. mmo. Ho>cq coneoaeacwam ema ama ama ama sea sea ama maccecooncm do nooeaz Hao. mwo. omH. oeo. m:o.| Hmo.n mmH.I cofiumamppoo LoopOIOLoN exceedsm Hmpoe coHuo< mafiaomm Hmmmwmmmwmxz cowwmwmm>m Ego: cahoompoum mapmfipm> o accented HmCOnLod Hmconpmm anaconda Hmumfioom Hmumfioom pcoocoamocH 89 .COHUMOSUm Z\3 ”mm< we» co mnpcoosum om: cofiumozom hoe mannflen> espouse can moonwo: cameo» noospfiuun cmozumn macapmamppoo nmoponopmmnu.sfl mqmwpfimcwm o>Huomde< 6:» mo omhsmmms no mcpmqsmo .o>onm ola do Houoen .wmm n 2m zmz. mew. mno. wa. mmz. . wma. mm». Hm>mq meadofiuficwfim Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham muchCOQmmm mo Lonezz mmo. omo. mma. :Ho. sac. moa.| mao.l coaumHmppoo Looselopmw cascadem Hmpoe coauo< wcfiammm Hmmmwwmmmwmm cowmmwwm>m Ehoz mdmuompmum mHanpm> n Hmcomgmm HMCOmme HmCOmLod anaconda Hmpofioom Hmuoaoom unmpcmamocH .noaanaeouomnnco zx: ”mma on» so mmucopSum om: :ofiuwozom Lou mfinmfipm> acudeo ocm mmopmoz onmzop mmUSpHuum comspmn wcofipmfimgpoo thLOIopoNII.mH mqm<9 90 Tables 18 and 19 indicate the specific contact variables most highly correlated with total racial atti- tude. The partial 2 indicated that enjoyment and nature of the contact were significantly related to positive racial attitudes on both the C and E scales. Amount of contact and ease of avoidance of contact were signifi- cantly correlated with total racial attitude, and amount of income gained was significantly negatively correlated with the total. The multiple R indicated that the contact variables were also significantly related to subscales A (personal hypothetical behavior), 5 (personal feeling), and 6 (per- sonal action) on both scales. 0n the personal hypothetical behavior level, the multiple R of .35 on C and .28 on E were both significant at the .0005 level. The R2 on c aCcounted for 12 per cent of the variance, and on E, the R2 accounted for 8 per cent of the variance of the de- pendent variable by the independent variables. On the personal action level, the multiple R on scale C was .51 and on E was .AA. These correlations were both significant at the .0005 level. On C, the contact vari— ables accounted for 26 per cent, and on E, 19 per cent of the variance of the dependent variable. It appears that contact is the most important determinant of attitudes toward Negroes when the attitudes are behaviorally oriented, whether hypothetical or actual. 91 .Umpsano no: man» .Ho>oH mo. can» mamaH .uomucoo on» go ucoEAOwcm .mwramoz mud: uoduCOo ho occaUHo>u uo onwmo .noopmoz spa: uoaucoo no unsosfiuwcuopfiona mid ho Houoan .moOLwoz anz uoaucoo Eouu om>Hpoo osoocH.w .mnm I 2a mooo.v om. mooo.v an. moo. om. mooo.v om. HI: 0H. Hun mH. mo. HN. m canauasz moo. oH. Hoo. mH. Hoo. mH. Ho. oH. om. >0. mm. Hoo.u mo. moo.l n.z0ncm om. No.1 Hz. mo.u oo. mo.u on. 20.: so. Ho. mm. No.1 we. mo.| w.popH< om. moo.l om. oo.u om. oo.n mH. No.1 mH. mo.| mo. MH. mo. mH. uoEoocH NH. mo. HN. No. mm. so. me. :0. mo. mo. om. zoo. Ho. ma. coucmoao>< am. so. mooo.v mm. me. Ho.u mo. mo. ms. No.| om. mo.n 0H. oo.| Upcsos< Ho. oH. no. NH. NH. mo. No. MH. HH. oo. om. mo. mm. so. omnspaz .me L .me a .me L .me L .me a .me a .wam A LoH>mcmm :oHpmsz>m oHnmapm> coHuo< wcHHoom Epoz oompoopoum Hmuoa HmoHpmchme Hmtoz mucoocoooocH a Hmconuom Hmcompom Hmcowtmm Hmcompom HmumHoom Hmuowoom .coHumosom z\3 "mm< one :0 mmucmosum om: coHumozom poo moHanga> pomucoo one mmocwmz opmzou moosquum comzuoo mcoHumHopaoo Haapuma one oHQHpH:ZIn.mH mqm<9 .oop3QEOO yo: man; .Ho>oH mo. coco mmmq .mmopwoz cud: uoaucoo «o oocono>a no ommmo .moopwoz spas pompcoo no uczos< H c .uom»200 on» go ucmEmOncmc .mmopwoz no“: pomucoo on» 90 ohspazov .uoducoo onu o» wo>HumcnwuHona mid ho Hduoen .moOmez ans pompcoo Echo om>fipou oEoocH.H .hmm I 2m mooo.v as. mooo.v Hm. No. ON. mooo.v mm. Hoo. mN. Hun :H. Hi: NH. m oHdHuHa: No. MH. Nm. so. mo. NH. 00. mH. mo. HH. oo. mo.u mm. mo. n.Non:m mH. No. oo. No. mN. oo. oo. Ho. No. Ho. on. no. mo. NH. m.houH< mo. HH.n MH. ,oo.u :H. oo.u mo. HH.I om. mo.u co. mo. oo. oo.: oosoocH Ho. MH. :0. HH. em. mo. mH. mo. oN. oo. oo. 0H. mN. oo. ooocdoHo>< mooo.v MN. mooo.v om. em. 00. No. NH. mo. mo. me. no. we. 20.: eucsos< no. HH. oo. oH. HN. No. AN. oo. oN. oo. om. mo. oo. No. oopsuwz .mfim a .me a .me p . .me L .me a .me A .me a L0H>mnom :oHpasHm>m manwwhm> new. amen“... 6%.“... Anna“... Hmcomnmm Hmcompom m .nOHunHtcuomaoco 2\3 Hom< on» :0 anacoosun om: coaumozom poo moHanhm> powucoc new mmopwoz opmzou noosuHupm comzuon macaumHophOO Hauuhan new oflaaudzzli.mH mqmmH m0. can» mmoqo .o>onm 01H no kuoe .mHm u 20 D Noe. mN. mooo.v mN. Noo. mN. Noo. mN. on: 0H. Noo. mN. on: HH. m oHdHaHaz 0H. N0. 00. 00. mm. 00.: om. mo.| 00. No.1 m0. NH. 00. 0H. .2o< oHom mN. mo. Hm. No.1 mo. Hoo.: HN. N0.| om. mo. :00. NH. mm. Ho. :oHumEo»:< mm. No. . mo. oH. No. moo. Hz. mo. Ho. m0. :0. H0. mm. N00. .200 cuLHm ma. m0. N0. mH. HH. 00. we. :0. mm. 00. :00. NH.| 00. 300.: .Lwom oHHco H00. 0H. moo. NH. mooo.v HN. m000.v mm. :0. NH. mo. mooo.| mm. mo.l LHom .me L .mHm L .mHm L .mHo L .me L .wHw L .me L l . - L0H>0zwm :oHumsHm>m oHanLm> new“... New“. an”... , momma. n H m Hmcomme HmcomLmu .. .coHoNoaom :\3 Home one so enucoozon. \ 0m: coHpmosom Loo moHanLm> coHumpcmHLo mmcoco 0:0 mooLmo: oLnsoo moosoHuoo 2603002 mcoHpmHmLLOQ HmHuLma 0:0 oHQHpHSEII.HN mqmoH me. 2050 mmoqo .o>onm 01H 00 Hmuoen .Nmm n 20 m000.v mm. mooo.v Hm. on: 0H. moo. mm. m0. oH. mo. 0H. on: HH. m mHoHpHsz H0. :H. Hoo. mH. 0m. N0.I mo. m0. Hm. N0. N0. MH. 00. OH. .co< oHsm mm. m0.u Hm. 00.: N . :0. 0H. No.1 NH. 00.1 :m. H0. 00. mo.| coprEOps< 0N. ,mo. om. mo. mN. No.1 0N. H0. mm. m0. Hm. m0.| Na. :0. .:00 anHm N0. 00. m0. mH. mo. 00. 00. 00. . Nm. mo. 0H. No.1 No. mo.| .Lmom oHHno m000.v 0H. . moo. NH. 0H. 00. H00. 0H. H0. mH. No. 00. NN. H0.| LHom .mHm L .me L .mHm L. .mHm L .mHm L .me L .me L 2.2 8:2 2:... ammwwmwe swamp 69 22...... swam“? n HmcomLom HNQOmLoo HmcomLoo HmcomLod HopmHoom HopoHoom .noHanncooeano :\3 "mma one no enonooaan 0m: COHpMUSUm LO.“ WQHDmHLmKw COHUNPCOHLO waMEO Ucm mmwOmeZ UCHQSOU WQUJUHPQM C$03umfl wCOHDMchHeHOO HMHDLNQ UCM QHQHOHJleoom Mdmdfi 95 variables). On the E scale, the multiple R of .25 was significant at the .002 level, and the R2 accounted for 6 per cent of the variance of the dependent variable. The change orientation variables were also significantly correlated to the subscales on the ABS: W/N. On both the C and E scales, change orien- tation was positively correlated with level 2 (societal norm), level A (personal hypothetical behavior), and level 6 (personal action). The multiple R of .19 on the C scale was signifi- cant at the .25 level, and the R2 accounted for l per cent of the variance of the dependent variable (societal norm) by the independent variable (change orientation). The multiple R of .25 on the E scale was significant at the .0002 level. For level A (personal hypothetical behavior), the Multiple R of 023 on the C scale was significant at the .002 level, and the R2 accounted for 5 per cent of the variance. On scale E, the multiple R was .25, significant at the .0002 level. The multiple R for level 6 (personal action) was .31 on the C scale and .29 on the E scale. Both corre— lations were significant at the .0005 level. The R2 on both scales accounted for 9 per cent of the variance of the dependent variable by the independent variables. 96 On the C scales, change orientation was signifi- cantly correlated with level 3 (personal moral evaluation). Level 5 (personal feeling) on the E scale was also significantly correlated with change orientation. The partial Eli indicated that variable 28, per- ceived ability for self change, was the most important of the five change variables. It was significantly related on both scales to level 3 (personal moral evalu- ation), level A (personal hypothetical behavior), level 6 (personal action), and the total at the .01 level and above. On the E scale, the self change variable was also significantly correlated with level 5 (personal feeling). The adherence to rules variable was the second in importance. It was significantly related to level 2 (societal norm) on both scales, and to level 6 (personal action) and to the total on the C scale. The automation variable was significantly correlated on the E scale with only level 2 (societal norm). It seems that students' perceptions regarding self change are highly predictive of racial attitudes. The other significantly correlated change orientation vari- ables, automation and rule adherence, are less predictive and less clearly indicative of specific aspects of racial attitudes than self change. H~3 was supported. 97 R-A Religiosity and Prejudice Religiosity was not significantly related to preju- dice (Tables 22 and 23) except in one instance. On both the ABS: W/N-C and E, religiosity was significantly related to positive racial feelings (level 5). The multiple R of .23 on scale C is significant at the .0005 level, and the R2 accounts for 5 per cent of the variance of the dependent variable by the two religiosity vari- ables. The multiple R of .19 on scale E is significant at the .OOA level, and the R2 accounts for A per cent of the variance. The partial correlations indicated that the variable of adherence to religious rules was significantly related to level 5 (personal feeling) on both the C and E scales. The importance of religion was significantly negatively correlated to level 5 (personal feeling) on the E scale. Apparently, students who practice the dictates of their religion are less prejudiCed than those who verbally indi- cate the importance of religion in their lives. H—A was not supported. H~5 Efficacy and Prejudice Efficacy was significantly negatively related to prejudice (Tables 2A and 25). The zero-order correlations between the efficacy content variable and the total racial attitudes were .222 on the C scale and .197 on the E scale. Both correlations were significant at the <.000 level. 98 .06030500 00: mono .Hm>oH mo. :02» 00640 .m>oom 01H 00 Hmpoen .mHm u 20 o-» mo. 6.. No. zoo. oH. on- oH. on- No. cu: mo. on- No. x cHdHaHaz NH. 00. Ho. moo. H00. 0H. 0H. mo. mm. N0. 00. H0.1 :0. mooo. COHmHHom Lo moHsm ou oocoLozo< Ho. mo.u oN. . No. mo. HH.- No. oH.- am. ao.u we. so. om. oo.n conHHom Lo mocmuLoosH .mHn L .me L .mHm L .mHo L .me L .me L .me L .. L0H>ncom :oHpmsHm>m oHanLm> . coHpo< mcHHoca 7 ELoz mdzoooLopm Hnooe . : Heowuocuodsz Henoz accoeodoocH o HmcomLom HococLod HoCOnLod HNCOmLod HmpoHoom HmuoHoom .coaoeoaom :\: ammo one :o enucopson 0m: coHuoosom Lou moHomHLm> munonHHoL 0cm codLum: oLmsop wooszpum awesome mcoHumHoLLOO HmeLma new oHQHpHsz|I.mm mqmoon 01H Lo Hmuoo .Nmm n 20 on: mo. out No. m000.v mm. 0:: HH. on: mo. on: No. on: HH. m mHQHpHsz m0. m0. 0m. No.1 m000.v mm. N0. 60. m0. N0. N0. :0.I 2H. 00.! :onHHom Lo moHsm o» mocmLono< om. mo.- Nm. mo. NH. oo.u No. No.- oo. No.- mo. No.- NN. No.7 conHHcm Lo . mocmuLOQEH .mHm .L .me L .mHo L .mww L .me L .me L .me L 2... .2... 9:... ammwww? ammo”... 2.2 32...... gamma. 0 Hmcowme Hmcostd HmcomLmo HmCOmLom HmumHoom HmuoHoom om: coHumosom LOL moHanLm> .mOHpmHLopommeo 2\3 "mm< one :o mmucoozuw szmonHHoL one moOme: oLmzop noosuHoom :mozpob mcoHpmHoLLOQ HmeLwa one oHQHpHszII.Nm mqmoom 01H Lo Hmpoe .mHm u z n a 000. N00. omo. 0H0. 000. 02:. N30. Ho>oq ooQNoHLchHm OHM OHm on on OHM on on nocoocodnom Lo Lcoeaz NmH. mNH. oNH. moH. 30m. moo. 300.: coHumHoLLoo LmoLOIOLmN pcoucoo zomOHLLm Hmuoe :oHuo< wcHHomm Hmmmwmmmwmm: cnwmmmmm>m ELo: odzuooLoum oHanLm> n Hmcomme HNCOmLmL HNCOmLod Honomdoo HmpmHoom HmuoHoom pcoocoooocH .coHueoaem :\3 "moo one no mmucmosum 0m: coHumosom Loo memHLm> ucopcoo zomoHooo 0:0 nooLmoz ULQBOp mmozuHuum comzpon mCOHpmHoLLoo LooLOIOLoNII.mN mqmonm 01H Lo Hmpoen .bmm u 2m 000. H00. H00. :mo. H00. mom. 30H. Ho>mq cocooHLchHm :mm :mm :mm emm omm omm omm nocoocodnom Lo Loneaz mmm. oNH. NNH.. mHH. MNH. 0:0. :No. coHpmHoLLoo LmoLOIOLmN peopcoo zomoHLLm Hmpoe coHpo< wcHHmwm Hmmmwwmmmmzm cowmmmwm>m ELoz mozpomLopm oHanLm> n HmcomLoo HocOmLom HmcomLoL HmcomLmL HmpmHoom HopmHoom pcoocodoocH .ooHanLcooanco z\3 "mm< do» no wwucmfifipw 0m: COHumOSUM LO.“ mHDwHLm> Pcwuflonu hOMOHMhm USN m®OmeZ ULMBOF mwfidufiuuw GmQZuQD WCOHUNHQLQOO LQULOIOLONlloQW mqmgb 100 Efficacy was also significantly correlated with the following subscales on the ABS: W/N-C and E: level 3 (personal moral evaluation), level A (personal hypotheti- cal behavior), level 5 (personal feeling), and level 6 (personal action). These subscales measure the more personal aspects of racial attitudes. The data indi~ cated that students who view the world as friendly or "conquerable" will have more favorable racial attitudes than those who View the world as beyond their control. H~5 was supported. Summary The data of Tables 12 through 25 indicate strong support for the methodological approach and for the sub- stantive relationships between racial attitudes, contact, change orientation and efficacy. A more complete dis- cnlssion of the results and the additional data not tueesented in the hypotheses is contained in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The problem and methodology are briefly reviewed at the beginning of this chapter. An amplified discussion of the hypotheses and other relevant findings follows. Limi— tations of the study and recommendations for the future are then outlined. Summary Nature of the Problem Allport (195A) and Jordan (1968) provided the theo— retical and substantive basis for the present research on racial attitudes. In The Nature of Prejudice (195A), All~ port describes various characteristics of the non—prejudiced or tolerant personality. One important attribute mentioned in regard to the tolerant personality is the ability to empathize with, "size up," or be sensitive to another person (pp. A35~A36). Allport hypothesized that prejudice and empathy are inversely related. The prejudiced personality distorts his perceptions of others rather than perceiving them 101 102 realistically. Because this notion has not been ade— quately tested empirically, the present research was designed to verify Allport's hypothesis. Jordan (1968) identified other variables hypothe- sized to be related to prejudice. He reviewed the literature on attitude research and found that four classes of variables seem to be important determinants, correlates, and/or predictors of attitudes: (a) demo- graphic factors such as age, sex, and income, (b) socio— psychological factors such as one's value orientation, (0) contact factors such as amount, nature, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of the contact, and (d) the knowledge factor. The present research empirically investigated the relationship between racial attitudes and two of Jordan's classes of variables: socio-psycho— logical factors and contact. Methodology The Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro, developed by Jordan and Hamersma (l969),was employed to assess racial attitudes. The ABS: W/N was designed according to Guttman (1959) and Jordan's (1968) facet theory which provides a systematic a priori method of attitude item construction. Attitudes were measured at six levels ranging on a con- tinuum from societal stereotype to personal action. The two content areas used were ABS: W/N-Personal Character- istics and ABS: W/N—Education. 103 Contact with Negroes, change orientation, religiosity, and efficacy were measured by the Personal Data Question- naire of the ABS: W/N. It was designed to operationalize several variables Suggested by a review of the literature to be correlated with racial attitudes. Affective sensitivity (empathy) was assessed by the Affective Sensitivity Scale (Kagan g£_§1., 1967). The A;§;§, is a video tape situational test containing various scenes from actual counseling interviews. The respondent is asked to answer several multiple-choice items which describe the affective states which the client may "really" be experiencing. Statistical Procedures Frequency distributions for every item in the ABS: 1W/N were obtained from the Frequency Column Count program (Clark, 196A). The MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter, 1966) provided the means and standard deviations for the group on every item, level, and total score. It also supplied item-to- total and level-to—total correlations for the ABS: W/N. Relational and predictive relationships were obtained by zero—order, partial, and multiple correlation statistics. The zero—order correlational analysis provided a matrix of simple correlations among all variables employed in the present study. Partial and multiple correlations were used to examine the relationships of selected variables to racial attitudes. 10A HypothesiS'COnstruction The directional hypotheses were constructed on the basis of information gained from the literature of atti- tudes. H~l dealt with Allport's (195A) notion that empathy (affective sensitivity) and prejudice are inversely re- lated. H~2 reflected the extensive discussion in the literature concerning the importance of contact in attitude development and maintenance. The instrumentation of the contact variable allowed an examination of various dimen— sions within the contact variable, i.e., enjoyment of contact with Negroes. H~3 through H-5 tested selected psycho-sociological variables in their relationship to racial attitudes. H~3 was derived from the assumption that people who are flexi- ble and willing to change are more open to a variety of external stimuli, including people of other races. H~A investigated the relationship between religiosity and Ilrejudice. Previous research contains conflicting results, taut the majority of studies indicate that religiously oriented people are generally more prejudiced than non~ Ireligiously oriented people. H-5 tested the idea that EMBOple who view their world as threatening and overwhelming Wifill express some of their fear through negative attitudes tcnnard people of other races. 105 Discussionof Results Hypothesis Testing There were a total of five hypotheses tested. Each of these is discussed in this section for the purpose of understanding the relationships between the variables and making appropriate inferences about the concepts or the subjects. Affective Sensitivity and Prejudice It was hypothesized that affective sensitivity is inversely related to prejudice. This hypothesis was not supported. Two possible reasons for its failure are the theory or the instrumentation. Is Allport's theory invalid or were one or both of the constructs not properly measured? Theoretically, Allport's hypothesis continues to appear valid. The difficulty seems to be that the concept of affective sensitivity measures only a small segment of the empathic process. In order to facilitate instrumentation, Kagan et_al. (1965) confined the more expansive definitions of empathy to "the ability to describe the immediate affective state of another." This definition fails to encompass the role playing and interaction aspects of empathy. The narrow approach to the measurement of empathy is reflected in the data received from the zero—order 106 correlations. On both scales 0 and E, level 5 (personal feeling) and affective sensitivity approached a significant relationship. This indicates that affective sensitivity may relate to racial attitudes, but only in the narrow area of feelings. Allport's theory may be invalid, but the narrowness of the affective sensitivity measure is a more plausible explanation for the lack of empirical support for H~1. Contact and Prejudice The results of the present research indicate that contact with Negroes is an important predictor of racial attitudes. H~2 was supported. The multiple correlation shows that the contact variable accounted for 20 per cent of the variance of the total racial attitude scores on the 0 scale and 13 per cent of the variance on the E scale. Levels A (personal hypothetical behavior), 5 (per- sonal feeling), and 6 (personal action) on the ABS: W/N proved to be the most highly correlated with the contact variable. These types of attitude items reflect the per- sonal feelings and actual behavior of the respondent, indicating that contact with Negroes affects the stu- dent's more intimate attitudes. Various components of the contact variable were analyzed according to their contribution to the criterion 107 variable, racial attitudes. Enjoyment of contact with Negroes was the most important variable. It was signifi- cantly related to levels 3 (personal moral evaluation), A (personal hypothetical behavior), 5 (personal feeling), and the total. Therefore, if the subject's contact with Negroes is enjoyed, he will probably express more posi- tive racial attitudes. Nature of the contact, from impersonal to personal, is also an important aspect of the contact variable. It was significantly correlated with levels 1 (societal stereotype), 2 (societal norm), and the total. These correlations assume a different pattern than the enjoyment of contact. It appears that the nature of the contact situation influences students toward positive racial atti- tudes at a general belief and stereotypic level. The third contact variable is the amount of contact per so. It relates significantly to levels A (personal hypothetical behavior), 6 (personal action), and the total. The amount of contact is important in the develOp— ment of positive racial attitudes, but it is dependent upon other variables such as enjoyment and nature of the contact. Amount of income gained while working with Negroes is positively related to levels 1 (societal stereotype) and 2 (societal norm), and negatively related to level A (personal hypothetical behavior). This implies that the 108 greater the amount of income gained while working with Negroes predicts positive stereotypes about Negroes but prejudicial attitudes regarding personal interaction with them. The remaining two contact variables, ease of avoidance of contact and alternatives to the contact, contribute little to the variance of the criterion vari~ able. They also possess an inconsistent pattern of significant correlations which confounds interpretation. Change Orientation and Prejudice Change orientation was significantly negatively correlated with prejudice. H~3 was supported. I The attitude one holds toward change in oneself and the external environment is a significant predictor of racial attitudes. The five change orientation vari- ables accounted for 8 per cent of the variance of the dependent variable by the independent variables on the C scale and 6 per cent on the E scale. Change orientation was significantly related to levels A, 5, 6, and the total of the ABS: W/N. These levels are on the ego involved, behaviorally oriented end of the continuum, indicating that the way students per- ceive change predicts their personal behavior and feelings toward Negroes. 109 Of the five change orientation variables, the per— ceived ability for self change is the most important. It is significantly related to levels 3-7 on the ABS: W/N. This information adds support to the theory that students who see themselves as being open to new experiences and willing to let themselves change are less prejudiced than those who view themselves as unwilling to change. The "adherence to rules" variable measures a stu— dent's reported perception of whether he finds it easier to follow rules or to do things on his own. It was significantly related to level 2 (societal norm) and to level 6 (personal action); thus a non-structured personal orientation predicts positive racial attitudes at both the societal and behavioral levels. The remaining change orientation variables did not contribute to the relationship between change orientation and prejudice. Religiosity and Prejudice Religiosity was not significantly related to preju— dice. H—A was not supported. Although the literature suggests that prejudice and religiosity are positively related, the findings in the present study fail to confirm that theory. Reasons for the failure are not readily apparent. One possible difficulty is that the Personal. Data Questionnaire assesses the religiosity variable with only two questions-~one on the adherence to religious 110 practices and the second on the importance of religion in the respondent's life. Although these questions parallel the extrinsic-intrinsic dimensions outlined by Allport and Ross (1967), there are too few items to obtain an adequate sample of students' opinions on and practice of religion. In most religiosity and prejudice studies, there is either a positive or negative relationship; in the present study there is little evidence of any relationship. Therefore, the assumption that the problem is inherent in the instru- mentation is strengthened, or the relationship may hold generally but not for this "kind" of students. Although the hypothesis was not supported, the data analysis did evidence that religiosity was significantly correlated with level 5 (personal feeling) of the ABS: N/N. Adherence to religious rules was significantly related to level 5,and importance of religion was negatively related to level 5. Perhaps people with a strong adherence to religious rules develop positive feelings toward Negroes, while peOple who verbally ascribe to the importance of religion tend to develop negative feelings toward them. The reasons for this phenomenon are inexplicable. Efficacy and Prejudice The "Life Situation" scale contained in the Personal Data questionnaire was designed to measure the degree of control that man feels he has in his relationship to the social and physical environment. The data analysis 111 revealed that the efficacy variable related significantly to levels 3 (personal moral evaluation), A (personal hypothetical behavior), 5 (personal feeling), 6 (personal action), and to the total. This indicates that scores on the efficacy variable are strong predictors of racial attitudes on the personal—behavioral end of the continuum. Students who feel that man is at the mercy of his environment probably perceive unfamiliar aspects of the social environment as threatening. Therefore, they might view members of another race through stereotypic, nega- tive perceptions in order to cope with their own fears. The efficacy data supports this theoretical notion and provides a useful means of understanding one aspect of the psycho—social dynamics involved in prejudice. Summary of Hypothesis Testigg Three of the five hypotheses were supported by the data. The relationships between affective sensitivity and prejudice and between religiosity and prejudice were not supported. The hypothesis relating contact and prejudice was strongly supported, especially in relationship to the personal-behavioral levels (A~6) on the ABS: W/N. Enjoyment of and the nature of the contact contributed strongly to the relationship between contact and preju- dice. Amount of contact was also an important aspect of 112 the contact variable, although it was less significant than enjoyment and nature of the contact. Change orientation was significantly negatively related to prejudice. The perceived ability for self change and a need for personal structure provided most of the variance in the criterion variable (racial prejudice). The hypothesis relating efficacy and prejudice was strongly confirmed. The efficacy variable related signi- ficantly to all except the first two levels (societal stereotype and norm) on the ABS: W/N. Other’RelevantTData Other information germane to the present study of racial attitudes was obtained in the data collection but not included in the hypothesis testing. This information is discussed in the following section. Amount of Prejudice The Personal Data Questionnaire asked respondents the following question: "How would you rate your own racial attitudes as compared to the average person?" Five foils, ranging from "very much more prejudiced" to "very much less prejudicedfl'were provided from which to choose an appropriate response. Table 26 presents the frequency distribution of subjects responding to the amount of prejudice question 113 on both the Characteristics and Education scales. The zero-order correlation matrix (Appendix C) indicates that students' estimation of their own prejudice level was significant with levels 3 (personal moral evaluation), A (personal hypothetical behavior), 5 (personal feeling), 6 (personal action), and to the total on the ABS: W/N. It was also correlated significantly with the efficacy variable; with amount, enjoyment, and avoidance of the contact variables;and with self, child rearing, and rule adherence of the change orientation variables. The data of Table 26 indicates that future teachers have enough awareness of their own racial prejudice to significantly predict their scores on four of the six levels of the ABS: W/N. Further studies should be con— ducted on this procedure with other groups, i.e., non~ collegiate groups, to ascertain specifically what this information indicates. TABLE 26.-~Frequency distribution and percentages of respondents on the "amount of prejudice" question. Very Some- Some— Very ABS: W/N Much what Same what Much Scale More More Less Less Prej.a Prej. Prej. Prej. Characteristics N 5 16 53 196 98 % 1.A A.3 lA.A 53.1 26.6 Education N A 12 AA 166 9A % 1.2 3.7 13.7 51.7 29.3 aPrejudice. 11A Limitations of’theTStudy The major limitations in the present research are related to the data collection and sampling procedures. Limitations are further indicated in the discussion of recommendations for further research. Data Collection The primary difficulty in data collection was the lack of control of the subjects. Since the area of racial attitudes is rather a sensitive one, the identity of each subject was kept anonymous. This was accomplished by issuing every subject a code number which was to be placed on all answer sheets. No record was kept of which student had a particular code number. Consequently, stu— dents determined their own participation in individual aspects of the study. The resultant erratic participation by many of the students reduced the sample of those who completed all of the instruments. Also, several of the recitation instructors of Edu- cation A50 were openly Opposed to the project. Unfortu- nately, their attitude toward the study was reflected by the minimal participation of their students in the com- pletion of the Affective Sensitivity Scale and the Personal Data Questionnaire, both of which were administered out- side of class. 115 Sampling Procedures Both limitations in collecting the data reduced the size of the sample for the PDQ and the £;§;§' This re— duction is important, but not crucial to the results of the present study because of its design to measure vari~ ables within individuals rather than across groups. Also, the total N for each instrument was sufficient (N = > 200) for the purpose of the study. Recommendations Recommendations Relating to Instrumentation The Affective Sensitivity Scale was used to assess the empathy variable in the present study. The §L§;§. measures the respondent's ability to detect the feelings of another person viewed on video tape. The results of the study suggest that the fla§a§° measures too small a portion of the empathic process for the purposes of this study. It must be recognized that empathy is a difficult construct to Operationalize. As Hogan (1969) states: In spite of the apparent difficulty involved in developing a valid and acceptable measure of empathy, the theoretical import of the concept requires that continuing efforts be made. Future research in this area must locate an adequate, more complete measure of empathy. The ABS: YW/N Personal Data Questionnaire fails to adequately Operationalize the religiosity variable. The 116 PDQ includes only two questions pertaining to religiosity. Although they assess important aspects of the variable, they fail to include other necessary elements, e.g., church attendance. Recommendation Regarding Administration Procedures In an attempt to provide anonymity for the partici- pants in the present study, control of the sample was forfeited. It is recommended that in future research where subjects are required to participate as part of the class procedure, each student be given a code number and certification of his completion of the requirement. This should be presented to the instructor upon the fulfill- ment of his obligation. This should insure the subject's anonymity and maximize the possibility for control. Recommendation Regarding Statistical Analysis It is recommended that in future studies the Guttman non-metric analysis procedures (MSA-I) be used to analyze the relationships between racial attitudes and predictor variables. The MSA-I allows for multidimensional data analyses which renders a Cartesian space in which sub~ jects, variables, and categories of variables are repre— sented. 117 Recommendations Regarding FindingS’Of’the'Study ‘ It is recommended that further investigation of racial attitudes be made using the revised and shortened editions of the Jordan and Hamersma Attitude Behavior Scale (Hamersma, 1969). It is also recommended that the results from future studies using the ABS: BW/WN scales be compared with the base-line data on racial attitudes obtained in the Newsweek magazine surveys (Brink and Harris, 1963, 1966; and Goldman, 1969). It is hOped that the findings of the present study will be of value in understanding racial attitudes among college students preparing to enter the teaching pro- fession. REFERENCES REFERENCES Ackerman, N., & Jahoda, M. Anti-Semitism and emotional disorder. New York: Harper & Row, 1950. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Allport, G. W. Personality: A psychological interpre- ’tation. New York: Henry Holt, 1937. ’ Allport, G. W. The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. A. Lindzey (ed.), Handbook of social psycholqu. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 195A. Pp. 3-56. Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, I95Af Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 19A6, 22, 9-39. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. Personal religious orien- tation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 3, A32~AA3. Bastide, R., & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and interracial behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689-69A. Bettelheim, B., & Janowitz, M. Social change andgprejudice including_dynamics of prejudice. London: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. Bibby, C. Race, prejudice and education. New York: Frederick A. Braeger, 1960. Blumer, H. What is wrong with social theory. American Sociological Review, 195A, 19, 3~10. Brink, W. J., & Harris, L. The Negro revolution in America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 196A. 7 119 120 Brink, W. J., & Harris, L. Black and White: A study of U. S. racial attitudes today. New York: Simon 7 and Schuster, 1967. Brophy, I. N. The luxury of anti—Negro prejudice. Public Opinign Quarterly, 19A5, 9, A56~A66. Brown, R. W. A determinant of the relationship between rigidity and authoritarianism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1953, A8, A69~A76. Buchheimer, A. The develOpment of ideas about empathy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1963, 10, 61-70. Campbell, R. J. The develOpment and validation of a multiple-choice scale to measure affective sensi- tivity (empathy). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Chessick, R. D. Empathy and love in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1965, 19, 205-219. Clark, J. ‘Manual of computer programs. Research Services, Department of:Communications, Michigan State Uni- versity, 196A. Cook, S. V., & Selltiz, C. Some factors which influence the attitudinal outcomes of personal contact. ‘International Social Science Journal, 1955, 7, 51—58. Cook, S. V., & Selltiz, C. A multiple indicator to atti- tude measurements. Psychological Bulletin, 196A, 62, 36.58. V Cowden, R. C. Empathy or projection. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1955, 11, 188-190. Crockett, W. H., & Meidinger, T. Authoritarianism and interpersonal perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 378-380. Cronbach, L. J. Proposals leading to analytic treatment of social perception scores. In F. Jagiur & L. Petrullo (eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press,‘ 1958. Pp. 353-379. DeFleur, M., & Westie, F. Verbal attitudes and overt acts: An experiment on the salience of attitudes. American Sociolggical Review, 1958, 23, 667-673. 121 Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. E. Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of‘a secialfiexperiment. Minneapolis: University of:Minnesota Press, 1951. Deutscher, 1. Words and deeds: Social science and social policy. Social Problems, 1966, 13, 235-25A. Dymond, R. F. A preliminary investigation of the relation of insight and empathy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19A8, 12, 228-233. Dymond, R. F. A scale for the measurement of empathic ability. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 19A9, 13. 127-133. Engel, G. Some college students' responses concerning Negroes of differing religious backgrounds. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 7A, 275-283. English, N. B., & English, A. C. A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958. Fenichel, O. The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. New York: W. W. Norton, 19A5. Y French, E. Interrelation among some measures of rigidity under stress and non-stress conditions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51, 113-118. Fromm-Reichman, F. Principles of intensive psychotherapy. Chicago: University 6ffChicago Press, 1950. Gage, N. L., & Cronbach, L. J. Conceptual and methodo— logical problems in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, All-A21. Goldman, P. (ed.). Report from Black America. Newsweek Magazine, July 30, 1969, l6~35. Gompertz, K. The relation of empathy to effective com— munication. Journalism Quarterly, 1960, 37, 533~5A6. (Suttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure- ment. In S. A. Stouffer (ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Pp. A6-59. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 195A-55, l8, 395—AOA. 122 Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions. American Sociological Review, 1959, Guttman, L., & Schlesinger, I. M. Development of diagnostic analytical and mechanical ability tests 'thrOugh facet design and analysis. Research Project No. OE-A-21—01A. The Israel Institute of62pplied Social Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 19 . Guttman, L., & Schlesinger, I. M. The analysis of diagnostic effectiveness of a facet design battery "Ef‘achieVement'and'analytical'ability'tests. Research Project No. OEG—5-2l-006. The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 1967. Guttman, L., & Suchman, E. Intensity and a zero point for attitude analysis. American Sociological Review, 19A7, 12, 57—67. Halpern, H. M. Empathy, similarity, and self-satisfaction. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, AA9~A52. Hamersma, R. J. Construction of an attitude-behavior scale of Negroes and Whites toward each other using Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Harding, J., & Hogrefe, R. Attitudes of white department store employees toward Negro co-workers. Journal of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 18-28. Harvey, O. J. Authoritarianism and conceptual functioning in varied conditions. Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, A62~A70. Hawkes, G. R., & Egbert, R. L. Personal values and the empathic response: Their inter—relationships. Journal of Educational Psychology, 195A, A5, A69~A76. Hirsh, G. S. The fears men live by. New York: Harper & Bros., 1955. Hogan, R. Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 307—316. Holmes, F. E. The effect of a community field study on the tolerant-prejudice attitudes of prospective secondary teachers toward Negroes. Dissertation Abstracts, 1968. mm 123 Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. In W. Mehrens & R. Ebel (eds.), Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand'McNally, 1967. Jackson, D. N., Messick, S. J., & Solley, C. M. How "rigid" is the "authoritarian"? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 5A, 137- 1A0. Johnson, P. E. Personality and religion. New York: Abington Press, 1957. Jones, E. E. Authoritarianism as a determinant of first- impression formation. Journal of Personality, 195A, 23, 107-127. Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education and physically disabled persons in eleVen nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1968. Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R. Studies in human inter- action. Educational Publication Services, Michigan State University, 1967. Kagan, N., & Krathwohl, D. R., & Farquhar, W. W. Develop— ing a scale to measure affective sensitivity. Educational Research Series, Number 30, Michigan State University, March, 1965. A report submitted to the U. S. Office of Education, NDEA Grant No. 7-32-0A10-216. Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, Katz, B. Predictive and behavioral empathy and client change in short-term counseling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1962. Kelley, J. G., Jerson, J. E., & Holtzman, W. H. The measurement of attitudes toward the Negro in the South. Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, A8, 305-317. Kerlinger, F. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. King, M. L., Jr. The role of the behavioral scientist ‘ in the Civil Rights movement. American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 180-186. 12A Kirscht, J. P., & Dillehay, R. C. The dimensions of authoritarianism: A review of research and theory} Lexington: University ofKentucky Press, 1967. Konopka, G. Group therapy in overcoming racial and cultural tensions. American Journal of Ortho~ psychiatry, 19A7, 17, 593-699. LaPiere, R. T. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 193A, 13, 230-237. Levitt, E., & Zuckerman, M. The water jar test revisited: The replication of a review. Psychology Reports, 1959, 5, 365-380. Lowenthal, L., & Guterman, N. Prophets of deceit. New York: Harper & Bros., 19A9. Lowy, S. Co-operation, tolerance, and prejudice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 19A8. Magnusson, D. Test theory. Palo Alto: Addison-Wesley, 1966. I Maierle, J. P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: A methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Maranell, G. An examination of some religious and politi~ cal attitude correlates of bigotry. Social Forces, 1967, A5. 356-362. Mehrens, W. A., & Ebel, R. L. Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. ' Merton, R. K. Facts and factitiousness in ethnic opinion- aires. American Sociological Review, 19A0, 5, 13-28. Millon, T. A. Intolerance of ambiguity and rigidity under ego and task involving conditions. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 55, 29—33. Rabinowitz, W. A note on the social perceptions of authoritarians and nonauthoritarians. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 38A~386. Report of the national advisory commission on civil dis- ‘ggigrs. New York: New York Times Co., 1968. 125 Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personal change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 95-103. Rokeach, M. Generalized mental rigidity as a factor in ethnocentrism. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19A8, A3, 259—278. Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. Books, Inc., I960. New York: Basic One-wa 4 .‘ «fl-m. ~_*_q Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, M. E. analysis of variance with unequal number of repli~ cations permitted."(UNEQl Routine). Statistics Series Description No. 13, Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of basic Ruble, W. L., statistics when missing data is involved. (The Statistics Series Description No. MDSTAT Routine): 6, Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. The social psycholo y of prejudice. Harper & Bros., 195 . Authoritarianism, tendency to agree, and Journal of Abnormal and New Saenger, G. York: Schulberg, H. C. interpersonal perception. Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 101—108. Social perceptions of authori- & Mussen, P. Journal of Abnormal Scodel, A., tarians and nonauthoritarians. and Social Psychology, 1953, A8, 181—18A. Shils, E. A. Authoritarianism: "right" and "left." In R. Christie & M. Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the scope and method of "the authoritarian personality." The Free Press of GlencoeJll95A, 2A~A9. New York: Racial and cultural Simpson, G. E., & Yinger, J. M. minorities. New York: Harper & Bros., 1953. New York: McGraw- Smith, H. C. Sensitivity to people. Hill, 1966. Speroff, B. J. Empathy and role-reversal as a factor in industrial harmony. Journal of Social Psychology, 1953, 37, 117—120. Stewart, D. A. Psychogenesis of empathy. Review, 195A, A1, 216-228. Psychoanalytic 126 Stewart, D. A. Empathy, common ground of ethics and per— sonality theory. Psychoanalytic Review, 1955, A2, 131-1A1. Stewart, D. A. Preface to empathy. New York: Philo- sophical Library, 1956. Strunk, O. Empathy: A review of theory and research. Psychological Newsletter, 1957, 19, A7~57. Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer et al. (eds.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950. Taft, R. Accuracy of empathic judgments of acquaintances and strangers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 600-60A. Truax, C. B., & Carkhuff, R. R. Toward effective counsel— ing and psychotherapy: Training and practice. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1967. Warren, H. C. Dictionary of psychology. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 193A. Weiss, J. H. Effect of professional training and amount and accuracy of information on behavioral pre- diction. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1963, Winder, A. E. White attitudes towards Negro—White inter— action in an area of changing racial composition. Journal of Social Psychology, 1955, Al, 85—102. Wolf, R. M. Construction of descriptive and attitude scales. In T. Husen (ed.), International study of achievement in mathematics. New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 109-122. Woodson, J. F. The meaning and development of empathy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, 195A. APPENDICES APPENDIX A INSTRUMENTATION 129 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE-~WN: C Directions This booklet contains statements of how people feel about certain things. In this booklet you are asked to indicate for each of these statements how most other Whites believe that Whites compare or interact with Negroes. ‘Kfter each statement you are also asked to indicate how sure you are of your answer to each statement. Here is a sample statement: SAMPLE I 1. Chance of being taller (——————9 2. How sure are you of this answer? (:) less chance 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more chance (i) sure If other Whites believe that Negroes have less chance than Whites to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM answer sheet make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: l. l .-- 2 ==== 3 ==== u ==== 5 ==== You are also asked to indicate how sure you felt about this answer. If, like in question 2 of sample 1, you felt sure of this answer you should circle or black in the number 3 as is shown above. Again if you are using an IBM answer sheet, make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number that corresponds to your answer for that question as follows: 2. l ==== 2 ==== 3 -—- u ==== 5 ==== ***DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET*** By: John E. Jordan Richard J. Hamersma College of Education Michigan State University 130 ABS—I-WN—C Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle or black in the number that indi- cates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites keep themselves clean 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 3. Whites can be trusted with A. How sure are you of this money answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 5. Whites' eating habits 6. How sure are you of this are answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 7. Whites are good looking 8. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more often than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about as often as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less often than Negroes 3. sure 9. Whites are friendly 10. How sure are you of this 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 131 ABS—I—WN-C Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: ll. 13. 15. l7. 19. 21. Whites believe in interracial marriage 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites are good team participants 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites listen to each other's problems 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites maintain good marriages l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites approve of inter— racial dating 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites use good conduct in public 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 12. 1A. 16. 18. 20. 22. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 132 ABS-I-WN-C Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: 23. 25. 27. Whites families are closely knit 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites are lazy 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as 3. more than Negroes Whites are religious l more than Negroes 2. about the same as 3. less than Negroes Negroes Negroes 2A. 26. 28. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Directions: ABS-II—WN-C Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about inter- acting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer . 133 Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. For Whites to keep them- selves as clean as Negroes l. 2. 3. usually not approved undecided usually approved For Whites to trust Negroes with money 1. 2. 3. usually not approved undecided usually approved For Whites to have the same eating habits as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be better looking than Negroes l. 2. 3. For Whites to be friendly with Negroes usually approved undecided usually not approved 1. 2. 3. usually not approved undecided usually approved 30. 32. 3A. 36. 38. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? l.~ not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of this this this this this 134 ABS—II-WN-C Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 39. ”1. “3. “5. ”7. 139. For Whites to believe in interracial marriage I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be team participants with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to listen to the problems that Negroes have I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to maintain as good marriages as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to approve of interracial dating 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to use good con— duct in public with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved MO. 42. HH. U6. “8. 50. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? I. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? l. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? I. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 135 ABS—II—WN-C Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 51. For White families to be as closely knit as Negro ones l. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 53. For Whites to be lazy when with Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 55. For Whites to be as religious as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 52. 5M. 56. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure ‘1'“ 136 ABS-III-WN—C Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 57. To expect Whites to keep them- 58. How sure are you of this selves as clean as Negroes is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 59. To expect Whites to trust 60. How sure are you of this Negroes with money is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 61. To expect Whites to have the 62. How sure are you of this same eating habits as answer? Negroes is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 63. To expect Whites to be 6“. How sure are you of this better looking than Negroes answer? is 1. usually right 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually wrong 3. sure 65. To expect Whites to be 66. How sure are you of this friendly with Negroes is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 137 ABS-III-WN—C In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 67. To expect Whites to believe 68. How sure are you of this in interracial marriage is answer? I. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 69. To expect Whites to be team 70. How sure are you of this participants with Negroes is answer? 1. usually wrong l. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 71. To expect Whites to listen 72. How sure are you of this to the problems that Negroes answer? have is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 73. To expect Whites to maintain 7H. How sure are you of this as good marriages as Negroes answer? is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right _ 3. sure 75. To expect Whites to approve; 76. How sure are you of this of interracial dating is answer? 1. usually wrong I. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 77- TO expect Whites to use 78. How sure are you of this good conduct in public with answer? Negroes is I. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 138 ABS-III-WN-C In respect to Negroes do you :ypurself‘believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 79. To expect White families 80. to be as closely knit as Negroes families is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 81. To expect Whites to be 82. lazy when with Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 83. To expect Whites to be as 8H. religious as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Directions: ABS—IV-WN-C Section IV 139 In this section you are asked how you_personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. your answer. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. Would you keep yourself as clean as you think Negroes keep themselves? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you trust Negroes with money? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you eat with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you consider yourself better looking than Negroes? yes undecided 1 2 3 no 0 O I Would you be friendly with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 86. 88. 90. 92. 9“. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of Indicate how sure you feel about this this this this this IMO ABS-IV-WN-C In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 95. 97. 99. 101. 103. 105. Would you marry a Negro person? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you participate as a team member with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you listen to pro- blems that Negroes have? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you maintain as good a marriage as most Negroes have? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you approve of inter- racial dating? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you be polite to Negroes in public? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 96. 98. 100. 102. 104. 106. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this ABS—IV-WN—C In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 107. 109. 111. Would you want your family to be as closely knit as 1141 108. you think Negro families are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you be lazy when with Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you worship in the same churches as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 110. 112. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. yes How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure T-‘m w" Directions: 1M2 ABS-V-WN—C Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how_you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. When Negroes keep them- selves as clean as Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes trust Whites with money I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes have the same eating habits as Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes are better looking than Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are friendly with Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 11“. 116. 118. 120. 122. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 143 ABS-V—WN—C How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 123. 125. 127. 129. 131. 133. When Negroes believe in inter— l2“. racial marriage I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes participate as team members with Whites I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes listen to the problems that Whites have I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes maintain as good marriages as Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes approve of interracial dating I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes are polite to Whites in public I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 126. 128. 130. 132. 13“. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 1M“ ABS-V-WN-C How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 135. 137. 139. When White families are as Closely knit as I think Negro families are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are lazy when with Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes attend the same churches as Whites I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3- happy 136. 138. IMO. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 145 ABS-VI—WN-C Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. From my experiences I see that I keep myself as clean as Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 143. I have trusted Negroes with money 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 145. I have eaten with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 147- I consider myself better looking than Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 142. 144. 146. 148. Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant 4‘:me 146 ABS-VI—WN—C Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 149. I have been friendly with 150. Have your experiences Negroes been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant 151. I have known Negroes who 152. Have your experiences believe in interracial been mostly pleasant or marriage unpleasant? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant. 153. I have participated as a 154. Have your experiences team member with Negroes been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant. 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant 155. I have listened to the 156. Have your experiences problems of Negroes been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no_experience 1. no experience 2.. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant, 157. I have seen that Whites 158. Have your experiences maintain as good a marriage as Negroes do been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: ABS-VI-WN-C 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. I have dated a Negro person 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been polite to Negroes in public no experience no uncertain yes JILUNH I have seen that White families are as closely knit as Negro ones 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes are lazy when with Whites 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have gone to church with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 160. 162. 164. 166. 168. Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant IILAJNH Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant 148 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE--WN: E Directions This booklet contains statements of how people feel about certain things. In this booklet you are asked to indicate for each of these statements how most other Whites be- lieve that Whites compare or interact with Negroes. After each statement you are also asked to indicate how sure you are of your answer to each statement. Here is a sample statement: SAMPLE 1 I 1. Chance of being taller ‘s t How sure are you of this answer? less chance . about the same 1. not sure 3. more chance 2. fairly sure sure If other Whites believe that Negroes have less chance than Whites to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBMTanswer sheet make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: lo 1 ~ 2 ==== 3 ==== 14 ==== 5 ==== You are also asked to indicate how sure you felt about this answer. If, like in question 2 of sample 1, you felt sure of this answer you should circle or black in the number 3 as is shown above. Again if you are using an IBM answer sheet, make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number that cor- responds to your answer for that question as follows: 2. 1 === 2 ==== 3 *- L} ==== 5 ==== ****DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET**** By: John E. Jordan Richard J. Hamersma College of Education Michigan State University IDirections: 149 ABS-I-WN-E Section 1 .and then state how sure you feel about your answer. In the following statements circle or black in the number “that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes Usually jpeople are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. ‘though you may have to guess at some. (Dther Whites believe the following ‘fihings about Whites as compared to Negroes: 1. Whites' intellectual ability is l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as 3. less than Negroes Negroes In school Whites are disciplined . less than Negroes . about the same as . more than Negroes 1 2 3 In school Whites desire to work is Negroes l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites desire education a higher 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites desire to get their school work done 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes It is important to answer all questions even 10. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer: 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of this of this of this of this of this 150 ABS—I-WN-E Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: ll. l3. 15. 17. 19. 21. Whites' concern for their educational future is l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes White students disrupt the class 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes Whites believe in public school integration 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes White students respect teachers 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites desire to be school board members 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites desire to attend good schools 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 151 ABS-I—WN-E Other Whites believe the following thingsfiabout Whites as compared to Negroes: 23. Whites deserve government aid 24. for their schooling 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as 3. less than Negroes 25. White teachers expect students' homework to 1. better than Negro 2. about the same as students Negroes White 26. be students Negro 3. worse than Negro students 27. The homes that White students 28. come from favor education 1. more than Negro homes 2. about the same as homes Negro 3. less than Negro homes How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure “‘H'l: Directions: 152 ABS-II-WN—E Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about inter- action with Negroes. answer 0 Other Whites generally believe the fallowing about interacting with Negroes: 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. For Whites' intellectual ability to be the same as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be treated and disciplined the same as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to desire to work with Negroes in school 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to desire a higher education with Negroes . usually not approved undecided . usually approved LUMP For Whites to do their school work with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 30. 32. 34. 36. 38. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of Then indicate how sure you feel about your this this this this this 153 ABS-II-WN-E Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 39. For Whites to share their concern for their educational future with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 41. For Whites to disrupt the class with Negroes present 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 43. For Whites' to believe in public school integration 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 45. For White students to re- spect Negro teachers 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 47. For Whites to be school board members with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 49. For Whites to have the oppor- tunities to attend good schools with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 40. 42. 44. 46. 48. 50. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 154 ABS-II—WN—E Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 51. For Whites to deserve govern- 52. ment aid for their schooling as much as Negroes do 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 53. For White teachers to expect 54. White students' homework to be better than Negro students 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 55. For the homes of White stu- 56. dents to favor education as much as Negro homes do 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 155 ABS—III-WN-E Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 57- To expect Whites' intellectual 58. How sure are you of this ability to be the same as answer? Negroes 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 59. To expect Whites to be treated 60. How sure are you of this and disciplined the same as answer? Negroes is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 61. To expect Whites to work the 62. How sure are you of this same as Negroes in school is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 63. To expect Whites to desire a 64. How sure are you of this higher education as much as answer? Negroes do is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 65. To expect Whites to do their 66. How sure are you of this school work with Negroes is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure E a: l i 156 ABS-III—WN-E In respect to Negroes, do ou yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 67. To expect Whites to share their 68. concern for their educational future with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right. 69. To expect Whites to disrupt the 70. class with Negroes present is . usually right . undecided . usually wrong 1 2 3 71. To expect Whites to believe in 72. public school integration is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 73. To expect Whites to respect 74. Negro teachers is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 75. To expect Whites to want to 76. be school board members with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 77. To expect Whites to have the 78. opportunities to attend good schools with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1.? not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this ‘this this 157 ABS—III-WN-E In respect to Negroes do ou yourself believe that it s usually right or usually wrong: 79. To expect Whites to deserve 80. government aid for their school— ing as much as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 81. To expect that White teachers 82. expect White students' homework to be better than Negro students is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 83. To eXpect that the homes of 84. White students favor edu— cation as much as Negroes homes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 158 ABS-IV-WN—E Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how youypersonally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 85. Would you want the same intel- lectual ability as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 87. Would you want to be treated the way Negroes are treated in school? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 89. Would you desire to work in school with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 91. Would you want to have the same desire Negroes do for a higher education? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 93. Would you want to do your schoolwork as well as Negroes do theirs? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 86. 88. 90. 92. 94. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3 sure of of of of of this this this this this 159 ABS—IV—WN—E In respect to a Negro person wouldAyouyyourself: 95. 97. 99. 101. 103. 105. Would you discuss your concern for your educational future with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you disrupt the class if Negroes were in the room? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want public school integration? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you respect Negro teachers? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to serve on the same school board as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want the same Opportunities that Negroes have to attend good schools? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 96. 98. 100. 102. 104. 106. How sure answer? are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 160 ABS—IV—WN-E In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 107. 109. 111. Would you want Whites to re- 108. ceive as much government aid for their schooling as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes If you were a teacher would 110. you want White students' homework to be better than Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you want the homes 112. that White students come from to favor education as much as Negroes' homes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3- sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 161 ABS—V-WN—E Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you_feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. When Whites' intellectual 114. How sure are you of this ability is the same as answer? Negroes I feel: l. discontent 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. content 3. sure 115. When I am treated and disci— 116. How sure are you of this plined the same as Negroes answer? in school, I feel: 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 117. When Whites work as hard as 118. How sure are you of this Negroes do in school, I feel: answer? 1. discontent 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. content 3. sure 119. When Whites do their school 120. How sure are you of this work with Negroes, I feel: answer? 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 121. When Whites desire a higher 122. How sure are you of this education as much as Negroes answer? do, I feel: 1. discontent 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. content 3 sure 162 ABS—V-WN—E How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 123. 125. 127. 129. 131. 133. When I have the same con— cern for my educational future as Negroes have for theirs, I feel: 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When White students disrupt the class with Negro stu- dents present, I feel: 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Whites believe in public school integretation, I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When White students respect Negro teachers, I feel: 1. angry 2. indifferent 3- happy When Whites are school board members with Negroes, I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites have the oppor- tunities to attend good schools with Negroes, I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 124. 126. 128. 130. 132. 134. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 163 ABS-V-WN-E How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 135. I feel that Whites deserve academic scholarships more than Negroes: 1. yes 2. don't know 3. no 137. When White teachers want White students' homework to be better than Negro stu- dents, I feel: 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad 139. When the homes that White students come from favor education as much as Negro homes, I feel: 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content 136. 138. 140. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 164 ABS-VI-WN-E Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. My intellectual ability is equal to the Negroes I know 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 143. I have been treated as well as Negroes in school 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 145. I have worked as hard as Negroes I have known in school 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 147. I have wanted a higher education as much as the Negroes I have known no experience no uncertain yes 4:me 142. 144. 146. 148. Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant i. uncertain pleasant 165 ABS-VI-WN-E Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 149. In school I did my homework 150. as well as Negroes did theirs 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 151. I have seen that my concern 152. for my educational future is the same as Negroes I have known 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 153. I have disrupted the 154. class when Negroes were present 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 155. I believe in public 156. school integration no experience no uncertain yes 1:“me 157. I have respected Negro 158. teachers no experience no uncertain yes 4:me Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? . no experience . unpleasant . uncertain . pleasant .1:me Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain u . pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? . no experience . unpleasant . uncertain l 2 3 4 pleasant “1,—1.1-.117 166 ABS—VI-WN-E ExperienceS'or'contacts with Negroes: 159. I have been a school board 160. member with Negroes no experience no uncertain yes tUUNl-J 161. I have had the opportunities 162. to attend good schools with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no, 3. uncertain 4. yes 163. From my experiences Whites 164. deserve government aid for their schooling as much as Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 165. I have known White teachers 166. who expect White students' homework to be better than Negro students 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 167. I have seen that the homes 168. that White students come from favor education as much as Negro homes . no experience . no . uncertain . yes tme Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant tUUNH Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant .1:me Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant .IrLJOI'Ul-J co 0 0 Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant 167 PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE ANS—U.S. Attitude Behavior Scale—ABS-WN This part of the questionnaire deals with many things. For the purpose of this study, the answers of all persons are important. Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal infor— mation about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identi- fied. It is important to the study to obtain_your answer to every question. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by\circling the answer or marking the space on the IBM answer sheet. 1. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 2. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 2. 21—30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 51—over 3. What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced 4. Widowed 5. Separated 112268 168 ABS—WN-ANS-US What is your religion? (See also No. 5) I prefer not to answer Catholic Protestant Jewish Church of England eligion (continued) Anglican Quaker Buddhist Black Muslim Other Untuuvth UMEUJNFJ About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? 1. I prefer not to answer I have no religion Not very important Fairly important Very important bout how much education do you have? 6 years of school or less Between 7 and 9 years of school Graduated from high school Some college or university A college or university degree U‘l-t’UUNl—‘ID UTJTUUN Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? I find it very difficult to change I find it slightly difficult to change “I find it somewhat easy to change I find it very easy to change .1?me o o o 0 Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried whenever possible." . Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree .1:me 112268 10. 11. 12. 13. 169 ABS-WN-ANS-US Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are doing wrong, or that they are doing right? . It is always wrong It is usually wrong It is probably all right It is always right .D'UUNH People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do ygu feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry) since it eventually creates new Jobs and raises the standard of living." . Strongly disagree . Slightly disagree Slightly agree . Strongly agree tWNl—J Some peOple believe that more local government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree Some peOple believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 112268 14. 15. l6. 17. 170 ABS-WN—ANS—US PeOple have different ideas about planning for edue cation in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? 1. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the church . 2. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents 3. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local government 4. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government In respect to your religion, about what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer . I have no religion . Sometimes . Usually . Almost always 2 3 4 5 I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree slightly 3. Disagree slightly 4. Disagree strongly The following questions have to do with the kinds of experiences you have had with Negroes. If more than one experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about Negroes through read- ing, movies, lecture, or observation. A friend or relative is a Negro person I have personally worked with Negroes as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. Close friend or relative is married to a Negro I am married to a Negro U14: LON 112268 18. 19. 20. 21. 171 ABS-WN—ANSvUS Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with Negroes, about how much has it been altogether? 1. Only a few casual contacts 2. Between one and three months 3. Between three and six months 4. Between six months and one year 5. More than one year of contact When you have been in contact with Negroes, how easy for you, in general would you say it would have been to have avoided being with them? 1. I have had no contact 2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty 3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty 4. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience 5. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience. During the contact with Negroes, did you gain materially in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? 1. No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain 2. Yes, I have been paid for working with Negroes. 3. Yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain 4. Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit. If you have been paid for working with Negroes, about what per cent of your income was derived from contact with Negroes during the actual period when working with them? 1. No work experience Less than 25% Between 26 and 50% Between 51 and 75% More than 76% U'l-lT—‘UON 112268 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 172 ABS—WN-ANS—US If you have ever worked with Negroes for personal gain (for example, for money of some other gain) what opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, some— thing else that was (is) acceptable to you as a Job? 1. No such experience 2. No other Job available 3. Other jobs available not at all acceptable to me 4. Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me 5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me How have you generally felt about your experiences with Negroes? 1. No experience 2. I definitely dislike it 3. I did not like it very much 4. I like it somewhat 5. I definitely enjoyed it Which if the following do you think would have the effect of reducing racial prejudice in America? Circle only one or mark only one on the IBM answer sheet. . Integration of schools . Publicity campaigns to promote integration Fair employment legislation Open housing legislation Direct, personal contact between members of various racial groups U‘I-Il'ULJNF-J What is your approximate annual income? . Less than $4,000 . $4,001 to $10,000 . $10,001 to $15,000 . $15,001 to $25,000 . More than $25,000 hat political affiliation do you hold? . Republican . Democrat . Independent 1 2 3 u 5 w 1 2 3 4. Other 112268 27. How 173 ABS-WN-ANS—US would you rate your own racial attitudes as compared to the average person? 28. UT-F—‘LMIUF-‘Fa U‘ItUUNI-J Very much more prejudiced Somewhat more prejudiced About the same Somewhat less prejudiced Very much less prejudiced 0 which racial group do you belong? Prefer not to answer White Negro Oriental Other Life Situations This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each situation by circling the answer you choose or marking on the IBM answer sheet. 29. It 1. 2. 3. 4. 30. How 1. 2. 3. 4. 31. S 1. 2. 3. 4. 32. How 1. 2. 3. 4. 112268 should be possible to eliminate war once and for all strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure uccess depends to a large part on luck and fate strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 174 ABS-WN-ANS—US 33. Someday most of the mysteries of the world will be revealed by science 1. JrLJUN 34. thI—‘Cfi strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 35. By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world 0 O O O .17:me 36. 4:00me strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not very sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 37. With increased medical knowledge, it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more 4?:me 38. 4erth strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not very sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 39. Someday the deserts will be converted into good farming land by the application of engineering and science 1. 2. 3. 4. 112268 strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 40. How 42'me 175 ABS—WN-ANS—US sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 41. Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change people in any fundamental way 1. 2. 3. 4. 42. How 1. 2. 3. 4. 43. W 1. 2. 3. 4. 44. How 1. 2. 3. 4. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure ith hard work anyone can succeed. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 45. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future. kWMH 46. .EUJNFJE 112268 strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 176 AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE Instructions You will be viewing short scenes of actual counseling sessions. You are to identify what feelings the clients have toward themselves and toward the counselors they are working with. Although in any one scene a client may exhibit a variety of feelings, for the purpose of this instrument you are to concentrate on identifying his last feelings in the scene. On the following pages are multiple choice items consist- ing of three responses each. Most scenes have two items, but a few have one or three.items. After you view each scene, you are to read the items and ask yourself the following question: If the client were to view this same scene, and if he were com letel Open and honest with him- self, (i.e., 1% he could identify his real feel- ings) which of these three responses would he use to describe his feelings? After you decide which response accurately describes what the client is actually feeling either about himself or the counselor he is with, indicate your choice on the answer sheet. Here is a sample item: CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. This exploring of my feelings is good. It makes me feel good. 2. I feel very sad and unhappy. - 3. I'm groping and confused; I can't bring it all together. 177 After you had viewed Scene 1 for CLIENT I, you would read these three statements (Item 1) and would then decide which one best states what the client would say about his own feelings after viewing the same scene. For example, if you decide number two best states what the client is feel- ing, you would then find the number 1 on your answer sheet and darken in the space for number two. We will only make use of the first three answer spaces following each item on your answer sheet. Remember you are to concentrate on the latter part of each scene in determining the most accurate description of the client's feelings. After you view the appropriate scenes, you will have thirty seconds to answer each of the first twelve items. For each of the remaining items, you will be allowed twenty seconds. CAUTION: The item numbers on your answer sheet go across ' the page, not down the page as you would usually expect! AFFECTIVE SENSITIVITY SCALE REVISED FORM B CLIENT I Scene 1 Item 1 1. I feel sorry for my husband and the relationship we have. 2. I don't really understand what I feel. Yet, I do feel guilty about creating pain in others which returns to me. 3. I feel pleased at seeing a possible relationship between my feelings of anger and pain. Item 2 1. He (counselor) doesn't have to like me. I Just want him to agree with me and tell me I'm right. 2. I'm trying to please you. Do you like me? 3. He's really understanding me now. 178 CLIENT I Scene 2 Item 3 1. I feel calm and collected. I Just want to think for a while. 2. Yes, that is when I get angry. I see it all clearly now. 3. I feel anxious and stimulated. Item 4 1. I'll pretend I'm agreeing with him (counselor), but I don't see the connection at all. 2. I like what he's doing. I don't feel as uncomfortable now. 3. I wish he would stop pushing me in this direction. CLIENT 11 Scene 1 Item 5 1. I'm pleased, happy; I feel good all over! 2. It was brought right back, that amazes me, but it hits quite bad too. It hurts! 3. I'm not bothered by this. I can handle it. I'm confident. Item 6 1. He's (counselor) caught me; careful, I'm not sure I want that. 2. I like him., He's trying to make the situation a little lighter and made me feel better about it. ‘ 3. I don't feel he understands. He's sarcastic. I don't like that. CLIENT II Scene 2 Item 7 l. I feel a little uneasy and self—conscious, but not much. 2. This scares me. I feel frightened! 3. I feel flirtatious. I like this! Item 8 l. I feel a little bit embarrassed, but that's all right as long as I can keep my composure. 2. I have a feeling of sadness. 3. I feel flustered and embarrassed. 179 ‘Item 9 1. He's asking for some touchy material, but that's all right. It's about time he knew. 2. He's being very frank and open! I'm not sure I want that. _ 3. I want him to leave me alone-—I want out of here. I don't like this. CLIENT II Scene 3 F. Item 10 1 I'm getting so much attention. I really enjoy this. It makes me feel good. 2. I'm scared by what I'm feeling. I feel em- barrassed and threatened. 3. I have the feeling that what I wanted was 5 wrong, and I'm a little ashamed of myself. 1 Item 11 I. This is good. We're really moving into my feelings. 2. He's too perceptive, he's looking right through me. 3. He's getting a little sticky; I'm not sure I like that. CLIENT III Scene 1 Item 12 l. I feel protective and defensive of what people may think about my family. 2. All this seems so pointless! I'm puzzled and bored. 3. We're having a nice conversation. Some of these things really make me think. Item 13 1. This guy (counselor) embarrasses me with the questions he asks. 2. The questions he asks really make me think. I'm not sure I like that. 3. I can't follow this guy's line of thought. What's he trying to do? 180 CLIENT IV Scene 1 Item 14 1. I'm concerned about my physical condition. I'm worried about it. 2. I want pity. I want her to think, "oh, you poor boy." 3. I feel good--nothing's bothering me, but I enjoy talking. Item 15 1. She's too young to be counseling, and she's a girl. I'm not sure I like this. 2. She likes me; I know she does. 3. I'd like her to think I'm great. CLIENT IV Scene 2 Item 16 1. I'm a little annoyed with my family's ambitions for me. 2. That's a hell of a lot to ask! It makes me mad! 3. I feel sorry for myself, and I want others to feel the same. Item 17 1. She (counselor) really understands me' She's with me now. 2. I don't feel much either way towards the counselor; she's not important to me. 3. I wonder if she appreciates the pressure that's put on me? CLIENT IV Scene 3 Item 18 1. This whole thing just makes me feel sad and unhappy. 2. It kind of angers me that they don't appreciate me when I feel I did my best. I wish I could tell them off. 3. No matter how well I do, I'm always criticized. It doesn't bother me too much though because I know that I did my best. 181 Item 19 l. I can tell she understands what I'm saying. She's really with me. 2. I wish I could get out of here; I don't like her. 3. Understand what I'm saying; I want her to know how I feel. CLIENT IV Scene 4 Item 20 1. I really want to be successful, and somehow I know that I can be. 2. That makes me feel kind of sad, unhappy. I don't want to believe that it's true-—I want to be good. 3. I don't know what I feel here. It's all very confusing. Item 21 l. I feel neutral towards her here. I'm not paying any attention to her. 2. Please feel sorry for me and try to help me. I wish she would praise me. 3. I like talking to her. She can be trusted even to the point of telling her how I really feel about myself. CLIENT V Scene 1 Item 22 l. I feel rejected and empty inside. Am I un- loveable? 2. I feel a little lonely. I want my boy friend to pay a little more attention to me. 3. I really don't feel much here; I'm just kind of talking to fill up space. Item 23 1. Please say it isn't fair, Mr. Counselor. 2. He really understands me. I can tell him anything. 3. I'm not sure I care what he says. It's kind of unimportant to me what he feels about me at this time. 182 CLIENT V Scene 2 Item 24 1. I'm afraid of marriage—-insecure; it might not work out, and I'd be lost. 2. I really can give him all the affection he needs, I feel I'm a worthwhile person to be desired. He wouldn't dare step out on me. 3. I'm really not too worried; it'd all work out in the end even if we have to go to a marriage counselor. Item 25 1. I don't care if he (counselor) can help me or not. I'm not sure I want his help. 2. He's so sympathetic. That makes me feel good. 3. Can you help me? CLIENT V Scene 3 Item 26 l. I feel I have some need to be liked, but it's not real strong. 2. I'm not loveable; I don't really like myself. 3. I'm a good person; I'm loveable. Down deep I know I am. Item 27 1. I feel dejected, kind of insecure. I want to be likeable! 2. My main concern is that it's hard for me to take criticism. I usually think of myself as perfect. 3. I feel a little sad about all this; I do kind of want people to like me. Item 28 1. He thinks well of me; I know he does, I can tell. 2. I want the counselor to really like me, but I'm not sure he does. 3. I like it when he asks questions like that. They make me really think about deeper things. 183 CLIENT V Scene 4 Item 29 1. I wouldn't want to be treated like he treats Mother, but I don't mind him (stepfather) too much. 2. I feel very little emotion about anything at this point. 3. I hate him (stepfather)! Item 30 1. Boy, I'm happy that he (counselor) agrees with me. Hy sympathizes with me. I feel completely accepted. 2. I'm embarrassed to tell the counselor how strong my feelings really are. 3. I'm not sure he'll be able to help me much after all. I'll just have to work this out by myself. CLIENT V Scene 5 Item 31 1. I'm kind of feeling sorry for myself, but I'm not really too worried. 2. I want to move out of the house as soon as possible. I feel I would be better off on my own. 3. My own parents don't want me; I feel cut off and hurt. Item 32 c l. I don't feel he's (counselor) helpful at all, and if he can't help me and see my side, I'm not going to like him either. 2. He's got me in a spot, but I feel I can still get him to see me as a good girl who is perse- cuted. 3. I wish the counselor were my father. He's listening; he understands how I feel. CLIENT VI Scene 1 Item 33 1. Disapprove! She'd kill me! 2. I feel jovial; this is real interesting. 3. I'm not sure how she would feel but the whole idea of her finding out excites me. 184 Item 34 1. He (counselor) understands me completely. He certainly is relaxed and comfortable. 2. I really don't care what he feels about me. I just want someone to talk to-—anyone will do. 3. I was wondering how he would feel about me and what I'm saying. CLIENT VI Scene 2 Item 35 1. I think my brother is O.K. We have fun to- gether. 2. I don't know what I'm saying here. I'm a little mixed up and confused. 3. I'm saying something that's important to me. I like Doug. CLIENT VI Scene 3 Item 36 1. This is very confusing for me. I'm not sure I understand what is going on. 2. This is how I really feel, I'm kind of start- ing to be myself. 3. I'm just talking to be talking here; this really doesn't mean much to me. Item 37 l. I guess he's (counselor) all right, but I'm still not sure he understands me. 2. Let's get going. I'm impatient! I want to move to more important matters. 3. I feel comfortable with him. He understands me. CLIENT VI Scene 4 Item 38 l. I Iove my brother, but not romantically. We just have a good brother-sister relationship. 2. I don't know about feeling this way about Doug; it feels so good, but it concerns me too. 3. I feel better about my relationship with Doug now. It helps to get it out in the open. Now I feel it's all right. 185 CLIENT VI Scene 5 Item 39 1. I'm not feeling much of anything here. I'm just kind of talking to be talking. 2. I'm mad at everyone at this point and don't know which way to turn; I guess I'm mad at myself too. 3. Now I'm talking about things that are real. I'm not on stage anymore. She is a louse! Item 40 1. He (counselor) feels she's a bad person too. I can tell; he agrees with me. 2. Don't you agree with me? I want to know what you think. 3. He thinks this all sounds petty. He doesn't understand. CLIENT VII Scene 1 Item 41 1. I felt angry with my mother, but this made me feel guilty. I needed to make an excuse for her. 2. I'm really not angry with mother. It's not her fault. 3. I'm in a very passive mood. I'm just relax— ing and talking about things that interest me. Item 42 1. This counselor is all right. I feel I can confide in him. 2. I feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure what this counselor wants me to do. 3. I feel he wants me to talk about myself, but I don't care. I'm going to talk about what I want to talk about. CLIENT VII Scene 2 Item 43 I. I'm very sensitive; I'm very easily hurt. 2. I'm somewhat sensitive and easily hurt, but not deeply so. 3. I'm not sensitive or easily hurt at all. I just like to make people think I am. 186 Item‘44 1. That makes me mad, I can do it—-I know I can, but things just keep getting in my way. 2. It's really all his fault, if he just wouldn't have been such a joker. 3.» This makes me feel guilty; I need to blame someone else instead of blaming myself. Item 45 1. I'm neutral towards the counselor. I don't care what he feels about me. 2. I'm afraid he doesn't like me and what I'm saying about myself. I don't want him to be harsh with me. 3. He's easy to talk to. He understands what I'm like, and he still likes me. I can con- fide in him. CLIENT VIII Scene 1 Item 46 1. Say, this is all right. I like this. 2. I'm not feeling anything deeply. I know what I need! 3. It's embarrassing and difficult. I feel a little annoyed. Item 47 l. I feel I can rely on this guy, so I'll let him talk and I'll just answer his questions. 2. I wonder what you think about this--please respond. Give me some help! 3. The counselor is a good guy. I like his questions; they make it easier for me. CLIENT VIII Scene 2 Item 48 I. I feel very unhappy about what I may eventually have to do. 2. I don't know what I feel; I'm confused about what I feel. 3. I'm damned uncomfortable; it's so confusing. I feel kind of 'blah' about it all. Item 49 1. He's (counselor) missing the point. He bugs me. 2. I can't really tell about this guy. I don't know how I feel about him. 3. He seems like a good guy. He asks nice ques— tions. I like him. 187 CLIENT IX Scene 1 Item 50 1. I'm not sure how I feel about this counselor. I don't feel one way or the other about him. 2. I like the counselor very much—-he makes me feel good. 3. He understands me pretty well and is trying to help. I guess I kind of like him. CLIENT IX Scene 2 Item 51 l. aoody, goody people don't really know any better, so I can't be too disgusted with them, but it does make me angry. 2. I don't really mind people feeling superior to me. It just makes me a little angry. 3. It tears me up inside when people think they're better than I am. I want people to be the same as me. Item 52 1. I'm every bit as good as they are. I really feel I am. I know I am. 2. I kind of wished they liked me, but I can live without being a member of their group. 3. Those smart kids make me feel stupid. "Item 53 1. I feel sorry for them; they just don't realize what they're doing to people like me. 2. I feel I'm not as good as they are, and it really hurts when people act that way. 3. It makes me a little angry. I'm every bit as good as they are. CLIENT IX Scene 3 Item 54 1. I feel a little insignificant, and this makes me a little unhappy. 2. I'm a nobody. I'm always left out. 3. I'm unhappy with school. That's what is really bothering me. 188 Item‘55 1. He (counselor) doesn't quite understand, but I don't care. It doesn't matter. 2. I don't feel one way or the other towards this counselor, we're just having a nice talk. 3. He (counselor) is really listening to me, and I feel he understands what I'm feeling. CLIENT X Scene 1 Item 56 I. I'm feeling scared, concerned. Is this for me? 2. I just feel uncertain about what to talk about. If I once get started, I'll be all right. 3. I feel very deeply depressed. Item 57 1. He (counselor) seems to be listening--can he understand how I feel? 2. He's really with me. I can tell he understands me. 3. He doesn't keep things moving enough. I don't like that. CLIENT X Scene 2 Item 58 1. I'd like to think I could make it, but I'm not sure. I feel inadequate. 2. I just have an I—don't-care feeling; that's my real attitude towards all of this. 3. I'm confused here. I really don't have any definite feelings. Item 59 1. I want to impress the counselor. I want him to believe I can do it. 2. He believes me; he thinks I can do it; I can tell. 3. I really don't care what the counselor thinks. It's not important to me. 189 CLIENT X Scene 3 Item 60 1. What's the use of looking ahead? I'm scared to think about it. 2. I can accept my situation. Really, things aren't so bad. Things may bother me a little, but really not much. 3. I enjoy just living for today. Item 61 l.“He's (counselor) all right. He really under- stands me. 2. Nobody can really understand this. I don't think he will be any different. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; he's not important to me anyway. CLIENT X Scene 4 Item 62 l. I feel somewhat unhappy. I don't like to feel this way. 2. There's something about me; I just don't fit in, and that makes me feel real inadequate. 3. In some instances, I'm unsure of myself. I'm afraid I'll do the wrong thing, but I can handle this just be avoiding these situations. CLIENT XI Scene 1 Item 63 1. I'm unhappy about all this, but I'm afraid to make a change. 2. It's not that I don't like school, it's just that I want to do the things I like most. 3. I'm not the student type. School bores me, but it embarrasses me when I say it. Item 64 1. The counselor is a nice guy. I like him, and I think he likes me. 2. I wonder what the counselor thinks of me. He'll probably think less of me for saying this. 3. I don't care what he thinks of me. It doesn't really matter to me. ‘smh--- CLIENT XI Scene 2 190 Item 65 1. I've found some new dimensions. I like to feel that I can have some excitement, but this kind of scares me too. 2. This doesn't really mean much. I'm not feel- ing much of anything. 3. This makes me feel very guilty; I'm very ashamed. Item 66 l. I suppose he'll (counselor) tell me that's wrong, too. I'm not sure he understands me very well. 2. He's O.K.; he's listening to what I have to say. He really understands me and my feel- ings. 3. I don't care what he thinks or feels; it's not important. I don't have any feelings towards the counselor. CLIENT XI Scene 3 Item 67 1. He's really with me; he understands just how 2. 3. I'm feeling. I'm not concerned about what he feels or thinks about me. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I'm afraid of what he'll think or feel about what I'm saying. APPENDIX B CODE BOOK REVISED 1/20/69 CODE BOOK1 Attitudes of Blacks (Negroes) and Whites 2 Toward Each Other: Content , Structure, and Determinants ABS-BWZWN John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University November 22, 1968 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 0 for a one column no response, or 00 for a two column no reaponse, or 000 for a three column no reaponse will mean there was No Information, Respondent did not answer, or not Applicable, unless otherwise specified. 2. In each case in the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within each column of the IBM.card with an explanation of the code. 3. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly stated. LThis code book contains directions for scoring the U. 5. 112268 version of the Attitude Behavior Scale: Black/White (ABS:BW and ABS:WN). It is specifically for the United States samples and limited modifications and/or additions are made in certain nations and/or states. Special Instructions .are devised for each study and must be consulted before scoring that sample. 2There is a separate scale for each of the seven content areas with six sub- scales within each scale area as well as a separate questionnaire combining the demographic data and related independent or predictor variables. 112268 Code Book - ABS-3W WN Table of Contents (Code Book 2 of 37 Page A. scale construction Rationale 0 C O O O O O O O O C O C O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O 3 B. Demographic Data, Predictor Variables, and Efficacy Scale......... 3 CO Attit‘Jde scaleSOOOOOO0.000......0.00.000.000.000...OOOCOOOOOOOCOOO 10 1. (E) Education.0....0.000IOOOOOCOOOOO0.000.000.0000...0.000.... 11 2. (C) Personal Characteristics................................. 37 3. (H) HOUSingo0.0.0.00....00...0..0.00.00...OOOOOOOIOOOOCOOOOOO 37 a. (J) JObsOOOOOIOIOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOO00.000.000.00. 37 S. (L) Law and orderOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOIOOOOOOOOCOOCCOOQ 37 6. (P) Palitical ACtiVismo O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 37 7 O (W) war and Military. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 37 1 IBM Card /Columns Cards 1-9 10-18 12:47 48-75 76-80 1-6 Identity Control Subscale Predictor Empty 1-6 Data , Card 1-9 10-18 19-37 38-47 48-75 76-77 78-80 7 Identity Control Efficacy Bnpty Predictor Empathy Empty Scale Data There are 6 Cards per person per attitude area; i.e. if one person takes all seven of the above scales and the general questionnaire containing the demographic data and the Efficacy Scale there would be 43 Cards for the person. 112268 Code Book 3 of 37 -3- Rationale of the ABS: BH/WN 1. Each of the seven scale areas may be scored separately for each of the six subscales and by total area. Subscale Content Intensity level score score 1 14 thru 42 14 thru 42 2 l4 " 42 14 thru 42 3 14 " 42 14 thru 42 4 l4 " 42 14 thru 42 5 l4 " 42 14 thru 42 6 l4 " S6 14 thru 56 Total Scale 84 " 266 84 thru 266 2. Each attitude item is repeated across all six subscales or Levels. In this manner the item content or Disjoint Struction (See Tables 1 & 2; Figure l ) is held constant and the attitude structure or Conjoint Struction is assessed. 3. The content scores (i.e. even numbered items) of the six subscales as well as the total score for an area (e.g. attitudes toward education are obtained by summing the numbers of the item categories. The range of scores are indicated above. A high score indicates an attitude of "favorableness" or "over favorableness" toward the attitude object (Black or White) on one of the seven attitude areas. 4. The intensity scores (i.e. odd numbered items) are obtained in the same manner as the content scores and indicate "certainty or intensity" of feeling about the content of the attitude item. 5. The "goodness of fit" of the empirically obtained simplex is currently being derived by inspection (see examples in Table 4.). New procedures are being investigated and may be obtained from the author. 112268 '4' Code Book 4 of 37 Table 1 Basic Facets1 Used to Determine Conjoint Struction2 of an Attitude Universe (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) Referent Referent Actor Actor's Domain of Behavior Intergroup Actor's Behavior Behavior a b c d . e 1 others 1 belief 1 others 1 comparison 1 symbolic a b C d e 2 self 2 overt action 2 self 2 interaction 2 operational 1As B qualifies A's behavior, so E qualifies C's behavior. Frequently, but not necessarily, A and C are identical. In such cases, B ang E must be "consistent," iie., some conbinations seem illogical; B1 2. It should be noted that sometimes the subject filling out the questionnaire is identical with either referent or actor or both, but not necessarily so; i.e., in Level 1 and 2 referent and actor are identical, the subject is asked to report about them; in Level 3 the subject is identical with the referent, but not with the actor; in Level 4, 5, 6, subject, referent, and actor are identical (see Table 2). 2Conjoint Struction: Operationally defined as the ordered sets of these five facets from low to high across all five facets simultaneously. The more subscript "2" elements a set contains, the greater the "strength" «of the attitude. It should also be noted that not all combinations are logical. The selection of a "best" group of sets is still partly a matter of judgment. Two continua run through the facets: other-self and verbaleaction. John E. Jordan Michigan State University Louis Guttman Israel Institute of Applied Social Research March 7.51968 -5- Code Book 5 of 37 Table 2 Conjoint1 Level, Profile Composition2 and Labels for Six Types2 of Attitude Struction Type-Level Struction Profile2 Descriptiye ngjgint Term 1 81 b1 cl b1 81 Societal Stereotype 2 5‘1 b1 c1 b1 32 Societal Norm 3 81 b1 cl b2 e2 Personal Moral Evaluation 4 al b1 c2 b2 e2 Personal Hypothetical Behavior 5 31 b2 c2 b2 82 Personal Feelings 6 a2 b2 c2 b2 e2 Personal Action 1Conjoint order: Level l< level 6 and sleaz; b1oH mzowmm> Ho wmflumcowpmHos oumOHocH momocpconma CH moss: opmcmopameoo anonm Hmzuod AHHmonmmpooo pomsoch o3 Apom 03v No No Ho mo Hm noH>mcoo HmoHponpOch Hmcomnoman asmHHmnHHontmw pomaoch H o>oHHoo H Ho mp mo Ho mm : AwmcHHooH msonw Hanuomv mpflpcosH ozone AHHMQHHQ 5mm pomsoch m3 Apom 63v Ho mo Ho mo Hm Hmcofiumuooqxo msonwv wzmH UoEHmHooao AHHmoHHcoumm pomsoch H o>mHHmo m3 Hm No No Ho Ho .3223 . .-. HHNHN QU HmCOmnom pocmemmleHmcomnoav pomQCOUIHHom mHHmnHHoome omeEOr H ¢>mHHmo H o p o o m my AmosHm> no>HooLoov cofiomsHm>m HmaoE Hmcompooma ameHauHHohamm pomsoch o3 o>oHHmo H Ho me He Ho.mm m msumum Hmcomtmo oocmemmnmsosu aHHaoHHooamm msmaemo H o>oHHoo o3 Ho Ho mo Ho Hm Ego: Hmpofioomse meaHHmoHHooamm pompopcfi ms o>oHHoo 63 Ho mp Ho Ho Hm msumum macaw nocwfiwmmlmHHmcompom aHHmoHHooEmm osmosoo oz o>oHHoo H Ho Ho Ho Ho mm m . Amspmpm . msoaw socmHmmmlmzommv odzuoosopm Hmpofio we: :smHHmoHHoohmm osmoEoo o: o>oHHoo 63 _ Ho Ho Ho Ho Hm H ooEmz o>fipdfiaomom , . ompcosopmom HmcoHuHmHHmo moHHHomm poomm Ho>mq .msoapmpssaom o>H03p mom mucosopmpm Hmcoapficfimoo cam .moHHHono poomH .mHo>oH mquOHpmNfiHmopo> oozpfippm Ho Empmmm Ho>ostHm pmomHIo>HH-3.m mmswfim uoue noon 8 of 37 .HN mHan ommv meom zz\3m-mm< may CH new: mcoHumu35umm¥ .muwnews Hm>wH msoHum> Ho maHnmsoHumHmu wumoHvaH mmmmsucwuma cH mmsm: mumcpmuHmLmn aaouw Hmsuo< xHHmGOHumumao uumumucH m3 Auom m3v m N N H N H uoH>mnmm HmuHumcuomhl HmCOmumm *zHHmoHHonaxm uomumucH H m>wHHmn H m H N N H N q «cHHme asouw Hmsuumv zuHucmvH asouo HHHmoHHonexm uomumucH m3 Auow may N H N H N H AmcoHumuuwaxm asouwv mzmH vmsHmHooum xHHmUHHonEAm uuwumucH H m>mHHon m3 N H N N H H Hmsuwum HmCOmuma vwcmemm anHwGOmumav uamucoosHHmm xHHmoHHonSHm mumasou H m>mHHmn H N H H N H N AmwsHm> vm>Hmomuav coHumaHm>m Hmuoz Hchmumm *mHHmoHHoneam uomumucH m3 m>mHHmn H N H N H H N m msuwum Hm20muma vmcmemmumaouu mHHmoHHonemm mumanu H m>mHHmn m3 H H H N H H Euoz kumHuom «HHHmoHHonshm uumumucH 03 w>mHHma m3 H H N H H H msumum azouw uwcmemmaHHHchmumm HHHmoHHonaxm mumaeou m3 m>mHHmn H H H H H H N N Amsumum msouw vmcmemm annouwv wamuomumum HmuwHoom «HHHmoHHonezm mumasoo ma m>wHHmn m3 0 H H H H H H nmsmz m>HumHuumwo NMquEmumum HmcoHuHcHHma mucmEmHMchouum ”HmHHHoum umumm Hm>mH mcoHuwussumm kuHwOH m>Hm39 you mucmEmumum HmsoHuHcHHwn wcm .mmHHHoum umumm .mHm>mH "mcoHumNHHmnum> mw:UHuu< mo Emumxm Hm>mHume umommnm>Hm \l D4304 ' I‘D Code Book 9 of 37 .AMNmuzv womH .mumsamn .Ammusvaom :mHuHumv mNHHmm .wumzommu Hoonom mumucmEmHm .Ammoqu momH xuwaamn .mHOnma coHumosvm muoaocnom .Ammuzv HomH .umaemuamm .coHumuHHHamnmu wcm :oHumoavm HmHomam aH mucmvsum aumScmuu Hwo¢H .smvu0Hv :oHumvuwumm Hausa: m .cmchuchs uoc mma wcHuwvuo waaEHm mzu noHna :H mmucmumcH mumoHvaH mcoHumeuuoo vmcHHumvca n o moaH .H noun: co umusuusuua mmaom mvauHuu< u mzumm< q vmuuHEo mHmEHomaw 0H NH mH oH mH -- NH HH no Ho Ho -- HN mH _mm mo oo o aoHuo< Hmaomumm _Hm aH mm. HH -- mm aH .mw HH -- «H .mm .mw «o m mwcHHomH Hm:0mumm -- on mH HN -- mm HN 1H -- mH NH OH H HoH>wnmm HaoHuonuogHm Hm:0muom u- Nm mm. an _MM .mm 1: «m NH m coHumsHm>u Hmuoz Hm:0mumm nu NN u: «q nu on N Euoz HmumHuom us :- nu H mazuomumum kumHoom m a m N H o n q n N H o m e n N H Hm>mH sums o>HHQHHoquL muwzomoa nmuHHmm mucovsum cooN .am .=.w¢2 mucovsum nqvmuo .qu.z N w H moHama Ho mewm so nmuosuumcoo “ mHaom manmm< may seam mamuH ocsuHuu< HV Ho wcHumvuo N m waaeHm cmuumaxm mcHumuumsHHH mmoHuumz H «Hams H :oHumHouuoo -10- 1 2 éBS-E -BW/WN : Card 1 Col. Scale Item Item Content EQENTITY DATA 1 - 3 Face Sheet Nation/State TEducation; i.e. attitudes toward education scale. Code Book 10 of 37 Code 001 050 United States/Canada 001 Michigan 002 Ohio 003 Georgia 004 Maryland 005 West Virginia 006 Texas 007 Colorado 008 California 009 Kentucky 010 Canada 051 059 Western Eur0pe 051 England 052 France 060 069 Eastern Eur0pe 060 Yugoslavia 061 Poland 062 Czechoslavakia 070 079 Middle East 070 Israel 071 Iran 072 Turkey 080 089 Far East 080 India 081 Japan 090 120 Latin America 090 Belize (British Honduras 091 Colombia 092 Brazil 093 Venezuela 094 Costa Rica 095 Argentina 096 Uruguay 121 150 Africa 121 Kenya 2There are two versions of the scale: BW denotes attitudes of Blacks toward Whites and WN denotes attitudes of Whites toward Negroes; i.e. concerning one of the seven areas. The scale item is the same in both versions of the scale, only the attitude object labels of Whites and Blacks/Negroes are interchanged. See the U.S. 112268 'vnrsion of the scales for examples. 112268 10, 11 12, 13 14 Scale/Item Face Sheet Face Sheet. Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet -11- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 Item Content Interest Group1 Subject No. Card No. CONTROL DATA Administration Group3 Administrator Race of Administrator Code Book 11 of 37 Code 01 - Elem. Teachers 02 - Sec. Teachers 03 - University Students 04 - Managers, Executives 05 Law Officers 06 Political Leaders (Congressmen, etc.) 001 Assign at to time of 999 Administration - Scale 1 plus constants2 - Scale 2 plus constants - Scale 3 plus constants Scale 4 plus constants - Scale 5 plus constants - Scale 6 plus constants - Efficacy Scale plus constants VO‘UIbUNI-i I 01 - Assign to as 99 - needed 01 - Jordan 02 - Jordan and Hamersma O3 - Hamersma 04 ~ Himmelwait 05 - Taylor 06 - Roulhac 07 - Cochran l - White 2 - Negro 3 - Oriental 1This group number is intended to be a more general one than the one in columns 10; 11;i.e. column 4, 5 might be university students and columns 10, 11 be the type of class or subject like history or math. 2Constants refer to first liicolumns for all seven cards per person per attitude scale area. See Card 1 for nature of the first 18 columns. 3 Might be class sections or type of class (history, math) in a university, a Lions Club, a labor union meeting, or type of occupation like bus driver, clerks, etc. Col. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .k -12- ABS-E-BNLHN: Card 1 Scale/Item item Content CONTROL DATA (Con't) Face Sheet Type of Administration Face Sheet Attitude Area (content) Face Sheet Attitude Area (administration order) Face Sheet Attitude Subscale (administration order) ATTITUDE DATA Code Book' 12 of 37 Code {>me oouoxmkme 0 1 Group Individual (supervised) Take Home Interview Characteristics - Personal Education Housing Jobs Law and Order Political Activism War and Military Efficacy scale and demographic Not applicable Assign no, in order to scales are administrated. 8 - Code same as above 0 - Not applicable 1 - Assign no. in order to the six subicales 6 - are taken. Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Intellectual ability - C2 Subscale I-Ql ABS-E-BW/WN Intellectual ability - I Subscale I-Q2 ABS-E-BW/WN School discipline - C Subscale I-Q3 1 2 3 NH UNH More than Same Less than Not sure Fairly sure Sure Less Same More For example, if subscale or Level VI were given first it would be coded as 1, This allows for random order of administration of subscale levels if desired Or needed by research design. 2 The letters "C" and "I" refer to content and intensity respectively, or differentiate the two answers to each question. Col. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q4 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q6 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q7 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q8 ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale I-Q9 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-lO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Qll ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q12 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql3 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q14 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QlS -13- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 Item Content School discipline - I School work - C (desire) School work - I (desire) Higher Education - C (desire) Higher Education - I (desire) School work - C (desire) School work - I (desire) Education Future - C Education Future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C (belief) Code Book 13 of 37 Code 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 More 2 Same 3 Less 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Less 1 More 2 Same 3 Less 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure I More often 2 Same 3 Less often 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure I More 2 Same 3 Less 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 Less 2 Same 3 More 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 More 2 Same Lo Less 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 112268 ScaleZItem ABS- E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql6 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql7 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql8 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q19 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q21 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZZ ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZ3 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q24 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale 1-026 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale 1-027 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 Item Content School integration - I (belief) Respect teacher - C Respect teachers - I School board - C members (desire) School board - I members (desire) Attend good schools - C (desire) Attend good schools - I (desire) Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect homework - C Teachers expect homework - I Homes favor education - C U008 1500K 14 of 37 Code 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 1 - More 2 - Same 3 - Less 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - More 2 - Same 3 - Less 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - More 2 - Same 3 - Less 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - More 2 - Same 3 - Less 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Better 2 - Same 3 - Worse l - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - More 2 - Same 3 - Less Col. 47 48 49 50 51 52 S3 ¥ ScaleZItem ABS-B-BW/WN Subscale I-Q28 ABS-BW/WN1 Q 1 ABS-BW/WN Q 2 ABS-BW/WN Q 3 ABS-BW/WN Q 4 ABS-BW/WN Q 5 ABS-BW/WN Q 6 ABS-BW/WN Q 7 -15- ABS-E-BWFWN: Card 1 Item Content Homes favor education - I PREDICTOR VARIABLES Sex Age Marital status Religion (affiliation) Religion (affiliation) Religion (importance) Education (amount) Code Book 15 of 37 NH Una-CahahI U1¢‘99h>P* Vic‘hbhih‘ uv¢~uahaha ga$~uanaht Lnl-‘wNH Code Not sure Same Less Female Male Under 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 Sl-over Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated Refuse Catholic Protestant Jewish Church of England Anglican Quaker Buddist Black Muslim Other Refuse None Not very Fairly Very 6 years/less 7-9 years high school - Some University - Degree 1 The Question number 1 will be either the BW or the WN demographic questionnaire dePending on the race of the respondent. 112268 Col, 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 112268 ScalelItem ABS-BW/WN Q 8 ABS-BW/WN Q 9 ABS-BW/WN Q 10 ABS-BW/WN Q 11 ABS-BW/WN Q 12 ABS-BW/WN Q 13 ABS-BW/WN Q 14 ABS-BW/WN Q 15 ABS-BW/WN Q 16 ABS-E-BW/WN: Item Content Self Change Child rearing Practices Birth Control Automation Aid Education (local) Aid Education (national) Education Plan Religion (adherence) Rules (follow) Card 1 Code Book 16 of 37 Code Very difficult - Slightly difficult Easy - Very easy ~J>wNH I - Strongly disagree - Slightly disagree Slightly agree - Strongly agree waI-I I - Always wrong - Usually wrong Probably right - Always right bump-I I - Strong? disagree UlJ-‘UNH §WNH war-i #UNH #UNH (>ri- Slightly Slightly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Church Parents Local National Refuse None Sometimes Usually disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree Almost always Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly agree agree disagree disagree 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 112268 Scalelltem ABS-BW/WN Q 17 ABS-BW/WN Q 18 ABS-BW/WN Q 19 ABS-BW/WN Q 20 ABS-BW/WN Q 21 ABS-BW/WN Q 22 ABS-BW/WN Q 23 ABS-BW/WN Q 24 -17- ABS- E-BW/WN: Card 1 Item Content Negro/White Contact (nature of) Negro/White Contact (amount) Negro/White Contact (avoid) Negro/White Contact (gain) Negro/White Contact (% income) Negro/White Contact (alternatives) Negro/White Contact (enjoy) Racial Prejudice (reduce) Code Book 17 of 37 E Ul‘fiWNI-d mwan—i mwap-i war-fi mwaI-I UIJ-‘wNH VII-\wNI-I Ull-‘UNH Studied Relative Worked with Relative married to Self married to Casual 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 to 12 months Year plus No contact Very difficult Considerably difficult Inconvenient Could avoid No Paid Credit Paid and credit No work Less 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76% - over No experience None available Not acceptable Not quite acceptable Acceptable No experience Disliked Not liked much Liked some Enjoyed School integration Publicity campaigns Job legislation Housing legislation Personal contact ~18- Code Book 18 of 37 ABS-E-BWZWN: Card 1 ScalelItem Item Content Code ABS-BW/WN Income 1 - Less $4,000 Q 25 (annual) 2 - $4,001 - $10,000 3 - $10,001 - $15,000 4 - $15,001 - $25,000 5 - $25,001 - plus ABS-BW/WN Political Affiliation l - Republican Q 26 2 - Democrat 3 - Independent 4 - Other ABS-BW/WN Racial Attitude l - Very prejudiced Q 27 (self comparative) 2 - Some prejudice 3 - About same 4 - Less prejudice 5 - Much less prejudiced ABS-BW/WN Racial Group 1 - Refuse Q 28 2 - White 3 - Negro 4 - Oriental 5 - Other Affective Sensitivity Scale Score Col. First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 112268 Scalelltem ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 2 Item Content Cone Book 19 of 37 Code Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q29 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q30 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II:Q31 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q32 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q33 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q34 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q35 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q36 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q37 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q38 ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I Discipline 1 C Discipline - I School work - C (desire) School work - I (desire) Higher education - C (desire) Higher education - I (desire) School work - C (with) School work - I (with) 9:59p: NDP‘ a)»: a)»: thbhi th)P* h3hJH' Idlvrd cplura UNH Usually not approved Undecided Approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure .Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure .31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q39 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q40 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IIeQ41 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q42 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q43 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q44 ABS-E-BWTWN Subscale II-Q45 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q46 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q47 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q48 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q49 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSO -20- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 2 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I I 0 School integration (belief) I H School integration (belief) Respect teachers - C ReSpect teachers - I School board - C School board - I Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code Book 20 of 37 9222 l - Usually not approved 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Usually approved 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually not approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Usually not approved 2 - Undecided . 3 - Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Usually not approved 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Usually not approved 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - Usually not approved 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 Scalelltem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSl ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSZ ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q53 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q54 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q56 -21- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 2 Item Content Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect - C Teachers expect - I Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES Code Book 21 of 37 ea; 1 2 3 wNI-d UNI-I th-a “NH UNH Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually approved Undecided Usually not approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Cola First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 112268 Scale/Item Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q57 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q58 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q59 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q60 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q61 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q62 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q63 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q64 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q65 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q66 -22- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 3 Item Content ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I Discipline - C Discipline - I School work - C School work - I Higher education - C Higher education - I School work - C School work - I Code Book 22 of 37 Code UNI-i “NI-I UNI-l UNH UNI-J UNI-l UNI-J WNH UNI-l UNI-l Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure 31 32' 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q67 ABS -E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q68 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q69 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q70 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q71 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q72 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q73 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q74 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q75 ABS-E-BW/WN subscale III-Q76 ABS -E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q77 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q78 -23- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 3 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C School integration - I Respect teacher - C Respect teacher - I School board - C School board - I Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code Book 23 of 37 Code 1 - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - Usually right 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually wrong 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 1 - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 1 - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 -24- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 3 ScalelItem Item Content ABS-E-BW/WN Deserve gov. aid - C Subscale III-Q79 ABS-E-BW/WN Deserve gov. aid - I Subscale III-Q80 ABS-E-BW/WN Teachers eXpect - C Subscale III-Q81 ABS-E-BW/WN Teachers expect - I Subscale III-Q82 ABS-E-BW/WN Homes favor education - C Subscale III-Q83 ABS-E-BW/WN Homes favor education - I Subscale III-Q84 SAME AS CARD 1 PREDICTOR VARIABLES. Code Book 24 of 37 Code 1 Usually wrong 2 Undecided 3 Usually right 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 Usually right 2 Undecided 3 Usually wrong 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 Usually wrong 2 Undecided 3 Usually right UNH Not sure Fairly sure Sure ColI First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 112268 Scalelltem Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BWNN Subscale IV-Q85 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q86 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q87 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q88 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q89 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q9O ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q9l ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q92 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q93 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q94 -25- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 4 Item Content ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I School discipline - C School discipline - I School work - C School work - 1 Higher education - C (desire) Higher education - I (desire) School work - C School work - I Code Book 25 of 37 Code UNI-J UNH UNI-l UNH NH UNI-l UNH UNH UNI-J UNH No Undecided Yes - Not sure - Fairly sure Yes No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure - No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure ‘ulillllllllllllill 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BWVWN Subscale IV-Q95 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q96 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q97 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q98 ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale IV-Q99 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-QlOO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IVleOI ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q102 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q103 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IVfiQ104 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IVBQIOS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IVBQ106 -26- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 4 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I I 0 School integration I H School integration Respect teachers - C ReSpect teachers - I School board - C School board - I Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code 26 0 NH WNH NH NH LON!" NH NH UNH WNW UNH I II I I I I I I I I UNH I Book f 37 No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure Yes Undecided No Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided- Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure ColI 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q107 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q108 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q109 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-QllO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Qlll ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q112 ABS-E-BWZWN: Card 4 Item Content Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect - C Teachers expect - I Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR.VARIABLES Code Book 27 of 37 Cod 1 - No 2 - undecided 3 - Yes 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 1 - Yes 2 - Undecided 3 - No l - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - No 2 - Undecided 3 - Yes 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure Col: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ScaleZItem First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q113 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q114 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q115 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q116 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q117 ABS-E-BW/W§ Subscale V3Q118 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V's-(21191 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V§0120 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q121 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q122 In other scales this question comes after the next one on higher education. 112268 -28- ABS-E-BWLWN: Card 5 Item Content ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I Discipline - C Discipline - I School work - C (work hard) School work - I (work hard) School work - C (with opposite) School work - I (with apposite) Higher education - C (desire) Higher education - I (desire) Code Book 28 of 37 Code NH UNH UNH wNH UNH UNH UNH UNH “NH UNH Discontent Indifferent Content Not sure Fairly sure Sure Bad Indifferent Good Not sure Fairly sure Sure Discontent Indifferent Content Not sure Fairly sure Sure - Bad Indifferent Good Not sure Fairly sure Sure Discontent Indifferent Content Not sure Fairly sure Sure Col. 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 112268 Scalezltem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q123 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q124 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q125 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q126 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q127 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q128 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q129 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q130 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q131 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-l32 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q133 ABS-EPBW/WN Subscale V-Q134 -29- ABS-E-BWZWN: Card 5 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C (belief) School integration - I (belief) ReSpect teachers - C Respect teachers - I School board - C members School board - I members Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code Book 29 of 37 S de l - Angry - Indifferent - Happy UN - Not sure Fairly sure 3 - Sure hih‘ I - Happy Indifferent 3 - Angry N H I - Not sure Fairly sure 3 - Sure N H I - Bad Indifferent - Good UNH I - Not sure Fairly sure - Sure wNH I - Angry Indifferent - HAPPY UNH I - Not sure Fairly sure 3 - Sure NH I - Bad Indifferent - Good WNH I - Not sure Fairly sure - Sure UNH I - Bad Indifferent 3 - Good NH I - Not sure - Indifferent 3 - Good NH 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Ql35 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Ql36 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VBQ137 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q138 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q139 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q14O SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES. -30- ABS-E-BW WN: Item Content Deserve academic - C scholarships Deserve academic - I scholarship Teachers expect - C homework Teachers expect - I homework Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I Code Book 30 of 37 die l - Yes 2 - Don't know 3 - No 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure l - Good 2 - Indifferent 3 - Bad 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Good 1 - Discontent 2 - Indifferent 3 - Content 1 - Not sure 2 - Indifferent 3 - Content Col, First 18 Columns Same as 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 112268 ScaleZItem Constant No. (i.e. No.1.) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q141 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql42 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql43 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q144 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql45 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q146 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql47 ABS-E-BW/WN -31- A§§-E-BW/WN: Card 6 Item Content ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability ~ C Intellectual - I Discipline - C Discipline - I School work - C (work hard) School work - I (work hard) Higher Education - C (desire) Higher education - I Subscale VI-Ql48 (desire) Code Book 31 of 37 Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. buNH waI-d bumb- buNI-I kwNI-I buster-I L‘wNH waI-I Code No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql49 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q150 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q151 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q152 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q153 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q154 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q155 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q156 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q157 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q158 -32- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 6 Item Content School work - C School work - I Educ. future - C Educ. future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration School integration Respect teachers - ReSpect teachers - Code Book 32 of 37 1- 2- 3- 4 I-‘wNI-I I-‘wNH war-i buster- J-‘WNH J-‘wNH waH buNr—n I I I I I I I I waI—i I No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience Yes Uncertain No No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant “I. L . Col, 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48-75 112268 Scalelltem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q159 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql60 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql6l ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql62 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql63 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q164 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q165 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql66 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql67 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql68 SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES. -33- ABS-E-BW/WH: IIem Content School board - C members School board - I members Attend good school Attend good school Deserve gov. aid - Deserve gov. aid - Teachers expect - C homework Teachers expect - I homework Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I Card 6 Code Book 33 of 37 waI-I I-‘UNH waI—I I-‘wNH waI—I buNH I—‘wNI—I «PLQNH buNI-I I I I I I I I I I waI—I I No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant .No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience Yes Uncertain No No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant ~34- Code Book 34 of 37 ABS-E-BWLWN: Card 7 Col. ScaleZItem Item Content Code First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 1 Life Situations Scale 19 Constant No. (i.e., No.1 ) required here re machine processing purposes. ATTITUDE DATA 20 ABS-EF-BW/WN Eliminate War - C l - Strongly disagree Life - Q29 2 - Disagree 3 - Agree 4 - Strongly agree 21 ABS-EF-BW/WN Eliminate War- I 1 - Not sure Life - Q30 2 - Not very sure 3 - Fairly sure 4 - Very sure 22 ABS-EF-BW/WN Luck/Fate - C 1 - Strongly agree Life - Q31 2 - Agree 3 - Disagree 4 - Strongly disagree 23 ABS-EF-BW/WN Luck/Fate - I - Not sure Life - Q32 - Not very sure Fairly sure - Very sure waI-a I 1See Page 9-10 of the U.S. 112268 version of the general questionnaire. This scale is intended to measure Efficacy of man's sense of control over his environment. See Husen, J. (Ed.) International Study of Achievement in Mathmatics, Vol. 1, New Yerk: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. 112268 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 112268 ScalelItem ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q33 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q34 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q35 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q36 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q37 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q38 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q39 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q40 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q41 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q42 -35- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 7 Item Content Mysteries/Science - C Mysteries/Science - I Poverty eliminated - C Poverty eliminated - I Life - Length - C Life - Length - I Deserts - Farming - C Deserts - Farming - I Education and Fundamental change - C Education and Fundamental change - I Code Book 35 of 37 £~uan>hd $‘h’h3h‘ ¢~uah>ha $‘hihih‘ c~uah>hd $‘h’h3h‘ -bI»Iord bwwlvrd Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure ColI 34 35 36 37 38-47 48-75 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q43 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q44 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q45 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q46 -35- .ABS-E-BWZWN: Card'7 Item Content Hard Cork - Suceed - C Hard work - Suceed - I Problems Solved - C Problems Solved - I LEAVE THESE COLUMNS BLANK. SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES. Code Book 36 of 37 C‘UINDP‘ C‘UJNDFI c-uanahn :I-‘UJNH Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure -37- Code Book 37 of 37 ABS-BWJWN: Cards 1 - 7 The preceding pages have given detailed instructions for scoring each item of the Education (E) scale of the ABS-BW/WN. The other six attitude areas (i.e., Personal Characteristics (C), Housing (H), Jobs (J), Law and Order (L), Political Activism (P), and War and Military (W) are scored similarly. F7 The Specific item content of the other six scale areas is easily ascertained from examination of the items in the respective attitude scales. 1 i All seven attitude scales are constructed via the rationale in ‘Tables 1 - 4 and Figure l. 1 In the total battery there are seven attitude scales with six subscales within each. as well as, a seperate questionnaire combining the demographic data and related independent or predictor variables. 112268 APPENDIX C ZERO—ORDER CORRELATION MATRICES 230 _- TABLE 27. Correlation t i 1 MI ma r x 4” Characteristics, 2 mun" J I“ ”. Scale for Education ’ 5 ~- .1. a: as E .101 .III .055 ‘5 ”mm“ e32e>as E b“ '-U3U Ivl JII 5 ¢ rum-e I" In . -'I‘I 0”. .11-0 .31 .uI .390 "I47 .220 6 AC’I‘XOI n- I” a I I o I .Q~1 .II) a in! -IH .Iu .HI .1" .III .6" 7 mm. I . r a 3 - I 4‘3 db db ® iii» -.u-I man .5”, no” not? .10 .I'! 0 “I”!!! II III 056 III III I” ..u .17. .u‘ .II. .an éfl‘p .III 1w .1:. 0.“; no" a." .III .0" .0” 9 mun h I ~ In In In .3. .us a» .931 II: .In. & ,1“ . .II .12! .II: In .0" .III .III .III .III 10 E: m nu. n- - a - . I In E -.H .1" .(lI .Zlb .ILI .17I .500 .31. .80, .091 “"m'm“ ’éodn &&&&&&b ' .4I0 E .«I .III .III .III .le .III .III ,I” .m .sII .III 12 Paula n ' 9 ‘ I I I E db: do & db 4 .III .Iu .III J» .4" .III .III .III .III .III .3" .III 1) ACT!“ n' l J I ‘ I I .. a .17. .nI .III .170 .909 .III .III .III .rIa .III .III .sn 14 MAI. 13‘ ' ‘ J I I I I {.N .qu .III .1” .III .In .121 -.III .III .III .121 .III .3” .III 15 mach-cur. I:- III I I I I I ”I ”I ”I I I . .I-I an “I &§ &D a” .7" .ru .01 a .wI .‘J’ .uu -.nv -.II7 .11: .III .II! .3" .III .1" .ISI .1“ .III .809 16 mast-4n. I: . In I» I III I" III I ,.I .1» .n; .no .42.; & .uz b & I 3“ .G‘U I1~, .155 .“92 .2.’ .10. ..I’ O.” 0". l‘.‘ I..’ It.‘ 0"’ s.., It“ 17 Inuu u~ :Is I I II! III III III III II "P l‘,’ III. & 0". & u”, I... '... s..‘ 0‘“ ‘h.‘ ' sI’ .1'3 .19, n1'. Ir.l 0". n'J‘ .‘JI I." .330 03“ IL'. 0". I”. 0‘" 'd‘. 18 mm H :9: .. ,, I III .I III I I dis «a db disc are .r. .ux ru .10 .cII .11. .197 .III .I” -.III .0" an .III .I” .007 W" 19 U amulet I: .- 31.; I Is: I I III III III III ”I ”I III 4" I45! .a‘ll nl?! fi -l32 & 0". v.2. 0", 0". IR.‘ 9“. a... "“ s ”I. u. ..u nuns .m .m .ns .III .III .III .III ..III .II? .III .III ~00 20 1m I“ :II III III III III I III III III 3" «II .23. .au. an .91; 233 .III at .III an ab .III an .1". .If’I .C’O .009 .490 ‘1’. .I.I '.'I. 0". 3". I." .0... II‘. I..E ‘s.” "V'. 21 Lula-Inns 3.0 :I- III III III III III III III III )0! II‘. .1- l .10’ .114 .‘(O‘ .40.] fi .7.) .07. I... 00" I... I"._ "T. "0 "M a“ I .179 .III .I" .III .III .III .2” .III I... .309 .I‘I 4“ 21 morn-1 I.» .3“ III I .I I I III I I III ‘ av db dis db dip .m db 21b .... ...-v .III -..II an: nus .III .III .III .III .I" .III .III .III .IM 0.0” “I“ z) AGI ‘7’ . an I” III ”I I» III ”I III ”I I 0 I” a .I': .159 .9» .III .III .9" .III an an an .866 .III .308 .u. Iai’ '.b‘-J ‘nv‘l ~01-I 05" l.,. I... .g'.a 's.,' .I." 0": I... I... I... 's.'. "1", ’ ”Cw-m I :II no I!» III III I“ III ”I ”I I“ ”I ”I 300 I 3" @ .III In .II‘I .III .IIJ .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .990 .m 0" .II’I .006 “.0,‘ -.J71 ‘.t20 '0,’ 0..., .... ...’ g... 0.2. 0", s.,’ I.“ 0". '8’. as I'm-Alum n - I 31 1'11 III I II III III III III III III III ”I III I“ .III .uo .III .59! .175 .01.. .III .III .III .7" .ns .1" .III .100‘ -IU -H.Io -..:I -.III -.III .III .uI can -.III .III .III .III .III .III .090 can - MI 3 , I... Inca. no .‘h I'M .156 III III II III III III I” III I:- 0 .154 -III .III .300 an .1” .III J“ an an .III .III .III '5“ a 'I“" .59. 092‘ IOOa 03“ .O.,; 0“, '3... O... 0". I... l" l.‘ I.” .0... .'II’ :7 In. “In. III III I“ III I I I III ”I ”I III III I s I I III . J ' - He .11! .III .III .III .II! .9" 4.". “ix 3|" .7“ It" .uI. III III .III .III .I» .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III "I“ I I) ‘ :5! I» I” I I I” I” III I” H! .114 .IvI .III .909 .309 .I" A” d" null -.II" .0" .III .III .III .I" .II’ .000 .0" J" .I“ .90 .8” .III ”I" 19 _ cum nuns i an :I- ”I III III In ' III III ' II: i met .IM .9“ .III .I" .HI I.“ .8” .130 i .m. -..u .51. .III -.III .III .III .I" .III 3" an .I" .III ."I J?! an )0 Ill?! com 35: no ”A I“ III III III In I“ I I III I” I” I ”I I54 I ..u .«I .III .079 .980 .fll .III .III .III may V .000 .71: .I" .III .m. an ' 4’. 0,341 '-°‘. '."A 0": ‘IUII .s.’. O... O... .O.', .l." .l.‘. 'l... .i..’ I... .'“.. )1 m2. I’n' :Is as I” IS! III I” II! I! ‘ III I” In I” I” III I" an .vu .us .390 .III .III .III ."7 .III .III .III .III .III .III .0” 4‘: .w: .III .ou .III -.III .III .I’I .IIS _ .III .III .III .III .III .In .III .1" II mum. m II. "III ' Iso ‘ “ " ‘ m“ ‘ .1‘9 .970 .37. .J10 ’-.\n -.IIv .III .III .151 .II! .III .III .III .III .0” ' J) wax. up "I III I I III III III III III III III III III ' an .m .7" .III . III .III‘_ .III .III .09 .us an ‘8: “-I°$ an. .1“ .III .III .III .In o.III -.III 77 .III .III us" .II’ .0" .m '0'" )I no. AID In - ”I III III III III III II III 1" E 011', ® 0", .‘.. 0". 0”! 1"! O... a“, .“‘ ."‘I I ’,¢ -.III -.I$‘ -.uI -.III .091 -.III -.In ”III, -.III as” A" J“ n". 0.“: "III '4" )5 was ‘ I»: III III III III III III 1.4“ III " III III ”I III III ”7 .NI .III .2" .III .In .3" .III .III are 4” .MI .301 .III J" an . III. '.0I. 0.6’ 0”, IJ" .t’. ...: J3. 3". n3.‘ _ s.“ . l’.’ I... I... 0". ' 1.4 It i MCI—Al. u- ”I III III I m .u. .I» &b - .301, 1II_I - A an -.m ~.III .III .III .III .III .III .III ,1” .III V II“ .III .III .076 .III and I. - .mu m .u m In m m an III III III III III III III III N" i an .I'u .III .su .11” .us .III .III 43! A '9”, _.III .III .III .3" .MI_ 4’1 "1141.8? Imam m “lam {pg-nu vm m. M n” 1 I I I J l b l 3 I 6 l 7 I I 9 l 10 I 11 l n l 1, I I. 15 u 231 for_variables on the Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro- Personal Data Questionnaire, and the Affective Sensitivity 450 students. POOTIOTISI 1800 ‘Ililhl. XIII for couples. halo. zvhoto Ice-III ftGl Ieupntor grant-III. ’tntczproI-Ixen. rrIl-tlon lllplo all. .|..lf‘.-... 1".1 .Jll '.I‘o 0.13 3‘5 I .III .Iev .IJ9 -.III N 3 (to .IzI .III -.205 .III I I I * 3:: 4:: . .I'I .III .III .III .III :I II? If .... 813 .III .III .III .III -.III -.III II IIH III II! III III .III .III .III .I?9 .720 -.III .III .I7I -.IOI -.II: -.02I .III III III III II? III III III .III .III .III .I’I .III .III .079 .III .III -.II: -.III -.II) .III .III .Iro ‘ II! II? III III III I 891 & .III .on .III .III .III .III -.III -.rII -.IOI -.III .III .I’I -.Ii7 .III {.III III III III III III III III III '.?’ I13: I"‘ I,’. O." 01" l”. 0”. - III '.v52 .III -.III .II1 .III -.III .021 -.I‘: .III III III III III III III III III 3 .III .III .11: .II; .III .210 .III .III 4— - _ II”; IXBJ. .III 00.. .0.’ .992 .‘i. .I." '1'. 'I". .0... III III III III III II) I III III III .III .III .423 .III .III .I?) .34! .379 .III .III .III -.005 .III .III .III .00, '.I77 'II71 -.I01 .809 II! III III III III III III III III III III .III .1... .III .III .III .I21 .I71 .III .III .III .III .IVI -.III .III .III .III .III .III .III -.III -.III .III .III ‘ I)“ III III III III III III III III ‘0”. .050 I”. I", .:.. .13. I... I’.’ I", -.uII -..?o -.III -.III .III -.III .III .III .III .III .077 .III .III .III :II III 34° III III II) III III III III III III .III .III .III .II’ .III .III .III .I’I .III .III .III -III 03“ to.’ 03" :12. .III .35. 0“. I." I‘.‘ .O“’ .O.’. I‘.. I... I." 'vtiI : I I ' III III I III III III III. 55% & .III .III .III .III .III .III .III - I?) .Iuo .III ' -.I°I .III .02! °.I!I ‘.III -.III -.III .II’ -III :09, -.Otl --03 V'-'ll III II! III III III II1 III III III III II. 8!! 890 :I‘ ::I l“' 0'1‘ O‘J‘ 0"; C". '.J. 01” It', I’.‘ 0". 0“: I... I... """ ‘G" .ISI .III .III ~oIIV .III .III .III -.III .III -.III .079 .000 .8’0 .III -v°t '-i? -i"J III II? II) III III III III III III III III III 4’: :5! a .011 .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III -III .III -.III ‘nIOO -.III -.I’I v.1II 0.11. 9.00. '.III .III ~.I’O -.I7I 0.00! o... .048 ~7'V '-I‘l ’-Il0 .177 :II III II- III II I III III I III III III III III JI‘ II~ I), .III .uI .III .III a a .III .III .III .1" .III .III .III w" -“2 an -i----A” 4J-- .III .1'1 .131 ~.3‘I .073 .III .I9I .III '.I¢I ‘.III .III .III .35. 'ul'. '-~“ -814 -IIJ .III -.o>I I~I r I III III I III III III III III III II' I I 4 III ..I1 .CI| .1). .III .III .III .III .III .III -I V 1359 -J‘3 'nll. .v-I .I‘V .III .III .III -.III -.I7r .III -.III .III .III .III .III -'-l I'I -L~: .IJv -.I4v .III III (I >.I 2a; 9'? a :11 211 III 2:: III III II. 231 it «I: ’J‘ 7:0 (la ’1! .IIJ .a'I .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .III .901 .uav .III .III .III .III ..7; enlilcr BIIDGIAIIIC Illxa. dlllfll OIIIII. IF°¢lflfll Fill. ll}. I'll—IIIIIIIolaln ”1"” ill? fljflrfilnlfi ”'31” )6 II All: Hilo-C IDI50 2 32 TABLE 28 --C 1 t1 m t i 1 mm, . orre a on a l" X :1. Education, 2 mun & an Scale for Education 30.1 3", J g MILL. 313 .170 .133 .133 .337 O a 313013321333. & 3 & E .331 .333 .333 .377 3 . "H.130 317 312 .30) .8“ .311 .133 .373 .333 .333 6 Acne! 317 ‘ 3 3 3 m db db .337 .337 .373 .723 .337 .713 7 30:31. 3 3 3 3 3 3 db<fi>db -.137 o. :3 -.373 -.333 .333 .133 -.333 3 31331-37333 3 3 313 312 313 3 313 fig dig .m .13. .333 .333 .333 .333 -.333 .311 .333 .333 .133 .N7 9 mt"! 317 :13 312 313 313 3 3 3 .333 .333 .713 .333 .333 ® a @ .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .331 .313 .333 10 K: 30:31. 3331.. 31, 31¢ 3 3 3 3 q .373 .337 ® ® & «ID g -...33 ~.331 .133 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .303 .711 11 ._. moi-71mm 31: 113 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 . «x-m db d9 db 3 -.uU -.333 .333 .333 .333 .373 .333 .373 .333 .733 .733 12 E 3mm: 31; :13 3 ® 3 3 3 ‘ 333 .333 ® -.331 .113 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .131 .133 .333 .331 .333 1) ACHOI 317 313 3 3 3 ' 3 3 3 3 3 3 w .... ® db dip dip db db db db .099 .026 .200 .2!) .303 .!.O .00. .07. .737 .100 .II7 .01! .010 13 m1. 313 313 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m>.m db<fi>db1&bc&>db<fi>db dbcfi>db m: r -.¢33 .333 .233 .133 .133 .173 .137 .333 .337 .133 .133 .337 .173 .133 1, “man”. Jxfl 3|. 3 J J J J “l 38. l 5 ’8. 3. .337 .333 .333 .313 .3“ 3 -.333 -.137 -.333 -.333 -.313 .133 ~.333 .333 .333 .333 .337 .333 .133 .337 .333 16 manna-r, .316 3 I13 313 813 3 313 3 3 3 3 3 J .333 db .333 .333 .333 dip .333 dip db .371 .373 .113 .333 .133 .333 .333 .333 .333 .133 .133 .111 .133 .133 .137 .133 17 um; 333 333 .1 3 3 3 3 333 333 3 3 3 333 333 .317 .313 .333 .333 .333 .113 -.333 .333 .333 .131 .333 .313 .133 .313 .333 .333 .337 .133 .333 .333 .333 .331 16 333131731- 333 333 330 3 333 3 3 3 3 3 337 3 .333 .333 .337 -113 .333 .123 -.333 .303 .113 .333 .373 .113 -.333 .333 .331 .313 .331 .331 .333 -.333 .337 19 5 3301113.“ 3 3 333 333 3 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 I33 33 333 E @ .731 .133 .133 .313 .333 .333 .373 .333 .333 .333 .333 .337 .7-7 8 .373 .131 3.333 -.313 -.333 .333 .333 .303 .373 .333 .333 .333 .131 .133 .331 .333 30 1300313 331 1 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 333 333 .137 .333 .737 .333 .113 .333 .133 .173 .333 .337 .333 .333 .371 .331 .331 .373 .333 -.333 .313 .313 .333 .333 .333 .333 .371 .333 .333 .333 .331 -.333 -.313 21 33.1.3371": 337 333 332 333 333 333 333 333 333 I33 333 333 333 333 333 3» .733 .313 .331 .733 .733 .333 .333 .333 .333 .313 .337 .333 .133 .133 .331 .737 -.333 .333 .133 .337 .333 .331 .337 -.333 .337 .313 .137 .131 .333 .333 -.311 .333 33 mom-'1‘ 337 337 1 7 37 3 3 3 3 333 1 .333 .337 .317 Y — .337 .373 -.337 «331 o.111 .313 .333 -.333 .333 .337 .333 .333 -.333 .313 -.333 .333 13 m 317 313 .113 31a 3 313 31 313 31 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 3 .333 .173 .337 .333 .771 .333 .333 .331 .333 .333 .337 .333 .777 .337 .333 .313 -.333 -.333 -.333 .333 -.333 -.333 -.333 .337 .331 .373 .137 -.313 .333 -.333 .337 fi w.—3mun 317 :13 .712 313 313 313 313 31: 81! I13 312 312 31! 313 313 .333 .333 .333 .373 .373 .337 .333 .331 .333 .337 .133 .311 .333 .393 .333 -.373 -.333 .313 -.333 -.333 -.331 c.333 .113 .333 .333 -.331 .331 .313 .333 .337 .103 35 [W 333 133 333 333 333 333 133 333 333 333 333 333 333 137 333 .133 .377 .313 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .337 .333 .313 .333 1 [-.373 .333 .333 -.331 .313 .317 .333 -.331 .333 -.313 .333 -.337 .333 .333 -.333 -.333 8 . I... In. 317 313 312 313 1 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 5 an an an .301 .733 .733 .333 .333 .733 .333 .313 .333 .333 .333 .373 .377 .. -.333 .311 .371 .333 .133 .337 .373 -.333 .333 .337 .337 .333 .331 .337 ~33: «.333 I? I... All. 313 313 313 313 3 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 333 313 333 333 .337 .333 .311 .331 .333 .333 .333 .313 .133 .337 .333 .333 .313 .3031 «3" - -.333 -.317 .113 .313 .103 .313 .333 .333 -.313 .113 .133 .133 .333 .133 .113 TM". I It ’11 311 3 3 311 311 3 3 3 3 3 3 . 333 «w macfi>db ma-m db.ébcfi>db1&b 3» '-.333 3.133 .333 .333 .133 .173 .133 .131 .131 .373 .333 .113 .131 .133 .333 .333 ‘ 1’ ' an; 3.3133 .313 3 .313 312 I 3 81! III I" In 3 I13 31" i 3." 3": 3“. 3.“ 3". 3", 3“. 3". ‘.‘. .333 .333 .331 .333 .337 .333 .371 .333 .333 .133 .393 .337 .333 .133 .373 .333 )0 a mm ’12 218 412 318 311 I1! “I 313 818 838 311 33! 313 813 .333 .333 .373 .331 .313 .113 .311 .133 .133 .333 .133 .313 .313 .133 J" .3“ J” n"! .0" '3." .0“ ."1 .0" .0" all. n”: n." a“. .1“ 2.303 )1 m1. I11 3 I11 311 811 311 313 311 311 I13 311 311 311 I11 333 "" U‘,’ 3". 3", 3.’. 3.,‘ l’“ I“, 3... 3". I“. 3“, 3". 'l.’ J“ .3" J" .01. a“! .1" .1“ .0" .0" .303 .077 .3” .1” .183 .333 d" )2 m m. .313 I 313 313 313 3 338 318 I18 312 31! I10 3 3". 3". 3". 3", 3". 3". 3". 3", 3“. 0"! T...“ -.113 .377 .117 .133 .333 .333 .333 .333 .137 .373 .333 .333 .373 .331 --331 )3 was no 313 .713 3 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 333 333 .313 -173 .333 .313 .333 .333 .131 .131 .333 .133 .337 .113 g .3..’ '3'.) 3", 0"! I“! n... 3." 3". .l." 3.“ 3", 3..* n..‘ 3". 3", 3". , '0. All 333 333 330 30' I33 8" I" I" I“ I" l" I" I" I3, I" g .333 .333 . 333 . 133 . 733 .373 .311 .333 . 373 . 333 . 333 . 333 . m .333 . 773 I... 3", 3". '3... 3.” 3". ..” 3", '3..’ 'o.‘, '3..’ '3." O... .I." '3.” ".“ )3 m 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 333 333 .337 .337 .333 . 331 .333 . 333 .313 . 737 .333 . 773 . 333 . 333 . 333 . 733 . 333 . 333 . ‘3“’ .3... it.‘ 3". a". 3”, I”. ‘3..' I... 3". 3", 32.. 3”. .391 O... "" 33E ammo—3|. 3 3 313 313 3 313 313 . 03! . "O . I” . 331 -.133 -.331 -.333 .373 .133 .333 .331 .133 .373 .333 .333 -.333 .373 .333 .333 .133 33 ‘ .3!!! 133 303 133 133 193 133 133 193 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 133 I .333 .373 .333 .333 .333 .133 .371 .333 .317 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .333 .133 333nm 3331mm 33am 133-133 _ . 331.173 333. VI—I use 1131,1OL5I617 JclnluTulul.» ulu 233 for variables on the Attitude Behavior Scale: White/Negro- Personal Data Questionnaire, and the Affective Sensitivity H50 students. .154 : 433) ‘.'II 'I"‘ 30 .5 2m db .oxs .aoo -.aos J I &b db 0", 0.2’ '0‘,‘ 0". fihrflb .oa¢ .aox .01: .30: .39, an. , 41D 4'11) J“ (ID GD .110 .03. .::a .01: -.oa: -.o:1 ' an. at: Sat :01 .5“ a" .0" .9” °.III _ .1:1 .003 -.00: -.III .otn .090 ao> so. 80: lb! 501 as: .:,o .111 .t-o .3»; .00: .30! 0". 0". .o.’. .I..' a.’. o." .‘.’ I.” 30. III 3.0 to! so. so. a}; .9" .02. .us .500 .0“ .311 -.020 -.040 - 00: -.IX’ .01: .302 -.|7! .III ~00? to, Jo. so. an: is: an? as! so. .’no .so: .goo .71: .034 .079 .300 .00; '..II .0... .2. .0..‘ a... 0". '0‘.. O." .l.” O“. :0: J01 3|. :0. SI. :0! It. 807 .III .02) .131 .9“ .uo .1" .m r." .030 .8?! 0.7 .011 .000 .xas .too -.000 .000 -.180 -.OOI zoo J.: 10! so: at: It: so. In. .539 .40: .3:1 .390 .01! .000 .100 .300 .001 .01; 01a .01. .00. .aac .OtO .087 -.OI! -.090 -.091 .x00 :09 so. 300 301 not 3 at: It! 800 :18 3:0 .I.‘ 03.. u... .7]. n‘.‘ o”. u". I”. I“. tl‘. .:I0 .I04 -.000 v.00! .03) .000 .00! .08! 000 -.I00 -.19a .00: .820 309 JO. 1.0 60! an: 3.7 at: as: so. at: .0“ .29. .33. .u: .u: .39: .au .9: .30 .0” '.003 '0... .I'” ° ” -.1. 'u." u." O.“ .“ I.,. 3", u... t"’ I‘.‘ 10¢ :00 so: so. In: so. at: at: :00 8x: 809 3:0 as: .0). .302 .009 .ova ..po .sro .993 .00. .003 .300 .370 .90: .00. .11: .x39 .n94 .aoo .:20 .098 .8!’ .070 .300 -.188 -.071 .110 .071 .0:2 --IIO In? at! lxl It: It! as: 132! (11’ up 111) 111; .m .no .1" an an an -.III .uso .oc. .31: .39. .oa: .000 -.072 .00: -.09a 00, .100 .1:2 .019 .07! to. an) :00 Jul 300 so. as. It. 800 Ill loo la. 80' .10: .00: .10: .00: .310 .01? .oac .301 .09? .;a0 .01) .70! «It -.009 -.ooo .03. c.uan .02) .094 -.o¢o -.00¢ .09: -.o:o 007 .000 .:79 .00. ~07! -J" :0: 5.0 so! 100 to. so: 300 :00 301 309 :07 3|. :00 30' -'3’ .999 at: .0:0 .oau .1d! .01. .10: .807 -SI9 .100 . .33. ~86! -.oao -.|oo .0). -.o¢l 0.0!) -.120 .00: .009 .14! 4.x:7 -.l0v .09: .009 .089 -I!7 '-I" -l" :0; J07 so. 100 III I as. It. a :0 .010 .21. .92. .oo. .11: .9oo .020 .xuu .III .:20 -.II’ .009 .ltI .08! .081 -.IOJ - ass 2 J 50: 1a: 81! Ill :09 at! $ :99) .tII .98. .57. .10. .931 . . ' ' -.011 .020 .010 .05: .nz: .139 -.I3’ -.072 .18, -.01x .03: .020 -.012 .093 0'7 -°’3 -'10 '-"' '-"’ iv: a.) no: 101 '31 l9! :0: :04 t0! 890 :va :0: std so. an: 192 101 :0: :00 .12. .ol! .00; ..94 .rao .07: .127 .11: .0); .vr: .oo: .00: .uoo .aoa -IIK -328 -|" ..'O ~01. Galina! lilac-Illlc llllflh all-II «IIIII. Invention run}. II!- ululnlnlnlu alt-Ins “I" alalnlnlai ”[3]” as u iiiujiiiiiir